To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Skeptic/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Remove the supernatural and mystical claims from religious doctrine and what remains is, essentially, philosophy. Philosophy can be inspected, rejected, accepted, corrected or neglected, without the fraudulent promise of a celestial reward or the devious threat of eternal punishment.
@@markrichter2053 If what you outlined is accurate, those areas would be malevolent examples of philosophy. Likewise, someone else may look at other areas of scripture and find philosophical axioms worth adopting. In either case, however, once the metaphysical woo-woo is extracted, religion becomes just another analytical argument.
30:09 “…what religious credences are supposed to do is define your group identity. It actually helps to have ones that are a bit irrational or incoherent, or maybe, even, false.” Professor Van Leeuwen claims the outlandish elements of religion are intended to serve an essential purpose. Along those same lines, may it also be construed that any big name religion must also feature an omniscient, omnipotent central character as its superior deity? For, what is distinctive and influential about any religion if its supreme, infallible god can’t intervene in the everyday lives of its vulnerable and naive human subjects?
You’re right about the serious conflict between young earth creationism and empirical thought! I mean, it’s insane. I have friends in their 60s. The husband is a highly trained and capable geologist, statistician and computer programmer with a successful career in industry behind him and his wife is a really smart biologist and chemists with equally impressive career in science behind her. They are bright, interesting, humane and thoroughly decent people. And yet, at the exact same time they both maintain what I would describe as profoundly irrational conservative evangelical beliefs about the origin of the universe, the inerrancy of scripture, miracles, etc. But when I wanted to ask questions about young earth creationism with him or evolution with her they just shut down the conversation. And when I left the church because of its non affirmative stance on lgbtqia issues and the harm it was doing to people I knew, far from getting on board and seeing the absurdity and toxicity in the theology, they doubled down and tried to bring me back into the fold. They were so identified with the ideas that they took personal offence when I told them that I thought it was toxic and harmful. It’s really like they held two completely opposing worldviews in their minds simultaneously. Their faith was acting like a powerful cognitive dissonance facilitator. Faith enables compartmentalisation, which keeps the conflicting worldviews within one mind to collide. It protects against cognitive dissonance by creating a context within which it’s possible to hold views that are objectively absurd. “What was happening at Sandy Hook?..I was breaking the spell “
@@blindwatchmaker2345 first cause, source of information, why there is something rather than nothingness, cosmological constants, why the laws of nature exists, abiogenesis (probably), why matter and anti-matter where the same at the beginning, free will is real ? , what is primordial between consciousness and matter ? what happens after we die ? what is consciousness ? and another 50 maybe ...
"Religion wouldn't be around if it wasn't useful." Does that logic apply to criminality or other negative behavior? ...There's lots of things that are around...that's doesn't mean some of those are useful for humanity's overall well being. Robbing a bank is useful to pay bills. Should we respect bank robbers?
Criminals are acting from a POV of thier own short term goal. That is in many cases detrimental to overall health or group benefit. But that individual POV is successful enough to perpetuate the behaviour. The short term gain is functional for that individual. On the short term. Thats enough for the system.
In the case of criminality I think the big reason why it continues to propagate is due to small genetic differences that create the odd psychopath. It's genetic unavoidability, as of now.
Of course religion is make believe but so are borders, patriotism, political ideology, and money. None of these exist in nature. They are purely social constructions that have utility. In that same sense God exists.
What do you mean don't exist in nature? As in the world without humans in it? Because borders certainly exist among thousands of species. So does tribalism and currency but not in the modern sense.
“Imagining that’s made serous by its connection with sacred values.” I like that a lot. I find that helpful in understanding my regions friends! I deconverted after nearly 6 decades of Christianity. My theology, as I understood it, was very liberal. But I was outraged by the scapegoating of queer folk in my faith community and I left the group in protest. It shocked me that my protest and the clear evidence that their behaviours were demonstrably harmful made not the slightest bit of difference to what they chose to belief. It was completely impervious to rational arguments or appeals to empathy and human decency. It was only a matter of a couple of years of non-attendance before I was able to look back and recognise that I had never actually believed most of the supernatural claims. Once I had the perspective to see this, all the vestiges of belief in the supernatural fell away in a moment. I remember it well. It was such a relief! I’m now so much happier and more at peace with myself and the world. Though it has to be said that it took a woman priest ordained in the Anglican Church who maintains completely LGBTQ affirmative theology to agree with my critique to really help me heal from the trauma of seeing my gay brothers and sisters othered and abused in this way. My heart breaks that my dear gay friends are traumatised to such an extent that I doubt they’ll ever trust a Christian again, and so such a healing may not be available for them from anyone with faith.
40:20 I've been saying this myself! It doesn't make any fkn sense to tell the people in Plato's cave they're at a puppet show IF they already KNOW they're at a puppet show, and they went there voluntarily, and they're not chained up! They're just there because they like puppet shows! There's nothing inherently wrong with liking puppet shows, I have to say!
There's also a kind of juxtaposition where religious organisations choose a person to represent them that clearly does not represent their supposed values. The Evangelicals in the U.S has Trump as their 'chosen one'. He hasn't got a religious bone in his body and possesses personality traits that violate Evangelical, self declared moral values. It's like supposed Christian values are all fine, but moral exceptions are totally acceptable in exchange for political power.
Of course its make believe. How could it be anything else? That's not the question. The question is, does belief have utility, and for many people it does. So instead of arguing "truth" and people trying to redefine objective truth, let it fulfill its utility function unless it crosses over into public policy - that's why the founding fathers wanted separation between church and state. Clearly religion of some form has been created over and over in human history so it has clear evolutionary utility or it wouldn't be in in literally every culture. Personally, I have no use for religion at all, but recognize many people need some external anchor to set shared values and a sense of community and belonging. Because we are evolved for small tribes, our myths help bind our local tribe reinforcing the cohesion of the in-group and separate us from the "other" who have different norms and quite possibly other mythological narratives.
Yes, but chimps and humans both practice ethnic cleansing because it had an evolutionary function. Surely the key is, does this actually benefit modern society? Surely tribalism has a very dubious history and tends towards toxic behaviours, just to maintain the group identity.
@@markrichter2053 Oh, I agree totally. Its just important to understand where human behavior comes from - we can't just wish it away and no amount of logic and reason will change that because most human behavior is not rational. Question is, with the limits of human operation, what can we do to steer us away from our very limited nature? - People have used tribalism and religion to steer millions of people over time - no differently than flag waving and cheering for your sports team does.
First, religion provides explanation for a chaotic world and allaying fears of what cannot be controlled. And, at what point is a connection between 2 events coincidence, or "beyond coincidence?" There are books filled with the human experience of "miracles," A friend lost her balance on a log over a deep chasm. She prayed, "Lord, save me!" She felt hands on either side of her waist, which steadied her, then there no more. On the photographic film image her friend took, there is a semi-transparent golden man-sized being on the log behind her. She is highly private with this photo. I was alone in a room with a client,, and heard a voice next to me, "you will see her at the movies ( where I was planning to go to) tonight." She was not at the movie. She called my name across the parking lot, needing help to get into her car. A staff member and I prayed (outside of his earshot) for a highly agitated brainstem stroke victim of 7 years who was frustrated trying to communicate a message,, who could only move his eves for Y/N, and grunt and make unintelligible noises ( not even y/n) . 10 minutes later, he spoke perfectly intelligibility. A friend's (elderly) sister, crippled with arthritis and could not transfer or walk, sid she woke in the night to a warm glowing light in the room and saw a Being she felt was Jesus. The Being said, " would you like to walk?" She arose, pain free, not crippled, could walk and move, arthritis-free, for 3 months before she died after a brief coma. Sane people even in groups have observe ghost phenomenon, and anomalous photographs which may be paroidelia, but even enough that security agencies called the people's homes to say there was an intruder on their remote CCTV... My father in law, a a pre-teen boy became suddenly, inexplicably sick and did not ride with his friend on a jeep with soldiers (which he did commonly to the next Greman village) The jeep was strafed by enemy fire and his friend was hit and died. A woman has tremendous fear and dread when her husband decides suddenly to leave their vacation hotel and drive 2 hrs home to help a friend in need. She refuses to join him. On the way , his car was destroyed on the passenger side, flipped onto the roof by a lorry which crossed the centerline on a highway at high speed. He escaped an utterly destroyed vehicle without a scratch. She had never felt dread like this before. These are but a tiny part of the human experience, and I only mentioned a few of my own. People continue in the belief if a supernatural world when they or someone credible has witnessed coincidences time and again. The non-material does exist. It's called information. Matter is the place-holder of symbol, but the arrangement of symbol and its direct relational connection to something unrelated to the placeholders makes it "iinformation. " DNA (per Dawkins) holds digitally encoded information. It is encoded in base 64. Kilobytes are required for simple bacteria, humans, megabytes. Your "self," is immaterial. It is flows of currents and magnetic fields in, through, and around the brain and body. There is no physical "self" A television picture is immaterial, as it is a visual display of information, which, again, is not the ones and zeros, but the complex relationship between them. Time for science to get off its high horse of "explaining everything." It can, and tremendously well, explain a lot and use that knowledge to create. But time, gravity, the nature of energy and matter can only be described. Their essence is beyond human tampering. Should humans ever get to that essence, H bombs will look like children's playthings.
Reply to Glenlies "She is highly private with this photo" What an arrogant, disingenuous and laughably dishonest comment.😂 You should be ashamed of yourself, IF you're honest!
@@wakkablockablaw6025in the absence of ANY concrete evidence, yes it is pretend. The religious certainly don't want to label it pretend, but it doesn't take away the FACT that it is pretend.😊 Faith in a religious context is just that, pretending something is real, but isn't.😂
I've known religion is "just imagination" and that imagination involves a whole bunch of neurons for a few months now! I don't even have a degree! I did all my research at home! I was talking about this with people on The Line! Many theists who call in are afraid that their lives will lose all meaning if they stop believing in God, but their lives have plenty of meaning already! No belief in God required! But if we don't treat nature like it's sacred (in and of itself, but also because it created us!), we're gonna end up treating it like SHIT! Like we're doing now! So let's figure this shit out, people!
Great interview. This is a very compelling idea. While I have long thought that belief in a creator god, souls, etc. could be due to faulty introspection and reasoning on the part of religious people I could understand how it could come about. However, I never understood the leap from a belief in those things to upholding a particular religion. I think this answers it.
Humans so deeply crave meaning, answers, hope, and consolation that they’re susceptible to fantastical ideas. Much of it stems from fear of death. It’s also why “mediums” never run out of marks.
Very interesting. I still think Dawkins' case is airtight, though. In his book, he discusses at length one major reason (perhaps THE major reason) that people believe in religious ideas: childhood indoctrination. If you tell a child during its developmental years that something is of the utmost importance, he/she will likely carry that belief throughout life, regardless of what evidence there is against it. If the world's religions skipped a single generation of indoctrination, they would be all but done for, I bet.
Yep. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. While I started doubting and questioning very early in, I know it’s bs, here at 43 I still find my brain trying to hedge its bet just in case it was all right. Many people don’t get that far. They are unwilling or unable to see the Matrix.
@@jeffersonianideal The more science you comprehend, the more likely you are to believe in something. All of the fathers of modern theory, including Einstein, believed in a God for a reason.
Uncover an atheists personal trauma, and you’ll most likely discover the reason for their disbelief in a supernatural dimension or mysticism. Aka: WW2, Holocaust, Modernity
When the sacrifice you make for group identity involves young earth creationism, you just loose intellectual integrity. When the sacrifice you make is to see others as sub-human, then it’s the other group that bears the cost of your sacrifice. While you rise on the spurious moral high-ground.
Thank you Michael and Neil! Fantasy (such as The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. etc.) can be a lot of fun. Religious fantasy (such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) is not fun. What folks believe is interesting but it's rarely fun. Unfortunately, beliefs trump facts. One who believes in supernaturality (is that a word?) is wholly unaffected by facts.
I'm always amused by academics capacity to take a simple concept, which itself isn't deep on any level, in any aspect, and spend far too long discussing the fine details that don't exist, so just repeat themselves in different words. This was a fairly interesting discussion, but attempting to sound insightful isn't the same as being insightful
I agree. I feel like religion, aliens, ghost, mediums etc should be able to be debunked in much simpler terms. I amuse myself with just asking my wife and her mom (who are marks for religion and mediums) simple questions. If this is true, then why ___? Why not ___? Etc. I never run out of simple, critical thinking questions. This guy Neil is painfully long winded.
First of all, I don't take at face value anything a supposedly "religious" person tells me regarding a personal religion (in common with a congregation or not). It's only a personal claim. To see if they really believe it, I'm only going to look at how the person behaves empirically, and not base it only on what somebody says. The sort of conversation captured in this video explicitly recognizes this or fails a duty of inquiry. If I have to search through two hours of yakking in order to establish this, I'll just (let us say) remain skeptical that the conversation is worthwhile.
This conversation made me laugh so hard 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I enjoyed it so much. Especially the bit where he says that maybe having faith beliefs that are a bit irrational makes your group distinctive. And you think, yep, it’ll sure do that for ya! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 lovin it! 💪🤩 On a serious note though, isn’t this where evangelical fundamentalist Christianity goes so wrong? Because they make the category error of confusing religious beliefs and facts. And this is born out in weird manifestations of pseudo science where they will tie themselves in knots to “prove” creationism, like Ken Ham and his life size Ark extravaganza. Or is the whole thing still a really complex group-identity exercise?
35:41 we "worship the ancestors" too! We've just been worshipping the wrong ones for 10k years! We've been worshipping the greedy, cruel, stupid ones! Just 'cause they figured out they could gain more power for themselves by enforcing their greed, cruelness, and stupidity! 🙄
I think it can be different in different groups and individuals. it may differ over time and in relation to scientific knowledge. My parent's group were very literal. They believed the miracles literally, physically happened. They thought it was all scientific fact with evidence. They just thought that the Bible was trustworthy history and that they could verify it was true because of prophecies coming true such as the Jews returning to Israel. They had no patience with metaphorical truths. If you don't literally get to live forever there is no point believing it.
life world modelling is 'just making it up', conjoined with contact epistemology, a very special kind of imaginination called 'imaginality', where imagined models are pruned on the basis of the quality of their predictions. Religions don't need to eschew contact epistemology to maintain fidelity to ungrounded propositions in the form of revealed truths, but they most definitely need to ground them in contact epistemology. The ultimate leap of faith is that the world is actually intelligible, and that is the most wonderful thing of all, the greatest gift.
It’s so funny how UA-cam atheists in their critiques remain so respectful of believers ideas. It’s almost euphemistic when you talk about the faith frame vs the fact frame. And in my head I’m immediately going to, hay, maybe there’s also a bullshit frame! 😂
It's quite interesting that you differentiate "thought" from "belief". In a sense, it's quite demeaning to the believers because it assumes that there is no thought behind their actions regarding their religion. They are running on an operating system designed by some guy 2000 years ago and refusing to update their OS.
Religious belief is in many ways a flight from temporality. There could be other things like an impoverished culture of imagination in our time (maybe folklore, wild tales and the like serve a deeper need, from when we lived in villages). But I think it's likely the reluctance to embrace duration.
The human condition is wanting to know the answers to the big questions ..why are we here /where did the universe come from / is there meaning in existing ? Religions offer answers to these big questions . There will always be large groups that believe it .
Religious discussions with highly intelligent people are strange because the words the dominant hemisphere uses to describe the non-dominant hemisphere processes do not mean the same thing as the dominant hemisphere uses to describe itself. The religious world-view is a valid way of dealing with dat to day reality. Science is a valid way to address the world of technology. Atheism rejects hope, because there is none beyond persinal effort and fate. Religion provides meaningful gatherings, corporate givings, comfort of ceremony and ritual, hope of an afterlife. Leave religion (except radical islam) alone!
I think the marriage pact has parallels with faith. In faith there’s often a profound conversion or other spiritual experience that’s emotionally overwhelming and psychologically meaningful and on the strength of this I join the group, go through rituals and pretend to believe the unbelievable in order to demonstrate my group identity. Two people falling in love have similarly profound and overwhelming experiences that give them the oomph to enter into a pact of untruth about one another where they’ll avow certain things about the special qualities of the other that make them The One for them. This can be socially convenient because it protects their unique group identity which has important social and psychological functions, not least for stability for the nurturing of children.
I've had some in-depth discussions with people over the years I consider to be brilliant in their fields, who are also religious and they were odd discussions to me. It's as though they have two sets of logical criteria in their mind. One of them for everyday life, and another for their theology.
They do. Scientific thinking is dominant hemisphere functioning. Religious thinking is non-dominant hemisphere functioning. The words the verbal brain uses to explain its functioning are nonsense to the dominant hemisphere 's cognition. But they attempt to convey these processes. Read the first paragraph of the Tao te Ching and understand. They are not about nonsense.
A religion is lots of things. It's usually based around a charismatic individual with alleged supernatural powers. There's usually some parables. Instructions on how one should live ones life. Explanation of an afterlife. Explanation of the universe. The ability to call upon ones god or gods. And frequently used to control a population.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao had superpowers ? because millions of people gave their lives for them. And any explanation regarding "first cause of the universe" or "there is something after death" will ALWAYS be an assumption, and thats include materialists explanations.
@@francesco5581 I would differentiate between political leaders and religious leaders. Although they can share some of the same characteristics. Never said any of these assumptions or explanations are true. Just that they exist. I understand that individuals have a need to understand the world in which they live. But, it has always baffled me how easily people accept outrageous or illogical assumptions or conclusions just to fit into a group.
@@PhotoTrekr I agree, but we need also to consider how many consider themselves materialists because makes them look more cool, or are nerds who just watched The Big Bang theory....i was like that too when i was a teen... Or the science popularize-rs who have elected science to their God as they need to promote their work ... there is that allure of the pretty atheist hero ...
My critique is that this seems like a very modern view. When someone says I don’t believe in evolution there saying I don’t believe in the scientist who are making these conclusions. I don’t believe there trustworthy. It seems rather than people believing religious facts in an imaginary sense they just have more trust in the religious institution than the scientific. The person knows there pastor better than the guy on the scientific text book. We do the same if a scientist said that he found evidence that being gay was mostly cultural I think most people would fight against it.
Evolution is one of the most well tested and verified concepts in science which is substantiated with multiple lines of hard evidence. Religion on the other hand is purely a matter of faith and believing in hearsay with zero hard evidence to substantiate it. Your analogy about a scientist saying he found evidence that being gay is mostly cultural is not apt in my view because evolution is backed not by one scientist but by an overwhelming consensus of scientists from all around the world.
Dan Dennett would agree. If somebody doesn't believe in evolution because their pastor tells them, and their pastor is a good person who wouldn't lie. He's sort of sympathetic. But that pastor should be judged harshly for spreading lies when it's their business to know what they are talking about
@@sulljoh1 but beware, believing in evolution doesnt remove spirituality, the necessity of a first cause, or the need of information. Darwin wasnt an atheist.
This all seems to be pandering to the intellectually lazy and/or impressionable majority among us rather than to simply call out make believe as core prescriptions for life as the delusion that it is. Intellectual gymnastics not needed, just courageous critical thinking adults in the room. Rubbish should not be contorted into sensibleness. No issues with those who have an appreciation for mythology and stories from the past but a clear distinction between supernatural and reality must be present.
religion is all about our profound need to ground contact epistemology in 'ultimate concern', that life is relevant, and we and the ones we love are relevant.
It's really not complicated at all. Even if you don't believe in the truck that is in front of you, it's going to hit you. Hard. Religion is one of humanity's many tries to aspire to be more than it is. Which is a little & absolutely meaningless speck of dust in the giant desert of the universe.
All humans come to the questions raised by religion with their own belief systems, concepts, definitions of terms, and criteria for what or who God is, or isn't. Scientific thinking is dominant hemisphere functioning. Religious is non-dominant hemispheric processes. Words do well to communicate the scientific world view and its explanatory power. Words do not fully provide the means to explain the metaphoric aspects of relations observed by the non-dominant hemisphere. If weird things did not happen when people start practicing religion, they would stop. Some is observer bias. But, the rest is convincing enough to maintain the belief system.
Sadly, no - if it were many souls would feel more comfortable with it. Religion, per se, is a lived relationship, and a binding one at that = that which binds man to man (and all men to god/ gods, 'God', or, more logically, the concept < God > ). It is, like it or not, as much a part of humanity as breathing, moving, living, thinking, understanding .. and questioning (not all 'religions' therefore are the same, some take questions seriously, some make 'answers' more serious, and others deny all responsibility for pondering at all). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
Atheists claim Theists are irrational, therefore Theism is nonsense, yet Economic Behavioral studies prove all people, including Atheists, are irrational Economic actors.
This appears to be a Durkheimian approach toward explaining the late great Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria." That's fine, but what about the obvious political power in today's world of the Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim myth of the Final Battle and the Descent of the Divine Warrior?
Religion as a social organizing principle has been known for a long time. Perhaps there is more concrete data now to validate that, but it's not exactly new.
Only 1/3 through and enjoying. I wonder if he notes any difference in the way religious fundamentalists process these things vs more moderate religious people who may still even be relatively conservative and say they believe the stories but are less rigid about trying to somehow prove them empirically. I'm thinking of young earth creationist types, Ken Ham et al. in Christianity, or very fundamentalist muslims vs more moderate followers of Islam, etc. And then on down the scale to more liberal adherents of these same faiths who readily say they allegorize, metaphor-ize pretty much all of it
The definition of religion is: that to which we are bound. So, based on that definition atheists are religious as they are religiously bound to atheism.
Always makes me feel kind of angry - when it comes to religion and there is no evidence at all - just talking about a supernatural mind set without any evidence. Boring as hell.
Sort of like President Biden was not in cognitive decline until about 15 minutes before the debate. Before the debate everything was cheap fakes. After the debate, Biden needed to go for the good of the Democrats. Trump has no monopoly on lies. The Dems have proferred some doozies.
I find this a bit wrong on many levels 1) Did the atheist/materialist/socialist regimes of the 20th century teach nothing about how society can be diverted to believe in absurdities even without religion? 2) religion is institutionalized spirituality, therefore it is now only a path of one of the two main ways: Spirituality or Materialism 3)84% of the Nobel Prize winners in scientific subjects (study by an Israeli from a few years ago) were more or less spiritual/religious, so being so is not linked to the ability to discern between evidence and illusion 4) Do you really think that today's religious believe in Noah's ark? Religion is the crutch that reminds us of our spiritual roots. We must also know how to distinguish between allegory and reality 5) listening to you, doesn't it seem to you that in the end you are making the same speeches as certain religious circles? atheism seems really similar to a belief to me 6) Aren't the deeply religious and the deeply atheist just two small extremes of the population? 7) Spirituals now cannot be labeled as religious people who believe in Moses dividing the waters. Otherwise it becomes exaggerated, trivialized, conflicts are created just to have a market to exploit. 8) if one embraces one of the two main ideas about things being primordial between consciousness and matter, one always does so believing in something that can never be demonstrated in life. And the materialist position on this (i.e. believing that a complex universe exists by chance) is even more fanciful.
Interesting, so you approve of the trauma, fear of hell, burning for eternity, commanded to love something or someone you fear! I could go on but... Great job parenting 😢
Shermer is less agressive when it comes to arguing with believers. I feel it is all about how people interpret things. My school admission number is 45678. I dint give a damn about it. But people who are believers connect these things with supernatural. When I was a kid I saw strange things like gods in front of me after thinking about somethings for long time. But I understood it is not real. These things happen after we spend too much time thinking about something. I was very happy after I read book by fred hoyle. He spoke about some intelligent designer monkeying with the physical constants and creating a universe. But the happiness did not last long after some geniuses explained things without using god. This ruthless cruel universe always gives us evidence that materialism is correct. I saw people wearing a tshirt in which it is written materialistic bastards rule the world. It is true and this bastard universe always cries out that materialism is correct. We have tonnes of evidence like evolution theory , standard model which proves us that materialism is correct. It is cruel but we don't have any option other than accepting these cruel facts.
Scientism asserts that science can explain the universe, science describes the universe, it will never be in a position to explain itself. It’s like trying to explain a books origins by understanding grammar.
@@Detson404 All religions are merely different cultural interpretations of a single original truth. That truth is known as Unified Field Theorem, which has been in certain human hands since before recorded history. The Bible is nothing more than secularized Monastic metaphysics which has been dumbed down for the ignorant masses to try to digest.
First, if you do not believe in God, the Supreme Being and Creator, then of course religion is all BS to you. And no honest and informed discussion can follow.
Something that needs to be addressed by Shermer and others is how many religious people now separate their false beliefs from religion. They profess belief in God and subscribe to all of the beliefs that accompany their religion but no longer refer to themselves as religious. It's all semantics and it's very annoying.
I think the belief in god, souls, etc. has a different source to the religion-specific ideas discussed here. It seems possible to argue some people out of a particular religious narrative on the grounds of historical or textual analysis but they hold to beliefs about creation or an immortal soul due to flawed introspection IMO.
They keep the belief, but reject the ritual. What's annoying about that? It's a rather expectable step in the ongoing individualisation of secular societies.
They do that to avoid the conversations with regard to all the logical, reasonable and epistemological contradictions! And it all boils down to the stigma of labeling yourself as an atheist.
Perhaps religion "enshrines" guardrails, instead of originating them if you're of the opinion that all religions are man-made. One reason they propagate so efficiently is because people find truth in the text. If so many find truth in it, then it was already a common belief, just not properly articulated.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Skeptic/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Did the host or the guest mention the primal fear of death as a main catalyst for irrational, supernatural beliefs?
Remove the supernatural and mystical claims from religious doctrine and what remains is, essentially, philosophy. Philosophy can be inspected, rejected, accepted, corrected or neglected, without the fraudulent promise of a celestial reward or the devious threat of eternal punishment.
Mmm…maybe philosophy with weird pageantry, storytelling and varying degrees of group think and toxic scapegoating of others.
@@markrichter2053
If what you outlined is accurate, those areas would be malevolent examples of philosophy. Likewise, someone else may look at other areas of scripture and find philosophical axioms worth adopting. In either case, however, once the metaphysical woo-woo is extracted, religion becomes just another analytical argument.
It's nice to see skepticism about religion again
The culture wars are exhausting
Episodes on UFOs, cults, and pseudoarchaeology coming up next!
@@skepticmagazine Looking forward to the classics!
Shame it's exclusive to one religion
A culture war that the authoritarian left started, btw.
Prior to engaging in an epistemological exchange about god, it is imperative to have your interlocutor define the term.
Exactly!
@Seekthetruth3000 define a nonintelligent first cause of the universe and of your intelligence.
@@davidjanbaz7728 The question is this: What is your definition of God?
@@Seekthetruth3000 mysterious stranger
@@Seekthetruth3000
Much appreciated.
30:09
“…what religious credences are supposed to do is define your group identity. It actually helps to have ones that are a bit irrational or incoherent, or maybe, even, false.”
Professor Van Leeuwen claims the outlandish elements of religion are intended to serve an essential purpose. Along those same lines, may it also be construed that any big name religion must also feature an omniscient, omnipotent central character as its superior deity? For, what is distinctive and influential about any religion if its supreme, infallible god can’t intervene in the everyday lives of its vulnerable and naive human subjects?
You’re right about the serious conflict between young earth creationism and empirical thought!
I mean, it’s insane. I have friends in their 60s. The husband is a highly trained and capable geologist, statistician and computer programmer with a successful career in industry behind him and his wife is a really smart biologist and chemists with equally impressive career in science behind her. They are bright, interesting, humane and thoroughly decent people.
And yet, at the exact same time they both maintain what I would describe as profoundly irrational conservative evangelical beliefs about the origin of the universe, the inerrancy of scripture, miracles, etc.
But when I wanted to ask questions about young earth creationism with him or evolution with her they just shut down the conversation. And when I left the church because of its non affirmative stance on lgbtqia issues and the harm it was doing to people I knew, far from getting on board and seeing the absurdity and toxicity in the theology, they doubled down and tried to bring me back into the fold.
They were so identified with the ideas that they took personal offence when I told them that I thought it was toxic and harmful.
It’s really like they held two completely opposing worldviews in their minds simultaneously. Their faith was acting like a powerful cognitive dissonance facilitator.
Faith enables compartmentalisation, which keeps the conflicting worldviews within one mind to collide. It protects against cognitive dissonance by creating a context within which it’s possible to hold views that are objectively absurd.
“What was happening at Sandy Hook?..I was breaking the spell “
Yes, believing things sre real without any evidence for their existence is make believe...period!
on some big questions there will never be evidence.
@@francesco5581 what questions??
@@blindwatchmaker2345 first cause, source of information, why there is something rather than nothingness, cosmological constants, why the laws of nature exists, abiogenesis (probably), why matter and anti-matter where the same at the beginning, free will is real ? , what is primordial between consciousness and matter ? what happens after we die ? what is consciousness ? and another 50 maybe ...
@francesco5581 'why' questions aren't always getting answered.....so?? That still doesn't make your gawd real...
@@blindwatchmaker2345 but is the 50% of possible answers ...
"Religion wouldn't be around if it wasn't useful." Does that logic apply to criminality or other negative behavior? ...There's lots of things that are around...that's doesn't mean some of those are useful for humanity's overall well being. Robbing a bank is useful to pay bills. Should we respect bank robbers?
Good point
Right
I agree. From what I observe, the costs outweigh any benefits. I don’t care what kind of truth it is.
Criminals are acting from a POV of thier own short term goal. That is in many cases detrimental to overall health or group benefit.
But that individual POV is successful enough to perpetuate the behaviour. The short term gain is functional for that individual. On the short term. Thats enough for the system.
In the case of criminality I think the big reason why it continues to propagate is due to small genetic differences that create the odd psychopath. It's genetic unavoidability, as of now.
Of course religion is make believe but so are borders, patriotism, political ideology, and money. None of these exist in nature. They are purely social constructions that have utility. In that same sense God exists.
Interesting points.
God exists in the imaginations of believers.
What do you mean don't exist in nature? As in the world without humans in it? Because borders certainly exist among thousands of species. So does tribalism and currency but not in the modern sense.
Religion has a fake authority structure, and it's misogynistic. Also, if you have no evidence for something, you must put it down. It is a fantasy.
Sorry but that is an equivofication Fallacy. Borders and such are based on reality, whereas a god belief is a supernatural, unfalsifiable belief.
“Imagining that’s made serous by its connection with sacred values.”
I like that a lot. I find that helpful in understanding my regions friends!
I deconverted after nearly 6 decades of Christianity. My theology, as I understood it, was very liberal. But I was outraged by the scapegoating of queer folk in my faith community and I left the group in protest. It shocked me that my protest and the clear evidence that their behaviours were demonstrably harmful made not the slightest bit of difference to what they chose to belief. It was completely impervious to rational arguments or appeals to empathy and human decency.
It was only a matter of a couple of years of non-attendance before I was able to look back and recognise that I had never actually believed most of the supernatural claims. Once I had the perspective to see this, all the vestiges of belief in the supernatural fell away in a moment. I remember it well. It was such a relief! I’m now so much happier and more at peace with myself and the world.
Though it has to be said that it took a woman priest ordained in the Anglican Church who maintains completely LGBTQ affirmative theology to agree with my critique to really help me heal from the trauma of seeing my gay brothers and sisters othered and abused in this way. My heart breaks that my dear gay friends are traumatised to such an extent that I doubt they’ll ever trust a Christian again, and so such a healing may not be available for them from anyone with faith.
40:20 I've been saying this myself! It doesn't make any fkn sense to tell the people in Plato's cave they're at a puppet show IF they already KNOW they're at a puppet show, and they went there voluntarily, and they're not chained up! They're just there because they like puppet shows! There's nothing inherently wrong with liking puppet shows, I have to say!
It's the only game in town.
This is a really good way of looking at an old debate
There's also a kind of juxtaposition where religious organisations choose a person to represent them that clearly does not represent their supposed values.
The Evangelicals in the U.S has Trump as their 'chosen one'. He hasn't got a religious bone in his body and possesses personality traits that violate Evangelical, self declared moral values.
It's like supposed Christian values are all fine, but moral exceptions are totally acceptable in exchange for political power.
My favorites are the "Christians" who support the death penalty. Now THAT'S funny!
@@thereligionofrationality8257 Pro life, pro capital punishment. Pro choice, anti abortion. Religion is just a dogpile of contradictions.
@@thereligionofrationality8257 especially for Jesus. Their religion depends on the death penalty.
Biden is a Christian
Trump is an atheist
Is pretty funny how people vote
Of course its make believe. How could it be anything else? That's not the question. The question is, does belief have utility, and for many people it does. So instead of arguing "truth" and people trying to redefine objective truth, let it fulfill its utility function unless it crosses over into public policy - that's why the founding fathers wanted separation between church and state. Clearly religion of some form has been created over and over in human history so it has clear evolutionary utility or it wouldn't be in in literally every culture. Personally, I have no use for religion at all, but recognize many people need some external anchor to set shared values and a sense of community and belonging. Because we are evolved for small tribes, our myths help bind our local tribe reinforcing the cohesion of the in-group and separate us from the "other" who have different norms and quite possibly other mythological narratives.
Yes, but chimps and humans both practice ethnic cleansing because it had an evolutionary function. Surely the key is, does this actually benefit modern society? Surely tribalism has a very dubious history and tends towards toxic behaviours, just to maintain the group identity.
@@markrichter2053 Oh, I agree totally. Its just important to understand where human behavior comes from - we can't just wish it away and no amount of logic and reason will change that because most human behavior is not rational. Question is, with the limits of human operation, what can we do to steer us away from our very limited nature? - People have used tribalism and religion to steer millions of people over time - no differently than flag waving and cheering for your sports team does.
First, religion provides explanation for a chaotic world and allaying fears of what cannot be controlled.
And, at what point is a connection between 2 events coincidence, or "beyond coincidence?"
There are books filled with the human experience of "miracles,"
A friend lost her balance on a log over a deep chasm. She prayed, "Lord, save me!" She felt hands on either side of her waist, which steadied her, then there no more. On the photographic film image her friend took, there is a semi-transparent golden man-sized being on the log behind her. She is highly private with this photo.
I was alone in a room with a client,, and heard a voice next to me, "you will see her at the movies ( where I was planning to go to) tonight." She was not at the movie. She called my name across the parking lot, needing help to get into her car.
A staff member and I prayed (outside of his earshot) for a highly agitated brainstem stroke victim of 7 years who was frustrated trying to communicate a message,, who could only move his eves for Y/N, and grunt and make unintelligible noises ( not even y/n) .
10 minutes later, he spoke perfectly intelligibility.
A friend's (elderly) sister, crippled with arthritis and could not transfer or walk, sid she woke in the night to a warm glowing light in the room and saw a Being she felt was Jesus. The Being said, " would you like to walk?" She arose, pain free, not crippled, could walk and move, arthritis-free, for 3 months before she died after a brief coma.
Sane people even in groups have observe ghost phenomenon, and anomalous photographs which may be paroidelia, but even enough that security agencies called the people's homes to say there was an intruder on their remote CCTV...
My father in law, a a pre-teen boy became suddenly, inexplicably sick and did not ride with his friend on a jeep with soldiers (which he did commonly to the next Greman village) The jeep was strafed by enemy fire and his friend was hit and died.
A woman has tremendous fear and dread when her husband decides suddenly to leave their vacation hotel and drive 2 hrs home to help a friend in need. She refuses to join him. On the way , his car was destroyed on the passenger side, flipped onto the roof by a lorry which crossed the centerline on a highway at high speed. He escaped an utterly destroyed vehicle without a scratch. She had never felt dread like this before.
These are but a tiny part of the human experience, and I only mentioned a few of my own.
People continue in the belief if a supernatural world when they or someone credible has witnessed coincidences time and again.
The non-material does exist. It's called information. Matter is the place-holder of symbol, but the arrangement of symbol and its direct relational connection to something unrelated to the placeholders makes it "iinformation. "
DNA (per Dawkins) holds digitally encoded information. It is encoded in base 64. Kilobytes are required for simple bacteria, humans, megabytes.
Your "self," is immaterial. It is flows of currents and magnetic fields in, through, and around the brain and body. There is no physical "self"
A television picture is immaterial, as it is a visual display of information, which, again, is not the ones and zeros, but the complex relationship between them.
Time for science to get off its high horse of "explaining everything." It can, and tremendously well, explain a lot and use that knowledge to create.
But time, gravity, the nature of energy and matter can only be described. Their essence is beyond human tampering. Should humans ever get to that essence, H bombs will look like children's playthings.
Reply to Glenlies "She is highly private with this photo"
What an arrogant, disingenuous and laughably dishonest comment.😂
You should be ashamed of yourself, IF you're honest!
Yes. It's just make believe
Make-believe means to pretend. Religious people don't pretend their faith is real.
@@wakkablockablaw6025 pedanticism...
@@wakkablockablaw6025in the absence of ANY concrete evidence, yes it is pretend.
The religious certainly don't want to label it pretend, but it doesn't take away the FACT that it is pretend.😊
Faith in a religious context is just that, pretending something is real, but isn't.😂
I've known religion is "just imagination" and that imagination involves a whole bunch of neurons for a few months now! I don't even have a degree! I did all my research at home! I was talking about this with people on The Line! Many theists who call in are afraid that their lives will lose all meaning if they stop believing in God, but their lives have plenty of meaning already! No belief in God required! But if we don't treat nature like it's sacred (in and of itself, but also because it created us!), we're gonna end up treating it like SHIT! Like we're doing now! So let's figure this shit out, people!
Interesting comparison with children in a gang playing with certain toys.
Great interview. This is a very compelling idea.
While I have long thought that belief in a creator god, souls, etc. could be due to faulty introspection and reasoning on the part of religious people I could understand how it could come about. However, I never understood the leap from a belief in those things to upholding a particular religion. I think this answers it.
Humans so deeply crave meaning, answers, hope, and consolation that they’re susceptible to fantastical ideas. Much of it stems from fear of death. It’s also why “mediums” never run out of marks.
Very interesting. I still think Dawkins' case is airtight, though. In his book, he discusses at length one major reason (perhaps THE major reason) that people believe in religious ideas: childhood indoctrination. If you tell a child during its developmental years that something is of the utmost importance, he/she will likely carry that belief throughout life, regardless of what evidence there is against it. If the world's religions skipped a single generation of indoctrination, they would be all but done for, I bet.
Yep. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. While I started doubting and questioning very early in, I know it’s bs, here at 43 I still find my brain trying to hedge its bet just in case it was all right. Many people don’t get that far. They are unwilling or unable to see the Matrix.
Micheal Shermer is my favorite skeptic. He's hilarious too. So its always fun watching him speak. I wish more people were skeptical.
Uncover a religious person's personal trauma, and you'll most likely discover the reason for their belief in a supernatural dimension or mysticism.
Or, they are just naturally more intuitive.
@@archaicsage4803
Intuitive in reference to what?
@@jeffersonianideal The more science you comprehend, the more likely you are to believe in something. All of the fathers of modern theory, including Einstein, believed in a God for a reason.
Uncover an atheists personal trauma, and you’ll most likely discover the reason for their disbelief in a supernatural dimension or mysticism.
Aka: WW2, Holocaust, Modernity
@@Walkdplankfrank Ha, touche! Love it.
When the sacrifice you make for group identity involves young earth creationism, you just loose intellectual integrity. When the sacrifice you make is to see others as sub-human, then it’s the other group that bears the cost of your sacrifice.
While you rise on the spurious moral high-ground.
Thank you Michael and Neil! Fantasy (such as The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. etc.) can be a lot of fun. Religious fantasy (such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) is not fun. What folks believe is interesting but it's rarely fun. Unfortunately, beliefs trump facts. One who believes in supernaturality (is that a word?) is wholly unaffected by facts.
I'm always amused by academics capacity to take a simple concept, which itself isn't deep on any level, in any aspect, and spend far too long discussing the fine details that don't exist, so just repeat themselves in different words.
This was a fairly interesting discussion, but attempting to sound insightful isn't the same as being insightful
What do you mean by "amused"?
@@sulljoh1 I find it a little comical they can't tell they're doing it. It's quite common.
I agree. I feel like religion, aliens, ghost, mediums etc should be able to be debunked in much simpler terms. I amuse myself with just asking my wife and her mom (who are marks for religion and mediums) simple questions. If this is true, then why ___? Why not ___? Etc. I never run out of simple, critical thinking questions. This guy Neil is painfully long winded.
First of all, I don't take at face value anything a supposedly "religious" person tells me regarding a personal religion (in common with a congregation or not). It's only a personal claim. To see if they really believe it, I'm only going to look at how the person behaves empirically, and not base it only on what somebody says. The sort of conversation captured in this video explicitly recognizes this or fails a duty of inquiry. If I have to search through two hours of yakking in order to establish this, I'll just (let us say) remain skeptical that the conversation is worthwhile.
This conversation made me laugh so hard 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I enjoyed it so much. Especially the bit where he says that maybe having faith beliefs that are a bit irrational makes your group distinctive. And you think, yep, it’ll sure do that for ya!
🤣🤣🤣🤣 lovin it! 💪🤩
On a serious note though, isn’t this where evangelical fundamentalist Christianity goes so wrong? Because they make the category error of confusing religious beliefs and facts. And this is born out in weird manifestations of pseudo science where they will tie themselves in knots to “prove” creationism, like Ken Ham and his life size Ark extravaganza.
Or is the whole thing still a really complex group-identity exercise?
35:41 we "worship the ancestors" too! We've just been worshipping the wrong ones for 10k years! We've been worshipping the greedy, cruel, stupid ones! Just 'cause they figured out they could gain more power for themselves by enforcing their greed, cruelness, and stupidity! 🙄
I think it can be different in different groups and individuals. it may differ over time and in relation to scientific knowledge. My parent's group were very literal. They believed the miracles literally, physically happened. They thought it was all scientific fact with evidence. They just thought that the Bible was trustworthy history and that they could verify it was true because of prophecies coming true such as the Jews returning to Israel. They had no patience with metaphorical truths. If you don't literally get to live forever there is no point believing it.
"it" ???
life world modelling is 'just making it up', conjoined with contact epistemology, a very special kind of imaginination called 'imaginality', where imagined models are pruned on the basis of the quality of their predictions. Religions don't need to eschew contact epistemology to maintain fidelity to ungrounded propositions in the form of revealed truths, but they most definitely need to ground them in contact epistemology. The ultimate leap of faith is that the world is actually intelligible, and that is the most wonderful thing of all, the greatest gift.
It’s so funny how UA-cam atheists in their critiques remain so respectful of believers ideas. It’s almost euphemistic when you talk about the faith frame vs the fact frame. And in my head I’m immediately going to, hay, maybe there’s also a bullshit frame! 😂
Thanks. Loved your conversation 👍😎👏
Great discussion
Thank you 🙏 I needed something GOOD to to listen too, perfect timing ⏱️
What appeals to me (for any of various reasons) and what I know to be true aren’t the same thing (and have never been.)
35:34 through 36:35
😂😆🤣 I apologize. I'm sure Dr. Van Leeuwen didn't mean for his analogy to be funny but it's still a great analogy.
simply put Neil rose to the equation with flying colors !
Great interview!!
My Sundays are for me, not for God. Not going to church on Sundays. 😂
It's quite interesting that you differentiate "thought" from "belief". In a sense, it's quite demeaning to the believers because it assumes that there is no thought behind their actions regarding their religion. They are running on an operating system designed by some guy 2000 years ago and refusing to update their OS.
Religious belief is in many ways a flight from temporality. There could be other things like an impoverished culture of imagination in our time (maybe folklore, wild tales and the like serve a deeper need, from when we lived in villages). But I think it's likely the reluctance to embrace duration.
Such a pleasant, interesting conversation
The human condition is wanting to know the answers to the big questions ..why are we here /where did the universe come from / is there meaning in existing ?
Religions offer answers to these big questions . There will always be large groups that believe it .
Religious discussions with highly intelligent people are strange because the words the dominant hemisphere uses to describe the non-dominant hemisphere processes do not mean the same thing as the dominant hemisphere uses to describe itself.
The religious world-view is a valid way of dealing with dat to day reality. Science is a valid way to address the world of technology.
Atheism rejects hope, because there is none beyond persinal effort and fate.
Religion provides meaningful gatherings, corporate givings, comfort of ceremony and ritual, hope of an afterlife.
Leave religion (except radical islam) alone!
Mistaking things for the proxies that can be measured is a fundamental error in thinking
Religion was developed around the camp fire because stories.
I think the marriage pact has parallels with faith. In faith there’s often a profound conversion or other spiritual experience that’s emotionally overwhelming and psychologically meaningful and on the strength of this I join the group, go through rituals and pretend to believe the unbelievable in order to demonstrate my group identity.
Two people falling in love have similarly profound and overwhelming experiences that give them the oomph to enter into a pact of untruth about one another where they’ll avow certain things about the special qualities of the other that make them The One for them. This can be socially convenient because it protects their unique group identity which has important social and psychological functions, not least for stability for the nurturing of children.
I've had some in-depth discussions with people over the years I consider to be brilliant in their fields, who are also religious and they were odd discussions to me. It's as though they have two sets of logical criteria in their mind. One of them for everyday life, and another for their theology.
They do.
Scientific thinking is dominant hemisphere functioning. Religious thinking is non-dominant hemisphere functioning.
The words the verbal brain uses to explain its functioning are nonsense to the dominant hemisphere 's cognition.
But they attempt to convey these processes.
Read the first paragraph of the Tao te Ching and understand. They are not about nonsense.
A religion is lots of things. It's usually based around a charismatic individual with alleged supernatural powers. There's usually some parables. Instructions on how one should live ones life. Explanation of an afterlife. Explanation of the universe. The ability to call upon ones god or gods. And frequently used to control a population.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao had superpowers ? because millions of people gave their lives for them. And any explanation regarding "first cause of the universe" or "there is something after death" will ALWAYS be an assumption, and thats include materialists explanations.
@@francesco5581 I would differentiate between political leaders and religious leaders. Although they can share some of the same characteristics. Never said any of these assumptions or explanations are true. Just that they exist. I understand that individuals have a need to understand the world in which they live. But, it has always baffled me how easily people accept outrageous or illogical assumptions or conclusions just to fit into a group.
@@PhotoTrekr I agree, but we need also to consider how many consider themselves materialists because makes them look more cool, or are nerds who just watched The Big Bang theory....i was like that too when i was a teen... Or the science popularize-rs who have elected science to their God as they need to promote their work ... there is that allure of the pretty atheist hero ...
My critique is that this seems like a very modern view. When someone says I don’t believe in evolution there saying I don’t believe in the scientist who are making these conclusions. I don’t believe there trustworthy. It seems rather than people believing religious facts in an imaginary sense they just have more trust in the religious institution than the scientific. The person knows there pastor better than the guy on the scientific text book. We do the same if a scientist said that he found evidence that being gay was mostly cultural I think most people would fight against it.
Evolution is one of the most well tested and verified concepts in science which is substantiated with multiple lines of hard evidence.
Religion on the other hand is purely a matter of faith and believing in hearsay with zero hard evidence to substantiate it.
Your analogy about a scientist saying he found evidence that being gay is mostly cultural is not apt in my view because evolution is backed not by one scientist but by an overwhelming consensus of scientists from all around the world.
Dan Dennett would agree.
If somebody doesn't believe in evolution because their pastor tells them, and their pastor is a good person who wouldn't lie. He's sort of sympathetic. But that pastor should be judged harshly for spreading lies when it's their business to know what they are talking about
@@danstevens6455 Darwin wasnt an atheist ...never... he swung between agnosticism and deism.
@@sulljoh1 but beware, believing in evolution doesnt remove spirituality, the necessity of a first cause, or the need of information. Darwin wasnt an atheist.
@@francesco5581 believing in evolution doesn't remove the possibility of god or spirituality. But Dennett was a pretty hard materialist - not a deist.
Most people are born into a denomination. It's a subset of a broader world view taught to children.
This all seems to be pandering to the intellectually lazy and/or impressionable majority among us rather than to simply call out make believe as core prescriptions for life as the delusion that it is. Intellectual gymnastics not needed, just courageous critical thinking adults in the room. Rubbish should not be contorted into sensibleness. No issues with those who have an appreciation for mythology and stories from the past but a clear distinction between supernatural and reality must be present.
I can't honestly think of any reason why I would need an invisible friend who seems to care deeply about my evolutionary need to reproduce. Very odd.
religion is all about our profound need to ground contact epistemology in 'ultimate concern', that life is relevant, and we and the ones we love are relevant.
It's really not complicated at all. Even if you don't believe in the truck that is in front of you, it's going to hit you. Hard. Religion is one of humanity's many tries to aspire to be more than it is. Which is a little & absolutely meaningless speck of dust in the giant desert of the universe.
All humans come to the questions raised by religion with their own belief systems, concepts, definitions of terms, and criteria for what or who God is, or isn't.
Scientific thinking is dominant hemisphere functioning. Religious is non-dominant hemispheric processes.
Words do well to communicate the scientific world view and its explanatory power.
Words do not fully provide the means to explain the metaphoric aspects of relations observed by the non-dominant hemisphere.
If weird things did not happen when people start practicing religion, they would stop. Some is observer bias. But, the rest is convincing enough to maintain the belief system.
Brand new ep!
Sadly, no - if it were many souls would feel more comfortable with it. Religion, per se, is a lived relationship, and a binding one at that = that which binds man to man (and all men to god/ gods, 'God', or, more logically, the concept < God > ). It is, like it or not, as much a part of humanity as breathing, moving, living, thinking, understanding .. and questioning (not all 'religions' therefore are the same, some take questions seriously, some make 'answers' more serious, and others deny all responsibility for pondering at all).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Atheists claim Theists are irrational, therefore Theism is nonsense, yet Economic Behavioral studies prove all people, including Atheists, are irrational Economic actors.
Thank you for explaining Trumpism to me. Now it all makes perfect sense.
This appears to be a Durkheimian approach toward explaining the late great Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria." That's fine, but what about the obvious political power in today's world of the Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim myth of the Final Battle and the Descent of the Divine Warrior?
Can you please make your comment more comprehensible?
Religion as a social organizing principle has been known for a long time. Perhaps there is more concrete data now to validate that, but it's not exactly new.
there are boxes and then there are boxes.
Only 1/3 through and enjoying. I wonder if he notes any difference in the way religious fundamentalists process these things vs more moderate religious people who may still even be relatively conservative and say they believe the stories but are less rigid about trying to somehow prove them empirically. I'm thinking of young earth creationist types, Ken Ham et al. in Christianity, or very fundamentalist muslims vs more moderate followers of Islam, etc. And then on down the scale to more liberal adherents of these same faiths who readily say they allegorize, metaphor-ize pretty much all of it
The definition of religion is: that to which we are bound. So, based on that definition atheists are religious as they are religiously bound to atheism.
52:49 he's right! Anything can be "sacred"! Anything can be a "religion"! My "religion" is Lana Del Rey!
For many it is the ar-15..
Yes.
Always makes me feel kind of angry - when it comes to religion and there is no evidence at all - just talking about a supernatural mind set without any evidence. Boring as hell.
Perfect description of Trumpism. So truth is unimportant, merely a social construct/ contract?
Sort of like President Biden was not in cognitive decline until about 15 minutes before the debate. Before the debate everything was cheap fakes. After the debate, Biden needed to go for the good of the Democrats. Trump has no monopoly on lies. The Dems have proferred some doozies.
I find this a bit wrong on many levels
1) Did the atheist/materialist/socialist regimes of the 20th century teach nothing about how society can be diverted to believe in absurdities even without religion?
2) religion is institutionalized spirituality, therefore it is now only a path of one of the two main ways: Spirituality or Materialism
3)84% of the Nobel Prize winners in scientific subjects (study by an Israeli from a few years ago) were more or less spiritual/religious, so being so is not linked to the ability to discern between evidence and illusion
4) Do you really think that today's religious believe in Noah's ark? Religion is the crutch that reminds us of our spiritual roots. We must also know how to distinguish between allegory and reality
5) listening to you, doesn't it seem to you that in the end you are making the same speeches as certain religious circles? atheism seems really similar to a belief to me
6) Aren't the deeply religious and the deeply atheist just two small extremes of the population?
7) Spirituals now cannot be labeled as religious people who believe in Moses dividing the waters. Otherwise it becomes exaggerated, trivialized, conflicts are created just to have a market to exploit.
8) if one embraces one of the two main ideas about things being primordial between consciousness and matter, one always does so believing in something that can never be demonstrated in life. And the materialist position on this (i.e. believing that a complex universe exists by chance) is even more fanciful.
That's a lot of points for a UA-cam comment
I’m atheist but attend church with my wife and kids. In the right environment, I think religion can provide a good social community for kids.
Interesting, so you approve of the trauma, fear of hell, burning for eternity, commanded to love something or someone you fear! I could go on but...
Great job parenting 😢
@@ianp3112 "in the right environment"
yes religions are make believe
Answer: According to the L hemisphere, of course.
Shermer is less agressive when it comes to arguing with believers. I feel it is all about how people interpret things. My school admission number is 45678. I dint give a damn about it. But people who are believers connect these things with supernatural. When I was a kid I saw strange things like gods in front of me after thinking about somethings for long time. But I understood it is not real. These things happen after we spend too much time thinking about something. I was very happy after I read book by fred hoyle. He spoke about some intelligent designer monkeying with the physical constants and creating a universe. But the happiness did not last long after some geniuses explained things without using god. This ruthless cruel universe always gives us evidence that materialism is correct.
I saw people wearing a tshirt in which it is written materialistic bastards rule the world. It is true and this bastard universe always cries out that materialism is correct. We have tonnes of evidence like evolution theory , standard model which proves us that materialism is correct. It is cruel but we don't have any option other than accepting these cruel facts.
17:00 ish. The pause may be because of the possibility of disagreement or they are preparing to be challenged .
Scientism asserts that science can explain the universe, science describes the universe, it will never be in a position to explain itself. It’s like trying to explain a books origins by understanding grammar.
The sheer ignorance here is astonishing to watch...
Well since you said it, it must be so. Got any justification?
@@Detson404 All religions are merely different cultural interpretations of a single original truth. That truth is known as Unified Field Theorem, which has been in certain human hands since before recorded history. The Bible is nothing more than secularized Monastic metaphysics which has been dumbed down for the ignorant masses to try to digest.
First, if you do not believe in God, the Supreme Being and Creator, then of course religion is all BS to you. And no honest and informed discussion can follow.
Question for Professor Van Leeuwen:
What vital benefit is humanity being deprived of due to the thousands of religions that no longer exist?
Yes.
Something that needs to be addressed by Shermer and others is how many religious people now separate their false beliefs from religion. They profess belief in God and subscribe to all of the beliefs that accompany their religion but no longer refer to themselves as religious. It's all semantics and it's very annoying.
I think the belief in god, souls, etc. has a different source to the religion-specific ideas discussed here. It seems possible to argue some people out of a particular religious narrative on the grounds of historical or textual analysis but they hold to beliefs about creation or an immortal soul due to flawed introspection IMO.
Far more who profess to believe in a religion don't believe the details like fundamentalists pretend to do.
They keep the belief, but reject the ritual. What's annoying about that? It's a rather expectable step in the ongoing individualisation of secular societies.
They do that to avoid the conversations with regard to all the logical, reasonable and epistemological contradictions!
And it all boils down to the stigma of labeling yourself as an atheist.
Perhaps religion "enshrines" guardrails, instead of originating them if you're of the opinion that all religions are man-made. One reason they propagate so efficiently is because people find truth in the text. If so many find truth in it, then it was already a common belief, just not properly articulated.
George Carlin nailed it on religion. It’s all bs.
Very, very interesting conversation.
31:02 OMG! Dude! You're a fkn genius! You figured out WHY improv IS a cult! 🤯🤯🤯