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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
@@spotthelies I thought it was constructive because two people with fundamentally different worldviews were able to share their thoughts with respect for one another.
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."
@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.
@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.
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.
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 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.
*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.
@@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"?
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.
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)
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.
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.
@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 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 :)
“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?”
@@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.
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.
@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?
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. 🇺🇸 🙏
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.
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.
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.
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 😊
@@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
@@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.
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.
@@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!
@@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
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
Sam Harris has always been one of the very best clear thinkers today. He points out the obvious and no matter how you defend the obvious flaw, like slavery, you can't get it out of the mud however way you want to because you can't unsee what Sam has just obviously pointed out. Clear thinking with no BS... I like that. Does it depend on what I mean when I say BS? 😂
@@RA-ie3ss Why is that so? I can't see him taking a moral highground because anybody can make a theory where it comes from, so just because you don't like the alternative you go on to say he's taking a high ground? If that's so then everyone is guilty of taking the high ground by just trying to make their own theory of their own moral landscape... Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you get to claim that he is intending to place himself above anyone else who has a different idea about where morality comes from
@Lauderdale Robite Implicit in criticism is the idea that you are not a hypocrite and you follow the principles you have set out. There is always a moral claim on oneself when they critique others.
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 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.
Mr. Shapiro, thank you for having people on your platform who have different views. And thank you for pushing back on the slavery issue. As a black man and a pastor of an international congregation with the majority of my congregation in Liberia, I have a heightened awareness of this subject as it refers to the Bible. I would like Mr. Harris's take on what God says in Exodus. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death. :Exodus 21:16 ESV:: Regretfully this passage seems to get overlooked often by people who say that the Bible supported slavery and in our Western context we are generally talking about the forced slavery of the Americas. Also, there is a lack of understanding of what indentured servitude was in the Old Testament (which many times is translated as slavery in the Bible and is not the same as what we think of as slavery in the West) and not taking into account the Sabbath year, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh, he shall go free without payment" (Exodus 21:2). "If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, he shall serve you six years; and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you" (Deuteronomy 15:12). Not to mention Jubilee that happened every 50 years. Thanks again!
Exactly. It’s amazing how much “intellect” can sometimes get in the way of real knowledge of God. I think sometimes one of the biggest hindrances to obeying God is thinking we are smarter than Him. Also, I think the creation argument is much better than morality lately because the Bible is very clear of our nature apart from God. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Creation speaks more soundly I think and I think of passages like “The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of His hands”. To argue that we are somehow more moral is not necessarily the best idea as sometimes we are found by God very broken and it takes time to change. The world does not understand imputed righteousness and obedience through faith or sanctification where we are being made more and more into the image of Christ. Also, Paul gives instruction to leaders to remember that they serve a God who will hold them accountable in the way they treat their servants. Anyway, God bless you, brother.
That passage only condemns stealing someone else’s slave, NOT slavery itself. In fact, that statement presupposes slavery as normal and humans as property. Read it more carefully x
You can’t “steal a man” unless he’s already someone else’s property!!! You have totally misinterpreted this Bible passage. Sorry to have to inform you!
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'.
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.
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
@@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
@@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.
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.
“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.
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!!
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Morality is just normal socialization. Over time people learn that respect and cooperation generally tends to produce better outcomes for all than selfish, short-term conflict. It starts with family and spreads to extended family and then local group and outwards. Many animals display compassion, cooperation, altruism, and grief.
"Morality is just normal socialization." No its not. I would expect that after 50 years you would stop saying this debunked theory. "Over time people learn that respect and cooperation generally tends to produce better outcomes for all than selfish, short-term conflict." The consequences don't make something moral or immoral. In fact, we got rid of any social expectations on people to not cheat, to not be obese, or not do drugs. We are also in the process of making men unmasculine and women unfeminine. Try counting how many societies did that and didn't decline and fall apart. "It starts with family and spreads to extended family and then local group and outwards. " All of which declines in atheism. "Many animals display compassion, cooperation, altruism, and grief." You are describing morality but you aren't succeeding to establish morality yourself.
A mother Tiger can love and care for her cubs, But also kill and eat them when she has no food, Religion gives us a reason to be moral, without religion we’d be disrespectful, murder, selfish, and act like wild animals
@@RenzaissanceTV : Do you often have to be reminded not to "be disrespectful, murder, selfish, and act like a wild animal."? I doubt it. I don't and have not felt such compulsions. Among the least religious in the world, Scandinavians are also the happiest, freest, and most prosperous.
@@RenzaissanceTV If that was true then countries like Japan, Denmark, and Sweeden would be a sesspool of violence and anarchy since they are predominantly athiests. And they are some of the happiest countries on the planet.
@@lrvogt1257 You have to be reminded because morality is not natural in animals, To sit here and use an example of your self today and say you feel no such compulsions is ridiculous, considering you are grown pass the point of fully understanding morals you where taught as a kid, If you was born and was taught by your mother that being rude is right, murder is right, and acting like a wild animal is right, you will grow up thinking those are the right morals, I’m pretty sure your parents didn’t do that did they?? Exactly, we only can act morally because the standard set years way back in history, along with written records of morals and practices, also called religion, You validated my point, Scandinavians where influenced with morals by people with religion, through there ancestors and the world around them,
@@sibco96 you can also reduce suffering by being a predator and making your enemies suffer. Romans did this quite well. Problem is that all your "rational" morality just boils down to rationalizing the moral values you already hold, which are judeo-christian in origin.
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.
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 problem with relying on philosophical and social morality instead of teaching morality through religious means is that the public school system doesnt encourage this form of learning until AFTER a child formative years of learning, ie elementary and middle school and most parents are too busy keeping the family functioning to take on the responsibility of engraining positive morality when their children are sponges
That’s the problem. If you have kids you must MAKE the time to raise them correctly. Counting on schools or the state in any fashion is the problem in the first place. Don’t delegate parental responsibility to the state. Thought that was common sense.
What is there to teach about morality from the religious perspective other than a set of commands? The commands that society continues to value today are already ingrained in our law and children learn of the basics from a young age.
@@singed8853 Agreed. The legal system is also tweaked and updated with new data, refining what is right and wrong. This is a cyclical relationship with culture.
if u do things to this day u were merely taught as a child means ur still childish. grow up, think for urself and figure what the right then to do is and do it. i was taught this as a child is not an excuse.
@@singed8853 And what are societies built on? Ben mentioned this. You seem to forget how societies are built and the fact that society isn’t it’s own entity. Society is a COLLECTION of individuals and built on ideas as the foundation.
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.
@@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??
This is an important conversation, and if Islam is going to be brought into the picture numerous times, perhaps the most reasonable thing to do would be to invite a Muslim to contribute to the conversation. Sam Harris is intelligent and well-spoken, so people listen when he speaks and believe what he has to say often without question. Just because he can pull out a historical fact here and there does not mean that he is an expert nor does it mean that what he's saying it presented within the appropriate context. For such a meditative, seemingly self-aware, and smart individual, Harris's biases towards Islam and Muslims are blatant and they completely oppose his logical and reflective approach to nearly every other topic.
Though Harris is an atheist, it is clear that both Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro have deep Zionist-nationalist convictions and this unfortunately colors everything they have to say about the Middle East and Islam.
You are wrong in thinking his bias is against Muslims, it is against the Almighty Creator of the universe. These men think they are smarter than God himself, wise in their own minds. I am smart enough to know we don't have all the answers, humble enough to believe HE does.
@@ShaneKnockItOff compare this to Jordan Peterson who brought 2 (actual) Muslim guests on this year (Mohammed Hijab & Hamza Yusuf), even though it took years of basically begging him to do so.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
Sam switched very quickly from trying his best to not give religious people any credit for basically anything especially science to saying at one point every scientist was religious (including Newton) and there was just no one else to do the job.
Saying every scientist was religious doesn't give religion any credit at all. It simply demonstrates a human trait, that it's possible to simultaneously have rational and irrational beliefs.
Newton's life was ruined by religion and its true that atheism and rejecting god beliefs has only been around as long as the church has not been strong enough to rule over atheists. Get over it, you lost.
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
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.
@@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
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?
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.
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
Great video, I'm on Sam's side on this but really appreciated the civil discourse. Only problem I had was that the video ended, will scoot over to the full interview:D
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.
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.
these juice are usually ignorant of Hindu/Buddhist thought but Sam Harris has studied it and yet doesn't correct shapiro who's a fundamentalist. no surprise tbh but these clowns are just chasing their tails.
@Trust The Truth, from our understanding of dynamics between each other, leads to the most harmonious way to experience this life. That understanding gives birth to our morals.
@@Jeyakumar-hs9zr Achieve perfection and balance according to what standard? If morality is subjective, there is no way to measure progress and no standard. To measure progress, means there has to be a standard to compare to.
@@CJCHANNI from our understanding of dynamics between each other leading to a harmonious way of living. So, when Hitler, according to his moral scope murdered millions of Jews, this was understanding the dynamics between both cultures and making it more harmonious?
Ben is anything but calm in almost all his videos - yet him talking quietly with Harris on their narrow perception of morality is enough for comments like this to show up on every video. Please link me some mainstream videos where it isn’t calm and rational so I can finally understand where this is coming from.
@@rayd9639 LOL, anything but calm in most his videos? You're delusional, he is almost universally a calm. He just talks fast, so you may be misinterpreting his affect
@@rayd9639 Well he talks fast, always. That doesn't mean he isn't calm. Just because you cant keep up. You also can't name a strawman so I'll dismiss that nonsense. I assume you just threw out a fallacy you heard about in your freshmen ethics class.
@@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.
I don't think morality comes from religion, but religion has done a good job of putting it together. I think of it like university, they've compiled everything so people can learn easier, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn how to be an accountant on your own for example, it will just be harder finding the relevant documentation relating to the field you want to work on.
Without religion it's something that becomes a very wavering proposition. Look at our society now. Everyones lives are so much better and easier that more people reject religion but what are they going to do when civilization cracks again because of the loss of religious morals? Let's be clear here, that's what's happening right now. People aren't atheists, they are anti religion. They are going out of their way to say they don't believe in certain religions even though everyone in the west lives a semi religious life and celebrates religious holidays. If we were still struggling to live everyday we'd all be praying. In 2022 to be anti religion is trendy, it's edgy, it's cool... it's also lazy. It's like a man saying he doesn't listen to Taylor Swift because it's embarrassing when in reality whenever they have the radio on they listen to Taylor Swift or Katy Perry.
@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.
The term 'Dark Ages' was coined by an Italian scholar named Francesco Petrarch. Petrarch, who lived from 1304 to 1374, used this label to describe what he perceived as a lack of quality in the Latin literature of his day.
@@shadowthehedgehog3113 and were not so "dark" as we are told. many innovations then. and no! do not ask me to show them, just watched a doc on it last week and have not had time to research.
I am a christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God and I have a profound respect and admiration for Sam Harris. He's using his faculties to find truth and we as human beings should work together to find it. Great debate.
You were probably indoctrinated during childhood like the vast majority of religious people. Its sad that you people grow up continuing to believe the childish garbage dogma..and fail to reason no matter what anyone says, does or evidence they show you. Poor people of faith..so delusional and gullible. It really is astounding that we have to tell you to grow up
The backlash against Galileo was NOT due to the Church's outright rejection of his views on religious grounds, it was due to Galileo's assertion that his observations WERE the truth, and all others were false, which created obvious political problems for the Church; potentially reducing their political power. The church was very happy to allow Galileo's views to be published and compete against OTHER views of the time. Their issue was Galileo's insistence his view was the TRUE view. Their response was not really motivated by a religious objection, but more so a political one.
@@RA-ie3ss RA, That's not a sensible comment. Try saying something worthwhile if you can't say anything sensible. You are confusing deny with reject. The existence of religion is not denied by me. The existence of the totalitarian politics of religion is not denied by me. They are clearly visible. As I have repeatedly told you, I reject totalitarian politics, be they secular or religious. But then you knew all that. Your alleged god does not have to exist for religion to exist and for the totalitarian politics of religion to be put into practice. Hinduism exists and totalitarian Hindu politics exists and is practiced, yet you think there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of the Hindu gods, otherwise you'd be a Hindu. "Social living is not necessary" Try telling us something worthwhile, such as refuting the necessity of social living by explaining how new born baby RA could survive to become a toddler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can’t do it can you as you know social living is necessary. Using your logic, breathing is merely beneficial. And explain how Christianity grounds moral obligation on obeying the alleged commands of your alleged god by explaining why everyone ought to obey your alleged god, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny. You still have to refute the secular grounding of moral obligation in the necessity of social living and still have to demonstrate that Christianity can ground moral obligation on obeying your alleged god’s alleged laws by explaining the prior obligation that people allegedly have to your alleged god. Can’t do it can you.
@@alanmill793 “RA, That's not a sensible comment. Try saying something worthwhile if you can't say anything sensible.” Well, you were almost wise. “You are confusing deny with reject.” Both applies, there is no meaningful difference. “The existence of religion is not denied by me.” Your actions prove otherwise. “ The existence of the totalitarian politics of religion is not denied by me. They are clearly visible. As I have repeatedly told you, I reject totalitarian politics, be they secular or religious. But then you knew all that.” Flaws in religion certainly exist which we can acknowledge and rectify, atheism on the otherhand is worse “Your alleged god does not have to exist for religion to exist and for the totalitarian politics of religion to be put into practice.” Doesn’t matter “Hinduism exists and totalitarian Hindu politics exists and is practiced, yet you think there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of the Hindu gods, otherwise you'd be a Hindu.” They aren’t perfect, they are better than atheism though. “Try telling us something worthwhile, such as refuting the necessity of social living by explaining how new born baby RA could survive to become a toddler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can’t do it can you as you know social living is necessary.” We don’t as a society consider it necessary and we don't need to promote it. Just like with parenthood, people may have come from it but it is not necessary for people to become parents. Thats why you are failing to maintain communities. Your fundamental assumption is wrong. I can lecture you again about how communities form but you would still dodge making moral claims and the fact that their bonds are moral and spiritual. “Using your logic, breathing is merely beneficial.” Take it up with society. “And explain how Christianity grounds moral obligation on obeying the alleged commands of your alleged god by explaining why everyone ought to obey your alleged god, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny.” People have free will and therefore can choose between good and evil. You will not find a good moral system which people can’t deny and to the extent you do, it will be garbage and insufficient. “You still have to refute the secular grounding of moral obligation in the necessity of social living and still have to demonstrate that Christianity can ground moral obligation on obeying your alleged god’s alleged laws by explaining the prior obligation that people allegedly have to your alleged god. Can’t do it can you.” Why do you challenge me when you should know by now that the immediate next step is to point to the poor results of your ideology? Historically and currently.
@@RA-ie3ss “Well, you were almost wise.” That would still put me a billion light years ahead of you, RA. Your gish galloping deflection tangents don't hide the fact that you are still dodging the issues at the heart of the claims you and Christianity make. "Social living is not necessary" To demonstrate that, you have to explain how new born baby RA could survive to become a todler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can't do it can you. Your failure to explain this is an admission by you that social living is necessary. Christians who are way more learned and far wiser than you acknowledge that the only way to ground moral obligation on Christianity is by obeying your alleged god's alleged commands. Free will does not ground moral obligation. And its existence is denied by people left, right and centre. Try again. You keep dodging grounding moral obligation on Christianity by continuing to fail to explain, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny, why everyone ought to obey your alleged god. Can't do it can you. Your failure to explain these issues and then deflecting to an irrelevant tangent when challenged to substantiate your claims is an admission that you lack wisdom.
The idea that the Enlightenment of human rights and science came from studying Antiquity is a really poor argument to make if you wish to be historically accurate. And if you wish 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 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.
@@Baghuul The Renaissance gave us some mathematics and good theories, but the rational mind is not the source of the spirit of science that birthed the modern world. The people of Antiquity worshipped the mind, to such a degree that in Athens many of the smartest philosophers saw the act of proving their theories with practical observational testing as of a lower level of evidence than to the Rhetoric that the mind can create to rationalise a theory. IE: what the Greeks gave us is maths, a few theories, and a heaping pile of sophistry. The actual source to all of the scientific developments in the Late Medieval period happened outside of the influence of the Renaissance in Northern Europe. What inspired these people to seek out knowledge and to test its validity against observation and falsifiability was the pursuit to understand God. While the Italians were exploring Greek Rhetoric, the British, Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians were exploring the physical world. This came about because they developed a new philosophy: They determined that to better understand God's word they had to better understand God. The leap was made that since God made the universe then one should be able to understand God through understanding the universe. This gave birth to a genuine pursuit of trying to understand the universe as it is so as to understand God as he is. Therefore this naturally gave rise to the scientific method. The humanitarianism values were essentially a mixture of this method and its interpretations of scripture combining with Northern Europe's individualistic value set that was derived from the European tribes that were never conquered by Rome.
@@Baghuul I think there are some limitations to rational thought. Dostoyevsky sums this up perfectly saying, "It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently." Dostoyevsky was writing at a time where a love of rational thought had seemingly won born from the Age of Enlightenment and Darwinism. Problem was Dostoevsky soon realized the limitations of rational thought and he and Nietzsche both realized that so-called rationalists would try to usher in their own forms of morality aka. communism - utopia - and fascism - utopia. Both D and N were worried about the 20th century and it turns out they were right.
@@lassyduckie8830 I'm pretty sure that's why we have the whole concept of the Golden triangle, and why we wish to be affected by the morals of other peaceful religions ( basically if a communist would pick on it, it counts ) To have faith, you have to have the freedom to practice it, to have freedom, you have to have good virtues to make sure you get along with your neighbor, which come from faith. So it interlocks.
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!
Ben says the bible had to have slavery in it because it’s universal behaviour that is condoned everywhere. Sam provides evidence of a religion where it is not condoned and Ben attacks that religion for its lack of followers. The point was not about Jainism’s influence but about slavery being a necessity in the bible because it’s condoned everywhere. He’s not responding to what Sam is saying and just shifting the focus onto an irrelevance.
Morals come from empathy, empathy comes from our intelligence, “I wouldn’t like that if it happened to me, it looks like it doesn’t feel good”… Some people lack empathy, certain emotions can overwhelm and completely block out empathy and sometimes some people NEED to ignore it to make certain decisions..
but why should I care that if that happened to me I wouldn't like that? Why should I value empathy over other emotions? If I could just ignore others pain and be happier wouldn't that be logical to do? empathy only works if you have faith in a higher meaning and a higher righteousness.
@NT You are missing the point being made by the previous comment. The question is “why should I care?”. What is illogical about me wanting the end of societies and civilizations? There is nothing about mere rationality or intelligence that logically leads to morality. Without an objective frame of reference and ultimate meaning (which theism would claim to be God), everything we do is reduced to subjectivism. Everyone becomes logical and rational in pursing whatever it is they desire, even if that includes the death of everyone else.
@NT _read my comment again and try thinking this time_ Taking cheap shots will not help you make your point or have a productive conversation. Stop being childish. This was your comment; _empathy comes from intelligence because the absence of empathy leads to children getting hurt or killed in the rush and it leads to fighting and death. So empathy has a huge practical purpose of ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society_ In summary, you were making the point that empathy is intelligible because it has practical purposes, like _ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society_ The problem with that is that you have already assumed that "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" is a good thing and should be desired. You have already assumed an objective moral standard that can't be justified from mere intelligence. Let’s assume "Mr A" sees "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" as a good thing and desires it and so is empathic to those around him as he understands that this is a practical way to realize his desire. Let’s assume that "Mr B" doesn't see "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" as a good thing or relevant thing and so doesn’t care about being empathic to those around him. My question to you is how can you argue that Mr A is being logical and rational/intelligible while Mr B is not? Without an objective moral frame of reference, it seems to me that Mr A and Mr B are both rational and intelligible. You might argue that we are biologically hardwired through evolution to survive and ensure the survival of our species and so "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" is in our nature and that can serve as the objective frame of reference to build our morality from. The problem is there are a lot of ways to achieve that goal that don't involve any sort of morality or empathy. For example, one could desire the survival and thriving of a certain group of people and might realize that killing other groups is the most practical way to do so, a brief glance at history should provide multiple scenarios of this. Would that also count as moral? Simply being hardwired to desire a certain thing doesn’t lead to morality or empathy in anyway, as morality isn’t just about final outcomes but also the processes involved in realizing the outcome.
@@charlesudoh6034 just because there are many different way to achieve ou hard wired survival goal, doesn't mean they are all equally successfull. You don't need a reason to value emphaty. You are either empatic or not. You either care about bejng moral or not. There is no universal trascendental duty that forces you to be coherent, empathic or moral. It doesn't change the fact that morality is based on emphaty.
@@marco_mate5181 _just because there are many different ways to achieve our hard wired survival goal, it doesn't mean they are all equally successful_ I agree. This actually proves my point because I would argue that the less empathic way most times seems to be more efficient, yet we still insist on the moral and empathic approach. This leads one to believe that there is a more fundamental factor at play than simply to acheive our hard wired survival goals.
A significant reason most people cannot have civilized debates is because of cognitive dissonance, and close mindedness because of not wanting to be uncomfortable through cognitive dissonance. Cognition is simply thinking and reasoning. It is the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, reason, analysis of information, and experience. Dissonance means a tension or clash that results from disharmonious or contradictory components. In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence introduced to that person. To reduce the psychological discomfort, the person will have to change either their mind or their behavior so that the inconsistency or contradiction is resolved, thus restoring mental balance and emotional harmony. That is, cognitive consonance. Hence, people continually reduce their cognitive dissonance to align their beliefs with their actions, thereby maintaining psychological consistency and feeling less mental stress.
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.
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.
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?
Survival of the fittest includes increased empathy. Modern human brains show larger brain cavities than other human species, in the area of empathy. As an example, say intense cold creates the need for more communal cooperation & an increased need for awareness of young offspring to increase the species chances of continuing. The development of “morality”, a sense of responsibility for All people on a basic level, is easily explained by evolutionary needs imo. I think we can all agree inhuman behavior is “evil”.
@chriscuomo9334 When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
@chriscuomo9334 You say that *_"God has put morality in our hearts"_* but there are several rather obvious problems with this assertion. Firstly if that were indeed the case then we would all regard the *SAME* "God" to be moral and regard the *SAME* scriptures and the laws they contain to be "moral," this is most certainly NOT the case. Most people do NOT think it immoral for a female to uncover her hair in public or to not face a specific landmark and pray five times a day. Most people in the world are just fine with eating bacon, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and even picking up sticks on any day of the week. We do NOT think that our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) are deserving of the death penalty and we recognise that an instruction to _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ could never represent guidance from a perfect omnibenevolent unifying moral standard. We do however all have commonly held values found the world over irrespective of which religion or NO religion. These value all conform with our ideas about human wellbeing. As previously stated they are the basis for our ethical and legal systems the world over and for the most part it is only the concept of SIN ( perceived transgressions against the whims of subjective invisible beings ) that the disagreement occurs. Im not speculating here or just giving you my "opinion" the above is all *FACT* regardless of the existence or non existence of ANY "God". Given this, should humanity adhere and aspire to the common values that unite us all and have real impacts on real people here in the real world. ? Alternatively should we continue on trying to impose the perceived whims of our own subjectively determined invisible "one true God" that divide humanity and have no positive impact on wellbeing that can't also be attained via secular morality ?? Come on surely we are better than this, the sooner the world throws out like old furniture these gods and their barbaric religious ideological baggage the better.
@chriscuomo9334 I suggest you read the paper entitled *"The Evolution Of Morality" - Evolution Education and Outreach* it goes into great depth on the subject. It cites multiple studies and research papers across a variety of social species. It is rather lengthy but well worth the read and gets more interesting and informative as it goes on. It gives multiple examples of the traits and values we associate with morality ( equality, fairness, altruism, empathy ect ) that can all be found throughout the animal kingdom. For example frequently animals will show displeasure at the unequal distribution of food amongst the group ( *even when it favours them individually* ) One study involved two dogs kept separated but in view of each other. Every time dog *A* ate food dog *B* received an electric shock. Once dog *A* realised and associated his eating with the other dog suffering pain it would then refuse to eat, even to the point of starvation. This was repeated multiple times with other groups if animals *Scientific America* also have an informative article entitled "The Origins of Human Morality" and there are many many others from the likes of MIT out there if you are really interested. Though I appreciate it involves hundreds of studies and thousands of pages of data. Do you have ANYTHING observable, testable, repeatable, falsefiable that's comparable and indicative of our moral status actually being the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being called Yahweh?? 🤔
@chriscuomo9334 Do we "contemplate" the gathering of sticks to be or have ever been an offence deserving of capital punishment dependant upon which specific day of the week its done. ?? 🤭😅
1. Empathy is just a vague and unreliable feeling 2. Morality doesn't come from it alone 3. Our attempts to orient society and morality around your beliefs instead of religion has yielded social and moral decline.
@@RA-ie3ss Morality is also vague and unreliable. Generally however, our empathy with others allows us to experience their pain. This understanding is the root of our morality. It is also the reason why we can identify subjective goodness in certain religeous texts for example. Which period in history do you suggest had less social and moral decline ? I can't think of one.
@@Hemebean "Morality is also vague and unreliable." Doesn't matter what your argument is. People who share moral assumptions with each other are people who can form a civilization. Empathy is not enough. 2 strangers with empathy is very rare and doesn't work. This is what history suggests. "Generally however, our empathy with others allows us to experience their pain. " Most of the time, people need a why to be empathetic. I know you have plenty of theories of why things should be working. Atheists often do. Their not though. People are less empathetic for those who are highly different from them. "This understanding is the root of our morality." No its not. If it was we would not be experiencing social and moral decline. "It is also the reason why we can identify subjective goodness in certain religeous texts for example." Religious texts have objectively good principles. "Which period in history do you suggest had less social and moral decline ? I can't think of one." Get your head out of the sand. Male and female relationships, communities, and kids are examples of social decline.
@@RA-ie3ss Your arguments are not substatiated. How do you explain the morals of atheists ? Also, my head is not in the sand. I can see there are problems today but there are far less than there were at any other time in history. Today, at least in the West, most women have equal rights, there is far les slavery, I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake for witchcraft, I'm a free man, I can vote in democratic elections. Which period in history do you imagine was better or more morally sound ?
@@Hemebean "Your arguments are not substatiated. How do you explain the morals of atheists ? " There are several things which can indicate and explain morals of atheists just like any collective group, research and studies, observations, popular figures in their community like the 4 horsemen or dillahunty, and their collective actions. Usually Atheists are liberal progressives who are moral relativists. "Also, my head is not in the sand. I can see there are problems today but there are far less than there were at any other time in history. " This is how I know you aren't basing your assessment on what history indicates as actual problems and rather just on your or an ideology. Is there self sufficient systems in place? Are people happy? Are men and women forming relationships at sufficient rates? Is the culture united? "Today, at least in the West, most women have equal rights, there is far les slavery, I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake for witchcraft, I'm a free man, I can vote in democratic elections." None of these are objective or fundamental problems which threaten society but I do have more factual and objective problems which do make society unsustainable. In other words you can have a society without feminism or democracy and things can still be sustainable but not the things I said. "Which period in history do you imagine was better or more morally sound ?" Most of history.
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
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.
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?
@@RicoSeattle I think they take potshots at each from afar on occasion. I doubt either gives the other much though at all about 360 days of the year.
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
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
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."
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.
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 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.
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 🎉
Harris utterly demolished him without even trying.
no he didn't
Yeah he did
@@causalityismygod2983 no he didn't
@@macias7125 yup he did
@@macias7125 What debate did you watch, not this one it seems.
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
@@MrRabbit772 did you even watch? Both guys were extremely respectful
@@MrRabbit772 lol what?
Love hearing Sam and Ben have discussions like these.
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.
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.
(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 :)
“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.
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?
Massive respect for both of these dudes! Great back and forth...they obviously respect each other as well.
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 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
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
I couldn't stop thinking that Dr. Strange was going to come through that wall.
Denzel Washington from Philadelphia: "explain to me, like I'm 4 years old".
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.
Sam Harris has always been one of the very best clear thinkers today. He points out the obvious and no matter how you defend the obvious flaw, like slavery, you can't get it out of the mud however way you want to because you can't unsee what Sam has just obviously pointed out. Clear thinking with no BS... I like that. Does it depend on what I mean when I say BS? 😂
Until one realizes that Sam doesn't deserve to take any moral highground and he has a worse alternative system.
@@RA-ie3ss Why is that so? I can't see him taking a moral highground because anybody can make a theory where it comes from, so just because you don't like the alternative you go on to say he's taking a high ground? If that's so then everyone is guilty of taking the high ground by just trying to make their own theory of their own moral landscape... Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you get to claim that he is intending to place himself above anyone else who has a different idea about where morality comes from
@@lauderdalerobite3549 That makes no sense man
@@RA-ie3ss enlighten me
@Lauderdale Robite Implicit in criticism is the idea that you are not a hypocrite and you follow the principles you have set out. There is always a moral claim on oneself when they critique others.
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.
Mr. Shapiro, thank you for having people on your platform who have different views. And thank you for pushing back on the slavery issue. As a black man and a pastor of an international congregation with the majority of my congregation in Liberia, I have a heightened awareness of this subject as it refers to the Bible. I would like Mr. Harris's take on what God says in Exodus. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death.
:Exodus 21:16 ESV::
Regretfully this passage seems to get overlooked often by people who say that the Bible supported slavery and in our Western context we are generally talking about the forced slavery of the Americas. Also, there is a lack of understanding of what indentured servitude was in the Old Testament (which many times is translated as slavery in the Bible and is not the same as what we think of as slavery in the West) and not taking into account the Sabbath year, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh, he shall go free without payment" (Exodus 21:2). "If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, he shall serve you six years; and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you" (Deuteronomy 15:12). Not to mention Jubilee that happened every 50 years.
Thanks again!
Exactly. It’s amazing how much “intellect” can sometimes get in the way of real knowledge of God. I think sometimes one of the biggest hindrances to obeying God is thinking we are smarter than Him. Also, I think the creation argument is much better than morality lately because the Bible is very clear of our nature apart from God. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Creation speaks more soundly I think and I think of passages like “The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of His hands”. To argue that we are somehow more moral is not necessarily the best idea as sometimes we are found by God very broken and it takes time to change. The world does not understand imputed righteousness and obedience through faith or sanctification where we are being made more and more into the image of Christ. Also, Paul gives instruction to leaders to remember that they serve a God who will hold them accountable in the way they treat their servants. Anyway, God bless you, brother.
@@silas7633 Thank you Silas.
That passage only condemns stealing someone else’s slave, NOT slavery itself. In fact, that statement presupposes slavery as normal and humans as property. Read it more carefully x
@@silas7633 read my comment. He doesn’t get that passage
You can’t “steal a man” unless he’s already someone else’s property!!! You have totally misinterpreted this Bible passage. Sorry to have to inform you!
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'.
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.
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.
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?
I thoroughly enjoy both Sam and Ben's thought process.
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.
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.
Two of my favorites finally having a discussion. Next I’d like to see Ben and Richard Dawkins.
What a nice respectful and insightful conversation. Glad to have watched it.
One of the few people who has a higher intellect than Ben, you can see it by how Ben treats Sam, very respectful
An elephant has a higher intellect than Ben
you must be joking, sadly i dont think you are
Bravo for an honest interview with an honest thinker about religion.
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!!
Galileo was a believer himself. Just because “Christian’s” have abused the truth, doesn’t make it not true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Morality is just normal socialization. Over time people learn that respect and cooperation generally tends to produce better outcomes for all than selfish, short-term conflict. It starts with family and spreads to extended family and then local group and outwards. Many animals display compassion, cooperation, altruism, and grief.
"Morality is just normal socialization." No its not. I would expect that after 50 years you would stop saying this debunked theory.
"Over time people learn that respect and cooperation generally tends to produce better outcomes for all than selfish, short-term conflict." The consequences don't make something moral or immoral. In fact, we got rid of any social expectations on people to not cheat, to not be obese, or not do drugs. We are also in the process of making men unmasculine and women unfeminine. Try counting how many societies did that and didn't decline and fall apart.
"It starts with family and spreads to extended family and then local group and outwards. " All of which declines in atheism.
"Many animals display compassion, cooperation, altruism, and grief." You are describing morality but you aren't succeeding to establish morality yourself.
A mother Tiger can love and care for her cubs, But also kill and eat them when she has no food, Religion gives us a reason to be moral, without religion we’d be disrespectful, murder, selfish, and act like wild animals
@@RenzaissanceTV : Do you often have to be reminded not to "be disrespectful, murder, selfish, and act like a wild animal."? I doubt it. I don't and have not felt such compulsions.
Among the least religious in the world, Scandinavians are also the happiest, freest, and most prosperous.
@@RenzaissanceTV If that was true then countries like Japan, Denmark, and Sweeden would be a sesspool of violence and anarchy since they are predominantly athiests. And they are some of the happiest countries on the planet.
@@lrvogt1257 You have to be reminded because morality is not natural in animals, To sit here and use an example of your self today and say you feel no such compulsions is ridiculous, considering you are grown pass the point of fully understanding morals you where taught as a kid, If you was born and was taught by your mother that being rude is right, murder is right, and acting like a wild animal is right, you will grow up thinking those are the right morals, I’m pretty sure your parents didn’t do that did they?? Exactly, we only can act morally because the standard set years way back in history, along with written records of morals and practices, also called religion, You validated my point, Scandinavians where influenced with morals by people with religion, through there ancestors and the world around them,
i like to think morality comes from an attempt by human beings to reduce negative emotion
I think we certainly want to avoid suffering, and the way to achieve that often includes not causing suffering to those around us. It's cooperation.
@@sibco96 you can also reduce suffering by being a predator and making your enemies suffer. Romans did this quite well.
Problem is that all your "rational" morality just boils down to rationalizing the moral values you already hold, which are judeo-christian in origin.
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.
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 problem with relying on philosophical and social morality instead of teaching morality through religious means is that the public school system doesnt encourage this form of learning until AFTER a child formative years of learning, ie elementary and middle school and most parents are too busy keeping the family functioning to take on the responsibility of engraining positive morality when their children are sponges
That’s the problem. If you have kids you must MAKE the time to raise them correctly. Counting on schools or the state in any fashion is the problem in the first place. Don’t delegate parental responsibility to the state. Thought that was common sense.
What is there to teach about morality from the religious perspective other than a set of commands? The commands that society continues to value today are already ingrained in our law and children learn of the basics from a young age.
@@singed8853 Agreed. The legal system is also tweaked and updated with new data, refining what is right and wrong. This is a cyclical relationship with culture.
if u do things to this day u were merely taught as a child means ur still childish. grow up, think for urself and figure what the right then to do is and do it. i was taught this as a child is not an excuse.
@@singed8853 And what are societies built on? Ben mentioned this. You seem to forget how societies are built and the fact that society isn’t it’s own entity. Society is a COLLECTION of individuals and built on ideas as the foundation.
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?
This is an important conversation, and if Islam is going to be brought into the picture numerous times, perhaps the most reasonable thing to do would be to invite a Muslim to contribute to the conversation. Sam Harris is intelligent and well-spoken, so people listen when he speaks and believe what he has to say often without question. Just because he can pull out a historical fact here and there does not mean that he is an expert nor does it mean that what he's saying it presented within the appropriate context. For such a meditative, seemingly self-aware, and smart individual, Harris's biases towards Islam and Muslims are blatant and they completely oppose his logical and reflective approach to nearly every other topic.
Though Harris is an atheist, it is clear that both Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro have deep Zionist-nationalist convictions and this unfortunately colors everything they have to say about the Middle East and Islam.
You are wrong in thinking his bias is against Muslims, it is against the Almighty Creator of the universe. These men think they are smarter than God himself, wise in their own minds. I am smart enough to know we don't have all the answers, humble enough to believe HE does.
Sam is extremely knowledgeable of Muslim texts. He talks constantly with Muslims on other videos.
@@ShaneKnockItOff they tend to bring on "ex Muslims" and similar types.
They've never brought on a traditional Muslim. Nor will they.
@@ShaneKnockItOff compare this to Jordan Peterson who brought 2 (actual) Muslim guests on this year (Mohammed Hijab & Hamza Yusuf), even though it took years of basically begging him to do so.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Ben: ''Facts and logic!''
Also Ben: ''So, let's pretend facts and logic don't exist when I don't like the reality'' :D
Which claim did Ben make that was non-factual? What, non-logical claim did he make?
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
Wouldn’t it just be Christmas morning if you and Sam had more of these conversations! Truly insightful stuff
Sam switched very quickly from trying his best to not give religious people any credit for basically anything especially science to saying at one point every scientist was religious (including Newton) and there was just no one else to do the job.
Saying every scientist was religious doesn't give religion any credit at all. It simply demonstrates a human trait, that it's possible to simultaneously have rational and irrational beliefs.
Newton's life was ruined by religion and its true that atheism and rejecting god beliefs has only been around as long as the church has not been strong enough to rule over atheists. Get over it, you lost.
@@toby9999 do me a favor and go read what those scientists wrote about their beliefs before you spout this nonsense
@@MrTheclevercat tell me you don’t know human history without telling me
@@MrTheclevercat Atheists are dying out since they tend to not have many kids if any lol
Ben Shapiro Otherwise: Facts dont care about your feelings
Ben Shapiro on religion: Feelings dont care about your facts
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
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.
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.
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
Great video, I'm on Sam's side on this but really appreciated the civil discourse. Only problem I had was that the video ended, will scoot over to the full interview:D
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.
I love Sam Harris. Always have, always will.
Ancient Indian texts, much older than any other, talk about morality much better than any other.
these juice are usually ignorant of Hindu/Buddhist thought but Sam Harris has studied it and yet doesn't correct shapiro who's a fundamentalist. no surprise tbh but these clowns are just chasing their tails.
Where does morality come from?
@Trust The Truth, from our understanding of dynamics between each other, leads to the most harmonious way to experience this life. That understanding gives birth to our morals.
@@Jeyakumar-hs9zr Achieve perfection and balance according to what standard? If morality is subjective, there is no way to measure progress and no standard. To measure progress, means there has to be a standard to compare to.
@@CJCHANNI from our understanding of dynamics between each other leading to a harmonious way of living.
So, when Hitler, according to his moral scope murdered millions of Jews, this was understanding the dynamics between both cultures and making it more harmonious?
I agree with Sam on most of this, but I really like the fact they are able to discuss this in a calm and rational way.
Ben is anything but calm in almost all his videos - yet him talking quietly with Harris on their narrow perception of morality is enough for comments like this to show up on every video. Please link me some mainstream videos where it isn’t calm and rational so I can finally understand where this is coming from.
what would you expect from them? to spit on each others faces?!?!?
@@rayd9639 LOL, anything but calm in most his videos? You're delusional, he is almost universally a calm. He just talks fast, so you may be misinterpreting his affect
@@MrGgabber he’s calm except for his fast intense talking, hyper-partisanship, and anger towards leftist strawmen.
@@rayd9639 Well he talks fast, always. That doesn't mean he isn't calm. Just because you cant keep up. You also can't name a strawman so I'll dismiss that nonsense. I assume you just threw out a fallacy you heard about in your freshmen ethics class.
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.
I don't think morality comes from religion, but religion has done a good job of putting it together. I think of it like university, they've compiled everything so people can learn easier, but it doesn't mean that you can't learn how to be an accountant on your own for example, it will just be harder finding the relevant documentation relating to the field you want to work on.
Good point 👍
That's what someone says who wants to have their cake and eat it too..
Without religion it's something that becomes a very wavering proposition. Look at our society now. Everyones lives are so much better and easier that more people reject religion but what are they going to do when civilization cracks again because of the loss of religious morals? Let's be clear here, that's what's happening right now. People aren't atheists, they are anti religion. They are going out of their way to say they don't believe in certain religions even though everyone in the west lives a semi religious life and celebrates religious holidays. If we were still struggling to live everyday we'd all be praying. In 2022 to be anti religion is trendy, it's edgy, it's cool... it's also lazy. It's like a man saying he doesn't listen to Taylor Swift because it's embarrassing when in reality whenever they have the radio on they listen to Taylor Swift or Katy Perry.
@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.
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?
The term 'Dark Ages' was coined by an Italian scholar named Francesco Petrarch. Petrarch, who lived from 1304 to 1374, used this label to describe what he perceived as a lack of quality in the Latin literature of his day.
Yeah and the 1200s were not "dark ages". The dark ages are from the fall of the Western Roman Empire til about 1000 at the LATEST.
@@shadowthehedgehog3113 and were not so "dark" as we are told. many innovations then. and no! do not ask me to show them, just watched a doc on it last week and have not had time to research.
I am a christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God and I have a profound respect and admiration for Sam Harris. He's using his faculties to find truth and we as human beings should work together to find it. Great debate.
I truly wish there were more Christians like you.
So you are okay with Slavery?
@@dodumichalcevski Many people are enslaved to things and they have no idea they are. Booze, smart phones, etc.
@@theboombody
So ?
Is it okay ?
You were probably indoctrinated during childhood like the vast majority of religious people. Its sad that you people grow up continuing to believe the childish garbage dogma..and fail to reason no matter what anyone says, does or evidence they show you. Poor people of faith..so delusional and gullible. It really is astounding that we have to tell you to grow up
The backlash against Galileo was NOT due to the Church's outright rejection of his views on religious grounds, it was due to Galileo's assertion that his observations WERE the truth, and all others were false, which created obvious political problems for the Church; potentially reducing their political power. The church was very happy to allow Galileo's views to be published and compete against OTHER views of the time. Their issue was Galileo's insistence his view was the TRUE view. Their response was not really motivated by a religious objection, but more so a political one.
Religion is politics by another name.
@@alanmill793And thats why denying it is foolish
@@RA-ie3ss RA, That's not a sensible comment. Try saying something worthwhile if you can't say anything sensible.
You are confusing deny with reject.
The existence of religion is not denied by me. The existence of the totalitarian politics of religion is not denied by me. They are clearly visible. As I have repeatedly told you, I reject totalitarian politics, be they secular or religious. But then you knew all that.
Your alleged god does not have to exist for religion to exist and for the totalitarian politics of religion to be put into practice.
Hinduism exists and totalitarian Hindu politics exists and is practiced, yet you think there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of the Hindu gods, otherwise you'd be a Hindu.
"Social living is not necessary"
Try telling us something worthwhile, such as refuting the necessity of social living by explaining how new born baby RA could survive to become a toddler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can’t do it can you as you know social living is necessary.
Using your logic, breathing is merely beneficial.
And explain how Christianity grounds moral obligation on obeying the alleged commands of your alleged god by explaining why everyone ought to obey your alleged god, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny.
You still have to refute the secular grounding of moral obligation in the necessity of social living and still have to demonstrate that Christianity can ground moral obligation on obeying your alleged god’s alleged laws by explaining the prior obligation that people allegedly have to your alleged god. Can’t do it can you.
@@alanmill793 “RA, That's not a sensible comment. Try saying something worthwhile if you can't say anything sensible.” Well, you were almost wise.
“You are confusing deny with reject.” Both applies, there is no meaningful difference.
“The existence of religion is not denied by me.” Your actions prove otherwise.
“ The existence of the totalitarian politics of religion is not denied by me. They are clearly visible. As I have repeatedly told you, I reject totalitarian politics, be they secular or religious. But then you knew all that.” Flaws in religion certainly exist which we can acknowledge and rectify, atheism on the otherhand is worse
“Your alleged god does not have to exist for religion to exist and for the totalitarian politics of religion to be put into practice.” Doesn’t matter
“Hinduism exists and totalitarian Hindu politics exists and is practiced, yet you think there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of the Hindu gods, otherwise you'd be a Hindu.” They aren’t perfect, they are better than atheism though.
“Try telling us something worthwhile, such as refuting the necessity of social living by explaining how new born baby RA could survive to become a toddler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can’t do it can you as you know social living is necessary.” We don’t as a society consider it necessary and we don't need to promote it. Just like with parenthood, people may have come from it but it is not necessary for people to become parents. Thats why you are failing to maintain communities. Your fundamental assumption is wrong. I can lecture you again about how communities form but you would still dodge making moral claims and the fact that their bonds are moral and spiritual.
“Using your logic, breathing is merely beneficial.” Take it up with society.
“And explain how Christianity grounds moral obligation on obeying the alleged commands of your alleged god by explaining why everyone ought to obey your alleged god, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny.” People have free will and therefore can choose between good and evil. You will not find a good moral system which people can’t deny and to the extent you do, it will be garbage and insufficient.
“You still have to refute the secular grounding of moral obligation in the necessity of social living and still have to demonstrate that Christianity can ground moral obligation on obeying your alleged god’s alleged laws by explaining the prior obligation that people allegedly have to your alleged god. Can’t do it can you.” Why do you challenge me when you should know by now that the immediate next step is to point to the poor results of your ideology? Historically and currently.
@@RA-ie3ss “Well, you were almost wise.”
That would still put me a billion light years ahead of you, RA.
Your gish galloping deflection tangents don't hide the fact that you are still dodging the issues at the heart of the claims you and Christianity make.
"Social living is not necessary"
To demonstrate that, you have to explain how new born baby RA could survive to become a todler, then a child, then an adult who uses social media, without living socially with other people. Can't do it can you. Your failure to explain this is an admission by you that social living is necessary.
Christians who are way more learned and far wiser than you acknowledge that the only way to ground moral obligation on Christianity is by obeying your alleged god's alleged commands.
Free will does not ground moral obligation. And its existence is denied by people left, right and centre.
Try again. You keep dodging grounding moral obligation on Christianity by continuing to fail to explain, using a reason I can't dismiss out of hand or deny, why everyone ought to obey your alleged god. Can't do it can you.
Your failure to explain these issues and then deflecting to an irrelevant tangent when challenged to substantiate your claims is an admission that you lack wisdom.
I read this as "molarity" and was ready for Ben and Sam to have a discussion about foundational concepts in chemistry.
if i was a christian i would stay well clear of morality......i will have assumed my opponents have read the bible
@@paulrichards6894 Neither of them are Christians? I don’t really understand your comment.
@@bensisko617 he is a jew.(shapiro)....so hasnt even got the get out of jail card jesus to fall back on
sam harris is an atheist...i was really referring to shapiro
@@bensisko617 taken from his wikipedia page...ben practises orthodox judaism
The idea that the Enlightenment of human rights and science came from studying Antiquity is a really poor argument to make if you wish to be historically accurate. And if you wish 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 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.
Yeah but isnt it rooted in the renaissances "revival" of the various aspects of "rational thought" which gave fruition to northern Europes advances.
@@Baghuul The Renaissance gave us some mathematics and good theories, but the rational mind is not the source of the spirit of science that birthed the modern world.
The people of Antiquity worshipped the mind, to such a degree that in Athens many of the smartest philosophers saw the act of proving their theories with practical observational testing as of a lower level of evidence than to the Rhetoric that the mind can create to rationalise a theory. IE: what the Greeks gave us is maths, a few theories, and a heaping pile of sophistry.
The actual source to all of the scientific developments in the Late Medieval period happened outside of the influence of the Renaissance in Northern Europe.
What inspired these people to seek out knowledge and to test its validity against observation and falsifiability was the pursuit to understand God.
While the Italians were exploring Greek Rhetoric, the British, Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians were exploring the physical world. This came about because they developed a new philosophy: They determined that to better understand God's word they had to better understand God. The leap was made that since God made the universe then one should be able to understand God through understanding the universe.
This gave birth to a genuine pursuit of trying to understand the universe as it is so as to understand God as he is. Therefore this naturally gave rise to the scientific method.
The humanitarianism values were essentially a mixture of this method and its interpretations of scripture combining with Northern Europe's individualistic value set that was derived from the European tribes that were never conquered by Rome.
@@Baghuul I think there are some limitations to rational thought. Dostoyevsky sums this up perfectly saying, "It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently." Dostoyevsky was writing at a time where a love of rational thought had seemingly won born from the Age of Enlightenment and Darwinism. Problem was Dostoevsky soon realized the limitations of rational thought and he and Nietzsche both realized that so-called rationalists would try to usher in their own forms of morality aka. communism - utopia - and fascism - utopia. Both D and N were worried about the 20th century and it turns out they were right.
@@lassyduckie8830 I'm pretty sure that's why we have the whole concept of the Golden triangle, and why we wish to be affected by the morals of other peaceful religions ( basically if a communist would pick on it, it counts ) To have faith, you have to have the freedom to practice it, to have freedom, you have to have good virtues to make sure you get along with your neighbor, which come from faith. So it interlocks.
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!
Ben says the bible had to have slavery in it because it’s universal behaviour that is condoned everywhere. Sam provides evidence of a religion where it is not condoned and Ben attacks that religion for its lack of followers. The point was not about Jainism’s influence but about slavery being a necessity in the bible because it’s condoned everywhere. He’s not responding to what Sam is saying and just shifting the focus onto an irrelevance.
Morals come from empathy, empathy comes from our intelligence, “I wouldn’t like that if it happened to me, it looks like it doesn’t feel good”… Some people lack empathy, certain emotions can overwhelm and completely block out empathy and sometimes some people NEED to ignore it to make certain decisions..
but why should I care that if that happened to me I wouldn't like that? Why should I value empathy over other emotions? If I could just ignore others pain and be happier wouldn't that be logical to do? empathy only works if you have faith in a higher meaning and a higher righteousness.
@NT
You are missing the point being made by the previous comment.
The question is “why should I care?”. What is illogical about me wanting the end of societies and civilizations?
There is nothing about mere rationality or intelligence that logically leads to morality.
Without an objective frame of reference and ultimate meaning (which theism would claim to be God), everything we do is reduced to subjectivism.
Everyone becomes logical and rational in pursing whatever it is they desire, even if that includes the death of everyone else.
@NT
_read my comment again and try thinking this time_
Taking cheap shots will not help you make your point or have a productive conversation. Stop being childish.
This was your comment;
_empathy comes from intelligence because the absence of empathy leads to children getting hurt or killed in the rush and it leads to fighting and death. So empathy has a huge practical purpose of ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society_
In summary, you were making the point that empathy is intelligible because it has practical purposes, like _ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society_
The problem with that is that you have already assumed that "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" is a good thing and should be desired. You have already assumed an objective moral standard that can't be justified from mere intelligence.
Let’s assume "Mr A" sees "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" as a good thing and desires it and so is empathic to those around him as he understands that this is a practical way to realize his desire.
Let’s assume that "Mr B" doesn't see "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" as a good thing or relevant thing and so doesn’t care about being empathic to those around him.
My question to you is how can you argue that Mr A is being logical and rational/intelligible while Mr B is not?
Without an objective moral frame of reference, it seems to me that Mr A and Mr B are both rational and intelligible.
You might argue that we are biologically hardwired through evolution to survive and ensure the survival of our species and so "ensuring a stable healthy sustainable society" is in our nature and that can serve as the objective frame of reference to build our morality from.
The problem is there are a lot of ways to achieve that goal that don't involve any sort of morality or empathy. For example, one could desire the survival and thriving of a certain group of people and might realize that killing other groups is the most practical way to do so, a brief glance at history should provide multiple scenarios of this. Would that also count as moral?
Simply being hardwired to desire a certain thing doesn’t lead to morality or empathy in anyway, as morality isn’t just about final outcomes but also the processes involved in realizing the outcome.
@@charlesudoh6034 just because there are many different way to achieve ou hard wired survival goal, doesn't mean they are all equally successfull.
You don't need a reason to value emphaty. You are either empatic or not. You either care about bejng moral or not. There is no universal trascendental duty that forces you to be coherent, empathic or moral.
It doesn't change the fact that morality is based on emphaty.
@@marco_mate5181
_just because there are many different ways to achieve our hard wired survival goal, it doesn't mean they are all equally successful_
I agree. This actually proves my point because I would argue that the less empathic way most times seems to be more efficient, yet we still insist on the moral and empathic approach. This leads one to believe that there is a more fundamental factor at play than simply to acheive our hard wired survival goals.
God gave us free will, wether it be bad or evil, it’s OUR decision.
Debatable
lol yeah so simple I understand everything now thank you
So then prayer is useless
Gotcha.
Prove it. Prove that any god exists and that our "free will" came from there.
@@jimlovesgina faith my friend.
Love how they give each other room to speak and get their thoughts out. Bravo 👏
A significant reason most people cannot have civilized debates is because of cognitive dissonance, and close mindedness because of not wanting to be uncomfortable through cognitive dissonance.
Cognition is simply thinking and reasoning. It is the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, reason, analysis of information, and experience. Dissonance means a tension or clash that results from disharmonious or contradictory components.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence introduced to that person. To reduce the psychological discomfort, the person will have to change either their mind or their behavior so that the inconsistency or contradiction is resolved, thus restoring mental balance and emotional harmony. That is, cognitive consonance.
Hence, people continually reduce their cognitive dissonance to align their beliefs with their actions, thereby maintaining psychological consistency and feeling less mental stress.
The cognitive dissonance of religious people is astounding
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.
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.
Survival of the fittest includes increased empathy. Modern human brains show larger brain cavities than other human species, in the area of empathy.
As an example, say intense cold creates the need for more communal cooperation & an increased need for awareness of young offspring to increase the species chances of continuing. The development of “morality”, a sense of responsibility for All people on a basic level, is easily explained by evolutionary needs imo. I think we can all agree inhuman behavior is “evil”.
@chriscuomo9334 pessimism. Valid stance.
@chriscuomo9334
When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
@chriscuomo9334
You say that *_"God has put morality in our hearts"_* but there are several rather obvious problems with this assertion. Firstly if that were indeed the case then we would all regard the *SAME* "God" to be moral and regard the *SAME* scriptures and the laws they contain to be "moral," this is most certainly NOT the case.
Most people do NOT think it immoral for a female to uncover her hair in public or to not face a specific landmark and pray five times a day. Most people in the world are just fine with eating bacon, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and even picking up sticks on any day of the week.
We do NOT think that our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) are deserving of the death penalty and we recognise that an instruction to _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ could never represent guidance from a perfect omnibenevolent unifying moral standard.
We do however all have commonly held values found the world over irrespective of which religion or NO religion. These value all conform with our ideas about human wellbeing. As previously stated they are the basis for our ethical and legal systems the world over and for the most part it is only the concept of SIN ( perceived transgressions against the whims of subjective invisible beings ) that the disagreement occurs.
Im not speculating here or just giving you my "opinion" the above is all *FACT* regardless of the existence or non existence of ANY "God". Given this, should humanity adhere and aspire to the common values that unite us all and have real impacts on real people here in the real world. ?
Alternatively should we continue on trying to impose the perceived whims of our own subjectively determined invisible "one true God" that divide humanity and have no positive impact on wellbeing that can't also be attained via secular morality ??
Come on surely we are better than this, the sooner the world throws out like old furniture these gods and their barbaric religious ideological baggage the better.
@chriscuomo9334
I suggest you read the paper entitled *"The Evolution Of Morality" - Evolution Education and Outreach* it goes into great depth on the subject. It cites multiple studies and research papers across a variety of social species. It is rather lengthy but well worth the read and gets more interesting and informative as it goes on.
It gives multiple examples of the traits and values we associate with morality ( equality, fairness, altruism, empathy ect ) that can all be found throughout the animal kingdom. For example frequently animals will show displeasure at the unequal distribution of food amongst the group ( *even when it favours them individually* )
One study involved two dogs kept separated but in view of each other. Every time dog *A* ate food dog *B* received an electric shock. Once dog *A* realised and associated his eating with the other dog suffering pain it would then refuse to eat, even to the point of starvation. This was repeated multiple times with other groups if animals
*Scientific America* also have an informative article entitled "The Origins of Human Morality" and there are many many others from the likes of MIT out there if you are really interested. Though I appreciate it involves hundreds of studies and thousands of pages of data.
Do you have ANYTHING observable, testable, repeatable, falsefiable that's comparable and indicative of our moral status actually being the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being called Yahweh?? 🤔
@chriscuomo9334
Do we "contemplate" the gathering of sticks to be or have ever been an offence deserving of capital punishment dependant upon which specific day of the week its done. ?? 🤭😅
Morality comes from empathy. I don't see why we need more than this.
1. Empathy is just a vague and unreliable feeling
2. Morality doesn't come from it alone
3. Our attempts to orient society and morality around your beliefs instead of religion has yielded social and moral decline.
@@RA-ie3ss Morality is also vague and unreliable.
Generally however, our empathy with others allows us to experience their pain.
This understanding is the root of our morality.
It is also the reason why we can identify subjective goodness in certain religeous texts for example.
Which period in history do you suggest had less social and moral decline ? I can't think of one.
@@Hemebean "Morality is also vague and unreliable." Doesn't matter what your argument is. People who share moral assumptions with each other are people who can form a civilization. Empathy is not enough. 2 strangers with empathy is very rare and doesn't work. This is what history suggests.
"Generally however, our empathy with others allows us to experience their pain. " Most of the time, people need a why to be empathetic. I know you have plenty of theories of why things should be working. Atheists often do. Their not though. People are less empathetic for those who are highly different from them.
"This understanding is the root of our morality." No its not. If it was we would not be experiencing social and moral decline.
"It is also the reason why we can identify subjective goodness in certain religeous texts for example." Religious texts have objectively good principles.
"Which period in history do you suggest had less social and moral decline ? I can't think of one." Get your head out of the sand. Male and female relationships, communities, and kids are examples of social decline.
@@RA-ie3ss Your arguments are not substatiated. How do you explain the morals of atheists ?
Also, my head is not in the sand. I can see there are problems today but there are far less than there were at any other time in history. Today, at least in the West, most women have equal rights, there is far les slavery, I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake for witchcraft, I'm a free man, I can vote in democratic elections. Which period in history do you imagine was better or more morally sound ?
@@Hemebean "Your arguments are not substatiated. How do you explain the morals of atheists ? " There are several things which can indicate and explain morals of atheists just like any collective group, research and studies, observations, popular figures in their community like the 4 horsemen or dillahunty, and their collective actions. Usually Atheists are liberal progressives who are moral relativists.
"Also, my head is not in the sand. I can see there are problems today but there are far less than there were at any other time in history. " This is how I know you aren't basing your assessment on what history indicates as actual problems and rather just on your or an ideology. Is there self sufficient systems in place? Are people happy? Are men and women forming relationships at sufficient rates? Is the culture united?
"Today, at least in the West, most women have equal rights, there is far les slavery, I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake for witchcraft, I'm a free man, I can vote in democratic elections." None of these are objective or fundamental problems which threaten society but I do have more factual and objective problems which do make society unsustainable. In other words you can have a society without feminism or democracy and things can still be sustainable but not the things I said.
"Which period in history do you imagine was better or more morally sound ?" Most of history.