He’s not touting Conservative ideology, he is touting religious ideology. They are not the same thing And if u think they are it makes you part of the problem
Yoram Hazony is one of my favourite scholars. His book on the Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a masterpiece that continues to inspire and provoke my thinking. It is a firm favourite of mine. Thank you both for a stimulating discussion. For what it's worth, I believe Yoram made some excellent remarks here. The Liberal experiment has not worked out so well. Engagement with the texts is always rewarded. With the help of that book, I hope to try to turn people on to the Hebrew scriptures.
@@BUSeixas11 Though an atheistic, Mr. Jefferson would receive even further respect from me, I see no conclusive evidence for the claim. I am content to accept that Mr. Jefferson was a minimalist, both about government, and in reference to the supernatural.
@@jeffersonianideal Indeed, there is no reason to demand there is no god(s) or supernatural powers or creators. There's no evidence, outside a universe that seems pretty amazing to have come from nothing. But our experience is far too limited, still too ignorant of all reality, how chance works especially over billions of years. We just don't have the mental model for understanding this in any real, meaningful way, like with empathy. A billion years is just a lot of years, but 2 billion years versus 1.9 billion years seems rather similar in size, yet that's 100,000,000 years in difference.
34:03 Libertarians are neither conservatives nor liberals. Libertarians have their own, uniquely principled philosophy, steeped in the classical liberal tradition that includes modern, economic liberties, coupled with personal responsibility.
Yoram only helped me understand better why I am an atheist. He kept speaking for god (that god spoke about in the Bible written by men). Why did god only speak to men 2/3 thousand years ago? Why has god not spoken to me or someone in my vicinity over my 82 years? (Was I never pious enough, for the ‘almighty god? What did he have to loose by speaking to me?) The only modern people that I know of...who said that god spoke to them, started a religion. And not another Jewish one! Why does this so called ‘almighty god,’ only speak to the few, thousands of years ago? Humans are still going, today. Isn’t it hearsay, when someone repeats what god, told someone else? And further...I wanted more than any person that I know to have a traditional family like I learn about in Church! ‘What god has joined together, let no man put asunder.’ But, my ex was an alcoholic without a moral compass and I could not function in any human capacity in his company! What about others with similar dilemmas? I gave it 17 yrs...how long did I need to see a change? (That ex is now 87, with the same mind set.) I cannot live in la, la land...that is a life without dignity! At least I created a life that mattered after being shattered by this union! People who keep speaking for god and say they know exactly what he means and wants from mankind and even animals! This only affirms my atheism! (Why hasn’t god ‘fixed’ the brains of people (his creation) who have debilitating mental problems?) Thanks Schumer.
As a fellow atheist, I must play devil's advocate and ask: if an all powerful god exists, what compels him/her to personally speak to individual humans in order to prove his/her existence? I do not speak to the ants that sometimes come inside my home when it rains, yet I exist and eradicate them when they overstep the boundary that I've put in place. My refusal to personally communicate to "Tony the Ant" does not affect my existence. No offense meant, Ruth, just commenting on a common argument some of my atheist friends have also made.
@Matt Tardo I simply could not understand your comment. I can’t speak for anything...not even ants! Now, there are people who believe they ‘know,’ what people and even animals are thinking, but I am not one of them. I try an intuit what might be going on...but that is a crap shoot! And, for the people who believe they know what God ‘thinks and wants’...they are simply using years of memorized scripture...and appear to never contemplate the complexity of life as they live in it! Maybe...they don’t have to...being that these scriptures are so deeply embedded in brain cells...that no new information can take hold! (Looks like this among relatives and neighbors.)
@Matt Tardo Now...if you are saying that ‘god’ does not need to speak to people or instill in them requirements...to be their ‘god’...I guess that is possible...in the minds of certain people! Somehow, I cannot imagine a ‘nothingness’ god! No ideas, no imaginings...just a blank space in ‘the mind!’ I have never observed such a phenomenon...but then ...I have not observed ‘everything!’
@@ruthokelley5833 Well, I don't mean a "nothingness" god, a god that has no inherent qualities - that is more akin to the Deists' God: a god that created and then proceeded to step back out of the picture and let things run their course and who doesn't have any strong feelings either way about what it's creations do. I meant a god that has an identity and mind. IF we are it's creations (theoretically) and IF we are like ants to this god, what right do we have to demand a personal communication and relationship with this deity? A follow-up to my previous point on ants: the ants somehow found my cat treats in the cupboard and began raiding them, since they need food. If I take the place of a deity (in my little analogy) I have certain expectations on how I want those ants to live their lives, and I felt no guilt in exterminating them once they broke my "rules". I couldn't possibly tell them my rules - how does one expect an ant to understand my language, not to mention the very concept of my sacred space (the cupboard)? They are dead now, not knowing why they were killed, or even what killed them. But I know. They only knew that I had cat treats, and even then they only knew them as food - they had no idea that the cat treats were just one small facet of my existence. Yet I exist, and their desecration of my "sacred space" cost them their lives. Cruel? Perhaps. Maybe the survivors will find a way to warn others using primitive ant folk tales, and then some day perhaps a religion will form. But they will still only be capable of understanding me as ants. There's a Platonic allegory of the cave here I think ha ha!
You're an atheist because you choose to be. Like most atheist you trash any with a religious experience. Why would you do that? Why so much hatred? Like Michael you extrapolate the extreme concepts and things you hear and disregard everything else. Much of the civil rights movement was driven by a religious foundation that both MLK and Rosa Parks were inspired by. No need to have a conversation with God, but maybe you should open your heart and try listening a little closer.
As President, Ronald Reagan expanded the size and scope of government, never abolished a single federal agency, but instead, created a new one, tripled the national debt in a record setting eight years, and lowered taxes only to raise them twice. If that's Dr. Hazony's idea of a conservative, my compliments.
Don't forget Reagan's other fine accomplishments... expanded American hegemony by illegally selling arms to Iran and the Contras and launched the massive and egregious war on drugs
@@LouisRoss It's emblazoned in my memory like a car wreck. In my naive youth, when I was still a Leftist socialist, I resented Reagan for what he did. When I abandoned my foolish political ideology and grew up, I resented Reagan for what he promised but failed to do.
Ronald Reagan, who campaigned like a libertarian and governed like an authoritarian, was neither saint nor sinner. He merely said one thing and did another, as any duplicitous politico does.
Yep, let's all remember that he was a good actor who was able to "act the part". If any of the stories are true about him turning down a proposal from Gorbachev to destroy all Russian nuclear weapons (with verification) in exchange for stopping development of SDI (a.k.a. Star Wars), then he will go down in history as the biggest fool.
@@NeilRieck I'm not certain about the arms for SDI deal, but it sounds implausible. I cannot imagine Gorbachev being permitted by his Politburo to make such an offer. Additionally, the Ruskies were, at least, smart enough to realize that SDI was a pipe dream, having not yet been perfected. By the end of his term in office, Ronald Reagan only managed to achieve one libertarian-esque accomplishment as President. He deregulated oil and gas. It wasn't his idea. Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, initially undertook the plan. Ronald Reagan just sped up the process.
@@PeterGibbonns Agreed. Then during the McCarthyism years Americans learned that as president of the screen actor's guild (a union), he had been supplying the government with the names of so-called communist union members (were they actually communists or left leaning? Who knows). But there is no way that a failed system like communism would ever be able to work in a capitalist democratic society so the whole red-scare thing always seemed a joke. But people like Regan fell for it.
Slavery was a very long running tradition. Women being subservient has a very long running tradition. Being subject to kings/lords has a very long running tradition. Burning wood and dung for fuel has a very long running tradition. War has a very long running tradition.
He got Shermer on that future Muslim question. Liberals seem not to fully appreciate that their Liberalism is specifically the culture of Western Europeans and the nations they spawned. In that sense the "woke" Left are correct: it is 'White' culture. There is no reason to assume a society mostly made up of non-Europeans (particularly ones with their own strong religious identity) would keep intact the Liberal institutions Shermer values. Supreme courts and constitutions are not immune to demographic change.
Liberals have to view humanity in a light that shows Naivety for human nature because there entire Ideology rest upon man and if they were to acknowledge his worst tendencies as inherit to his being as his good qualities are. Then they would realize the flaws in their idealogy.
Exactly. Watching Yoram contort himself verbally to answer questions and explain away the crazy. The Noah story is a great example. It could be Yoram's explanation of these ancient rules and stories or it could just be that the bible was written by people at the time, based on what they knew and believed then, and it's just a book. Which is more likely?
@@oldtimer7635Reality itself is NOT equivalent to reason and logic, because reason and logic have not yet fully deduced or elucidated all aspects of human existence that there are, nor will they ever. They are not unlimited faculties in the human brain, which is why we need empiricism (the actual practice of science and gathering of evidence), and we need other things besides that (like existing social institutions) in order to keep things reasonably functional until we ever reach such a hypothetical nirvana of perfect knowledge.
Struck me as odd he would say Moses was commanded by god not to disrupt his neighbors, when the Israelites proceeded on n a military campaign to decimate the Canaan valley almost immediately after.
I see liberalism as a response to conservatism, or more precisely as a response to the largely oppressive nature of conservatism. Liberalism is the desire for rights that conservatism would otherwise fail to secure.
1:24:00 - I can't find the quote but Pinker is hardly unwilling to look at the years before the enlightenment. The quote was something like 'nothing comes from nothing - and enlightenment ideas did not spring into existence fully formed'
I love how Shermer is perpetually aware of his confusion about what conservatism is - without correcting himself - and is blissfully unaware of his confusion about the fact that leftists/Democrats are not liberals.
I don't think so. Liberals believe most humans are incompetent, unable to choose wisely for themselves, unable to live in a community without lots of rules that constrain behavior. They think a bad worker deserves higher pay and union protections. They believe blacks are too backwards to do well in school and jobs without special assistance. They think they can take money by force from the productive and give it to the unproductive and that's a good thing. The reject innovation, risk-taking and good luck. They want to tame human nature so we're all cogs to their leftist elite ruling class.
"The experiment in liberal rationalism has collapsed." This is of course bollocks. I'm from Sweden, a country where almost nobody is religious except immigrants. We also boast better stats than any religious country in the history of time when it somes to things like child mortality, murder rate, average health and life span, education, innovation, self rated life satisfaction and so on. But it got me thinking that if you're a conservative christian nationalist, it just might feel like it all has gone down the drain because the rational parts of society has left you behind.
@@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104 yeah I see 38% of australians now identify as non-religious. Quite an increase since a decade ago when only 22% ticked the same ballot box option. The same figure for Sweden has been over 50% since long and only one in ten Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life or has trust in a religious leader. Both countries do better than more religious ones when it comes to quality of life measures. We should admit this is merely correlations.
@Morgan Allen hold your horses Morgan, you need to nuance your thinking. Birthrates over 2.1 aren't sustainable withour some real boosts to space colonization, I hope you agree? And even though I'm also opposed to mass immigration, surely immigration helps flatten the age pyramid - Japan, that has no immigration, in that particular respect face the music now. Hazony present NO solutions (watched the whole video) and yes, many conservatives conflate liberalism with non-rationalist views such as blank-slatism - don't fall into that please. I agree migration needs an overhaul. I agree current economics is completely unsustainable, especially when it comes to long term environmental sustainability and inequality, but also because of secret shit like tax havens and bought politicians. Just look how hard it's been to establish wether Putin actually owns a yacht or not. I agree the HBTQ thing is weirdly fringy in the USA, but we just don't have much of that debate over here in Sweden. Because, you know, we're somewhat rational. But Sweden's state finances are in supreme shape, with very low debt and running a government surplus until C19. No need to worry about Sweden. For generations the Nordic countries lead the world in terms of life expectancy, health adjusted life expectancy, self reported life satisfaction, environmental protection, social trust, trust in government, low corruption, teenage pregnancies, premature death, social mobility and so on, while still high in inventions, research, economic freedom and entrepreneurship. For generations the religious right have predicted the downfall of these secular, socialist, liberal, rational and highly taxed countries. I see you have joined up! It's an old tradition by now. I note Sweden has a higher fertility rate than most OECD countries, but I'm sure you can predict it's all going down the drain anyways.
@Morgan Allen I agree on many of your points: the boomer problem, the downsides of a top-heave age pyramid, the dangers of comprehensive life extension, all that. But I have to ask where you found the numbers for the fertility rates of swedish immigrants. I hope it's not Gefira? Their reputation isn't good. The research I know says immigrants adopt the same fertility rates as their new country only a couple of years after moving in. I know Gunnar Andersson, professor of demographics at Stockholm university, claim second generation immigrants in Sweden boasts birth rates significantly below average, especially considering their lower SES. I'm not a fan of the whole Great Replacement theory, but I certainly take it seriously given credible sources. I guess it comes down to how economically productive 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants are? Doesn't look too good right now for sure, with low immigrant economic output. However in your analysis you seem to compare unproductive young people to old and sick people. People requiring healthcare service, home support or eldercare simply cost so much more than any unproductive young sleuth ever could. Our immigrants from Iran back from the Shah days are doing very well. There was a huge brain drain from there and we receive some of that from Russia now. It might just turn positive and in the really long perspective it won't matter if your ancestors came from Turkey, Somalia, Russia or ancient Sweden? Regardless, no matter how you contort these numbers, the swedish economic outlook isn't standing on any abyssal precipe. But 20 years on you'll have forgotten all about your disproven cataclysmic prediction and make a new one up? I can't even gloat because you'll keep me busy with a new apocalypse brought forth by the ungodly crowd? Sweden by then shall perish due to ...lost traditional values, what say you?
You think he kept him on the run? That was an embarrassing interview - I feel bad for Shermer! The absolute frustration you could hear from the other guy (I forget his name, sorry) over the course of the interview was from Michaels inability to grasp the arguments being made and adapt with reasonable answers. Shermer did what he almost always does: he comes to conclusions about his interview subject (opponent), writes down a bunch of answers and questions to ask beforehand, and then forcibly tries to shoehorn them into the discussion. If this was a debate, Shermer would have lost - and that's a shame!
Dennis Diderot, considered one of the originators and interpreters of the Enlightenment. Is best known for this quote. "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
I can sympathize with Hazony's desire to see some kind of resurgence of traditional cultural values. A lot of people nowadays, primarily people on the left I guess, see anything in the past as inherently bad and that only by leaving traditions behind can we make 'progress'. Obviously this view is too simplistic and often just wrong. The problem is his entire thesis seems to be based on the idea of returning to explicitly religious values. His dismissal of the wall of separation between church and state is pretty scary and I was happy to see Shermer push back on it. He discusses the founders but seems to forget that much of desire behind the separation idea comes not just from their fear of state backed churches, but their understanding of the fractious religious history of the colonies themselves. A nation with no protection for religious minorities is not the kind of nation I want to live in. Christian prayer does not offend me, but imagine a school where 70% of the students are Christian, and 30% are irreligious or some other religion. Would it seem ethical to force those children to say a Christian prayer every morning and study the Bible in school? I would say no. Hazony comes across here as a very articulate, very misguided Theocrat. But putting that aside for a moment I find some of his logic pretty questionable. He makes a wishy-washy argument about enlightenment values not being able to emerge in a non-religious environment. Even if that were true, which I dont think it is, my rebuttal to that is - so? So what if these values that we modern people hold dear could only have emerged inside the conflict of religion? How exactly does that mean we should return to a religious society? Much of the foundation of western philosophy comes from Ancient Greece. Does that mean we should all try to live like Plato? The notion that ideas should be forever chained to the cultural values or time period they were born in is insane. I'll give him a point of being consistent though in that this is a very Conservative idea lol. I have my problems with the bonkers woke-left that seem to be retreating further into fantasy land. But the answer to that is not to live in a theocracy, good grief.
Rich of you to talk about protecting Religious Minorities. I've talked to enough Atheist to know Most Active Atheist are actually Anti-theist who view all religion as a problem to humanity as they view it. The kind who would rather ban religion than grant religious Minorities right. The kind the send me fear knowing that if they took power, Society will end up the same way as it did when Lenin took power and helped in nearly decimating the Russian Orthodox Church. Or the same ones in the CCP, preferring absolute control over religion while barring any religious person from running office as all Party members must be Atheist. If such people took power, I know people like you WILL NOT defend my religious rights at all.
How could Yoram Hazony argue for "a more perfect union" THEN go on to talk about "state's rights"? Also, it is wrong to think of Islam as a monolithic block. Western Muslims advocating for Sharia law change their minds when they see failed examples in the world, like Pakistan, where the Sharia law is practiced from a Sunni perspective which treats Shia Muslims as second class citizens. In many ways the split between Sunni and Shia is reminiscent of the conflict between Protectants and Roman Catholics before they decided to live in harmony.
58:40 I don't think it's good to believe that God generally helps good people to flourish and evil people to be punished in this life (Job-style tests presumably not withstanding) This was of thinking implies that success or failure in life are tied to good or bad behavior. It would be great if life was this fair - but I don't believe it is. Plenty of good people try their best and end up suffering while plenty of bad people rise to positions of great power and wealth.
Maybe there is no God who forces human emotions to driver reality now and on the eternity of your time after death (or the much shorter span while alive). Maybe bad people are the moral ones and self-declared moral ones are the devil, after all, we have the expressions "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "only the good die young" and "no good deed goes unpunished."
@@jenniferlawrence2701 I agree nations have been a good institution, but nationalism is inherently irrational. I think of nationalism as considering your own nation as better than others, especially those who consider it a principle as opposed to an empirical claim. Those who consider the supremacy of the US as a virtue & blindly believe it’s the greatest nation on Earth are a problem for those of us trying to improve it by acknowledging shortcomings.
Although Yoram Hazony argues otherwise, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is not a Conservative writing, but an excellent example of a statement of Enlightenment Liberalism. As the Constitution itself was a document regarding governmental power, the drafters realized the need for the first ten amendments to give substantial limitation to the Constitution. The desire being to preserve the main Liberal principle of individual freedom. As an instrument for instituting a government that could curb individual freedom, the Preamble limits the purpose of government to justice, domestic tranquility, defense, and general welfare which at first glance seem to be Conservative oriented ideas. But, it also lists a final purpose to securing the "Blessings of Liberty". Hazony sees the Liberty phrase as being least because it is last in the list. As a literary device, however, it is last in the sentence to give it emphasis.
This is just the communitarian critique of Kantian-Rawlsian liberalism rehashed for the age of neoliberalism. In the first instance the communitarians were reacting in the 80's to the supposed excesses of social democracy in the West, now they are reacting to the real excesses of neoliberalism run amok which really accelerated in the 90's after the fall of the Soviet Union. But in their critique of hyper-individualism as embodied in the Western liberal tradition in general and neoliberalism in particular, they hide the ball when it comes to just what they wish to replace it with. Scratch the surface and you're left with only two options: ethnic or religious traditionalism. This isn't even really conservatism, it's reactionary. True conservatism allows for change and embraces continuity. Harzony's project is a break with liberal traditions in our polity that go back at least as far as Lincoln, if not to our very founding. Nevertheless I will be reading this book. It looks like the most theoretically rigorous summation of the New Right "national conservative" project since Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed".
Harzony also embraces some change and continuity. He's not of the belief that everything in the past was good, nor that nothing in the present must change. I've seen him flesh this out in other interviews and speeches. Ultimately it comes down to what different people subjectively like and dislike about the past and present.
Hazony seems to prefer the chaos of many religions doing their things (their traditions), even if they're different and sometimes clash violently, to simply jettisoning these stories and fables that have been made up by Hazony’s not-all-powerful god (invented by mere mortals). Tradition somehow trumps all that, the comfort of conforming with local communities, right or wrong, enforcing tight family and traditional beliefs, even if they're nonsense if read carefully. Teaching children nonsense seems especially egregious in this day and age, considering facts learned only recently. I wish Shermer hit the down side of tribalism harder. Tribalism is at the heart of most mass murders (including and especially wars). Surely there are many problems possible with an all-secular world, but it does rid us of the hypocrisy of teaching our children to reason with nonsense like the 72-virgin reward sought by some of the most devout men. Insisting on evidence would thwart that. In the end, it is reason that all people live by, not ten sentences misquoted from Exodus on some southern courthouse walls. Families are important to atheists and secular people, too. Somehow, I hear that the religionists are better in this regard, which is nonsense. Some of the meanest, least functional families are surely among the hyper-religious. Secularism is weak on developing or recognizing the spiritual nature in our brains, and we need to work on that. We've also failed at selling our beliefs, which seems to be our downfall, though we are working on it harder than ever.
It's not Nonsense. Religious are better at Families. Heck they are the only ones interested in Families with Children Nowadays. As a Pew research said. "...religious “nones” are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population in the coming decades due to a combination of low fertility and an older age profile." "Families are important to atheist and secular People too." But many prefer to be Childless for the environment. I wonder who will inherit the future then? "We've failed at selling out beliefs" No. You succeeded. How else did the Woke left exist? They are some of the most irreligious people around. The most irreligious you can ask for. "Secularism is weak on developing and recognizing the Spiritual nature in our brains. We need to work on that." You do realize how much of an Oxymoron this statement is, right?
To my knowledge, the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" was only given to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28) and to Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:1), i.e. at points in the mythical story when there were (supposed to be) only two or eight humans alive "on the land", and a few more might indeed have been a good thing, because humans were then an endangered species. For modern religions to continue preaching that having many children is a good thing in an era of global warming, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, when there are almost 8 billion humans on the planet, is ecocidal and therefore extremely wrong. The failure of the Abrahamic religions to acknowledge overpopulation (of both humans and cattle) and adapt their teaching accordingly is in my opinion (together with their stance on animal use) a moral failure of the highest magnitude.
No, what Schermer is saying about Biden is a function of his own at least semi-wokism oozing you of his skepticism preached, but not held to with all his claims about human nature that he does know to be "true" (sic). Moreover, he certainly has nothing against a woman' right to kill or have killed her unborn child--and with 63 million+ such killings, that makes Schermer an advocate on the level of those genocide promoters of history. Of course, That is my thesis, and I hold it to be true. The man is a dogmatic "skeptic" (sic), one wallowing in self-oblivious righteousness. His skepticism as dogmatic is quite intolerant. What a disappointment!
At 31:50 in the conversation, Shermer conflates religious conservatives with Republicans, presenting a caricature of the former that he can use to criticize the latter. This occurs even though Yoram Hazony clearly and correctly states that the Republican Party was never influenced to any great extent by religious conservatives except while Reagan was in the White House. Shermer suggests that the Republicans claim to favor small government but grow it as much as the Democrats do. And that Republicans say they support individual liberty yet seek to deprive women and gays of individual rights. Like Ayn Rand, and unlike the Democrats, Republicans identify very few legitimate functions for the federal government: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. To suggest that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans with regard to their attitudes and policies regarding the size and scope of government is absurd. It is also absurd to suggest that the Republican party wants to strip women and gays of their individual rights. Of course, the Democratic Party and their allies in the media never cease to smear Republicans with the charge that they are racist, sexist, and homophobic, but they never provide any evidence to back up such claims. In fact, a large portion of Democrats are racists and sexists who believe that blacks and women are inferior and incapable of succeeding without special privileges and affirmative action provided by government and other institutions. And to grant special rights to one group, you have to deny them to another. The Democratic Party is the party of slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, and Jim Crow laws, which is why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. Shermer claims to base his opinions on evidence yet dutifully regurgitates any claim made by the Democrats, no matter how patently false.
I agree with this genius. We should do all go back to the wisdom and fantasies of the religions and superstitions of ancient Egypt, China, India, and of course the morals of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so much more. He can’t be suggesting that the only superior wisdom and crime and punishments fables of the old testaments alone. Who can say that the ancient Chinese traditions have not been successful and contributed to the sustainability of their society. That is what we need; traditions because tribal knowledge of the past is the truth.
So messed up, how the religious don't bat an eye, when using "religion, morals, and virtues" in one sentence, as if religion ensures having morals and being virtuous. It seems like all of his thinking has been infected by his religion.
Weird? Those of us who don't believe in god or gods or the supernatural are the oddballs. Almost everyone who ever lived believed in some kind of supernatural aspect or gods of some kind.
@@bobcharles7933 I suppose it's a fact that scientific truth doesn't have the political reach as superstition and dogma. But it's possible for almost everybody to believe "weird things" - as Michael would call them.
@Web Security In my 82 yrs I have watched the opposite! Maybe it started when politics was brought into the pulpit. They preached about ‘the unsaved out there in world,’ and ‘don’t associate with sinners,’ etc...but it was in my children’s time that they preached on who you should vote for (and they left their church). My friend’s adult children did the same!
No. God is not Man Made. Do no harm? Canada is expanding its Assisted Suicide laws to cover the mentally ill. The most vulnerable and thus putting this law beyond its original argument of alleviating suffering for the terminally ill. For what reason? Monetary savings of Millions of Dollars Annually. Be Good? Good as defined by the Woke involves letting a Woman blind herself with Bleach because she believes she is happier blind. Having her Doctor assist them in blinding themselves and seeing the entire thing as good because it was her choice and that decision is now cosidered good. What's good as defined by Woke involves drag queens being seen as role models to Children via Drag queen story hour. What is good as defined by a Man 20 years ago is a Universe apart to a woke man of the present. Enough for each to see the other as the next Nazi. I learned long ago how a man can be good without God? Simple, they just change what it means to be good so that every action man does can now be called by them as good.
It's when you yourself have suffered the bloody mess of leaving religion that you develop a supercharged bullshit detector, and you know IMMEDIATELY later when you hear someone talking who has hermetically sealed a portion of their beliefs behind insuperable, inscrutable barriers but is not acknowledging this in their very clever reasoning paradigms. I have no time for these idiots, regardless the tactical brilliance they've reserved for all the reasoning to be done ABOVE their dogmas, but not upon or below them.
The discussion about Islam @ 44:00 is hilarious!.. because I could not tell the difference between your guest and any “scholar“ from the muslim brotherhood 😂😂.. your pushback Michael made your guest stutter a bit ! Well done 👍🏼
Shermer took on a big task conversing with this person. A person who ain't going to listen to any fact Shermer states, as Shermer is stating it in a none combative way. This guy just seems to think Shermer supports him and is just wanting to be graced by his godness. I'm mightily surprised you, Shermer, took this on. Everything this guy says is prefaced with the Bible/Old Testament/God says xxx.
Doesn't look like we witnessed the same conversation. What "facts" wouldn't he listen to? On the contrary, he actually made sound arguments against the distorted frame through which Shermer judges social reality. That's because Hazony is a political theorist, that's his domain.
@@tonybanks1035 That's the problem. Liberals and Atheist like him do no see the same reality as we do. You just saw it yourself. Like looking through an entire different universe while living in the same space.
at 54:51, I wish Yoram would've just answered with the obvious: "Because I was raised Jewish!" With religion, unfortunately, it's not about the facts that produce the conclusion, it's about the indoctrination of the child that produces the conclusion.
Facts merely producing a conclusion in a vacuum does not reflect the reality of the primary means by which human societies have always been constituted. Those societies have often, nonetheless, largely worked. If all of the beliefs transmitted across generations were mere hocus-pocus, we would have perished in the wilderness a long time ago. Most of the transmission of human knowledge to this point in history did not follow the scientific method as it is currently construed, nor did it need to in order to be sufficiently functional and bring progress. The parts about belief in the supernatural are almost besides the point.
@@baigandinel7956 Exactly. They keep forgetting that Human Societies have functioned and existed for literally longer than Enlightenment ideas have existed. Egyptians civilizations for one have lasted for more than 3000 years. Christ beliefs started since 2000 years ago. Buddhism? 2500 years ago. Hinduism? 4000 years ago. To keep a functioning society that lasted that long tells a lot about the Function of Religion.
Anglo-American blood and soil. Fantasy continent. The God, boss, the God. The post, the post-modern thing was a huge gift to these New Right, Trad, Reactionary Folks. They are giddy for the Long Road to War and the War of the Roses PT 33.827 LOL Be careful what you wish for when you are putting genies back in bottles.
i will not be lectured to about what is immoral by an athiest who doesn't believe in god. there is no morality without god, anything is justifiable. that's why our society is so screwed up.
@@jeffersonianideal i would at least listen to them because i respect that they believe in something. there is a moral center greater than them that defines how they treat people .athiesm cannot address moral issues because there is no morality there. humanities and ethics are just riding the coattails of religion.
@ Carl Johanson Try some of these Quran passages on and see if they map onto what you consider to be "moral". “God’s curse be upon the infidels!” (2:89). “God is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98). “(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:126). “Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them” (2:154). “But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved” (2:162). “They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire” (2:168). The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing” (2:172). “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage… (I)f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers” (2:190-93). “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not” (2:216). “The evil-doers shall have none to help them” (2:270). “As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire” (3:10). “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” (3:118). Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them” (3:178). “Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” (4:55-56). “Those that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell” (5:86). “They deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn” (6:5). Let me know when you are ready for a fresh set.
@@jeffersonianideal there are similar passages in the bible, which created the moral framework for our society. religions evolve and improve as time passes. the ottoman empire was a muslim theocracy, and it did not function that way. a muslim who killed his christian or jewish neighbor would be executed there.
@@costcolawschool Those passages were calling out people like you and me, specifically. Please indicate what moral tenet is unequivocally dependent upon a belief in the supernatural dimension or mysticism to be upheld?
37:56
Why isn't Dr. Hazony, who evangelically touts conservative ideology, calling for the abolishment of government schools?
He’s not touting Conservative ideology, he is touting religious ideology. They are not the same thing And if u think they are it makes you part of the problem
@@boydhooper4080
He's a religious conservative, isn't he?
Yoram Hazony is one of my favourite scholars. His book on the Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture is a masterpiece that continues to inspire and provoke my thinking. It is a firm favourite of mine. Thank you both for a stimulating discussion. For what it's worth, I believe Yoram made some excellent remarks here. The Liberal experiment has not worked out so well. Engagement with the texts is always rewarded. With the help of that book, I hope to try to turn people on to the Hebrew scriptures.
Burke says: “It is thus with the vulgar, and all men are as the vulgar in what they do not understand”.
Emerging from the Age of Enlightenment, many of America's Founding Fathers were deists, not theists.
Yep. Dawkins' God Delusion has several quotes suggesting Jefferson and other founders were closer to atheism.
@@BUSeixas11
Though an atheistic, Mr. Jefferson would receive even further respect from me, I see no conclusive evidence for the claim. I am content to accept that Mr. Jefferson was a minimalist, both about government, and in reference to the supernatural.
@@jeffersonianideal Indeed, there is no reason to demand there is no god(s) or supernatural powers or creators. There's no evidence, outside a universe that seems pretty amazing to have come from nothing. But our experience is far too limited, still too ignorant of all reality, how chance works especially over billions of years. We just don't have the mental model for understanding this in any real, meaningful way, like with empathy. A billion years is just a lot of years, but 2 billion years versus 1.9 billion years seems rather similar in size, yet that's 100,000,000 years in difference.
@@homewall744
I don't understand your comment. Are you arguing in favor of the Judeo-Christian creationism narrative or against it?
Excellent push-back by Shermer here.
Yep, saw it coming too. Schermer's home field.
30:26
No tenet of conservatism is expressly reliant upon a belief in a supernatural dimension or mysticism in order to be upheld.
34:03
Libertarians are neither conservatives nor liberals. Libertarians have their own, uniquely principled philosophy, steeped in the classical liberal tradition that includes modern, economic liberties, coupled with personal responsibility.
Yoram only helped me understand better why I am an atheist.
He kept speaking for god (that god spoke about in the Bible written by men). Why did god only speak to men 2/3 thousand years ago? Why has god not spoken to me or someone in my vicinity over my 82 years? (Was I never pious enough, for the ‘almighty god? What did he have to loose by speaking to me?) The only modern people that I know of...who said that god spoke to them, started a religion. And not another Jewish one! Why does this so called ‘almighty god,’ only speak to the few, thousands of years ago? Humans are still going, today. Isn’t it hearsay, when someone repeats what god, told someone else?
And further...I wanted more than any person that I know to have a traditional family like I learn about in Church! ‘What god has joined together, let no man put asunder.’ But, my ex was an alcoholic without a moral compass and I could not function in any human capacity in his company! What about others with similar dilemmas? I gave it 17 yrs...how long did I need to see a change? (That ex is now 87, with the same mind set.)
I cannot live in la, la land...that is a life without dignity! At least I created a life that mattered after being shattered by this union!
People who keep speaking for god and say they know exactly what he means and wants from mankind and even animals! This only affirms my atheism! (Why hasn’t god ‘fixed’ the brains of people (his creation) who have debilitating mental problems?)
Thanks Schumer.
As a fellow atheist, I must play devil's advocate and ask: if an all powerful god exists, what compels him/her to personally speak to individual humans in order to prove his/her existence? I do not speak to the ants that sometimes come inside my home when it rains, yet I exist and eradicate them when they overstep the boundary that I've put in place. My refusal to personally communicate to "Tony the Ant" does not affect my existence. No offense meant, Ruth, just commenting on a common argument some of my atheist friends have also made.
@Matt Tardo
I simply could not understand your comment. I can’t speak for anything...not even ants! Now, there are people who believe they ‘know,’ what people and even animals are thinking, but I am not one of them. I try an intuit what might be going on...but that is a crap shoot! And, for the people who believe they know what God ‘thinks and wants’...they are simply using years of memorized scripture...and appear to never contemplate the complexity of life as they live in it! Maybe...they don’t have to...being that these scriptures are so deeply embedded in brain cells...that no new information can take hold! (Looks like this among relatives and neighbors.)
@Matt Tardo
Now...if you are saying that ‘god’ does not need to speak to people or instill in them requirements...to be their ‘god’...I guess that is possible...in the minds of certain people!
Somehow, I cannot imagine a ‘nothingness’ god! No ideas, no imaginings...just a blank space in ‘the mind!’ I have never observed such a phenomenon...but then ...I have not observed ‘everything!’
@@ruthokelley5833 Well, I don't mean a "nothingness" god, a god that has no inherent qualities - that is more akin to the Deists' God: a god that created and then proceeded to step back out of the picture and let things run their course and who doesn't have any strong feelings either way about what it's creations do. I meant a god that has an identity and mind. IF we are it's creations (theoretically) and IF we are like ants to this god, what right do we have to demand a personal communication and relationship with this deity? A follow-up to my previous point on ants: the ants somehow found my cat treats in the cupboard and began raiding them, since they need food. If I take the place of a deity (in my little analogy) I have certain expectations on how I want those ants to live their lives, and I felt no guilt in exterminating them once they broke my "rules". I couldn't possibly tell them my rules - how does one expect an ant to understand my language, not to mention the very concept of my sacred space (the cupboard)? They are dead now, not knowing why they were killed, or even what killed them. But I know. They only knew that I had cat treats, and even then they only knew them as food - they had no idea that the cat treats were just one small facet of my existence. Yet I exist, and their desecration of my "sacred space" cost them their lives. Cruel? Perhaps. Maybe the survivors will find a way to warn others using primitive ant folk tales, and then some day perhaps a religion will form. But they will still only be capable of understanding me as ants. There's a Platonic allegory of the cave here I think ha ha!
You're an atheist because you choose to be. Like most atheist you trash any with a religious experience. Why would you do that? Why so much hatred? Like Michael you extrapolate the extreme concepts and things you hear and disregard everything else. Much of the civil rights movement was driven by a religious foundation that both MLK and Rosa Parks were inspired by. No need to have a conversation with God, but maybe you should open your heart and try listening a little closer.
As President, Ronald Reagan expanded the size and scope of government, never abolished a single federal agency, but instead, created a new one, tripled the national debt in a record setting eight years, and lowered taxes only to raise them twice. If that's Dr. Hazony's idea of a conservative, my compliments.
Ronald Reagan in hell waiting for heaven to trickle down to him
Did he cut some trees though? Trees are the biggest polluters.
@@bjorsam6979
If he did, he cut more of them than he ever cut government.
Don't forget Reagan's other fine accomplishments... expanded American hegemony by illegally selling arms to Iran and the Contras and launched the massive and egregious war on drugs
@@LouisRoss
It's emblazoned in my memory like a car wreck. In my naive youth, when I was still a Leftist socialist, I resented Reagan for what he did. When I abandoned my foolish political ideology and grew up, I resented Reagan for what he promised but failed to do.
Ronald Reagan, who campaigned like a libertarian and governed like an authoritarian, was neither saint nor sinner. He merely said one thing and did another, as any duplicitous politico does.
Yep, let's all remember that he was a good actor who was able to "act the part". If any of the stories are true about him turning down a proposal from Gorbachev to destroy all Russian nuclear weapons (with verification) in exchange for stopping development of SDI (a.k.a. Star Wars), then he will go down in history as the biggest fool.
@@NeilRieck
I'm not certain about the arms for SDI deal, but it sounds implausible. I cannot imagine Gorbachev being permitted by his Politburo to make such an offer. Additionally, the Ruskies were, at least, smart enough to realize that SDI was a pipe dream, having not yet been perfected.
By the end of his term in office, Ronald Reagan only managed to achieve one libertarian-esque accomplishment as President. He deregulated oil and gas. It wasn't his idea. Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, initially undertook the plan. Ronald Reagan just sped up the process.
@@NeilRieck He wasn’t a good actor my dude.
@@PeterGibbonns Agreed. Then during the McCarthyism years Americans learned that as president of the screen actor's guild (a union), he had been supplying the government with the names of so-called communist union members (were they actually communists or left leaning? Who knows). But there is no way that a failed system like communism would ever be able to work in a capitalist democratic society so the whole red-scare thing always seemed a joke. But people like Regan fell for it.
You're correct here. He was neither of those things. He was a corporate shill.
1:11:07
As is so often the case, it doesn’t take long for a conservative ideologue to begin advocating utilitarian statism.
My friend I’m Conservative but I’m a staunch atheist. Don’t confuse Conservative with religious ideologue. It’s insulting
@@boydhooper4080
Relevance to the OP arriving anytime soon?
59:17
Superstitions are also traditions. How many are demonstrably reliable?
Slavery was a very long running tradition. Women being subservient has a very long running tradition. Being subject to kings/lords has a very long running tradition. Burning wood and dung for fuel has a very long running tradition. War has a very long running tradition.
@@homewall744
Which one of the examples you listed is steeped in the supernatural?
Michael, thank you for letting Yoram fully voice his arguments. Excellent discussion.
He got Shermer on that future Muslim question. Liberals seem not to fully appreciate that their Liberalism is specifically the culture of Western Europeans and the nations they spawned. In that sense the "woke" Left are correct: it is 'White' culture. There is no reason to assume a society mostly made up of non-Europeans (particularly ones with their own strong religious identity) would keep intact the Liberal institutions Shermer values. Supreme courts and constitutions are not immune to demographic change.
Liberals have to view humanity in a light that shows Naivety for human nature because there entire Ideology rest upon man and if they were to acknowledge his worst tendencies as inherit to his being as his good qualities are. Then they would realize the flaws in their idealogy.
How I enjoy watching somewhat reasonable believers, trying to justify their ultimately crazy beliefs.
Exactly. Watching Yoram contort himself verbally to answer questions and explain away the crazy. The Noah story is a great example. It could be Yoram's explanation of these ancient rules and stories or it could just be that the bible was written by people at the time, based on what they knew and believed then, and it's just a book. Which is more likely?
Yes, it's quite superstitious to believe in say, empiricism (as Hazony does), over an infallible capital R Reason (as the "scientific" left does).
@@baigandinel7956 Hah hah, you can´t have it both ways. You either recognise reality (reason, logic), or don´t (religion).
@@oldtimer7635Reality itself is NOT equivalent to reason and logic, because reason and logic have not yet fully deduced or elucidated all aspects of human existence that there are, nor will they ever. They are not unlimited faculties in the human brain, which is why we need empiricism (the actual practice of science and gathering of evidence), and we need other things besides that (like existing social institutions) in order to keep things reasonably functional until we ever reach such a hypothetical nirvana of perfect knowledge.
Struck me as odd he would say Moses was commanded by god not to disrupt his neighbors, when the Israelites proceeded on n a military campaign to decimate the Canaan valley almost immediately after.
If you were commanded by god, perhaps hoping for logic/reason isn't possible.
@@homewall744 of course it’s odd to say you were commanded by god to do anything but my point was they did the opposite
I see liberalism as a response to conservatism, or more precisely as a response to the largely oppressive nature of conservatism. Liberalism is the desire for rights that conservatism would otherwise fail to secure.
But as we see now though that liberalism is starting to fail like some predicted
1:24:00 - I can't find the quote but Pinker is hardly unwilling to look at the years before the enlightenment.
The quote was something like 'nothing comes from nothing - and enlightenment ideas did not spring into existence fully formed'
I love how Shermer is perpetually aware of his confusion about what conservatism is - without correcting himself - and is blissfully unaware of his confusion about the fact that leftists/Democrats are not liberals.
Liberals take a rosy view of human nature, while conservatives take a darker view. The latter are more realistic.
I don't think so. Liberals believe most humans are incompetent, unable to choose wisely for themselves, unable to live in a community without lots of rules that constrain behavior. They think a bad worker deserves higher pay and union protections. They believe blacks are too backwards to do well in school and jobs without special assistance. They think they can take money by force from the productive and give it to the unproductive and that's a good thing. The reject innovation, risk-taking and good luck. They want to tame human nature so we're all cogs to their leftist elite ruling class.
Human nature is cruel.
"The experiment in liberal rationalism has collapsed."
This is of course bollocks. I'm from Sweden, a country where almost nobody is religious except immigrants. We also boast better stats than any religious country in the history of time when it somes to things like child mortality, murder rate, average health and life span, education, innovation, self rated life satisfaction and so on. But it got me thinking that if you're a conservative christian nationalist, it just might feel like it all has gone down the drain because the rational parts of society has left you behind.
Same for Australia.
@@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104 yeah I see 38% of australians now identify as non-religious. Quite an increase since a decade ago when only 22% ticked the same ballot box option.
The same figure for Sweden has been over 50% since long and only one in ten Swedes thinks religion is important in daily life or has trust in a religious leader.
Both countries do better than more religious ones when it comes to quality of life measures. We should admit this is merely correlations.
Exactly!
@Morgan Allen hold your horses Morgan, you need to nuance your thinking. Birthrates over 2.1 aren't sustainable withour some real boosts to space colonization, I hope you agree? And even though I'm also opposed to mass immigration, surely immigration helps flatten the age pyramid - Japan, that has no immigration, in that particular respect face the music now. Hazony present NO solutions (watched the whole video) and yes, many conservatives conflate liberalism with non-rationalist views such as blank-slatism - don't fall into that please.
I agree migration needs an overhaul.
I agree current economics is completely unsustainable, especially when it comes to long term environmental sustainability and inequality, but also because of secret shit like tax havens and bought politicians. Just look how hard it's been to establish wether Putin actually owns a yacht or not.
I agree the HBTQ thing is weirdly fringy in the USA, but we just don't have much of that debate over here in Sweden. Because, you know, we're somewhat rational.
But Sweden's state finances are in supreme shape, with very low debt and running a government surplus until C19. No need to worry about Sweden. For generations the Nordic countries lead the world in terms of life expectancy, health adjusted life expectancy, self reported life satisfaction, environmental protection, social trust, trust in government, low corruption, teenage pregnancies, premature death, social mobility and so on, while still high in inventions, research, economic freedom and entrepreneurship. For generations the religious right have predicted the downfall of these secular, socialist, liberal, rational and highly taxed countries. I see you have joined up! It's an old tradition by now. I note Sweden has a higher fertility rate than most OECD countries, but I'm sure you can predict it's all going down the drain anyways.
@Morgan Allen I agree on many of your points: the boomer problem, the downsides of a top-heave age pyramid, the dangers of comprehensive life extension, all that.
But I have to ask where you found the numbers for the fertility rates of swedish immigrants. I hope it's not Gefira? Their reputation isn't good. The research I know says immigrants adopt the same fertility rates as their new country only a couple of years after moving in. I know Gunnar Andersson, professor of demographics at Stockholm university, claim second generation immigrants in Sweden boasts birth rates significantly below average, especially considering their lower SES. I'm not a fan of the whole Great Replacement theory, but I certainly take it seriously given credible sources. I guess it comes down to how economically productive 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants are? Doesn't look too good right now for sure, with low immigrant economic output. However in your analysis you seem to compare unproductive young people to old and sick people. People requiring healthcare service, home support or eldercare simply cost so much more than any unproductive young sleuth ever could.
Our immigrants from Iran back from the Shah days are doing very well. There was a huge brain drain from there and we receive some of that from Russia now. It might just turn positive and in the really long perspective it won't matter if your ancestors came from Turkey, Somalia, Russia or ancient Sweden?
Regardless, no matter how you contort these numbers, the swedish economic outlook isn't standing on any abyssal precipe. But 20 years on you'll have forgotten all about your disproven cataclysmic prediction and make a new one up? I can't even gloat because you'll keep me busy with a new apocalypse brought forth by the ungodly crowd? Sweden by then shall perish due to ...lost traditional values, what say you?
Good talk - thank you for keeping him on the run, Michael. Religion really does poison everything. best, D.A., J.D., NYC
You think he kept him on the run? That was an embarrassing interview - I feel bad for Shermer! The absolute frustration you could hear from the other guy (I forget his name, sorry) over the course of the interview was from Michaels inability to grasp the arguments being made and adapt with reasonable answers. Shermer did what he almost always does: he comes to conclusions about his interview subject (opponent), writes down a bunch of answers and questions to ask beforehand, and then forcibly tries to shoehorn them into the discussion. If this was a debate, Shermer would have lost - and that's a shame!
Dennis Diderot, considered one of the originators and interpreters of the Enlightenment.
Is best known for this quote.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
I can sympathize with Hazony's desire to see some kind of resurgence of traditional cultural values. A lot of people nowadays, primarily people on the left I guess, see anything in the past as inherently bad and that only by leaving traditions behind can we make 'progress'. Obviously this view is too simplistic and often just wrong.
The problem is his entire thesis seems to be based on the idea of returning to explicitly religious values. His dismissal of the wall of separation between church and state is pretty scary and I was happy to see Shermer push back on it. He discusses the founders but seems to forget that much of desire behind the separation idea comes not just from their fear of state backed churches, but their understanding of the fractious religious history of the colonies themselves. A nation with no protection for religious minorities is not the kind of nation I want to live in. Christian prayer does not offend me, but imagine a school where 70% of the students are Christian, and 30% are irreligious or some other religion. Would it seem ethical to force those children to say a Christian prayer every morning and study the Bible in school? I would say no. Hazony comes across here as a very articulate, very misguided Theocrat.
But putting that aside for a moment I find some of his logic pretty questionable. He makes a wishy-washy argument about enlightenment values not being able to emerge in a non-religious environment. Even if that were true, which I dont think it is, my rebuttal to that is - so? So what if these values that we modern people hold dear could only have emerged inside the conflict of religion? How exactly does that mean we should return to a religious society? Much of the foundation of western philosophy comes from Ancient Greece. Does that mean we should all try to live like Plato? The notion that ideas should be forever chained to the cultural values or time period they were born in is insane. I'll give him a point of being consistent though in that this is a very Conservative idea lol.
I have my problems with the bonkers woke-left that seem to be retreating further into fantasy land. But the answer to that is not to live in a theocracy, good grief.
I completely agree with your assessment.
Rich of you to talk about protecting Religious Minorities. I've talked to enough Atheist to know Most Active Atheist are actually Anti-theist who view all religion as a problem to humanity as they view it. The kind who would rather ban religion than grant religious Minorities right.
The kind the send me fear knowing that if they took power, Society will end up the same way as it did when Lenin took power and helped in nearly decimating the Russian Orthodox Church. Or the same ones in the CCP, preferring absolute control over religion while barring any religious person from running office as all Party members must be Atheist.
If such people took power, I know people like you WILL NOT defend my religious rights at all.
How could Yoram Hazony argue for "a more perfect union" THEN go on to talk about "state's rights"? Also, it is wrong to think of Islam as a monolithic block. Western Muslims advocating for Sharia law change their minds when they see failed examples in the world, like Pakistan, where the Sharia law is practiced from a Sunni perspective which treats Shia Muslims as second class citizens. In many ways the split between Sunni and Shia is reminiscent of the conflict between Protectants and Roman Catholics before they decided to live in harmony.
58:40 I don't think it's good to believe that God generally helps good people to flourish and evil people to be punished in this life (Job-style tests presumably not withstanding)
This was of thinking implies that success or failure in life are tied to good or bad behavior.
It would be great if life was this fair - but I don't believe it is. Plenty of good people try their best and end up suffering while plenty of bad people rise to positions of great power and wealth.
Maybe there is no God who forces human emotions to driver reality now and on the eternity of your time after death (or the much shorter span while alive). Maybe bad people are the moral ones and self-declared moral ones are the devil, after all, we have the expressions "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "only the good die young" and "no good deed goes unpunished."
Nationalism is one of the worst ideas, right behind religion
I disagree. Nation-states have been broadly good things, and they are preferable to empires.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 I agree nations have been a good institution, but nationalism is inherently irrational. I think of nationalism as considering your own nation as better than others, especially those who consider it a principle as opposed to an empirical claim. Those who consider the supremacy of the US as a virtue & blindly believe it’s the greatest nation on Earth are a problem for those of us trying to improve it by acknowledging shortcomings.
Although Yoram Hazony argues otherwise, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is not a Conservative writing, but an excellent example of a statement of Enlightenment Liberalism. As the Constitution itself was a document regarding governmental power, the drafters realized the need for the first ten amendments to give substantial limitation to the Constitution. The desire being to preserve the main Liberal principle of individual freedom. As an instrument for instituting a government that could curb individual freedom, the Preamble limits the purpose of government to justice, domestic tranquility, defense, and general welfare which at first glance seem to be Conservative oriented ideas. But, it also lists a final purpose to securing the "Blessings of Liberty". Hazony sees the Liberty phrase as being least because it is last in the list. As a literary device, however, it is last in the sentence to give it emphasis.
This is just the communitarian critique of Kantian-Rawlsian liberalism rehashed for the age of neoliberalism. In the first instance the communitarians were reacting in the 80's to the supposed excesses of social democracy in the West, now they are reacting to the real excesses of neoliberalism run amok which really accelerated in the 90's after the fall of the Soviet Union. But in their critique of hyper-individualism as embodied in the Western liberal tradition in general and neoliberalism in particular, they hide the ball when it comes to just what they wish to replace it with. Scratch the surface and you're left with only two options: ethnic or religious traditionalism. This isn't even really conservatism, it's reactionary. True conservatism allows for change and embraces continuity. Harzony's project is a break with liberal traditions in our polity that go back at least as far as Lincoln, if not to our very founding. Nevertheless I will be reading this book. It looks like the most theoretically rigorous summation of the New Right "national conservative" project since Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed".
Harzony also embraces some change and continuity. He's not of the belief that everything in the past was good, nor that nothing in the present must change. I've seen him flesh this out in other interviews and speeches. Ultimately it comes down to what different people subjectively like and dislike about the past and present.
Hazony seems to prefer the chaos of many religions doing their things (their traditions), even if they're different and sometimes clash violently, to simply jettisoning these stories and fables that have been made up by Hazony’s not-all-powerful god (invented by mere mortals). Tradition somehow trumps all that, the comfort of conforming with local communities, right or wrong, enforcing tight family and traditional beliefs, even if they're nonsense if read carefully. Teaching children nonsense seems especially egregious in this day and age, considering facts learned only recently. I wish Shermer hit the down side of tribalism harder. Tribalism is at the heart of most mass murders (including and especially wars). Surely there are many problems possible with an all-secular world, but it does rid us of the hypocrisy of teaching our children to reason with nonsense like the 72-virgin reward sought by some of the most devout men. Insisting on evidence would thwart that. In the end, it is reason that all people live by, not ten sentences misquoted from Exodus on some southern courthouse walls. Families are important to atheists and secular people, too. Somehow, I hear that the religionists are better in this regard, which is nonsense. Some of the meanest, least functional families are surely among the hyper-religious. Secularism is weak on developing or recognizing the spiritual nature in our brains, and we need to work on that. We've also failed at selling our beliefs, which seems to be our downfall, though we are working on it harder than ever.
I wish I could upvote this twice. Thrice. Froi... what's the word?
It's not Nonsense. Religious are better at Families.
Heck they are the only ones interested in Families with Children Nowadays. As a Pew research said.
"...religious “nones” are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population in the coming decades due to a combination of low fertility and an older age profile."
"Families are important to atheist and secular People too."
But many prefer to be Childless for the environment. I wonder who will inherit the future then?
"We've failed at selling out beliefs"
No. You succeeded. How else did the Woke left exist? They are some of the most irreligious people around. The most irreligious you can ask for.
"Secularism is weak on developing and recognizing the Spiritual nature in our brains. We need to work on that."
You do realize how much of an Oxymoron this statement is, right?
👍🏻 Yoram Hazony!
To my knowledge, the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" was only given to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28) and to Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:1), i.e. at points in the mythical story when there were (supposed to be) only two or eight humans alive "on the land", and a few more might indeed have been a good thing, because humans were then an endangered species. For modern religions to continue preaching that having many children is a good thing in an era of global warming, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, when there are almost 8 billion humans on the planet, is ecocidal and therefore extremely wrong.
The failure of the Abrahamic religions to acknowledge overpopulation (of both humans and cattle) and adapt their teaching accordingly is in my opinion (together with their stance on animal use) a moral failure of the highest magnitude.
Moral failing? Don't think so. Besides European Populations are falling anyways and are now using replacement migrationt o sustain there economies.
Shermer saying Biden isn't into the "woke stuff" has got to be the dumbest thing said in this entire interview and that's saying something.
No, what Schermer is saying about Biden is a function of his own at least semi-wokism oozing you of his skepticism preached, but not held to with all his claims about human nature that he does know to be "true" (sic). Moreover, he certainly has nothing against a woman' right to kill or have killed her unborn child--and with 63 million+ such killings, that makes Schermer an advocate on the level of those genocide promoters of history. Of course, That is my thesis, and I hold it to be true. The man is a dogmatic "skeptic" (sic), one wallowing in self-oblivious righteousness. His skepticism as dogmatic is quite intolerant. What a disappointment!
At 31:50 in the conversation, Shermer conflates religious conservatives with Republicans, presenting a caricature of the former that he can use to criticize the latter. This occurs even though Yoram Hazony clearly and correctly states that the Republican Party was never influenced to any great extent by religious conservatives except while Reagan was in the White House. Shermer suggests that the Republicans claim to favor small government but grow it as much as the Democrats do. And that Republicans say they support individual liberty yet seek to deprive women and gays of individual rights.
Like Ayn Rand, and unlike the Democrats, Republicans identify very few legitimate functions for the federal government: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. To suggest that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans with regard to their attitudes and policies regarding the size and scope of government is absurd.
It is also absurd to suggest that the Republican party wants to strip women and gays of their individual rights. Of course, the Democratic Party and their allies in the media never cease to smear Republicans with the charge that they are racist, sexist, and homophobic, but they never provide any evidence to back up such claims. In fact, a large portion of Democrats are racists and sexists who believe that blacks and women are inferior and incapable of succeeding without special privileges and affirmative action provided by government and other institutions. And to grant special rights to one group, you have to deny them to another. The Democratic Party is the party of slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, and Jim Crow laws, which is why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.
Shermer claims to base his opinions on evidence yet dutifully regurgitates any claim made by the Democrats, no matter how patently false.
Word.
38:00 Notice how he doges a straight forward question. Squirms and reverts to what-about-isms. Yeap he's a conservative alright.
I agree with this genius. We should do all go back to the wisdom and fantasies of the religions and superstitions of ancient Egypt, China, India, and of course the morals of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so much more. He can’t be suggesting that the only superior wisdom and crime and punishments fables of the old testaments alone. Who can say that the ancient Chinese traditions have not been successful and contributed to the sustainability of their society. That is what we need; traditions because tribal knowledge of the past is the truth.
It's nice to see real conservative & religious ideals explained
They are very different from the secular liberalism of most skeptics
Couldn't agree more.
So messed up, how the religious don't bat an eye, when using "religion, morals, and virtues" in one sentence, as if religion ensures having morals and being virtuous.
It seems like all of his thinking has been infected by his religion.
Liberalism has failed as well. Given how now Assited Suicide for the Mentally ill is a good thing now.
Before becoming libertarian, I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and I never believed in any gods.
Myself
Yoram Hazony seems a nice guy with very weird ideas, starting with his believe in god
Weird? Those of us who don't believe in god or gods or the supernatural are the oddballs. Almost everyone who ever lived believed in some kind of supernatural aspect or gods of some kind.
@@bobcharles7933 I suppose it's a fact that scientific truth doesn't have the political reach as superstition and dogma. But it's possible for almost everybody to believe "weird things" - as Michael would call them.
We witness today how religion is bringing America down. It's been a pain since America's conception
@@intlprofs Just the opposite, as we've become less religious we've begun our fall.
@Web Security
In my 82 yrs I have watched the opposite! Maybe it started when politics was brought into the pulpit. They preached about ‘the unsaved out there in world,’ and ‘don’t associate with sinners,’ etc...but it was in my children’s time that they preached on who you should vote for (and they left their church). My friend’s adult children did the same!
All religions and religious books are man-made. Be good, do no harm, and beware of con artists, religious or secular.
No. God is not Man Made.
Do no harm? Canada is expanding its Assisted Suicide laws to cover the mentally ill. The most vulnerable and thus putting this law beyond its original argument of alleviating suffering for the terminally ill. For what reason? Monetary savings of Millions of Dollars Annually.
Be Good? Good as defined by the Woke involves letting a Woman blind herself with Bleach because she believes she is happier blind. Having her Doctor assist them in blinding themselves and seeing the entire thing as good because it was her choice and that decision is now cosidered good.
What's good as defined by Woke involves drag queens being seen as role models to Children via Drag queen story hour.
What is good as defined by a Man 20 years ago is a Universe apart to a woke man of the present. Enough for each to see the other as the next Nazi.
I learned long ago how a man can be good without God?
Simple, they just change what it means to be good so that every action man does can now be called by them as good.
Oh. It turns out that theology IS just cherry picking scriptures after all. Thanks Yoram for confirming this assumption so obligingly
...and thank you Michael for providing so much room for him to splash about in
@@wasATsea atheist triggered much?
@@tonybanks1035 They like to say Gotcha without even saying why.
So Conservatism is collectivism + religion.
Ideally it should aim to be a balance of Collectivism and Individualism, rather than too-much or too-little of either.
You sure do know a lot of stuff about a lot of topics, Michael!
Agree. He is the 'dog's b33locks' of podcasts of this type in IMHO
1:01:00 Shermer goes on a rant and then brings up the constitution as his bible. ROFL. FAIL.
It's when you yourself have suffered the bloody mess of leaving religion that you develop a supercharged bullshit detector, and you know IMMEDIATELY later when you hear someone talking who has hermetically sealed a portion of their beliefs behind insuperable, inscrutable barriers but is not acknowledging this in their very clever reasoning paradigms. I have no time for these idiots, regardless the tactical brilliance they've reserved for all the reasoning to be done ABOVE their dogmas, but not upon or below them.
Men like Yoram are far above your grade anyways.
The discussion about Islam @ 44:00 is hilarious!.. because I could not tell the difference between your guest and any “scholar“ from the muslim brotherhood 😂😂.. your pushback Michael made your guest stutter a bit ! Well done 👍🏼
Who thinks Fox News represents Conservatives? That’s laughable.
Liberals apparently.
Hey ,,
I am wandering,, why (always) your guests are Jewish ,, and has relation to Israel ?!
Shermer took on a big task conversing with this person. A person who ain't going to listen to any fact Shermer states, as Shermer is stating it in a none combative way. This guy just seems to think Shermer supports him and is just wanting to be graced by his godness. I'm mightily surprised you, Shermer, took this on. Everything this guy says is prefaced with the Bible/Old Testament/God says xxx.
Doesn't look like we witnessed the same conversation. What "facts" wouldn't he listen to? On the contrary, he actually made sound arguments against the distorted frame through which Shermer judges social reality. That's because Hazony is a political theorist, that's his domain.
@@tonybanks1035 That's the problem. Liberals and Atheist like him do no see the same reality as we do.
You just saw it yourself. Like looking through an entire different universe while living in the same space.
at 54:51, I wish Yoram would've just answered with the obvious: "Because I was raised Jewish!" With religion, unfortunately, it's not about the facts that produce the conclusion, it's about the indoctrination of the child that produces the conclusion.
Facts merely producing a conclusion in a vacuum does not reflect the reality of the primary means by which human societies have always been constituted. Those societies have often, nonetheless, largely worked. If all of the beliefs transmitted across generations were mere hocus-pocus, we would have perished in the wilderness a long time ago. Most of the transmission of human knowledge to this point in history did not follow the scientific method as it is currently construed, nor did it need to in order to be sufficiently functional and bring progress. The parts about belief in the supernatural are almost besides the point.
@@baigandinel7956 Exactly. They keep forgetting that Human Societies have functioned and existed for literally longer than Enlightenment ideas have existed. Egyptians civilizations for one have lasted for more than 3000 years.
Christ beliefs started since 2000 years ago.
Buddhism? 2500 years ago.
Hinduism? 4000 years ago.
To keep a functioning society that lasted that long tells a lot about the Function of Religion.
U were raised white
Anglo-American blood and soil. Fantasy continent. The God, boss, the God. The post, the post-modern thing was a huge gift to these New Right, Trad, Reactionary Folks. They are giddy for the Long Road to War and the War of the Roses PT 33.827 LOL Be careful what you wish for when you are putting genies back in bottles.
His atheism is unsufferable.
The worst kind
In summary, boring bible talk...
i will not be lectured to about what is immoral by an athiest who doesn't believe in god.
there is no morality without god, anything is justifiable. that's why our society is so screwed up.
Would you be content with a lecture on morality from a Shia Muslim?
@@jeffersonianideal i would at least listen to them because i respect that they believe in something.
there is a moral center greater than them that defines how they treat people .athiesm cannot address
moral issues because there is no morality there. humanities and ethics are just riding the coattails of religion.
@ Carl Johanson
Try some of these Quran passages on and see if they map onto what you consider to be "moral".
“God’s curse be upon the infidels!” (2:89).
“God is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98).
“(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:126).
“Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them” (2:154).
“But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved” (2:162).
“They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire” (2:168).
The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing” (2:172).
“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage… (I)f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers” (2:190-93).
“Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not” (2:216).
“The evil-doers shall have none to help them” (2:270).
“As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire” (3:10).
“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal” (3:118).
Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them” (3:178).
“Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” (4:55-56).
“Those that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell” (5:86).
“They deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn” (6:5).
Let me know when you are ready for a fresh set.
@@jeffersonianideal there are similar passages in the bible, which created the moral framework for our society. religions evolve and improve as time passes. the ottoman empire was a muslim theocracy, and it did not function that way. a muslim who killed his christian or jewish neighbor would be executed there.
@@costcolawschool
Those passages were calling out people like you and me, specifically.
Please indicate what moral tenet is unequivocally dependent upon a belief in the supernatural dimension or mysticism to be upheld?
1:35:30 From the guy who visited Epstein Island. What a joke!