The Lazy Dogmatism of Sam Harris
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2024
- Joe Heschmeyer explores Sam Harris's logical fallacies and dogmatic atheism.
Get more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
/ shamelesspopery
Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
www.catholic.c...
I changed my mind on protestantism and came to Catholicism does that count?
Welcome home!
Counts for me! 🙂Glad you're home.
Go from stupid idea to non believe in bullshit. That would be better.
Picking one delusion over another is disgusting
@@kennym3492 What do you believe in? (apart from being needlessly abusive. You clearly believe in that)
@@kennym3492believing in a God that loves and died for you is delusional?
"The difficulty of explaining 'why I am a Catholic' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true." - G.K. Chesterton
I think Hitchens was going to work on a book on Chesterton before he died but never got to it.
@@PoetlaureateNFDLI don’t see how Hitchens could have read Chesterton and used the terrible arguments he’s used.
19:12 Ikea instructions are proof positive that not all swedes are nice
😂
Refuting error is an act of God’s mercy. After all, it says to instruct the ignorant. Catholicism has withstood the test of time.
Science isn’t the ultimate good. It’s limited. So there you go.
That’s true, but has to be understood within the bounds of charity, which include things like kindness, particularly because as Saint Paul says truth without love is nothing but a clanging gong, namely, because without love in our heart and discern in our words, it sounds like hate, and thus people often respond to it as such and are not transformed by the truth. It’s like the pain goes. You might win the argument, but you’ll lose their heart and soul in the process. Eventually yes the error needs to be corrected, but only within the context of them knowing that you care will that actually have an impact on them in 99 cases out of 100.
@@nickw9766 sure the infallibility of pope's from the 1869-70 Vatican 1 was the beginning of the end for the Roman Catholic church.
@@nickw9766 good or bad in anything you can name with human search for meaning.
@@t.j.armendariz354 sure hatred for the people of Israel centuries of hatred s still today.
I think my first steps coming back to the Catholic Church were inspired by the work of Popper. His ideas of the scientific endeavor changed the way I saw my scientific work (I am a Biochemist), through the understanding of the difference between verification vs falsification of hypotheses. Learning about the history of scientific deveiopment in the Western world and how such development was founded on theological ideas of a logic and ordered universe (ideas that cannot be scientifically demonstrated but assumed as true in order to enact the scientific method itself), together with the demarcation of scientific disciplines (from Popper) led me to acknowledge the reasonability of the Catholic faith... took me years to come back but that definitiely was the beginning of that path for me. Thanks Joe for the video!
19:11 - This is a problem I see with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as well. There's this implicit assumption that if everyone individually approaches the text in good faith that they will all come away with the same interpretations derived from their experience. Like Popper points out with scientific claims, it just doesn't work that way. Without a living teaching authority connected to Christ and the Apostles to continually proclaim the true interpretation to an ever-changing audience, Scripture's true meaning would be lost to time-unless you believe each believer is somehow protected by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations which blatantly contradicts reality.
I converted based on evidence 🤦🏻♂️
Welcome home!
Same here brother!
I was argued into atheism, then argued into Catholicism.
@@haydenggallen Welcome home!
Me too. And I chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy because the Catholic Church is more consistent in the minutia. One important example is that of contraception.
@ Same with Divorce. They dont have names for their denominations within orthodoxy, everything is so decentralized that they resemble Protestants
I grew up a Methodist. My grandfather was a Methodist minister. Not too far into adulthood I started wondering why I should be Methodist and not Mormon, or Muslim. From there, I came to believe that without actual evidence, the core tenets of each of these religious beliefs have insufficient support necessary for belief. I have been an atheist for decades basically awaiting that evidence.
The logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism. If we live in a universe that came into being by accident or simple mechanical processes, evolved essentially through trial and error, and then die and cease to exist for all eternity, why does truth even matter? Why do atheists have the notion that living by scientific knowledge is objectively superior? What universal law burdens us with the need for material confirmation? If we all just die and are utterly erased from reality, then nothing matters.
I am a Christian. It makes me happy. I agree with its moral codes. It brings me fulfilment. I need no other reasons for my religious beliefs.
If you say I shouldn't be because of lack of scientific evidence and I should be an atheist instead, then as an atheist I would come to the conclusion that no choice I make truly matters (see above). If no choice matters then I am free to make any choice. I would choose to be Christian.
We do not treat any other life matter the way atheism treats religion. Does a man fret over his marriage because he scientifically cannot prove his wife is his ideal partner? Does a person abandon their friends because they cannot scientifically prove they are the right companions for them? Are our political beliefs scientifically verifiable, our hobbies, our tastes, our way of life?
You should start wondering why you should be an atheist when you could a Catholic.
Same but w catholic. The religion folks come.across nutty af to me
Any time Karl Popper is mentioned, my mind is pleased!
I had never heard of Sam Harris. Thank you for explaining his "naturalistic positivism" and "consequentialism". (And my mind jumps to the call to "Believe the Science!") You did such a good job of bringing Popper to bear on Harris!
Thank you!
“I had never heard of Sam Harris” man I’m jealous
A diet that includes Popper and not Harris sounds... healthy.
As a Swede I approve of this video.
Another white swan. This neither confirms nor debunks my theory.
@ , Love your videos, keep up the good work.
As a Lutheran inquiring into Catholicism I would love to see some more videos concerning the differences in theology between the two denominations.
Really enjoying these types of videos that question the open mindedness of “skeptics”. The are we living in a simulation video was excellent. The epicureans of our day don’t believe they hold to any dogma. They don’t question how little the desire for transcendence and eternal life jives with evolutionary theories.
Definitely like these videos that do deep dives into our differences with the world. (The fact that I enjoy these more than your Catholic apology videos totally has nothing to do with my being Lutheran)
Hahahaha! What I'm hearing is "Go argue over there, pal!" 😅 In all seriousness, thank you!
@@shamelesspoperyYeah lol. No you do a good job.
As someone who was suckered in by the claims that rationalism and science would be the end all be all of thought, I have to say my ability to see the world improved when I started to accept more than just materialism.
I wish I had shows like this back in the day, would have saved me a lot of trouble and been a better counter point to the stuff I was reading and watching then.
Please keep it up.
These videos help me look into new topics and defend my re-found faith in a way that is more helpful. Thank you.
Thank you for your witness here! I think there are people who might still be going through that phase who need to read it.
What was some helpful resources in the arguments against naturalism?
@@grond21Philosophy for the People podcast with Pat Flynn
I believe that Gk Chesterton said in a debate with a natural evolution theorist who said that man is a creature who makes apparatus like an animal to refute the claims of religious dogma. Chesterton pointed out that what he was claiming is a dogma and man is more than a creature that can create something and be described more as a creature that creates dogma which can't be found in nature in a pure material sense
what does this prove? Both here are being dogmatic. The first makes an apparently unsupported claim that man makes animal-like apparatus to refute religious dogma (I don't see the point in this). The second that man is more than a creature (how so?)
Pesons create dogma. Birds build nests. Ants dig tunels. Those are an apparatus. Trees don't make an apparatus, only people do and they can't be found in nature. It's unique in man. There's nothing in an electron or a proton that can give you the ability to make dogma. Dogma is a transcended ability independent from matter.
Your channel has very quickly become my favorite channel on UA-cam. Trent is a close second
Joe H., I just read your book, Pope Peter (listened to it on Audible, to be precise). It was excellent!
Thank you!
I’m reading it right now/listening on audible during my commute to work and I couldn’t agree more!! It’s phenomenal
@@Ladya12345 🛐👍🕊
I'll only listen to it if Joe reads it to me.
@ i have good news for you! Joe does in fact read it to you
Always fascinated by your incredible knowledge of theology and philosophy.
Just finished THE EARLY CHURCH WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and it's a very educating read showing plenty of thought and research.
May the Lord continue to bless and keep you, Amen.
What concerns me is in Sam Harris world, who (or what, or how) defines well-being? The idea that some atheist could define what my well-being is and decree how it must be maximised is a scary thought.
Christianity has been doing that for 1700 years, right up until today of course.
@@ji8044 No. 1 Christianity has been around for 1991 years.
2. It suggests ways of spiritual well being. It doesn't, nor can it, enforce that on you, because other Christians can't see in to your soul.
@@BensWorkshop Correct, but for the first 250 plus years, Christians were the hunted. For the next 1700 years, they became the hunters.
@@ji8044 No. The Church has never hunted. Preached, yes. Hunted? No.
I may not be a Sam Harris fan, but well-being makes sense. Society functions per the ideal of the well-being of its constituents. Laws are secular, not religious. Laws are essentially put in place to maximise well-being and minimise harm. Are human rights a scary thought then, because we humans decided it was best to institute them for society's benefit?
Atheism is a religion though.
- former member of the atheist religion.
Concur on both front.
Just because some people behave a certain way doesn’t mean that atheism is a religion.
By definition, it’s nothing. Just simply, a lack of belief in God or any other deity.
@@SirChristopher365 It walks like a duck, sqawks like a duck, swims like a duck. But its not a duck?
@SirChristopher365 atheist have a church, a cross like symbol (an A circled), martyrs (Madeline O Hare is one), pastors ( Richard Dawkins is one), millions of followers globally, and evangelize what they believe.
Was a member of the atheist religion for almost 35 years. I simply lost the faith required to believe in theory and conjecture.
Jesus is very real. Spent all this year hoping to discover the true faith of Jesus.
@@SirChristopher365 nothing cannot have a movement supporting it
He's like Richard Dawkins with even fewer accomplishments to show for
And Dawkins ones are negative anyway
Which is in itself something of an accomplishment
@@DC-zz7fm While his views on metaphysics and religion are lacking, you can't deny that he is fantastic biologist. He should have stuck to science, just like jordan peterson should have stuck to psychology.
@@atuchel4714 You see people say he's waking up or something, but he lived through the science wars and still attacked the right wing bogeyman, and he traffics in the same blown out moral circle ideas as Peter Singer and others
@@atuchel4714which to be fair, Catholics have been some of the pioneers of biology well before Richard Dawkins. After all, we said things about the cosmos before Stephen Hawkings and started the foundations of genetics before Richard Dawkins. This is how we get a beginning framework for natural law with Thomas Aquinas. The only thing is we need to update it to the modern world. Using things such as quantum physics, neurology, biology, and other replicated hard sciences. The only thing science does is explore existing truths of God's Creation. It does not fundamentally create anything new, unless it is distorted like modern-day relativism.
Thank you! Every encounter I've had with Sam Harris' propositions has led me, at some point, to ask why he thinks he can just say something is so and/or dismiss something that challenges his presuppositions simply because he doesn't think they are intellectually fruitful.
It is very odd that he doesn't get more pushback.
I read the Moral Landscape years ago as an atheist. I don't remeber much of it. But I do remeber being underwhelmed and left asking why and how. Why should I care? And how the hell do I derive what I ought to do from mere cold and uncaring facts about the universe? He seemed to say he was going to answer that question and I dont remember him actually explaining how that might work.
It's almost as if he was cashing in a trend of some kind... 🤔
18:00 As a Swede having been bullied in school (largely for not believing what Sam Harris believes) ... I think I have some "black swans" ...
Def my fav podcaster named Joe, thanks for the videos!
Sam Harris is so right I never thought about it like that
i love this podcast.
Thank you for this, Mr. Heschmeyer.
Great video, as always. Thanks to give us more thought food for the day. The peace of the Lord stay with you.
Scientism: philosophy for those who reject philosophy.
38:27 You say this as if Mercator was some sort of terrible failure to display the world correctly, but in fact the distortions are an accepted consequence of achieving an important navigational goal. Mercator projection allows you to show rhumb lines - lines crossing all meridians at the same angle - as straight. This allows you to see where you will go if you follow a constant compass heading.
Can I just share, that I have seen a lot of the same skeptical mindset played out in the conversation around Oumuamua. And I find it to be deeply lacking. There is this object which flew by the sun and then accelerated without leaving a plume. The odds seem to be that this is likely an artificial object (probably a solar sail). But since the claim is extraordinary in that we've never seen such an object before, much of the scientific community has rejected this position. Instead the general consensus seems to be that it was just a comet that somehow broke the rules of how comets work.
There's a lot to unpack in this subject on the reasoning of skeptics. But in reality they have a sort of anti-faith. Where no evidence would convince them.
Regardless of whether "false because unfalsifiable" holds any water, the Christian faith is not unfalsifiable. You could easily falsify the entire faith by proving that the resurrection never happened. Develop time travel, go put a camcorder outside the tomb, and see if somebody stole the body; if you accomplish that, you will have successfully disproven Christianity. It's not unfalsifiable.
Correct.
In the present day, the skeptic can come up with a naturalistic way of demonstrating how at least 12 people can have the same "hallucination" simultaneously (I'm thinking of the upper room). And then demonstrate how this could be be achieved in the first century AD. Oh an also, come up with an alternative hypothesis for the empty tomb. All 3 explanations have to be made.
First you can prove in a peer reviewed physics journal that time travel with a camcorder into the past is possible. Then someone will do it.
@@erwind917 Knowing that we would get a response like the one you put up, I've established a set of falsifiable tests that can be done today. Thoughts or comments on them?
@@alisterrebelo9013
I assumed you mean the tests in your comment above. I’d be happy to reply. Thank you for keeping an open mind and affording me the opportunity.
First, we should acknowledge in my original response to the time travel that falsifiability, as a concept, relies on the presence of achievable, real-world criteria to test a claim. Requiring technology that doesn’t exist-and may never exist-creates a situation where the claim cannot be realistically challenged. This undermines the very notion of falsifiability by introducing an untestable condition, which is logically equivalent to asserting that no disproof is possible under present circumstances.
Now to move on to your argument. Your argument violates basic reasoning rules:
1. Burden of Proof: It shifts the burden to skeptics, demanding they disprove the claim rather than providing evidence for it.
2. False Equivalence: It assumes replicating modern phenomena equates to explaining historical events.
These again make it unfalsifiable.
Good reasoning demands claims be supported by evidence without setting impossible conditions for disproof.
It is not up to the skeptic to disprove y the claim. It is up to the claimant to provide evidence.
For example, if a claimant asserts that vinegar (CH3COOH) reacts with baking soda (NaHCO3) to produce carbon dioxide gas, they must demonstrate the reaction:
CH3COOH + NaHCO3 → CO2 + H2O + NaCH3COO
The burden is on the claimant to provide observable, reproducible evidence, such as the visible release of gas bubbles when the two substances are mixed. The skeptic does not need to disprove the reaction; they only need to wait for the claimant to present proof. This follows proper reasoning rules: the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and the claim must be falsifiable through experimentation.
@@erwind917I to be an atheist half my life. You can skip past all of the bits about explaining logical rules, burden of proof etc.
I didn't make the statement about falsification by time travel, so I'm not going to address any of that.
Given the following historical facts, established as a consensus even by non-Christian historians:
1) Jesus was a real man, who lived and died by Roman execution in the first century (implying Jesus's existence is not a myth).
2) The disciples has experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.
3) His followers began to preach the alleged Ressurection of Jesus within months of the alleged event (therefore not liable to myth creation which needs more time).
4) Jesus's disciples were transformed from being afraid to preaching the alleged Resurrection even at the risk of death. They gave up their families, jobs, social status, and security in the 1st century, for a "dead" man, that's the type of transformation we are talking about.
5) James a family member of Jesus and skeptic, converts after the alleged Resurrection, and becomes a Christian despite rejecting Jesus prior to the alleged Ressurection. (Jesus entrusted his mother to a believing disciple than disbelieving family members like James).
6) Paul, an antagonist who jailed, and persecuted Christian for 1-2 years, converts to Chrisanity and preaches Christ allegedly Ressurected at the risk of his death.
Lets say all explanations are up for consideration, given the current available understanding of the world, what is the most reasonable hypothesis that sufficiently explains these 6 historical facts?
I lost all respect for Sam Harris in 5 minutes. He took a verse from the Gospel of Luke that made Jesus sound incredibly violent. It made no sense, so I grabbed the “The New Oxford Annotated Bible” off my shelf; I am not a Christian myself, but I took a class as an undergrad in a “Bible as Literature” in the English Literature Department . He COMPLETELY took the verse out of context, as Jesus was telling a parable about a tyrant king; but Sam Harris made it seem as Jesus was the one calling for violence. It was either incredibly lazy reading from someone with a PhD; or it was outright malicious. Sam Harris CLEARLY wants to be seen as deep thinking intellectual; the four Gospels can be read in an afternoon, idk what to think. I am not the only person that noticed Sam take this particular passage completely out of context.
ua-cam.com/video/8Gmi0NmWFOc/v-deo.htmlsi=aOBBwX1Vf_zim900
Wow. That's pretty stunning mistreatment of the evidence. If Jesus quoting a character in a story is "Jesus commanding it," then surely Sam Harris quoting (his version of) Jesus is Sam Harris commanding it... So couldn't we just as easily conclude from this that Sam Harris is ordering the execution of those who won't follow him? Or is it obvious that this isn't an intellectually honest way of treating evidence? 🤔
I'm also confused, as you are, as to whether Harris is dishonest or just shockingly lazy as a thinker and researcher.
@@shamelesspopery Why not both? 😁
Why do I always lose brain cells watching big think videos
Boycott Big Think just like people boycott Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Gov.
The thoughts are only big relative to an audience that hasn’t spent a great deal of time thinking about things before.
Thanks for doing what you do! Love listening to you
I think there is also a sense in which scientists also have a “faith” that science will eventually find all the answers, which gives them reason to not rely on a creator of the universe they’re studying.
How do you study a non-existent being for which there is no evidence?
@@ji8044 Well, if you were a character in a story and you had to determine the existence of an author (an intelligent creator not within the story but fundamentally responsible for everything within it), how would you go about doing that? Perhaps your investigation wouldn't be about "evidence" as if you're trying to find superman, but about the mere fact that something intelligible exists rather than nothing existing.
@@kreatillion1718 If I was a character in a story; how would I know it? How would I be able to step outside the story?
@@ji8044 That's effectively asking if you could step outside of existence. But you could, by analogy, say you're in a story firstly by recognizing you live within a setting, that is, a well ordered and intelligible universe, maybe with some intent. Perhaps we can even identify a conflict, like death and the problem of evil and suffering. Besides, the point was rather about reorienting your focus to where God would actually be. Not something within the universe that can be tested and made an experiment out of, but the ground of existence itself, fundamentally responsible for every created thing. Look for _that._
See the previous video on Simulation theory. Many if not most materialists already believe they are in a story created by an outside author.
i literally converted because atheism is so illogical 😅
This episode is clearly a lesson in how to think critically. Thank you for giving something so clearly needed.
0:30 actually made me laugh pretty hard. Good job keeping a straight face haha
Glad to hear it!
Whoa! Thank you. This has really made me feel better that I left the Catholic/religious dogmas. Ive always wondered if the so called prophets/saints/"men in charge" of the word of the bible had spinned/theorized "Gods word" as you are doing in this video. If so, then the word of the bible is just babble. There have and still have been too many harms/injustices performed by religions spouting how it is the ONLY way to a good life or afterlife. I am glad I took the time to question my upbringing, to question religious history, to question my heart/soul feelings. I say don't spend your time trying to disprove Harris/Dawkins or whoever...rather spend time to better yourself with or without religion. I do believe God gave me a brain to use on all areas of my life. God would not condemn me to some awful eternity if I didn't come to the conclusion that man made religion is not for me. I do choose to believe in God' nature. Again, Thank you.
I’m gradually opening up to the concept of faith, but not in the sense of believing in a supernatural, meta-physical Creator.
That belief is not something I hold dear, especially not in the Christian God sense.
I was raised in a Christian household, but that faith is deeply ingrained in my evolutionary biology. Instead of resisting it, I’m choosing to embrace it and flow with it. Currently, I’m reading Peterson’s “We Who Wrestle With God,” and I’m beginning to explore the potential positive impact of religion on human culture. While I generally agree with Sam’s concerns about the dangers of religion, I’m noticing a resurgence of faith among the human psyche. This faith, however, doesn’t necessarily involve beliefs in heaven and hell, but rather a sense of faith as an inherent aspect of human cognition. It’s an inescapable part of how I make sense of my surroundings as a conscious being. Ironically, this realization has come to me through Sam’s use of his waking up app.
Re-written using AI on my iPhone
Great episode as always.
I hope it’s ok to put this here, because I know Cy listens to episodes of CA Live…. We talked during yesterday’s AMA about Catholic Jeopardy. My husband listened on the way home, and had a couple additional suggestions.
1) Do a Catholic Jeopardy version with Cy as Alex Trebek and you and Trent take turns ribbing him à la SNL and the Sean Connery version of Jeopardy.
2) You & Trent play Heresy Bingo when listening to anti-Catholic tiktoks (several years ago you both listened to a oneness pentecostal pastor and one of you said it’s like playing Heresy Bingo).
3) All the apologists are in on a plot for Day 1 of next year’s CA Conference - but no one can tell Cy!!! Everyone shows up in 18th century garb on Day 1, rather like you did this year.
Any takers? 😂
PS: I will forever treasure the look of dawning joy on your face yesterday as you realized the potential for Catholic Jeopardy. (I watched later on YT.)
👍🏼🛐🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏🏿 See you tonight..
Love it! These are some great ideas.
Joe drops a vid, I click like, it's as simple as that
"Sam Harris?! More like Scam Harris, amirite fellas?"
- Sam Harris probably (if his own name wasn't Sam Harris, but his adversary was named Sam Harris)
I've been seeing more and more videos on UA-cam about gnosticism. I'm sure you've already done a couple of episodes on it, but I wondering if you'd be willing to address some of these new videos?
Here's one I did recently on where we see strains of Gnosticism in popular culture and Protestant theology (ua-cam.com/video/prUN4vY_zYs/v-deo.html). Does this address the issues you're hoping I'll cover?
I use to be a sam harris fan. I read waking up. I use to meditate all the time. The problem is he doesnt see that the woke religion he helped create is a better alternative to what came before it.
@@haronsmith8974 typo?
@ yea
Praise God!
Sam Harris looks and acts like Ben Stiller playing a self important intellectual.
Maybe he's not the problem of our time, but his way of thinking is certainly the real problem of our time.
Excellent breakdown, thank you.
that's what happens when a scientist go outside his field and goes in one he doesn't know anything about like philosophy or history.
Like you are doing right now? 😂
I do think Harris is right here that exceptions defeat moral principals if they are true exceptions, which is why I follow Aquinas (and Kant incidentally) on the murderer at the door question.
36:13
I converted from atheism on a profound uninvited meeting with the Lord, you could say I thought like a moral relativist before hand. God is real. Pray for Sam Harris
Can you describe the meeting?
Joe vs Sam: let’s go!
Shalom and Blessings of Messiah יהושע Saviour of the World Amĕn Maranatha 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️♥️
Where’d you find that hopeful intro strings music?
7:00 To equivocate heat death (the law of thermodynamics, entropy), future weather, to something like waiting to see if there is heaven or hell, or a God at the end highlights why you thought this video is a good criticism. The entire point issue Sam lays out is that the religious position is harmful because the lack of evidence and the amount of belief not correlating. The then harmful and dated behavior that spawns from this belief. 8:12 again its clear you don't understand the criticism at all. Saying something like "Jesus will return this year," and "the economy will be good this year," are not the same, and the confidence and delusion it takes to think your religious beliefs and your metaphysical claims, or even psychical claims based on scripture are the same as a doctor making an observation about disease is insane. Most examples you used is lab testable or observable, with very high levels of basic plausibility.
11:41 Also great job missing, and misrepresenting the point Sam is making again framing his critique as though he said, "religious people never change their minds." I feel like most people would understand that the claim is, for example, Christians core beliefs do not change based of evidence. You deciding to be catholic or protestant is not at all the issue he is referring to. You still believe in God, Jesus was your savior, he died and rose again. You believing in an afterlife, these are the issues he is referring to, and he never says religious people "never," change their minds. The vast majority of religious people inherit their faith and beliefs like any other belief, faith is the opposite of evidence, so how having a changing of your faith is typically superficial, and the poorly supported fundamentals do not change. For most people, and that is the point, most people. It is not a criticism of whether you sit, stand, kneel, or hold your hands up and sing during church.
15:00 Also you misunderstand the value of Popper's falsification and the point of it. Sam is referring to it because he understands what Poppers point was. The ability to falsify your claim gives value to it. "there are no black swans," just go find a black swan it is falsified. Rather simple, saying "God is real," I can't falsify it, I cant provide the black swan in this case. It devalues the scientific aspect of the claim, the material claim. That is all Sam is referencing, 20:00 you assuming and making up what Sam is saying, that there is only naturalism, we would all come to the same conclusions, is something he never has said. A theme here is you just make up what you think Sam would say. Sam, just like Popper realizes the utility of falsifiability, it is not a repudiation of all metaphysics. We call this a straw man. Sam never said that their couldn't be a way to approach metaphysics, it's a value argument, falsifiability is valuable in determining what is true.
Yep, I agree on all counts. A lot of this "criticism" of Sam in the video here appears to be a distinct misunderstanding (wilful or not) of the individual points he makes to string together a picture that Harris has no idea what he is talking about. In reality, the majority of what Sam says is really intuitive, even if we might naturally debate over the minutiae. I really want a free religious dialogue, and for everyone to get to real grips with the issues of dogmatic, irrational beliefs. It is shame that this (I feel) is jeopardised by videos like this (although, I admit, this is far from the worst) that propagate a false view of secular moral philosophy.
It truly feels as if online apologists nowadays care more about being right and others wrong - all the while, looking out for any reason at all that might paint them in a good light - than even considering the integrity and rigour of their own beliefs.
This is why all stereotypes and prejudices are proven to be sinful and reprehensible in the eyes of God and may God forgive me for every time I had a Prejudice or stereotyping anybody
Would you apply the same moral judgment to the animal sacrifices of the Aztecs and the ancient Israelites, or is there a valid distinction between the two?
Sorry, can you contextualize the question? I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly.
@@shamelesspopery Basically, if Aztec animal sacrifice is barbaric nonsense, why isn't ancient Israelite animal sacrifice also considered barbaric nonsense?
@@chrishyde5903Wait, who's saying Aztec sacrifices are barbaric nonsense?
@@michaelbeauchamp22 Expecting something to happen other than the death of an animal when sacrificing it to Huitizilopochtli, shows a barbaric and nonsensical understanding of reality. So why is it any different to sacrificing animals to Yahweh?
@ I'd love to hear your argumentation on why it's nonsense. I think it's evident that there are at least social effects to sacrifices, such as social cohesion through mutual participation.
The reason why Christians judge pagan sacrifices to be morally wrong isn't because they're nonsense though. It's because they're sacrificing to idols and demons. But God isn't an idol or a demon, so the sacrifices prescribed in both the Old and New testaments don't fall under that moral judgment
Hey Joe, informative video as always! I was wondering if you have made or will ever consider making a video on communism and/or socialism. I know the Church's teaching on this but I feel a bit confused still. I'm currently at university in the a European country (not from here) and I'm suprised how many people around the age of 18-24 advocate for communism and socialism, one even told me today that Jesus would have been communist. I have searched the web for something comprehensive I can listen to but I haven't found any video or website that does the topic enough justice or represents the communist views "correctly" (every communist advocate I see tells me that no country has been able to practise true communism and there are successful examples in small communes). In general, I really like the way you explain these type of topics and I hope you could recommend me some resources or make a video on the topic at your time of course (hopefully soon enough!). If anyone has some thing to add feel free.
Jesus had no "isms" attached to him, nor any church either because he believed and preached an imminent end of the world, as did Paul.
I could be wrong, but I noticed Sam's intellectual integrity and capabilities seemed to really go down hill around the same time he did a long interview with Jordan Peterson and he went on a long bit about psychedelics and mushrooms.
Not saying those things are related, but its just what I noticed.....
He used to be much more of a good faith, intellectual participant in debate. Now, he just seems like he's lost it. Low hanging is certainly a great description of it. He seems so rudimentary while being so rude about it at the same time.
I write this book about moral philosophy, but I haven't read about moral philosopy because it is boring.
That really is a gem. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
14:15 have you interacted with a swan? They’d kill you if they could
I stand corrected.
You can add pollsters and betting markets to that list who use evidence to then predict the future outcome of an event.
I am a Mind Deist, the greater mind picks people to give messages to humanity
How can historical evidence + faith be sufficient in proving the existence of a metaphysical entity?
If anyone has read Moral Landscape, how does he handle the question of who is the authority over his morality equation? Who enforces it? What of a revolutionary who thinks he can do a better job weighting the equation and enforcing its application for better results? This seems like the same faith promising that was discussed in the beginning of the episode.
who else watching in 2024?
You're criticizing his supposed dogmatism? Boy do I have a kettle to introduce you to
Are you assuming things again?
Have you not seen geysers? They're irrefutable proof that the world was designed by Our Lord & Saviour, the Almighty Kettle, in its boiling image. 🙏
This is the best podcast around.
Awesome, awesome
I'm less than a minute into the Sam Harris clip, and I already see a huge glaring issue. Sam is assuming that if intellectual people were to get together, they would all agree on what society should look like. Eventually, someone would end up being the arbiter of truth, and now you've taken this process out of the realm of science.
Yes, precisely. It's fascinating to me that, twenty years in, he hasn't realized that you can't just say "get rid of the dogmatists!" enough time to usher in a Golden Age of Reason, or that people (even semi-reasonable people!) might actually disagree about stuff.
why would that happen? Of course people will always disagree, but society (with dogmatism removed) wouldn't immediately devolve into an autocracy where the leader determines moral truths. Do you not think that people can come together non-dogmatically to work out communally what is best for people?
@@zaaphi Oh, because things have been working out so well on that front since people started taking Nietzsche seriously in the late nineteenth century?
@@mussman717word Nietzche's whole shtick is about getting rid of dogmatism, and dogmatism is arguably the primary thing that led to the atrocities that we know of the 20th century. Nietzche's writings were manipulated to serve their opposite end with the Nazis on account of his anti-semitic, nationalist sister.
I think the problem with Nietzche is that his work is so dense and complex, that people fundamentally misunderstand his points like will to power and death of God. Even if not all of his writings have aged that well, they are still impressive and scholarly. I agree with a lot of his claims.
But no, I still think that it's definitely possible to reach a non-dogmatic society(?). We've had a bad run of it with a few past regimes and there are issues currently, but I still think that we're getting closer and closer to one.
Didn't the Simpsons do an episode on that premise?
This guy sounds like a real life Weston from Out of the Silent Planet.
Still 2024
semantics. just remember : associative and correlative "Data" can never prove or infer causation. you need mechanistic data for starters. the research required to get that data is not legal as far as human research goes and we dont have the tools or understanding of any mechanistic data we can eek out with these limited tools. perception is distortion by definition. reality is the ultimate truth and fact. our understanding of that absolute is not currently possible. we are severly limited due to our again limited tools, senses, biases, etc.. perception is distorted modeling of reality
Atheism is low-hanging. If you can’t grasp it, that speaks for your intellectual height.
One only need to study one swan to conclude that all swans are oviparous animals.
How would knowing that one swan was oviparous prove that the others were? People long assumed that all mammals were oviparous, only to be disproved by two weirdo animals: the platypus and echidna. And some members within a species have traits (sometimes epigenetic ones!) that differ markedly from other members of their own species.
@@shamelesspopery _"How would knowing that one swan was oviparous prove that the others were?"_
Because to find a swan that give birth to live young, and still call it a swan, is to commit a category error, i.e., such an animal is conceptually different from a swan, and therefore a new category is needed. Similarly, we can say that we will never find a swan that is quadrupedal with hooves, and again, if we find one we would have to form a new category because it is not a swan that we have found.
Colors, however, do not constitute identity, meaning that when you find a swan that is not white, there is no need for a new category. Horses, for example, which come in all different colors, are still all horses. Or take an artic fox where even the same individual changes color according to the seasons.
The fact that we already know that a black swan is not a new category is why colors are usually used to undermine induction. Which is ironically using induction to undermine induction. Another typical example is how many red balls can you pick from a box before you can conclude that all the balls are red. Again, you can't, because a ball can be any color. However, you can conclude that you will never pick a ball that is cube shaped because a ball cannot have just any shape. A cube would be something that is conceptually different from a ball.
If we replace _color_ with something else it is easier to see the error made in the induction problem, _how many pockets must we examine before we can conclude that all pockets have pocket dust?_ We cannot, because pocket dust is not contained in the concept _pocket,_ a pocket may or may not have dust. Induction is not a statistical method, but more fundamentally a method of forming concepts.
_"People long assumed that all mammals were oviparous,..."_
I think you mistyped here. You mean viviparous, as in giving birth to live young, right?
That most mammals give birth to live young is just a statistical fact, not an inductive fact. Mammals refer to animals that have teats and provide milk to their offspring. Whether they give birth to live young or lay eggs is irrelevant. There is no categorical error in finding a mammal that lays egg.
I don’t think Jonas gets this shout out if he hadn’t changed his name lol
You're not wrong.
@ another banger episode sir 🎩
32:29 Jonas Čeika is Lithuanian but based in Norway. And it's prononced Cheyka, not Cheeka.
Thanks! I looked up a pronunciation guide for it, but wasn't sure how reliable it was. (Apparently, not very).
Ram Harris is a joke
Three polar bears were taking a bath. One raises his paw and asks, "soap?". Another responds, "radio?".
I love God, Jesus, ans especially the Holy Ghost 😊
Harris is just another brand of Zogbot. In his case, a futurism cultist.
Isn't Sam's excersize of philosophy of morals a lame reiteration of Aristotle's Nichomachean ethics? He has "well being" as his summon bonum and Aristotle had his "eudaimonia" (happiness). The real question is hidden in their summon bonum (no allusions intended :)? What is "well being"? What is happiness? What is eudaimonia? It is in these definitions where we will find the tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The problem is less about "well being" or "eudemonia" as a goal (although you would be right to see that Harris leaves this incredibly vague, and can't agree with Aristotle's view that its highest form is divine contemplation). The problem is more that Harris thinks that it's moral to do literally anything that is calculated to (best) increase well being... even actions that would strikes ordinary people as grossly immoral or criminal.
40:18 I'm very well satisfied that my lice are NOT created in the image of God and I am.
That settles the question.
So you think God is balding with bad breath and knees that hurt?
Unicorns are rhinoceroses.
This reminds me of how weird the controversy is over the proper plural of rhinoceros. Merriam-Webster's acknowledges three acceptable plurals: rhinoceroses, rhinoceros, or rhinoceri (!). But you'll also find people who insist upon rhinocerotes (since that's how the Greek would work, and it's a Greek word). Maybe "rhinos" is best...
You do realize Sam is a neuroscientist, right ? Just remember that 👌
Big think is pretty misguiding always
Sam is why I always default to Trump philosophy. Trump only need speakerh the word and I shall be healed! Divine providence is now kinetic!
Me: points out that Sam Harris uses the idea of falsification in a disreputable way.
You: something something Trump
Kk
2+2=4 is not a belief!! Duh!?!!!
If you can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell something you can’t possibly know it! Period. You can beat your chest and repeat “I know I know I know” until you’ve blue in the face but that won’t change the fact that you don’t “know “. There is no evidence that god exists. Only the human imagination and wishful thinking
I'm willing to bet that 5 million or so of those 7.43 million Big Think subscribers did so 10-15 years ago and just haven't cleaned out their subs. That's what happened to me. I don't think I've watched a video of theirs in at least 5 years, and I'm just now unsubscribing. Woo-hoo!
Keep this in mind - That channel took off in a big way c. 2008-2012, and YT has since changed their algorithms to cater more towards clicks and recent activity than subscription count.
Watching theist videos makes me realise how muddled thinking is universal among the religious. A rambling monologue without any clear focus, logic or goal. It's actually really sad that you can take people who are apparently very smart and jumble up all their thinking so that they cannot have a single clear line of reasoning.
It should take just a handful of sentences to describe why Sam is being dogmatic, and not many more to provide the accompanying evidence.
Your ramble about Popper is completely irrelevant. What Sam is saying is that core religious claims are scientific claims, something undeniably true. How the universe was formed is a scientific question. Whether or not a god exists is a scientific question. The existence or non-existence of a soul that survives death is a scientific question. There is no credible scientific evidence to support these scientific claims. Obviously there are other questions for philosophy that are not scientific, such as ethics or others as you describe and I believe Sam would say the same.
There is a little of criticism in your ad hominem.
Bro, needs to stay in his lane! 😂
If humanity could solve all the problems in the world if only they would just work together and think rationally, wouldn't that be done a long time ago? And isn't the simple fact that this hasn't been done an indication that it will probably never be done?
Also, these atheists seem have some idea that being a Christian, or a religious person at all, is some huge burden that makes your life so much worse. A true punishment. They also tend to take the very extreme excesses of religion and assume that is the norm. Have all these people have some trauma with schools run by overly strict nuns?
It's like talking about football (the real kind, that you do with your feet) and saying stuff like "those footballers, they have to play football every week. And they can't just hang in the pub till late and they have to eat healthily all the time and train a lot. What a sacrifice and for what? If only they knew about the futility of football". Yes, that is true at champions league level (and those guys are paid very generously for it), but if you play football in the 7th team of your village club, nobody is going to care about what you eat and how much beer you drink. And a footballer probably thinks that playing football is a worthwile way to spend his sunday afternoon. Football is something that enriches his life, and that is no sacrifice at all.
For me the same goes for religion. Going to church is not a sacrifice. It's an enriching experience. That there are super strict monasteries doesn't mean that all Catholics walk around on sandals and in brown habits, having five church services every day. That some factions and sects have very strict rules, is the exception, not the norm. To me, even if it all turns out to be not true, and there really is no big payoff after death, it is still worth it, because being a Christian makes my life so much better, in the here and now.
And thanks for the lecture on Karl Popper. On a religious channel no less. I think that Popper is one of those writers that people love to invoke but very seldomly actually read. I must say, his language is not easy. It does take some exegesis.
I don't think it's too surprising anthropologically that we still tackle with cooperation and rational thought. And no, I think there's reason enough to suppose that we can achieve that on a societal level.
We've gone from a non-scientific age in (roughly) the 1st millenium BCE where the gods were invoked as the source of all unknown things, towards a more scientific approach towards the millenium's end that treats deity (whatever form) as somewhat secondary to scientific enterprise and the discovery of substantive facts. Though up until the renaissance, life effectively revolved around religion is some form or other, even if science might have become more enlightened and secular. This only changed from industrialism onwards when society itself acknowledged the issues of a church/state complex and moved, albeit tentatively, towards an encompassing secular focus. With the slow succession of religion into a non-political entity in itself from the late 19th century to our century, where atheism and secular life are becoming all the more the norm, we now experience a sort of reactionary pushback from religious-focused ideology wishing to supplant its dogma. This, I believe, will dissipate over time and we will move towards an age which is essentially secular in most aspects, where religious dogma will be, at least, confined to a personal level, unable to irrationally oppress en masse.
Personally, I think that every new century has been more "work-togethery" and "rational-thinky" than the last, so there's reason enough to suspect that we are ever getting closer to a better, less dogmatic society.
Also, as an atheist Brit, I can say that I don't see being Christian, or religious, as necessarily a 'burden that makes your life so much worse'. I do not think anyone I know (most of whom are almost all atheist) would think that either. It's just a belief after all that may or may not attach itself to some practical activity: going to church, praying, even wearing a rosary etc. and potentially lead you to thinking one way or another on a select number of issues.
When we talk about the dangers of religion, often the most extreme are spoken about because they are the threat to people like us and what we consider valuable. We acknowledge that the majority of religious folks are moderate as can be and often don't have a bad bone in their body. Those that want to discriminate, eliminate, hurt, dehumanise, oppress, and spew misinformation dogmatically are the problem. That's what threatens livelihoods and good governance. That is what breeds dystopia.
Religion can definitely be personally meaningful - absolutely! 100% agree. I want people to do what they enjoy and find worthwhile. That's a whole separate thing to truth.
Where I live, who I am as a person, and how I live right now, I find my life much more fulfilling as an atheist than a believer. I, and many others that I know, feel that that is more liberating, focused on scientific truth (which is something we collectively consider meaningful and reliable), and better in the interest of enshrining the wellbeing of all, than any religious belief. This, of course, can differ from person to person, much like your good self.
whats the point of this video? people stopped listening to harris many years ago. no-one cares what he thinks anymore.
Oh wow. You’re using the ideas of Karl Popper to double down on your own religious dogmatism. 😂🤡😂🤡
I'm... agreeing with Karl Popper. How crazy is that?
Can you explain jesus feeding the 5000 with little fish and loaves and his floating on a stormy lake without sinking and Peter tries to do same yet jesus picks him up from drowning. Explain it by human logic and science ,most of all our perspective on what is our reality.
Absolutely! The world, with all of its laws, exists because of a Lawgiver, not random chance. There's no coherent theory as to why God would be subject to physical laws He created. As a result, it's perfect plausible that the Lawgiver Himself could (and did, and does) supercede the laws He created as pleases Him. What's hard about this?
Can you explain why hundreds, if not thousands of people, would die for this lie? What do they gain from having their lives cut short and giving their property away? Why did Christianity persist in the face in less passive belief systems? How could all of this be built on a lie? Can you explain that?
@shamelesspopery l doubt it. Typhoons and earthquakes and other freak weather is proof he not in control.its stupid to think that on a stormy lake it's ok. But it's different with weather damage on a more colossal scale. Exploring the outer space by the Webb satellite is proof of vast forces greater than a storm on a lake.
@@shamelesspopery such a naive mentality or just a brain washed catholic. To compare a storm on a lake in Galilee to the devastating forces of nature is just so puerile
@@BeneathTheFoogyDewChristians have murdered millions of people for not believing in Christianity, especially Jews. So if that's your standard, then Judaism is most definitely the true religion.
What you seek to do is understandable
Sadly you suck at doing it.
You need a course or two in debate, logic, reasoning & for buddha’s sake - semantics.
What is worse is you superimpose the exact quotes you’re trying to refute for all to read then are a literal train wreck in your explanations.
Just 1 example:
core
CORE
CORE beliefs
Not beliefs
COOORREE
Got it now?
I was a debater throughout high school, and it paid my way through college, where I was also a debater. After that, I became a lawyer. Then I was in seminary, where I studied logic. So if your argument is going to be that I need more school, I'm a little skeptical of that. What's your formal training looking like?
No dude your Bible is not true. Please get a education
First, my point is that Harris cites to Popper as support, and Popper very clearly disagrees with him, and actually mocks people who view things the way that Harris does. Quite apart from my education, that point is either true or not true. Have you read Popper? Are you familiar with any of the other criticisms of Sam Harris? Many of them are not coming from uneducated or even religious people.
Second, have a education, for what it's worth. Besides K-12, I've got 4 years of undergrad, 3 years of law school, 2 years getting a philosophy degree (where we studied formal logic, and where I was introduced to Popper), and 3 years of theology. Maybe it's not a lack of education that is behind my objection.
Come along with me for a minute here. Let's have some fun! Take precisely two spoons from your kitchen drawer and put them on the counter. Now take precisely two more spoons from the drawer and place them next to the previous two. I assure you - this is an honest to goodness experiment. The result of it will (at least should) have great significance toward determining your belief in the proposition "2+2=4". I will take you at your word when you describe the proposition as fundamental to the point where you cannot imagine any amount of evidence would convince you of it's falsehood. But please, don't assume your lack of imagination has any significance towards the properties of statements, their truth value or any other thing in reality.