Where Does Morality Come From? | With Sam Harris
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris sit down to discuss the origin of morality.
Watch the full interview here: • Sam Harris | The Ben S...
#BenShapiro #BenShapiroSundaySpecial #DailyWire #SamHarris #BenShapiroSamHarris #Religion #Morality #Judaism #Christianity #History #RomanEmpire #Science #Catholics #Catholicism #Physics #IsaacNewton #Alchemy #Bible #Torah #Morals #History #HistoryLesson
Sam Harris is not the typical college student that Ben tends to dominate.
Yeah. Ben is intelligent, but not on the level of Sam Harris' intelligence.
Yeah, it is a video posted by him for what purpose? To show an instance where his argument won over Sam's? I think not. He conveniently ends the video on one of his points, omitting Sam's rebuttal. Is this supposed to suggest you won the argument? Maybe if I was an idiot. Good job, Ben. Keep up the dishonest work.
@@SLCSStrengthCoach
Ben found out that developing a MAGA focused product sells better than playing it straight up.
@@SLCSStrengthCoach yeah but still Sam came out winning for me even if there was some malicious editing
@@HearBobbyRoar Sam Harris makes JP look like a dummy. And JP is smart.
Love Sam’s style. He doesn’t feel the need to rush, raise his voice or become shrill to make a point. He calmly outlines his point, and is so much more effective than many others out there.
Yes I agree, he softly points out all his BS.
I love Sam because he it the most religious atheist there is. And he is also a pretty nice and funny guy it seems.
@@theohuioiesin6519 the most religious atheist?
@@theohuioiesin6519 you should probably look up both of those words
unlike ben lmfao
If only our politicians could debate like this.
politicians aren't smart enough
if politicians debated like this noone would vote for them because most people wouldn't understand what they are saying.
Fully agree. The Trump Biden debates before the 2020 elections were disasters
Politicians won't debate like this because most Americans would not watch it. Much of our political debates are meant to be confrontational as they are meant mostly to rally their support base. This is the culture in The United States, most Americans already form their beliefs and opinions, and ignore any information that might challenge those existing beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.
Trump makes a lot more sense then Ben Sh*piro
Give Ben Shapiro credit for uploading a clip where Sam Harris owns him.
@Acceleration Quanta Practically all experts will disagree with you. Although you're not exactly being a subjectivist, there's a thing in philosophy called 'student subjectivism' or 'student relativism', which is a phenomenon teachers noticed of most students starting out being subjectivists about morality, and almost all of them being cured of it by the end of their studies.
@Acceleration Quanta It's not a fallacious argument, if you're referring to my argument from authority. I've long been saying that it should be renamed to 'an argument from FALSE authority' so as not to confuse people. What experts think is simply what you would think if you were the expert. I am not so much telling you what others think, as I am telling you what you think, or at any rate a more knowledgeable version of you.
David Hume is a great philosopher and should not be taken lightly of course, but I disagree that he proved what you say.
To me, what you're claiming does indeed fall under nihilism. I can prove everything that you asked, but it will take a long time. What I can prove to you more easily I guess is that you cannot be a nihilist. You cannot see anything in the world as deprived of value. It's just talk. You don't honestly believe in it. What you're saying is that, from the disembodied 'objective' point of view, nothing matters morally speaking (which is practically the same as saying that nothing matters, since 'mattering' is a normative issue). Well, to use a Thomas Nagel phrase and book title, you are adopting what he calls 'the view from nowhere'. From a rock's point of view, nothing matters, that much I agree with. Problem is, there is no such point of view. And you, unless you're an AI, have a point of view. It's impossible for you to be a nihilist. Go ahead, try it. Look at anything around you, and try to look at it 'objectively', and tell me what you see. I do mean this literally: try and do it and get back to me!
Oh and btw the ought/is distinction, which again causes fascination to students and for a long time I considered it an unassailable truth, I started doubting it after a lot of thinking, and then I discovered that other philosophers did too, for instance Hilary Putnam. Among other things, he wrote an essay titled 'The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy'. But that's just grazing the surface.
Btw I'm a staunch atheist, just so you don't think I'm coming at this from some brainless mystical angle. I would have no problem accepting moral nihilism if that's what the evidence showed.
@accelerationquanta5816Ok star wars intellectual
It’s cause he makes money from it lol
@accelerationquanta5816 Hi Acceleration
“David Hume disproved moral realism in the 1700s in A Treatise of Human Nature" is a fallacious appeal to authority. :)
However, David Hume did not say it was impossible to get an ought from an is. He said it couldn't be done with the moral systems he was familiar with, namely Western philosophy with its theist/deist backgrounds. Western theist attempts to ground moral obligation always run into the problem of prior obligation which cannot be solved by appealing to the way theist’s ground moral obligation on obeying the commands/will of their preferred god. Theists can’t answer, with a reason that can’t be dismissed out of hand or denied, the question “Why ought I obey the alleged commands of their alleged god?” A Western theist worldview can’t get an ought from an is as Hume noted, but I think he suspected that a secular worldview can.
Hume was not familiar with Eastern secular thought on moral obligation and moral values as at that time, unlike us now, he could not go into a bookshop in England or Scotland and buy the translated works of the Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists. That wouldn’t happen until after he died. Though there is circumstantial evidence that he had some awareness of some Buddhist ideas obtained from talking to the Jesuits he socialised with in France while writing his Treatise.
Over 2,000 years before Hume put forward the is/ought issue, the Confucianists had an answer as their secular worldview did not have an is/ought problem as they didn't have the crushing baggage of Western religions.
The Confucianists were not only philosophers, they were also very practical political scientists and understood that morality is a practical political solution to a practical political problem - how do we live socially and live socially as harmoniously as possible. Morality is fundamentally a political issue of power relationships; it is a group issue and not fundamentally a theological or philosophical personal self-issue. This is a major difference between Western and Eastern approaches to moral obligation and moral values.
Confucianism is still guiding the Chinese and since the Politburo in Beijing has realised that it needs Confucianism to deal with the corruption and cronyism in Chinese Communism, it has come back to the fore after a century or so of English and then Commie suppression.
The Confucianists basically said - social living is necessary therefore we ought to follow the rules of social living, rules we know as the commonly held moral values encompassed in the Confucian Golden Rule of Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. Morality is not a solo gig, it’s about the group.
Like many other animals, but more so than other animals, human babies cannot be self-sufficient and will soon die unless other humans live socially with them. Children and adults cannot be truly self-sufficient, we always rely on co-operating with others. What we commonly call self-sufficiency or self-made people are always instances where those individuals rely on the efforts of many other people to achieve their sufficiency.
Evolution through natural selection gave our very distant human ancestors the abilities of empathy and reasoning which enabled them to work out the rules for social living. It takes a village to raise a child is an observation probably as old as human society. Social living enables individuals to survive and prosper, materially and emotionally.
The secular worldview grounds moral obligation in the necessity of social living which gives us an ought from an is.
An ought requires a condition of necessity otherwise it doesn’t follow logically.
In order to refute the necessity of social living, a person would have to explain how they, as a new born baby, could survive to grow to be the child who grew to be the adult who uses social media, without living socially with others during all those years.
And, it is a practical and logical contradiction to use social media to try to prove that social living is not necessary because social living is necessary for social media.
If Hume had been born 200 years later, I think he would have written quite differently as he would not have been oppressed by the church and its religious thought police and he would have got the university professorship that his genius suited him for and he would have had access to a world wide source of knowledge and ideas.
One should take notice of the calmness emanating from this discussion. Notice how we, for once, do not suffer two people aggressively trying to debunk each other with wordplay and low comments. It is nice to hear each two people actually have conversation about a fairly big topic - this also, when one is a believer and one is not.
for once? This is normal. What happens between people on facebook and twitter isen't, it's a bubble.
Harris is pretty much always like this, regardless who his audience or partner/opponent is. Ben, however? No. He's only being more honest here because he knows he cannot pull his favourite go-to rhetorical tricks with Harris, just like he did with Tyson before. Note how Harris points out how Aquinas' and Augustine's ideologies contributed to the inquisition's murderous qualities. And instead of addressing *that* point, Ben deflects and notes how "instrumental" those beliefs were to scientific development. Yes.... only because science *had* to emerge to counter the very wrong and incoherent and inaccurate teachings of religion. He *could* admit that yes, those beliefs of Aquinas and Augustine -- to torture or execute heretics -- are immoral, but he can't, because that would ago against his presuppositions about religious morality.
He does the same thing in his defense of the biblical slavery. Doesn't address its presence in the old testament, and then generally notes, "oh well, a bunch of cultures did it..." which is just a blatant ad populum fallacy.
I'm just so happy that Harris actually says like, oh let's back up a bit, which is something very very very very few people ever say to Shapiro because he tries to steamroll discussions.
Calmness from one side at least
@@Sanxioned1 Absolutely spot on. Shapiro is backpedaling and equivocating in the face of Harris' relentless facts and logic. I think Ben is used to, as you said, "steamrolling" his interlocutors, and is thrown off his game here. Also, Harris' argument is much stronger.
@@Sanxioned1 lol science "had" to emerge? Really now, so why didn't science emerge over the course of thousands of years of aboriginal culture or with the Inuit, or the melanesians in the pacific who were still cutting off people's heads for sport well into the twentieth century? Why didn't Science emerge during the thousands of years of pre-christian Celtic history in Britain, or among the Teutonic tribes?? You're full of it.
Considering the long-standing animosity between these two, it is quite remarkable to witness them engage each other with such respect and class. This is a masterclass on how every debate should unfold if the participants are genuinely in pursuit of truth.
Even though I disagree a lot with Ben Shapiro, I do like listening to his debates and discussions
They have a common enemy in Islam and Sam has been increasingly supportive of Israel, plus for all Ben's faults, he does seem fairly genuine. So makes sense they can sit down and have a respectful chat about reality.
Although Ben does sound like he’s been inhaling helium, I must say. JK
Was there ever any animosity between Sam and Ben?
It's a stretch to say that the Roman Empire fell because of Christianity, especially since the Eastern Roman Empire was devoutly Christian and maintained itself for 1000 more years past the fall of the western empire. We know the reasons for the fall of the west, and if a change in culture such as Christianity can be blamed, it would have only contributed on a minute level.
Western Roman Empire fell more because of its economic and financial problems, plus the pressure of migrating populations. A lot of the emerging fragments were soon Christian but not all of them. I find Visigothic Spain particularly interesting. We know that Visigothic nobility intermarried with old Roman families who owned most of the land. They wanted to inherit the land, not conquer it.
@@immortaljanus There were problems that came with the Visigothic migration though. They had clashing religious views with the Romans. The Visigoths were Arian Christians while the Romans were Trinitarian, which later on contributed to making the Iberian peninsula so politically and religiously divided that it was easy for the Arabs and Berbers to invade and take over.
Hey, don't let history get in the way of his argument.
Sam stretches history on a few points in this short clip to be consistent with his narrative. For instance, his comment about Galileo was refuted by Alex O'Connor (cosmic skeptic) on his channel a while back.
What Harris meant is that if Shapiro wants to ascribe the "good" we have in our culture to Christianity/Judaism, then he has too ascribe the "bad" to it as well. You can't cherry pick the good and the bad options. It's all connected.
I couldn't stop thinking that Dr. Strange was going to come through that wall.
I used to dislike Ben. But as someone who considers himself “open minded”, I have been listening to to him more and more. Since he was on Bill Maher. I have come to like him a lot. I don’t always agree but I respect the guy. Also, Sam Harris is a beast as well. Good to see two very smart, well spoken guys debate the right way.
A round table with these two and an agnostic “beast” would be perfect. Hmm…
You and I are of the same ilk man. I used do deeply dislike him. And now I see a ton of good in his work and point of view
you should check out steven crowder
Sam harris is a beast ???? LOL LOL LOL
Maybe a beast of privilege, ineptitude, cowardice and whining about trump who is hitler according to harris
@@greencarpetgrowing actually a soyboy beast like harris is nothing to be impressed of, a rich kid since birth who has whined his entire life most recently crying trump is worse than hitler because he wanted to pull out troops from afganishtan…2 atheists have one thing in common, marxist sexual perverts
I’m a Christian and I thought this was such a great conversation. A constructive exchange of ideas, even when seeing things through different lenses.
As a professed Christian, can you please explain what was constructive about the conversation? I'd say it was instructive, but constructive?
@@spotthelies I thought it was constructive because two people with fundamentally different worldviews were able to share their thoughts with respect for one another.
Totally agree. Wonderful discussion.
Sam: "Historically a real war of Ideais". Really? Do not go to Sam Harris to know about History. He is really Bad at it. Tim O Neil which is a Ateist Historian, call him out all the time. During the middle ages and Renaissance there was not a conflit between science and christian faith. One can see objetive data in a short (4 mn) v ideo in Voitheia Ruc : Age of Reason.
Ben says: Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," meaning a civilization that values individual rights above the values of the collective.
Later, the conversation turns to Thomas Aquinas:
Ben: Aquinas said that if it was in science and it was contradicted by the book (the Bible), then you're misreading the book.
Sam: Aquinas thought heretics should be put to death.
So Aquinas thought that people could believe anything they wanted to, as long as it was Christianity. Otherwise, they would be put to death. This is the exact opposite of Ben's assertion that Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," in Ben's words.
As Aquinas demonstrates, for most of its history Judeo-Christianity has been a massively stifling influence on mankind's journey toward valuing individual rights over the values of the collective. It was a modernization of thought, and a moving away from this kind of historical religious "group think" that was the actual catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here."
This video should be used in schools as an example of how to respectfully disagree and debate.
the core of debating or arguing is not just expressing opinions who are opposed to each other with respect but to seek for the truth though dialogue.
at the end of the dialogue if the participants gained nothing from the opposing idea then the dialogue is fruitless.
two things shipiro doesn't know how to do. be respectful or debate
The public schools are not interested in fair and respectful debates
@@MrGoldhandles did you even watch? Both guys were extremely respectful
@@MrGoldhandles lol what?
Wow this is what debates should be like on the news incredible
janisim dont fight on war of course they are of "peace" weak argument! Harris is janisim
but it's not, and you went back to your life, and so did I.
@@ejw1234 what do you mean
@@someonenotcringy2064 I meant that it won't ever be this way on network news because everything is programmed so tightly due to scheduling, advertising, etc. I agree this content and style has way more substance. We go on with our lives, nothing changes, except we watch more podcasts, while mainstream scratches their head as to why their shows/ratings have plummeted.
Ben- good on you for hosting this format of discussion. We need more content that encourages real thought!
The left does not like to discuss with opposing views is why we don't have real thought on many issues. Harris is more open minded so he will talk to anyone that is on his intellectual level.
@@SpongeGod-YawehPants The crazy leftists are a small but loud minority of the left. Leftists are supposed to be liberal not woke puppets.
The reality is there is more common ground between the honest left and the honest right. Each of us has a left brain and a right brain. That is why we would be stronger if we work together.
The new left is out to destroy any cohesion with continual manipulation and division through scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more.
I think there are powerful interests behind the new left which is why these losers are even given a moments notice.
I am on the right but I don't believe in magic, I am college educated (doesn't mean as much as you think), not religious but I have problems with saying there is no overall theme to existence.
Muh conversation
@Pharisee Spot If you are a leftist and willing to discuss issues you probably don't have current woke lefty views. Everything those people push are scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more. Pick one let me know which one you buy and why?
@Pharisee Spot Ok, so you think CO2 is dangerously changing the climate? And we should spend trillions to stop it and completely stop using fossil fuels asap? What's your arguments for these lefty talking points?
The lack of athiest/thiest squabbling and name calling in the comments is very cool
It is a little worse if you scroll down lol.
@@lordverulam2492 well shit....
@@KaYem_inc yeah lol there is always those few...
Although I agree with Sam Harris, I have to respect Ben for putting this on. This is the type of human interaction I like.
I don't agree with Sam Harris claiming the bible to endorse slavery while it's clearly restricting slavery.
@@BlacksmithTWD it is clearly not prohibiting it (like murderer)…
@@javieradorno2503 prohibiting slavery in those days would be similar to prohibiting electricity and consumption of fossile fuel today. Note how we were only able to abolish slavery after we invented the steam engine to replace them.
@Minni People decided to enslave other people, just like people decided to murder other people. The bible mentioning restrictions on those is not the same as god allowing those.
Why are you attempting to make it personal by referring to it as "your god"?
Let's not debate under this nice comment 🎉
Listening to Sam years ago was when I started to really deconstruct after 20+ years as a Christian. Learning to understand why I believed what I believed changed everything, still does to this day. I've found myself being more humble, understanding, learning as much as possible about the world and above all being empathetic to the world and it's inhabitants.
I get asked all the time "why? Isn't that a sad way to live???" No, it puts the focus on the NOW and helps to encourage me to truly live the one life I can confirm I have. No offense to anyone, but I feel like I've shed my mental blinders and shackles. Your mileage may vary.
As a Christian, I am sorry you have fallen so far. A moral and meaningful life isn't about enjoying yourself and its about living a principled life which will make things better for generations to come.
The trends of your ideology is clear. People are more miserable, lead more meaningless lives, have less relationships, and families and communities are not maintaining themselves. If you were right, why is this happening? Shouldn't a cultural and moral flourishing be happening? Where is the atheist-inspired enlightenment? Aside from your personal anecdotal experience can you tell what good new atheism has actually produced?
@@RA-ie3ss I'm relieved to not be religious anymore. I can think for myself, and I don't have to hold on to a book for morality. I can choose to be a good person on my own accord. If you have to have a religious book to tell you to be good, then maybe you need to re-examine your own morality. You act like Christians can't have depression, or suicide or myriad of other issues. Keep telling people that they're sinful low lives who must be saved in order to be worth anything. I don't want to be preached at, I've had it done my whole life. What you consider fallen, I consider enlightened. I actually have more self-awareness, empathy and considerations for the people around me.
To think that someone who's a non-believer lives a miserable life is a horrible argument. We all choose our meanings in life, our values in those that we care about. Instead of focusing on an everlasting life which you cannot even prove, you have to admit it, It moves the focus of life to now. This current life is what matters most. What concerns me is that people are so hell-bent, pun intended, on heaven being real that they want the baggage of hell for everyone else. It's a very self-centered view, that everything is made for you. But if you don't kneel at the cross, you burn. Like it or not, God created the entire scenario for people to either love him or perish. If you ever view other religions and belief systems with a certain level of scrutiny and criticism, at least be consistent and apply it to your own belief. The biggest reason you have your belief, most people, is because they were indoctrinated into it from childhood. Yes indoctrination is a very accurate term. Have a nice day.
Let me correct you on that "deconstruct" thing. The more appropriate term is "fall away" or "backslidden" but I could be wrong. You could be an unsaved person from the get go. Hence, using the term 'backslidden' would have no effect because no one would backslide if there is no starting point (moment of salvation) to backslide from.
Repent towards God and believe in Jesus Christ.
@@drakeydrake1076 this is the annoying part. You might as well tell me that Santa Claus is going to give me coal for Christmas. People don't care lol. Yes, I deconstructed. Because terms are not bound by religious text and doctrine. I offered my experience for others who may have similar experiences, not to be preached at. But Christians just can't help themselves, because their reality is everyone's reality. You smear it like feces all over everything. No disrespect but I simply do not care.
@R A , that has nothing to do with God, or lack thereof.
We live in a hyper-indiviualisitic consumer world where, at least in the USA, have put profits over people and the individual over the community. We have a wealth gap that is becoming unsustainable to keep a society functioning for all. It's designed to make a few insanely rich and powerful. If we had a society that put people ahead of profits, the individual did what was necessary for the good of the community, and where 3 people didn't have more wealth than the bottom 50% we'd be living in a far better society.
None of which has to go with religion.
I love listening to conversations between Harris and religious people. What drives me nuts about Harris is his attribution of people's action to the religion rather than the religion's attribution to people's actions. In the Galileo example, it was not the text that was commanding his political superiors to threaten him with death; it was their pride in thinking that what they perceived as true was final and absolute, and any threat to that should be punishable by death.
Yep.
His findings weren't against the Bible, they were against the church.
Lots of similarities between Renaissance Catholic Church and modern day progressives.
So how did u want the church to interpret the text which states that Joshua commanded the Sun to stop and it did
Finally someone who gets it!
*it was their pride in thinking that what they perceived as true was final and absolute, and any threat to that should be punishable by death.*
Think of it as a cognitive causal-chain heirarchy. The human emotion and social needs/survival needs etc are underpinning, yes, but the software of theism didn't help them process it in a healthy manner.
The religion acted as a preventative mechanism to self-evaluation here. Compare the same process with Bhuddism. Much different outcome.
I don’t always agree with everything they say but I appreciate their composure and ability to have a conversation while being in disagreement. This is what freedom of speech should look like. 🇺🇸 🙏
Likewise
@@dariofromthefuture3075 wrong context. fyi…the world likewise is used to respond to a comment directed at or about you. :)
@@anthojones520 nope
Love hearing Sam and Ben have discussions like these.
It’s great that they both give each other space to shape their argument and clearly identify different points of their view to create a strong narrative for both sides and you get good reason to give merit to the ideas discussed. Very illustrative 😊
Sawadee kap
Right! This is how we make progress!
Denzel Washington from Philadelphia: "explain to me, like I'm 4 years old".
How much of Gallileo's persecution was because of religion and how much was because of academic jealousy?
Like most things when individuals have been persecuted by the "Church" it often was political or personal reasons that drove high level clerics to act. See St. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake after being declared a witch. But really she was simply too popular and an accomplished military leader and represented a threat to the powers that were both inside and outside the church driving those folks to sin. Of course later the Church has recognized her canonization. There's always more to the story; the Church has always supported scientific advancement to understand God's creation (which he created intelligible in the first place)
Didn’t god say don’t covet your neighbour?
I totally agree, I think people completely blow that episode out of proportion. Non-religious people seem to have a tendency to judge religions based on the actions of the followers, which IMHO is just not a valid way of evaluating religious beliefs. Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach, and I don't think there is any scripture mandating persecution over differing astrological conclusions.
When Galileo explained that his heliocentric theory of the solar system was not intended to challenge or supplant the Judeo-Christian view of creation, his censure was lifted and his pension was restored. For a detailed explanation, see Karl Keating's " Catholicism v Fundamentalism. 😊
@@cb6562 *Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach*
I'm going to compare this to postmodern/leftist ideology. They teach inclusion and non-racism, yet the manifestation of it is very different. it is this way because of the multi-facted influences on the human condition and needs there of, most of which is unconscious.
Love how Ben can go from pragmatic, statistical political analysis to abstract and profound discussions, so easily. Very interesting individual.
We knew it's finally here
ua-cam.com/video/oCzl7EmYY6E1/v-deo.html
Delusional
@@dadtronicgood choice of name
The idea that the Enlightenment of human rights and science came from studying Antiquity is a really poor argument to make if one wishes to be historically accurate. And if one wishes to be taken seriously on these statements I would absolutely suggest to not use ahistorical terms such as the "Dark Ages" which no modern historian worth their salt uses.
The idea that we got our ideas from Antiquity, and indeed the very idea of the Dark Ages comes from Victorian Era people who looked back on the Middle Ages with disdain and saw it as a period of barbarism, uncleanliness, stupidity and no technological advancement. When in reality this view of the Middle Ages is the polar opposite of reality.
Ironically the people of the Middle Ages were in fact cleaner and typically healthier than the Victorians who looked back on them with so much disdain.
The point I'm getting at is, this idea that we get these values from preserved documents from Antiquity is a biproduct of the Victorians hating the Middle Ages (with no real accurate knowledge of it mind you) and looking elsewhere to a time before it to claim that these times, the times of Rome and Athens, must be the true source of our humanitarian and scientific values.
They then tried to point to the Renaissance as proof. Which is laughable to any well read historian or history hobbyist.
The overwhelming majority of these advancements in the sciences and views of humanitarianism developed prior to the Renaissance, and almost every major advancement of the period that the Renaissance did exist in, took place outside of the cultural influence of it, which was largely limited to Italy.
In reality, the cause of our modern values (including the spirit of science) sprouted out of Northern Europe in places such as modern the British Isles, Germany and Scandinavia. Which is where pretty much all of the major universities were too.
If one wanted to distil our way of seeing the world to its base, it is a combination of Germanic and Norse tribal views on individuality coming into contact with the Bible.
Wonder why he avoids talking about Shireen Abu Akleh
Ben Shapiro Otherwise: Facts dont care about your feelings
Ben Shapiro on religion: Feelings dont care about your facts
The people have spoken! We want more of this conversation! Thank you.
The full interview is in the description lul
Yes lets debate about fairytales and not anything relevant and important.
@@bboybreezi2417 Who has time to debate anything when we could all be dancing by ourselves to crappy music! 🤣
@@bboybreezi2417 but isn’t everything pointless anyways in the deep sense, so let people discuss whatever they want
@@amt5911 again not relevant or important. Or do you care about what others hobbies are over the state of your country. America has major issues you should be discussing, not fairytales and random people's hobbies lol
(Revised)
As an Evangelical Christian I respect Sam Harris, even if I disagree with his views. I am very grateful for Ben Shapiro's work & values.
@That Fellow, Christian
While I disagree with almost all the things he says, he is civil when he is expressing his views and I respect him for that.
We have so many people who are behaving like those on CNN, or the View, that it's refreshing to hear someone speak like a mature adult.
@That Fellow, Christian I also dislike Sam Harris’ views. I do appreciate that he argues calmly here instead of attacking the person. But yes, I think Sam’s views will ultimately lead to misery because without God, society goes downhill. If you look at the vast majority of nations that didn’t allow the free worship of God, you see how bad it gets (Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.)
@That Fellow, Christian Sam Harris is A GENIOUS he said Orange MAN bad me vote for hairsniffing senile old guy that shut down gas.
Watch his debate with William Lane Craig and you will see how uncivil Harris was and is.
@That Fellow, Christian You shouldn't believe in something(i.e god and afterlife) just because you think you need it to be moral(you must be a really ethical guy if you do indeed need that). Facts don't care about your feelings :)
Ben asks "How many converts does Jaynism have?" Has he asked how many converts Orthodox Judaism has? What are they, .001% of the earth's population?
Sam Harris has the issue of Galileo wrong. He wasn’t found to be in error because of the Church’s fear of science. Galileo was teaching his theory as scientific fact and not theory. And it turns out Galileo’s math was completely in error. So while his theory proved ultimately true, the how he arrived at his theory was proven to be incorrect.
Secondly Galileo was never tortured. He was given time again and again to recant his position and admit it was theory and not fact. The Church didn’t have an issue with him teaching a theory. Galileo was violating a basic principle of calling his untested theory “fact.”
Exactly. People want to believe he was tortured etc to push their own agenda. The ignorance of the true history is astounding and really unforgivable for Harris if he wishes to be taken seriously on the subject
He interprets history through his worldview, not objectively
he was in solitary for a bit, house arrest for a bit more, but was not tortured as far as I know.
@@stevendoty9408 no he was not tortured. This issue with him and the Spanish Inquisition is a bunch of malarkey. The priests for example during the inquisition didn’t torture anyone. It was expressly forbidden. That was done by the courts belonging to the monarchy. People who were accused often chose the courts from the church because they knew they were much more likely to get a fair hearing than they would in the kings courts
Protestants and atheists have been peddling this debunked propaganda for centuries
Another one is witch burning. Protestants in Germany burned about 65,000 mostly women at the stake in Germany alone but somehow Catholic Church gets the rap
Comes from ignorance of historical events
Yup. Just listening to his arguments you can tell he is being intellectually dishonest.
I commend you for bringing Sam on. This is a great discussion. Thank you.
He doesn’t bring much to the table. His basis on his arguments are suddle.
A civil and nice conversation, Good job to Ben and Sam💕
Sam's a lunatic. Last thing I heard him say was that anyone who voted for Trump was just as bad for society as a far left Wokel. Also that they are 'at least, closeted white supremacists'.
Massive respect for both of these dudes! Great back and forth...they obviously respect each other as well.
Most of us don’t have a grasp of history, let alone the vocabulary to have discussions like this. Thanks for letting us in -as flies on the wall.
“Christianity was responsible for the fall of the [Western] Roman Empire.”
Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) Roman Empire surviving until 15th century: “Am I joke to you?”
Rome devoured itself long before Christians cam on the scene
@@Mike-qc8xd that is categorically not true.
@@Mike-qc8xd Rome was doing awesome until Christianity took over, destroyed all accumulated knowledge they didn't like, declared everything they didn't like 'heresy', and threw the West into the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that secularists finally gained enough control back to put Christianity in the backseat and propel us into today's modern world. Take a look at the USA compared the the rest of the West. Highest rate of Christianity. Biggest divide between rich and poor. Decimated education system. More people per capita in jail than any other place in the world. And a violence rate equivalent to a 3rd world craphole....and everything's only getting worse as Christian nationalists gain more and more control.
Because the Emperors of the East put all 5 Bishops under his control. Then the Bishop of Rome broke from his brothers and formed his own autonomous Kingdom. Monasteries hoarding wealth and men was a problem, but the Church of the East would actually help out the temporal powers. If the Church didn't aid Heraclius, Rome would've fallen, both halves, much earlier. The guy in Rome didn't help out the Emperor, but the Partriarch of Constantinople did.
There was a lot of reasons the western Roman Empire fell of them Christianity is rarely listed by historians.
Sam Harris's idea of morality is whatever promotes the flourishing of conscious creatures. But he can't explain why we have a moral obligation to care about the flourishing of anyone but ourselves
and we have to just ignore all the historical evidence
It can also explained without any religion. One tries not to tell lies or steal or murder first because they may see the consequesnce of those actions sooner or later and second we find necessary to keep society safe and pure because we live in it. You don't want to piss in the swimming pool that you yourself are swimming in. It doesnt need a God to explain morality.
Because it’s better for ourselves.
I personally rather live in a stable society, in which I do not have to fear being raped at any given time in any given location, or be killed randomly. I like to have a house that’s mine with stuff that’s mine.
You can’t seriously expect or demand safety and ownership, if you don’t respect safety and ownership.
We live in social societies, so that means we (have to) deal with others, it means we share space together, we work together, we are dependent on an another. It’s all very simple.
And yes, it is fragile, as we see in wars of gang related violence, but even in those circumstances we see humans, being the group mammals they are, want stability and peace. To much stress is bad for us.
@@nimash6273 But where do the consequences come from? Why enforce a law against murder or rape? That in itself is morality in action. Morality, depending on what culture is referenced, does seem to be instilled in us .
@@Earthtime3978 "Where do consequences come from?" The society. Living with other people as a group make us act the way that today we call morally, So Morality is in fact a survival skill, Like every other thing related to living creatures. why? because humans are social creatures. We naturally tend to protect our group agaist outside dangers in order to personally survive, because we undrestand that to be in a larger group increases our survival chances. Thus We act like a team. We are also naturally herbivorous, So We naturally are not into seeing other creates suffer, unlike carnivourous creatures. Is it absolute? No. That's why we care more if somebody in our team suffers than somebody from a competing group, or enemy. Can you honestly say that you care for your neighbor Christian friend the same as an ISIS member? No you Don't. So Morality is relative. Is it the way I like it to be? No. But I don't find any evidence in nature or society to be convinced that morality comes from a God or something other than humans. I liked morality to be absolute, Just the way I liked to fly like the Superman. That we liked something to exist doesn't make it real.
Harris utterly demolished him without even trying.
no he didn't
Shapiro - makes a point for 2min
Harris - castrates it in 20sec
Sam Harrises assertion of the fall of Rome is simply incorrect, they had issues with recruitment because one of the emperors basically said anyone who lives in Rome is a citizen of Rome. One of the huge ways the Roman army got people to sign up was through a deal of giving citizenship. Plus that’s not even it. The fall of Rome came from many different things. Christianity was not really a major factor.
My guess is there was a convert clause in the deal which would have reduced the power of recruitment. You can't have your troops being distracted by differing religious beliefs.
@@thomasdaley2929 It’s pretty well held by historians that religion was not a major factor no matter how you slice it. I’m not sure either how you think a religious clause would have a greater effect than the establishment of the eradication of the largest form of recruitment for the time. Which was citizenship.
My problem with Sam Harris is that every time I listen to him talk with someone, I hear him make many (what seems to me to be shallow) Arguments Against, and never any Arguments For; I never seem to hear him actually say what he believes is right and/or true, or present any ideas for a good alternative way forward. I hear him say what he doesn't believe in, but never what he DOES believe in. If I have just missed it completely, and anyone reading this has a talk of his to recommend, please tell me!
Why does one have to 'believe?' To believe is to accept something to be true without proof. Sam has always put his view forward, around religion.
Sam's arguments (many of them) against religion are sound and only people that are pro-religion could say that Ben has this one nailed.....He hasn't and belief (indoctrination) in this case alone, can get you to the point he's at. This is obvious, isn't it?
He lays out his full (positive) argument on this subject in his book, "The Moral Landscape." It won a lot of praise from the popular press. For a rebuttal of his argument, I recommend looking up William Lane Craig's rebuttal.
@@Harker777 so i dont hav to believe murder is bad?
@@user-wy4dt2kc3m No, because you 'know' it's bad. The term belief here, doesn't come into play, unless we have a real problem on our hands.
You can only...and with a very twisted mind...feel that it would be OK for another to murder you, because you have no qualms in murdering them.
@Steve French why should I believe anything you say, when you're just a big stoned kitty looking for some love from Corey and Trevor?
I’m really grateful to Harris for standing up for reason.
Too bad Harris didn't stand up for reason when he tried to go past skeptic David Hume's is-ought problem when he came up with the idea that science creates morality in The Morality Landscape. Immediately he thought humanity should be in a state of overall well-being. Why should that be the case? Because most humans emotionally desire it? Science is NOT about what people desire. Otherwise the sun would have gone around the earth when humanity wanted it that way.
What reason would that be?
@@mattblack118 He's not standing up for reason, he is standing up for HUMAN morals against the willfully ignoratnt delusional religious folk who justify genocide, rape, murder, war, incest, pedophilia, theft, and all other disgusting immoral behavior that RELIGION ENABLES humans to do, in the name of their imaginary friend.
@@mattblack118 reason against three desert cults
@@darkevola7975 Nihilism is not reason. Besides that you can't reason your way through the deepest questions of human existence. Sam Harris might be able to but no society can survive it. Hence the 3 desert cults.
I need more of Ben debating the philosophy of religion
Really? Debating about fairytales is what you want okay...
@@bboybreezi2417 I do enjoy it actually! My favorite fairy tale is the one about primordial soup and lightning bolts starting life! That one is so fun!
@John Andy Specifically?
@@bboybreezi2417 I think it’s hilarious how y’all atheists think you are Intellectually superior for believing The world exploded precisely into existence💀…. Your world view is the fact that u don’t have one so you should refrain from taking
Shapiro doesn't know anything beyond Israel, that's his problem
Harris is using his modern-day meaning of slavery and applying it to biblical times. Slavery in ancient Israel was not racially based or a permanent thing for the slaves. In those days slavery was a way to repay debt with labor rather than currency. Once the “slave” had repaid his debt he was free to go. The Bible does not condone slavery in the way we think of it today.
God bless✝️
Yeah I'm not sure why Ben didn't mention that
@@robertstockton4497
Yeah I would be surprised if he didn’t know that him being Jewish and all
You wouldn't have wanted to be a slave in biblical times so no, you are not off the hook whatsoever.
@@MrTheclevercat thank you, at least someone here is sane.
owning another human being for any amount of time for any reason is disgustingly immoral, would you be happy to be my slave under the rules of the old testament??
would you feel respected? would you feel that your humanity hasnt been taken away? because i'd know how id feel.
The thing about morality and religion isn’t necessarily that religion is needed for a person to be moral, it’s not. But, when you practice (most) religions right, you end up practicing morality and reinforcing moral ideals every day. Take prayers for example, part of prayer is that you think of others, you think of friends, family, strangers, criminals, and you wish them well. If you know someone grieving or someone with an illness, you wish for them to get better. You wish for good to have mercy on criminals and for criminals to see the light. Then you can also pray for yourself, and when you pray for yourself you pray to be a better person, to grow as a person. So people who pray like this every day are reinforcing that mindset of thinking of others well being, forgiving past wrongdoings from others, and thinking of how they themselves can be better by acknowledging your own faults. This is a way to practice morality, and when you practice morality you become a more moral person.
Yes, for that reason Hare Krishna.
Did you answer the question? Morality comes from the understanding that all human beings are one in spirit and therefore hurting another is actually hurting yourself - and so the saying do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is literal - hating another means you are hating yourself.
The slavery part is totally distorted because we usually compare it to slavery in previous centuries. The "slavery" mentioned in the bible was generally a social agreement were you accepted submission to a master in exchange of keeping your image clean. For example, let's say you couldn't pay your debts but didn't want to appear to the rest as someone whose word cannot be trusted, then you would work for for the person you owed "money". There might be few controversial verses, but in general there is NO intention to dehumanize slaves.
Quote from Jesus (which Sam omitted): "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." Colossians 4-1
Philemon is a letter where Paul (Christian apostle) asks Timothy to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother. Later Onesimus is released from his slavery and he became a relevant member of the early Christian church.
"Slavery" mentioned in the bible is not really a problem for Judaism, even less for Christianity.
Yeah, the chattel slavery practiced in the 1500s-1800s in the west was a uniquely cruel form of forced servitude.
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20-21
Wow the bible allows for you to hit your property. Just make sure you don't kill them. Amen
@@punktesla that’s probably the worst verse you can find in the whole bible. That’s not something new. As bad as it may sound, it is still far from slavery in the past centuries where people were not even seen as humans. This plus the context make it more understandable for a group of people who lived 3-4 millennia ago.
Amen I say as well because thanks to christianity we have got to the point where society is today. You also seem to ignore the passages mentioned above which are pretty clear about human dignity.
This is the aggressive interpretation that Harris was talking about. The fact that the bible has to tell people to treat their slaves well is evidence that many people weren't treating their slaves well, or else why would they need to be told that?! The bible is slavery!!
@@Jimraynor45 Your comment only gives me the reason. I agree that people were not behaving appropriately. That’s why the law was important, so they behave. Ultimately, the bible was and has been a light in the darkness. Even in our current days.
Ben, as a Religious Sephardi, I am happy that You are able to understand topics from ALL angles while always being true to Yehudim.
You are Blessed by HaShem with a great mind.
Bravo for an honest interview with an honest thinker about religion.
Morality comes from two simple things that separate us from the animals: Empathy and Self-awareness. The awareness of your own actions and how they impact others, and the actions/experiences of others and how they shape everything. Note: not even all people have empathy or self-awareness....and they are the monsters will no morals. Always.
i really don't understand why Christians think the subject of morality is good talking point for them...we have all read the bible
You have duplicated the same question. But also I'm not sure one can call empathy the upholder of morality, more the opposite by their definitions.
@@BringJoyNow do you keep slaves??....do you stone homosexuals??....do you think a person who has been raped should marry the rapist?? do you think women should be classed as 2nd rate??
Many animal species studied pass tests for empathy and self awareness.
So is morality subjective or objective?
Way to try to make your losing argument sound good by cutting it there at the end. Sam was legitimately clear and convincing. Then Shapiro making zero sense gets the last word
Two of my favorites finally having a discussion. Next I’d like to see Ben and Richard Dawkins.
Very interesting. Actually, this was outright fascinating. I wanted more.
there's a full 2018 interview that this is from linked in the description
Sam Harris and William Lane Craig had a debate on morality’s foundation as well. It is well worth you time.
Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris debating Morality. If you can pay attention it's absolutely thrilling.
Then watch Atheist-UA-camrs who have it as a Job to cover this.
No it wasn't. Lol....Sam Harris never answers questions he's asked. Which part of this did u find interesting? Do u even understand what they're talking about? Cause I sure as hell have no clue what Harris is going on about...this is his thing....he dodges questions during debates and goes off on his own about how much he doesn't like religion.
The retort to his last statement: They haven't done this by their moral appeal but in every instant by ruthless violence.
Their success if not rooted in morality but in greed in violence.
Whether western civilisation could have arisen without judeo-Christian ethics isn't really the question; it's more that those particular ethics do explicitly promote a rational, legalistic civilisation based on equality, honesty, punishing cruelty, and valuing mercy
Yup, and not human rationality...rationality led us to the 100 million corpses of the 20th century. Coz, rationally speaking, what's wrong with invading a neighboring culture and pillaging if it's to my best interest? What'sirrational about taking my own life if I'm having a bad go at life? This is what Nietzsche realized by the death of God, that all definitions would by necessity be done away with, "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?" "Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?"...Karl Jung said we cannot create our own values, without being doomed to Awshcwitz, rather we rediscover values, values that are codified in the Judeo-Christian Worldview....otherwise we're left with moral relativism on the behest of which no act can be morally condemned (Dostoyevsky). Human rationality is bankrupt, Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" You cannot put your faith in human nature unless you're an imbecile without any self-awareness, relational experience, or a cursory knowledge of history.
Every time I Shapiro speaks, his critics lose credibility . I'm a DEVOUT atheist who disagrees with his positions vehemently, but he is eloquent, concise, polite and smart... Sam Harris was at his best because he had a solid human to banter with. There should be more of these.
Respectfully I am curious to know what an atheists can say about events like as Garabandal or Kibeho. Thank you.
I will always respect someone who is willing to debate. The people that talk smack and never actually allow themselves to be challenged in a public square get zero respect or an ounce of my time.
@@MrsMimi-hn5ft I view all unsubstantated claims with the same skepticism... Those events occur to the faithful and are supported by the faithful. It is an uncontestable loop. That separates it from science. Science is - by definition - contestable. There has never been an independently verified "miracle" from any faith.... ever.
I wish it was otherwise. I like the idea of there being a god. I also like the idea of ghosts and aliens... Unfortunately, I must apply the same standard.
I'm sure you've heard Sagan's phraae, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'd settle for plain verifiable evidence. Sadly that doesn't exist independent of the people who wish it to be so.
All the best.
I'm an orthodox jew and think the same about Sam. I truly respect the man and the way he debate.
@@MrsMimi-hn5ft Mass hallucinations just like UFO sightings
Once again Sam Harris casually attributing false quotes to Jesus. It requires some real intellectual dishonesty or straight up ignorance of the text. Jesus did not say a single sentence remotely like "Slaves serve your Christian masters especially well" Sam seems to have not even read what he is attempting to quote. His quote is a badly garbled attempt at a completely different passage in the NT, written by an apostle and certainly not said by Jesus.
Well God explicitly gives rules on how to beat your slaves and how to sell your daughters, does that make it any better?
@@NotoriousMinion Did you not read my comment? As I said Sam Harris falsely attributed this verse to Jesus and also misquoted it too, both true statements. You just confirmed both statements by posting the verse and then went on to make another totally baseless claim with no evidence whatsoever.
Ben: ''Facts and logic!''
Also Ben: ''So, let's pretend facts and logic don't exist when I don't like the reality'' :D
Ben shapiro: Facts over feelings. Also Ben Shapiro: I feel god exists
Ah more atheists concerned about what a religious person thinks… if at the end of the day if none of it matters to you and everything goes to black for everyone no matter what then shut up about it and live your life that you yourself admit has no meaning and we’re all clumps of meat floating in space
It's like Sam Harris just endlessly deflects in these sort of debates. It seems like he's not making these arguments because he believes them to be true, but because he just sees the argument he's making in the moment as a valid enough means to deny that which he is against. Like a lawyer who argues 90% semantics and technicalities.
It sounds a lot more like you are a religious fanatic. True, right?
If you make a claim that something is true, the onus is on you to prove it. This discussion is about religion as a basis of morality, so it is not Harris' job to prove it, it's Shapiro's.
This is a nonesense critique. He directly confronts Ben on his views throughout the debate.
Telling a slave to honor his master is a reflection of christianity, but it certainly doesn't ENDORSE slavery.
The Bible also tells how hard you can beat your slaves and how to go about buying and selling them.
@@at8630 what chapter is that?
Slave trading as we think of it today was illegal. The slaves your talking about were basically indentured servants. They sold themselves to pay off debts.
@@alejandrocanela691 Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46. There are other mentions also, just read your Bible.
@@cabbey09 That’s a lie. Children an women were also enslaved. Your book of fables condones VERY CLEARLY slavery.
Every atheist I know wants the perks of living in a society built on Judeo-Christian values... But they don't want the responsibility.
I haven't met a single one who would have the sack to live in a society based on Darwinian principles.
Boom 💥
Could you please rephrase your question, as it is rather confusing.
Good thing it's not a question.
@@McLovin201 there you have me.
You can probably enlighten me as to what Judeo-Christian values are, because as far as I can tell based on the history of Western countries it comprises mostly of (deadly) intolerance for others within Christianity but another interpretation, intolerance for jws and pretty much anyone else outside their core group, combined with misogynistic views. Somehow I think Jack is talking about something else.
What “responsibility” is he referring to?
What are “Darwinian principles”? The recognition of evolution? Or is Jack referring to something else?
@@hamster4618 You cannot judge a religion/worldview by its abuse. You have to judge it based on its principle.
For example; If a professing Christian murder someone in the name of God, you cannot blame that action on Christianity. Because that is not the teaching of Christ nor you will find a passage in the New Testament that command the killing of innocent people. You have to blame the individual and he must received punishment for his action.
jainism does not have converts because they never forced people to do so. the idea of conversion in eastern religions is little to none. conversion is more prevelant in abrahamic religion due to their desire to spread and dominate.
buckle up, ben!
It is amazing to me that someone like Sam Harris can accuse the Bible of being flatly in favor of slavery when the Exodus is the centerpiece of Jewish history. He's a smart man, but he is a willfully dull blade on religious matters.
Exactly. People with absolutely dense reads of the Bible who clearly just think anyone of faith is a rube.
Are you being sarcastic or joking as I can’t tell? Because you know that is a load of crap.
Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Ephesians 6:5-8
“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
@@shans4167 You have to understand that for most of history and in most places, there were tradesmen and farmers, day laborers, and slaves. That's how the economy worked. That kind of indentured servitude had virtually nothing to do with slavery based on race and the belief that the owner was inherently superior to the slave, like Egyptian slavery of Jews and racist slavery in the United States.
Additionally, not everything in the Old Testament that was regulated by law was prescribed or endorsed. Christ taught that Moses gave the law for the simple reason that people refuse to do what is right. It was a concession to reality.
In Christ's time, slaves could be murdered by owners for running away, but the Christian teaching was that both slave and master were equals before God. Slaves were encouraged to lawfully secure freedom, but not to run away.
A thoroughly Christianized West was the first society on earth to EVER ban slavery, not because we were forced to but because we became convinced that it was morally wrong.
If there's a joke here, it's that as Westerners - the freeest of the free- we are completely comfortable being the beneficiaries of a Christian culture and yet despising it at the same time.
What a nice respectful and insightful conversation. Glad to have watched it.
Galileo was a Christian. He was demolishing Aristotle’s philosophy, which Catholic theology was highly invested in.
Galileo was a Christian by chance, and in a way, was forced to be a Christian in order to get along in society. Galileo was a scientist by choice.
Catholicism is Christian.
It is admittedly a warped version of what Jesus was extolling, just as various versions of Protestantism is a warped version of Jesus' teachings (albeit we think less warped).
That was one of Jesus' central teachings, that false prophets (therefore false teachings) would be common and therefore always be on guard for that.
It is faith, not dogmatic religion, that we should strive for
@@billschlafly4107
No one can force Christianity on another. It doesn't works that way.
It works this way instead John 6:44
@@billschlafly4107 LMAO. Circular reasoning at its finest. And proving quite ignorance on the subject by that matter (with all due respect). Galileo was a proud catholic (the only Christian religion in the area back then), so much that he even considered entering the priesthood (suck on that historic fact), BUT his father sent him to study medicine at the University of Pisa (he later switched to mathematics, and then moved to the University of Padua, where he taught mechanics, geometry, and astronomy for many years). Go figure. So much for that "scientist by choice" claim.
In other words, contrary to what you have been made believe by indoctrination, no one is forced to be Christian, that's solely a choice, or at least it is no different than to being "forced" to study something in order to make a living, particularly in those years, where then we could equally say that Galileo was forced to become a scientist by his father. Deal with it, man.
Sam is so relaxed, and reasonable.
And then he uses reason to deconstruct you into a sack of meat as opposed to an image of God.
@@araaraara12 if you remove all personal biases, you can not, as a scientist, declare atheism as a fact. Science has not disproven or proven the existence of God. At best you can defend a position of agnosticism. The very first thing you have to be able to say as a scientist is 'I don't know'. SA, thinks he knows for certain, which he doesn't.mthis is why same is a preist, not a scientist.
@@owenduck As a philosopher and a scientist, Sam very well would be the first between the two to say he doesn’t know the truth of how everything came into existence. All he is saying is that the belief that God wrote a certain religion’s particular book in “his” name is something fallacious. He argues that one should come to reason when thinking about metaphysical existence rather than have faith in something that has been limiting to human understanding, food for human ego, and a cause for many evils to be justified. He never said he KNEW, but like all great philosophers, points out that nobody really knows. Therefore, there’s no justification for putting your faith into something without reason.
@@owenduck and “the deconstruction into a sack of meat” is simply the realization that we are animals. Biological evolution has shown this is the case. Our egos cannot change that, although we like to believe we are something greater than a “sack of meat” like you say.
@@jamesvail4927 biological evolution didnt happen. It's a fairy tale.
According to Strong's Concordance, the word "slave" (ebed) is used once in the Jewish Bible in Jeremiah 2:14 "Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave?" Slave is italicized, which means that the translators added that word (KJV). Manservant can be translated slave as well as servant and subject, in fact ebed is used in both situations. Non-Hebrew slaves were usually Canaanite POWs while Herbrew slaves are more akin to indentured servants. Nevertheless, the Law was clear that there was to be no domination of one human over another. If slavery was the result of a crime, the slave was to be released after a seven-year period
Slavery in the Bible days means something totally different than the way modern day people view slavery. I don't think I could have said it any better than you did. It's frustrating when atheists try to manipulate/pervert scripture in this way. It works, because the people who believe Sam have never actually read the Bible, let alone the context of scripture.
@@stephybabs3233 Exactly why I felt to say something. If you get a chance, watch a video by Thomas Sowell where he gives the true history of slavery in the world. It's a lot different than what kids are taught in school. Cheers and God's blessings on you and yours
@@michaelphelan423 Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check that out.
@@michaelphelan423 I said something as well, but didn't articulate it quite as well as you did. The way modern day society views slavery is completely different than the way people in biblical times viewed slavery. Slavery in the Bible days was a way for men to pay off debt in certain circumstances. There's even scripture that says that these "slave owners" are to treat the "slaves" with dignity and respect. They were not to harm the slaves. But unless people today understand the context of what they viewed slaves to be, there will always be this misinterpreted, out of context idea of slavery in the Bible.
I’ve got a degree in Classical Languages from Vanderbilt. The Roman Empire was a slave society with lots of great achievements otherwise. Christianity stopped a lot of nasty practices.
I was going to point this out as well. Yes, the rise of Christianity helped in part to hasten the fall of Rome, but who on Earth would be the one to argue that Rome was a good thing? Rome as an institution was crazy, and only got more crazy as time went on.
Dude there is slavery in the Bible what are you on about?
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Christianity should have then been compatible with Roman Law? I need for you to point a specific part of the Bible please.
Exactly. Harris seems to be regurgitating the ideas of Petrarch
@@bboybreezi2417 There’s slavery in The Bible because there was slavery in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. The Romans could kill their slaves for any reason (basically). Christianity stopped this practice. Slavery is illegal in Judaism.
Atheists explaining the Bible is always funny they don't actually know about this topic.
Sam has probably read, dissected analysed and discussed the Bible more times than most Christians.
@@varshasindhu5672 you know once a renowned scholar said "to take into consideration ideas from Richard Dawkins or sam Harris about Theology is like a guy who only studied Robin Hood and tries to explain the entire middle Ages history. so don't trust them listen to some better scholars who knows history and context like Bart ehrman. 🤣
Why are all these debates from an _Abrahamic_ religion’s POV?? What about Zoroastrianism, Baha’i, Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism?? Whenever there are religious debates and discussions like these its like people think the only religions that exist are ChristianityIslamJudaism and that the only valid debates are the ones regarding _Judeo-Christian_ theology.
Because they know those religions are not based in truth, and they’re trying to attack the truth
Sam doesn't answer the question from the title and he never does anywhere else.
It's actually an easy answer , morality varies based on the place you live in , that's it.
@@laza6141 So morality is made up?
@@joemorgenstern9846 We have evolved to have a conscience ( most of us have it ) , but the rules are made up , and they are made up in such a way that a society functions properly.
@@laza6141 Sam Harris says morality can be objective without God. So yes your answer makes sense if there is no God, but Sam Harris never makes sense.
@@laza6141 Ben already knows that people have different moralities but that wasn’t the question. The question was where does morality come from if morality is in fact objective.
Morality comes from God and I’ll explain why I believe it to be true. We all know what is right and wrong. From the youngest age we know what Is the right thing. We didn’t need to be taught not to kill people. We just inherently know not to. Then let’s say morality wasn’t from god and it’s human constructed thing. Then nothing would be truly right or wrong. My right could be your wrong. In this context things like murder cannot not be considered wrong because it’s a human thing. Humans are created equal. No human is greater than the other. So then who’s morality would it be based off of? God sets the standard of what is good and wrong and we follow that.
I don't use the word morality. it's weak it's a term used by mankind to skate around that which is good. the word good is abused because the language has been corrupted.
for example, "love is love", which is a current popular alphabet slogan. (alphabet = LGBT.....)
the slogan is false, Biblically speaking, but is it morally wrong? it's real definition is lust is love.
therefore, I much prefer to use the word "righteousness" for that which is good.
Your argument is circular.
Morality comes from God.
Why?
Because if there was no God there would be no true morality.
Why?
Because morality comes from God.
Your argument assumes the thing it is trying to prove. Therefor circular
@@Beamin439 so what?
Even if it is circular, you haven't proven it false. In fact, you, nor anyone, can, and never will because it is true.
You believe in air, don't you?
There is a zero percent issue with having a circular reasoning, in regarding God, because He is the source of life, truth, righteousness, etc. If God was not, then we wouldn't have any reason to even have a discussion because we 1) wouldn't exist 2) wouldn't have a reason/purpose to exist if existing was possible.
The same applies to the Bible/Scripture. We can use the Bible to support the Bible. It's author is not man, but God. Sure, you can disbelieve/deny that, but that would only be detrimental to your spiritual being.
@@paulrichards383 if an argument is circular that is a fallacy. A fallacious argument cannot be used to justify a position. That means your logic is flawed and your argument has been defeated. Back to the drawing board.
Morality is organized in an hierarchy of values. Whatever is in the top of the hierarchy of values is represented by God.
Jordan Peterson presented this argument to me and it seems unbeatable.
"Whatever is in the top of the hierarchy of values is represented by God."
How would we tell the difference between a world in which that claim is true and a world in which it is false?
1000 percent agreed and if you watched the amazing lengthy debates between Harris and Peterson. Even Harris can admit Peterson was not wrong.
First you have to demonstrate there is a god. How do you derive morality from something you can't even demonstrate exists? You religious nutters are hilarious.
@El CryptoNita that would be an odd debate. i'm not sure what useful info would come from that. but i'm happy to be wrong. Ken's an odd duck though.
The fact that slavery is mentioned in the Bible should not be mistaken for a Biblical endorsement of slavery.
But it is so. It is clearly written that owning slaves is okay and that beating them is okay as well. I see your belief is blinding your ability to see that truth.
9:26 "“Is this not the fast that I have chosen: To loose the bonds of wickedness, To undo the [a]heavy burdens, To let the oppressed go free, And that you break every yoke?"
Isaiah 58:6
"“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;"
Luke 4:18
I'm not a moralist, I don't bother with the study of morality all that much, and even I can see that Harris is just flat-out wrong on this one.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only to please them while they are watching, but with sincerity of heart and fear of the Lord.
1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should regard their masters as fully worthy of honor, so that God's name and our teaching will not be discredited.
Titus 2:9
Slaves are to submit to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
Ephesians 6:5-6
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Just a quick note, the Bible in its entirety has an intention woven throughout it, for achieving true liberation. It’s a story about freeing captives. It’s dialogue about how difficult this actually has become. It’s also about how deceptive forms of peace really can be, as opposition to this liberating endeavor.
If that were true, the bible wouldn't be pro-slavery though out, and wouldn't celebrate the idea of becoming a slave to bibleGod and threaten eternal tortures to those who don't comply.
@@TheHigherVoltage well it doesn’t. It’s degrees of increased liberation, which is difficult to achieve lest masters achieve inward breakthrough and systems do as well. Otherwise people assume perpetual warfare is better than strategic processes of actual freedom. Whereas continual transferences of slave/master produces torturous the conditions.
It's also completely full of shit when it comes to describing reality, nature and the universe. The bible hamstrings the intellect and you would be much better off never touching it.
Excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ben and Sam talk about how "slavery was just a human norm at the time of writing", but I think that's not the right way of looking at it; I think that it was depicted (whether as a historical retelling or metaphorical proposition is actually irrelevant) in the sense of "this is a reality of the human condition" and as a backdrop to the ancient and ongoing battle for freedom that you described. It's almost a condition of our environment to be overcome, much like recurring bad weather.
My problem with Sam Harris is that every time I listen to him talk with someone, I hear him make many (what seems to me to be shallow) Arguments Against, and never any Arguments For; I never seem to hear him actually say what he believes is right and/or true, or present any ideas for a good alternative way forward. I hear him say what he doesn't believe in, but never what he DOES believe in.
@@BULLTRONHERO I think deep down reading of his life and his own personal spiritual experiences, he resonates with the spiritual mystery and having an effect in causing a discerned seeking - of which he’s admitted reveals interest in some biblical
claims, but he doesn’t know how to merge it with the entire text. He continually returns to the felt critique of the experience with inability to see it with integrity in the text.
It seems like Sam is just intent on condemning religion, and doesn’t take into consideration that a lot of the issues with religion come from the flaws of the individual and not the text or practices themselves.
Ok So when God of Judeo Christian Faith explicitly ordered Joshua to attack and commit Mass Genocide in many cities, (women, children, and even the life stock), It was actually just flaws of some individuals?
Well said.
It makes no sence, that god could not have been clear about slavery being imoral.
Not once (at least in this clip anyway) does Harris say where morality comes from. Perhaps he did in the full interview, but there was certainly nothing in this clip other than trying to undermine certain religious foundations for morality.
Sam has failed multiple times over the years to give a rational case for morality in a secular framework.
I noticed this too. He seems to know why morality doesn't come from religion, but wouldn't say where it comes from. Hopefully the full show gives him the opportunity to say what the source is
morality comes inevitably as a result of any social system where actions have consequences upon other members of the social system. it requires no god to erect it and is both discovered and constructed, just like engineering or economics.
I find the idea of morality outside of religion to be very simple. You observe actions that you see as creating harm to yourself or society.. and you say "those are bad things". One could argue they are only bad because God wants them to be bad, but thats a bit of circular logic in my opinion. I believe don't kill your neighbor because I don't want to be murdered by mine. I believe don't covet your neighbors wife because I don't want my neighbor coveting mine.. for examples. It's just simple logic to me. Of course we could always go back to who created logic and why.. etc.. but thats because the goal posts are easily just moved backwards until you miss in this conversation.
This is an example of how very smart people can sometimes be wrong.
Please explain what you mean. Who’s wrong, and why?
Not all smart people are right all the time that why they have more question than answers.
Like Ben?
I so enjoy talks like this, and as a born US Citizen male raised in Judaea Christian values I'm with Harris on "American/Freedom/Individuality over the Collective" here. It's the age old problem with an American's world view. The Bible, Jesus, God isn't about Democracy and Freedom. The Bible is about God's way, it's about a believer or an unbeliever. One doesn't get a say, there's no board to sit on for writing and voting on God's law, etc... It doesn't matter if our Forefathers were "Christians" and some probably wasn't, either way it's irrelevant. They gave birth to free men, democracy, the will of the people, etc.. The Bible is not the same.
America and the entire West was built on Christian teachings.There has never been a civilization in the world that was not created by religions.
That's not necessarily true. As Paul puts it in Romans 2, the conscious will bear witness of one's sins especially if they are not of the law, meaning in more modern terms, don't understand or practice Christianity for that matter. Although the argument in a broad consensus that everyone should be a believer is true, fundamentally the biblical narrative tells of many scenarios in which one wasn't per se a Christian but God still used them for the purpose of the law and the Gospel.
Second, God being the commander or the authority over the universe doesn't mean you can't have freedom. But, it's very obvious not "all freedoms" are ideal and morally righteous. When the command was made for the Israelites to slaughter the Amalekites and the Canaanites, it was because they were committing all types of "freedom" that was immoral, such corruption, idol worship, and baby sacrifices. When the Israelites began to do the same thing, using God's Word for their own benefit, God would remove His blessing from them as a consequence of their behaviors. That's what Ben was trying to argue, that like in Romans 2, arbitrarily the law of God or His morality is written in our hearts, therefore we understand right from wrong, whether you're a Christian or not. We still all follow a standard of right and wrong, almost as if it is biologically ingrained in our psychology and DNA. But some people ignore their conscious and do their own thing. You can't have proper order if you don't place limitations on chaos, that right there is how proper freedom and happiness is achieved, as Jordan Peterson would put it.
Judeo-Christian values, whatever that means, seems like a calculated way of saying, "Not Muslim."
Of course but remember that “Judeo - Christian” is a oxymoron
No matter which system you use to understand and/or promote morals (i.e. secular or religious) you still have to contend with the fact that both systems are susceptible to dogma, popular delusion and corruption (they are not absolutely unique from each other).
Pure reason alone, or attempts at pure reason guided by further attempts at science, are not guaranteed to generate positive morale outcomes either. The secular and scientific domain is likewise susceptible to the moral errors of the religious domain because both are reflections of human decision making (which is prone to error, manipulation, and malice).
One should try maintain a foot in both camps to always have the widest possible perspective on the issue of morality.
Very well said.. ua-cam.com/video/dFs9WO2B8uI/v-deo.html
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Finally someone who gets it. I think Sam's arguments are directed mostly to strict and dogmatic religious people who take religious texts too literal, and I think him and Dawkins waste time having certain arguments when they could share more of their views on the moral and philosophical significance of canonical literature.
@@ZihKingMusic The Bible is the only source of morality
This is a ridiculous comment. You are equating an extensive belief system (religion) with the simple position of a lack of belief (atheism). Atheism is not a “system” one uses nor is it something utilized by people to “understand and/or promote morals”… it’s literally just a position one takes on the logical non belief in god or gods due to the evidence supporting such claims being non existent. A religious person may very well base their moralistic attitudes and behaviours on religious belief but it does not equate or apply to an atheist. An atheist faced with a moral question or dilemma doesn’t utilize their disbelief in Zeus or Krishna to make a decision or act a certain way or commit a certain act, which is essentially what you are asserting. No one “believes” in atheism, atheism is the opposite of that statement entirely, and therefor no codified “system” exists within it to base one’s morality on. It’s stupid to even use a word like atheism to describe a lack of belief.. I don’t believe in any purported god or gods the same way I don’t believe fairys are real or leprechauns are real, yet we don’t have or need words/labels ascribing ones lack of belief in those things, despite the positions being identical in nature.
Delusional long lasting belief in religion by society forced the conception of such a term when really any common sense logical approach to the validity of claims made by any and all religions of the existence of an almighty god would be disbelieved when considered critically alongside the lack of evidence/falsity of the claims
Love how they give each other room to speak and get their thoughts out. Bravo 👏
Great discussion. I’ll always remember Sam Harris’ debate with William Lane Craig, at Norte Dame, as the most epic debate on morality.
It was an interesting debate. Sam Harris was clearly outclassed.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 - I think you'll find (if you'll allow yourself to) that the inverse was actually very much the case. Harris' arguments were superior and potently delivered as is usually the case.
@@Robert44444444 ummm you may need to rewatch it then with less bias. Harris’ arguments have gotten stronger since then but he was decimated in that debate
@@Robert44444444 Maybe explain why, rather than try to sound polite. It’s pretty obvious moral values and duties require a moral law giver, which is why Craig had the more effective argument.
@@invoker5465 delusion at its best.
@3:10 The Western Empire fell after Rome converted to a Judeo Christian version of what Jesus taught, and the West wasn't strong enough to establish a resurgence without what the Islamic world had preserved of Greek Philosophy, Indian Mathematics and Persian Technology. Sam Harris knows this history but there's still a tone of ingratitude in his voice towards Islam's golden age. Today's Wahhabi example isn't remotely close to the rich established history of Islam's contribution to science and yet Sam says "of all people, the Muslims gave the West back it's classical knowledge" and need I say improved upon that codification of knowledge as well, which is what enabled Thomas Aquinas to popularize it again. @4:09 If Islam is so dogmatic and at odds with the spirit of science then why were Muslim scholars totally committed to the translation of those works into Arabic, only to improve upon experiments which later prompted European scholars to start a translation movement of their own from Arabic back into Latin and English? Sam Harris won't even give Christianity's contributions to science and academia its flowers, because his argument is that "everything that's good that has ever been done has been done by a religious person" lmao...maybe because the religious have always far outnumbered atheists in any time period. Sam arrogates to himself a sort of intellectual superiority when he passingly mocks Isaac Newton's biblical pursuits as being a waste of time, as though what Newton gave to science doesn't come from the sum of all of his parts. Sam would mock the scientist who would care about alchemy as much as they do astronomy, as if modern western materialists aren't lacking themselves precisely because they're afraid to merge spirituality with science.
I feel ones morality is a reflection of how they value life, and ones-self.
There is NO morality without GOD. a person can be an atheist and think highly of himself and basically be a decent person, but if he does not accept GOD and HIS ONLY SON, JESUS CHRIST, he is in actuality not.
@@batmanforpresident9655 but the burden of proof for you to prove that is on you. Im religious myself, and i hold my christian morals to a very high standard, just as I would assume you would do the same as a man of god. But when doing a scientific analysis of morality, you cannot assume that there is a god and thus meaning morality comes from god. You first need to assume that god does not exist, yet morality exists. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. How can morality NOT exist without god? (Again, a scientific analysis, not my religious view)
@@justanothercasual5152 First: true morality CANNOT exist without GOD. This is why HE gave us HIS LAWS and COMMANDMENTS. Morals are NOT based in science whatsoever, therefore, there can be no argument for or against it. Societal morality might have been better to use. An atheist could be a basically decent person. But that person is truly not moralistic without GOD.
Second: u claim to hold your CHRISTIAN values high, however, you write GOD'S NAME in lowercase letters.ONLY false gods are to be wriiten in lowercase letters.This might seem like a trivial point, but perhaps very revealing.
@@batmanforpresident9655 Just saying stuff without the ability to use logic or reason to express why you are correct does absolutely nothing to persuade others and can only draw people away from your belief system. People don't want to be associated with an illogical control-freak who doesn't sound like a very kind or understanding person.
Even putting the best spin on what you're saying - all you're doing is playing word games about the word 'morality'. You don't seem to have a good sense of the nature of what that term means to most people or why it should actually be valued by anyone. There is no 'true' morality apart from morality itself - the term stands on its own. Twisting it is nothing but word games.
@@singed8853 My arguments are 100% logical. If you think not then prove it to me. I have put a spin on nothing. I have stated my case and it's irrefutable.
In this day and age to have a conversation be awashed in good faith arguments is... replenishing.
Rationality Rules has multiple videos about Shapiro. Seen?
Morality comes from the recognition, remembrance , and prevention of atrocities. Today is the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre that happened in Beijing, China on June 4th 1989. Not so long ago, but treated like ancient history by network media.
You are begging the question. Morality cannot stem simply from the memory of atrocities, because the notion of an atrocity is, in the first place, dependent on a system of morality that deems the action to be wrong.
We know our intentions and that's where morality comes from. We know when we are selfish or mean, or unfair and so on. To be truly good you have to stop caring for your self and only start caring bout others. Caring bout others does still mean to care about yourself. But you do it so that you can be optimized to do the best. There is only one Jesus and he was good!!
Harris is so enthusiastic 😂😂😂
he's flogging a dead horse
@@darthbog2125 yeah basically. Shapiro, like it or not, has a very sharp mind. But when it comes to religion, like every believer he ends up defending irrational positions. So trying to change someone’s mind in these cases is a waste of time
This is where this guy falls short ....
He's a smart man but intelligence seldom lefts one's perspective over their bias.
Let me make this quick ....
We often hear, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Well, what Sam doesn't understand is that Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Make no mistake, just as a gun can be aimed, so can religion.
But just as people determined to do harm will seek out other means to achieve their objectives: bats, clubs, knives or their bare hands ....
People that seek power also will seek out whatever aids them as well: Woke Ideology, Communism, Extreme Ideological Beliefs ...
It's not God, the belief in God or even the lack of beliefs that has caused so much harm in the world's past ....
It's people that have and Sam doesn't get it.
Very well written.
What about Muslims? And Christians in the past before modern civilisation?
Sam knows that he just knows Ben isn’t well versed in apologetics … now if they start debating Socialism U would see the Ben we all Know lol
And also most things in society that everyone enjoys where built On religion and they don’t even realize it.
Most people don’t even realize the only reason Monogamy seems Right is because Christianity was the Engine for it and really spread it all over the world that’s why a lot of non Christian countries have Multiple wives…
How about when your God himself( I can assume you are a Jew or Christian) ordered Joshua to attack several cities and massacre all men, women, children, and even animals? How about when Your God himself flooded the whole earth and left only a few alive? Don't you think that these types of actions gave very good reason to some genuinly believers to start holy wars and just do the same that their gods had done?! because people always try to be like their gods (to be godlike), so why shouldn't have they massacred whoever in their view was the enemy of their god?
Remember the qoute which says that it takes religion for a good person to do evil deeds coz he or she believes that they are acting on behalf of God.
I thoroughly enjoy both Sam and Ben's thought process.
I wish I could debate Sam Harris just once. He brings up the backlash against Galileo by the Church but makes no mention how right now today if a scientist goes against scientism and it's dogma then there is a backlash in academia. Not to the same degree or intensity I will grant you but there is still a backlash. This is made more clear among the political elite of course aka the ones we elect to literally decide our laws which have an immediate impact on MORAL thought and moral life. It is just so intellectually dishonest of him to ignore this. And it is silly of Ben to not bring it up.
He gets the entire Galileo problem wrong. Galileo was not in trouble with the church for his findings, he was in trouble for teaching his hypothesis as fact without evidence other than supposition which violated the churches rules. He was also an unmitigated ass who publicly called the pope, his benefactor, a dunce and idiot.
Examples please
@@nyakabb2472 Removing medical licences of doctors who dared to sucessfully treath covid with early treatments instead of toxic fda "recomodations" .. There you go example of academia litturaly punishing moral action... Have you been living under the rock past 2 years?
I agree, watching Bret Weinstein and Sam lose touch over covid was heartbreaking and Bret is trained close enough in the field of biological science to at least address the "scientific consensus". Sam closed his eyes and ears to a person he stood behind.
@@nyakabb2472 Global warming, COVID, transgenderism, IQ, etc. Woman researcher published a book that went against the consensus on a very touchy subject and she was literally driven out of the field and out of the country and worked in Brazil last I heard.
Just wonderful, a Republican lecturing on morality.
You're probably one of those people who's never met onr.
Truth be told, I side with Sam's points in these conversations, I think they make more sense and he can develop the rationality behind them pretty well. But damn if Ben is anything but sophisticated when formulating his points as well. Is part of the fact why I like him so much.
I'm a libertarian atheist, but while a Progressive could make me lose my mind in about 30 seconds of debate, I feel like I could carry a conversation with Ben for hours on end. Because despite the disagreement, he can expose to you exactly where he's coming from, and how he came to his conclusions (that's why I think most of his social analysis are impecable), and there's no bad faith from his argument. It doesn't demand that you conform to anything, and at no point you're like "Are you insane???", it's always more of a "Yeah, I understand what you're saying", and then you sort out where you disagree. It's the best part of conversations like this
Not to mention he's kind of a nerd, and I like that because so am I. Nice going Mr Shapiro
same boat here. I like Shapiro, it's easier to have a discussion with someone that has good reasons for what they believe. He may not be objectively correct, and I may not either, but having your feet on solid grounds of reasoning will allow you to engage in discourse without insecurity getting in the way. This is why you can occasionally see Shapiro "winning" debates even when he perhaps shouldn't. He doesn't always win because he's right, occasionally he wins because he has less insecurity and a more solid stance in reason than his opposition.
Also, if you listen carefully, sometimes you can see him assertively redirect a discussion when it begins to approach a weak point in his arguments. One might take that as insecurity, but in theology debates, that level of acknowledgement of one's own weaknesses is something that the insecure don't have. He could, of course, go one step further and actually allow the discussion to reach a point where it breaks down part of his reasoning, but it's when someone does that, that they become an atheist.
I'm with Ben, mainly because I know what Christianity teaches. Blaming Christianity for the dark age(s) is like blaming fire for burning ur food, if you don't follow the instructions what else can one expect?
Perhaps his argument points out weaknesses in the atheistic viewpoint which alas pulls one into becoming a believer in Christ. Have you ever heard about how Christianity spread? It began with Jesus who was crucified and the resurrected and then eleven of his twelve disciples continued to preach the word unto their own deaths by crucifixion, burning, stoning and etc. All while telling their believers to look unto these deaths with glee and to turn their other cheeks to their enemies. Western civilization became Christian and their people that were once regarded as barabaric became highly religious by the same kind of preaching. (Look up st. Biniface, the pioneer of the Christmas tree.) all these things happened miraculously and led to the civilization we know today. Ignoring Christ’s significance would be foolish I’d say, and acknowledging it would lead to you investigating and ultimately accepting his divinity
What makes an act moral or immoral?
Perfectly said.
First show God is real....then we can talk.
Some of us prefer to play with our prey before we feast.
i think it's very important to understand that question. it seems like we're kind of in a state between moralities. we more or less discarded christian morality but we do not yet have a new one so we're lost in an ocean of uncertainty. we don't know what we're supposed to do anymore and everything falls to chaos.
we can't rely on people just being perceptive and rational and sensible anymore, that time is long gone.
Lol its funny how far yall go to explain whats right infront of your face. Its because it doesnt work without Christian morality.
@@mastershake4641 i see, that's why every people on this planet apart from christians wiped themselves out ... oh, wait
yeah, there was a time when i thought everyone must know and do what seems right to me. i as i went into teenhood i learned that you have to actually tell people. i think that's what every kid learns at some point. i don't know why that would be funny
@@meh.7640 If you honestly cant see how western culture is superior to all other cultures then you have never looked or are lying to yourself.
Everyone has a conscience, they know whats right and wrong. Some people just choose to ignore it. Humans are inherently evil, and they must choose to turn away from their nature. Thus original sin, repentenace, Jesus saving us with his sacrifice, its all explained by Christianity unlike every other religion. But yall just wont see whats right infront of your face.
@@mastershake4641 it's only in front of our face if people like you put it there.
you're contradicting yourself here quite a bit, sir. you have a concience but choose to ignore it. you are evil and you must choose to turn away from that. so, what is it? are we evil and must choose not do be or are we good but choose not to be?
also, turning away from nature more and more is exactly what got us into this mess to start with. we come from nature and we love nature, that's engrained in our dna. the more green and blue your eyes see, the happier you are. that's scientifically proven.
genetically we are still like we were hundrets of thousands of years ago in a time before agriculture (which is why wheat is actually bad for you btw). this world today is not made for us and it wasn't 2000 years ago and it wasn't 6000 years ago. but we can't turn back time and that's why i acknowledge the importance of religion for society up until a few years ago. that's what i meant with the moral vacuum we live in today. it's due to religion having played such an important role in building it and sustaining it and it worked pretty damn well, too.
we don't have to go back to believing the old stories. but you are free to believe what you want. i'm just saying, it's not the only possible solution
No one needs "christian morality" because we don't need things like slavery.
"How many converts does jainism have?" sounds like a really bad counter argument
Ben Shapiro's argument falls flat against logic and reality. Nonetheless, conversations should be made without yelling and this was great.
Harris claims is what falls apart in logic and reality. Empathy and rationality does not maintain morality or create it. Science doesnt answer moral questions.
Hopefully you can shake off your ideological conditioning.
@@RA-ie3ss "Science doesnt answer moral questions."
Political science and social science does answer moral questions. There's more to science than the physical sciences.
Your theology doesn't answer moral questions as evidenced by your theism's inability to answer the issue of prior obligation that is a product of theism and prevents it from being able to ground moral obligation. All theism has done is reiterate the common sense rules of social living that were developed by our distant cave dwelling ancestors hundreds of thousands of years ago.
@@alanmill793good man 🤝
@@ch33zyburrito36 👍
i love how calm sam remains in all his debates
It's easy when you don't lie.
Until you say, “Trump!”
@@TP-om8of I don’t think anyone should be calm when trump is mentioned 🤓
I’d say he’s a threat but he’s already made y’all even more ignorant
So Sam, where are these great civilizations based on the natural course of people being good just for the sake of being good without any faith?
A sense of "goodness" is a modern day thing. People throughout time have been incredibly brutal to each other. Even those who were religious if you talk about Christianity they were no less brutal then anyone else at the time.
There are plenty of faith-based civilizations that commit atrocities. I guess it is OK if God approves, right?
Hmm he is probably talking about Atlantis..lol
Moral behavior in humans is an evolutionary adaptation that exists because it was advantageous for our species survival, nothing more and nothing less.
Then people were adapted to carry out moral behavior and promote it via religion. Atheism is not justified.
@@RA-ie3ss Moral behavior is embedded in our DNA and arises organically. Religious promotion is a cultural phenomenon. Atheism is a belief system. So is a belief in the supernatural. The fact is we simply don't know and until we do I will organize my life around science and empirical evidence.
@Jürgen Moral behavior is not embedded in our DNA and does not arise organically. If so then why did Rome fall? Why do societies rise and fall? Why was there periods of anarchy? Sometimes academics in a insulated environment convince themselves out of the obvious and you have unfortunately fallen for that.
Get out of your own bubble. Genetics doesn't matter. You can
instinctually want kids and form a family but it doesn't mean people will reliably do so. For example, monogamy, family, and community won't simply maintain themselves because of people's genetics or because it's rationally in our interests for them to continue. In order for people to be reliably moral they need to be in a community with others that have moral and spiritual bonds as them. An optimistic view on the future also matters.
Atheism is not rational. The most plausible explanation for the big bang is a higher power causing it.
@@RA-ie3ss It is rational to say that there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of your alleged god because you cannot supply any. All you have to do in order prove that the atheist conclusion is irrational is to supply credible objective evidence for the existence of your alleged god that will be accepted by every human. Can't do it can you.
The most plausible explanation for the big bang is inflation from a small piece of space because space is uncaused, as the Buddha observed 2,500 years ago, and everyone knows space exists. And space has energy. And E=MC squared. But the only honest answer is that we don’t know how that inflation worked.
The problems with your bald assertion are that you have not shown that your alleged god exists and you are also merely pushing the goal posts back by failing to explain how something so complicated as your alleged god was caused or could exist without being caused. Can't explain that can you. But you do a conga line of petty insults. with one person after another.
@@RA-ie3ss moral behaviours can be seen in many animals, this is extremely well documented. It is quite literally in the DNA of social species because they are dependent on one another’s survival. I’m sorry that you are ignorant of basic biology but maybe you can fix that by reading a couple books.