I find the interchange between guests to be more intellectually stimulating than an interview. I like that you are trying new things Dave!

@ImSuperCerealGuys

7 жыл бұрын

Agree!

@alucard9096

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed!

@0tepe0

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. I support this new format also.

@konarocky

7 жыл бұрын

Agree. Conversation with people who disagree is great and gets to the point much more quickly.

I bet after this they all went out and got shit faced.

@leewhelan1111

7 жыл бұрын

I hope so. We need more of that

@enigmatic9118

7 жыл бұрын

The Pleblian BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Excuse me while I go and gouge out my minds eye.

@heathenwizard

7 жыл бұрын

Oh gosh, I hope so.

Intelligent people with both shared values and differing beliefs are discussing them openly, articulately, and with some civility. Never again thought I'd see the day. Very uplifting. Thanks to Mr. Prager, Mr. Sherman, and the Rubin Report.

Great dialogue! It's too bad the comments section can't take a hint from these 3 fine gentlemen about how one can debate important topics without assuming the other guy is: bad, stupid, etc. Please give us more of this! Bravo.

Steven crowder vs. potholer54

@pm71241

7 жыл бұрын

That will not happen. And Potholer54 has already explained why. He (and others) have no reason to believe that Steven Crowder has any interest in objectivity. That makes a conversation completely useless, since any fallacious BS can be thrown without any chance of fact-checking. (Crowder has already demonstrated this as his MO). Basically ... it makes it way too easy to exploit Brandolinis law. So Potholer54 has offered a written(recorded) back and forth where each part document sources and arguments with references and where replying allows time for scrutiny of claims wrt. sources. Crowder has ignored this offer, - most likely since he knows that will not let him get away with his superficial but catchy talking-points.

@wordsofcheresie936

7 жыл бұрын

I like Crowder and his show is enjoyable, but his first goal is to be funny and not to find the truth. Crowder is a clown and that is something that the world needs, but he is a terrible philosopher.

@ray5549

7 жыл бұрын

Words of Cheresie I agree, I like crowder just enough to watch his show but he starts to annoy me when he brags that he waited until marriage. He acts like it puts him on a moral high ground, and his information about marijuana is completely out dated.

@qb4428

7 жыл бұрын

Ignore the fact that rates of world hunger, disease, poverty, thirst, war, and climate deaths are at record lows. JUST BE AFRAID OF THE CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE! Even though it has yet to be proven to even exist, YOU MUST STILL BE AFRAID!Ignore all the past bogus predictions. FEAR! If you disagree with the people who have a horrible track record for predictions, you must be a denier! HERETIC!

@lucius7993

7 жыл бұрын

Words of Cheresie Lmfao his first goal is most certainly to find the truth, his channel is branded as political commentary, half of his videos are "rebuttals" or "5 myths about x" so it's not presented as a comedy show.

Get Edward Feser on if you want a serious theist in the philosophy of religion.

@acarouselofantics

7 жыл бұрын

Oooooo......now, that would be good! Feser is brilliant.

Absolutely love what Shermer says starting at 5:35 -- and it's a great answer to "where do we get our morals from" (often phrased as "there can be no morality without God"). It's a solid answer that gets far too little attention. Essentially, we as humans evolved a sense of right and wrong based on how people living in cooperative societies need to behave. I'm sure 200 thousand years ago, there was an inkling of this, and it became ingrained in us as those who behaved cooperatively were more likely to succeed and pass on their more passive / moral genes. As we transistioned from hunter/gatherer to keeping livestock, harvesting plants, having certain people perform certain roles in the community - "moral actions" as we now know them evolved as that society became more intertwined and complex. There are plenty of studies (current animal studies, and archaeological inferences) that back this up,

@vaprex

7 жыл бұрын

Completely agree, SeaCompass. I had hoped that Shermer would have pointed out that there are differences between how monkeys express empathy and fairness and humans with larger brains, intelligence, and a much more complex social structure, but I think Shermer kept getting interrupted and distracted by Prager, unfortunately. Nonetheless, you connected the dots, expanded, and made the point I had hoped. -Cheers!

You did a great job moderating that debate fairly, Dave. Keep it that way!

Even cats can display altruistic behavior. I have two cats. Once I tried to put one in a cage and she resisted. The other cat thought I was trying to harm the first cat and attacked me, even though I am 20 times his size. He put himself on the line to protect his friend that he thought was being harmed. This tiny anecdote already refutes most of Prager's arguments.

am a Christian and conservative, but I'm rolling my eyes everytime Prager speaks up

@youngthinker1

7 жыл бұрын

Have to agree there. Once Shermer defined murder in a cicular manner (wrongful killing), and Prager did not attempt to correct that definition, then Prager got put on the back foot and sounded foolish.

@zeroisnine

7 жыл бұрын

youngthinker1 yeah, he too often just bumbles past the arguments without adequately addressing them.

@Valanor1

7 жыл бұрын

zeroisnine prager probably hasn't read much philosophy, he is a political commentator. You sound like you are virtue signalling to atheists tho. I bet you support gaymarriage. Hehe jesting

@Justanotherconsumer

7 жыл бұрын

Resplendent Prager hasn't read much. Period.

@TWAINLOL

7 жыл бұрын

are you really tho

Dennis Prager interrupts at a high level. He's an expert at interrupting. He should get the gold medal. Hall of fame interrupter. He'll go down in history as the best. The great one.

Let's give Rubin a round of applause for host the debate we are all enjoying. let's also give our debaters props for sticking there necks out to have a nice friendly debate. I know there will definitely no name calling towards the senators or fellow commenters and we will all be able to discuss this topic kindly.

Prager, is Hebrew for "circular argument"

@lSomeRandomGuyl

7 жыл бұрын

lmao

@independentthoughtprocess1868

5 жыл бұрын

I love Dennis dearly, and I agree with him probably 80% of the time. But, this made me laugh. 😆😆

I want shermer's idea's ... But with prager's voice.

@infinityLTFS

7 жыл бұрын

haha ya

This is great Dave! More of this kind of content please! Prager and Shermer are clearly both very intelligent and they make a good case. As a person who's in the midst of sorting out his own feelings on this particular issue, this video really presents some interesting ideas.

Shermer hit the nail on the head, when he said that the objectivity of morality is based on the consequences, of moral actions, which are inherent to human nature. We need to choose how we value those consequences, of course, but what is an objective truth is the consequences themselves. Either you're living in a way by which you can succeed and flourish, or you're not. Your choice to want to live, and live well, may be subjective, but whether you're rich or poor, free or a slave, alive or dead, is objective fact and that's good enough. There will always be people who choose to be evil, who choose in other words to disregard their own prosperity in order to pursue truly anti-social behaviour such as murder, etc. Those people will always be around as the scourge of our society, and that's true with or without a religious based morality. What matters is that those of us who *do* want to live are empowered by our own morality, by our understanding of our needs and the consequences of our actions and the nature of reality, to reshape the world as we see fit. That power enables those who choose the morality of life to punish those who ignore their own needs in order to commit murder, rape, theft, etc., to put them in jail so that the rest of us can go on living. That is objective morality in practice. Unfortunately Shermer spoke only a fraction of this truth, and then failed to realize its central importance, and quickly abandoned this line of argument in order to defend the morality of altruism, and the failed enlightenment moral philosophy which led directly to the disaster of communism. (The enlightenment was truly a great period of intellectual advancement, in terms of science and politics, but the ethical philosophy of that era is too often over estimated by altruistic atheists.) I really shouldn't be so surprised to see a non-objectivist fail to prove Prager wrong. Don Watkins would tear him apart.

Prager is outmatched and on the wrong side here. It is selfish for me to not murder people, because if I murder I am cast out of the tribe which protects me and my offspring. My "selfish genes" influence me to behave in a way in which my tribe will accept me and deal with me. Humans evolved as social animals, not as lone animals, and our genetically-coded behaviors reflect this. Explained another way: someone who is dumb and selfish will commit crime, suffer the consequences, and be selected against genetically. Someone who is smart and selfish will obey laws and consequently be protected and accepted by society.

@georgechristiansen6785

7 жыл бұрын

So then, by your thinking, killing you in such a way that I do not get caught by the tribe is not actually wrong. Basically only smart people should kill and steal.

@Justanotherconsumer

7 жыл бұрын

George Christiansen we used to allow dueling and that did exactly what you describe - legally sanctioned killing of people you didn't like. Fortunately we've recognized that skill with a weapon doesn't make you right and put an end to the dueling nonsense.

@CarlosRodriguez-dh7mm

7 жыл бұрын

Christopher Knorr So then morality is dictated by society. But what about when society is wrong? When society accepts evil? Look to Islamic nations and you'll find what we consider as evil is commonplace and acceptable. Women are actively oppressed. In America, slavery was acceptable. Today, it's abortion. People acting selfishly, so in their own best interest within a society, cannot be the basis for morality as an objective standard.

@christopherknorr2895

7 жыл бұрын

George Christiansen Really, I just take issue with Prager's misuse of the "selfish genes" concept. He doesn't seem to grasp that it's genetically built into humans to work together and form working societies, thereby laying a groundwork for moral action and thought among humans generally. You're talking about "right" and "wrong", I'm talking about "useful" and "not useful". I'm not making any claims as to the rightness or wrongness of acts, only that certain behaviors lead to being selected for or against. Whether you killing me and getting away with it is right or wrong, it's not useful for you long term because the risk of getting caught and exiled/killed is too high for a comparatively small reward. Therefore, individuals with this tendency were selected against and are now very, very rare. He also repeatedly dodges the accusation that "Is Murder Wrong?" is a tautology and therefore not useful.

@kazuya246

7 жыл бұрын

Carlos Rodriguez The muslims are just following the word of god so clearly they are objectively right.

Why those Rubin have to tease us releasing this bit by bit. This is such a great debate amongst 2 intellectuals

@georgechristiansen6785

7 жыл бұрын

Because here you are.

I'm liking these videos. Thanks for getting them to us Dave.

Yes Rubin! Love it, keep up the good work & great conversations

Coming from a Christian, Prager definitely got the worst of this.

@Justanotherconsumer

7 жыл бұрын

Jacob Arrowood I can't say I agree with his world view much either. We know only in part, as St. Paul puts it, so judging based on partial information is always fraught with peril.

i hate when people refference The Selfish Gene without ever reading past the cover. selfish genes bring about "alturistic animals", which was almost the title. Morality is EVOLVED, even if there is a god our morals still evolved naturally

@flyingphoenix113

7 жыл бұрын

Which is where Dawkins was wrong. He missuses the word "altruistic" more times than can be counted in that book. If he had bothered to study game theory (or microeconomics in general), Dawkins would have realised that animals play a *COOPERATIVE* game, not an altruistic one. The scenarios he presents all offer a situation in which rational self interest may be at the forefront of the animal's mind. The animal just so happens to act in a seemingly altruistic manner because cooperation is necessary to achieve its desired goal. Morality is not evolved. It is learned.

@makeshiftaltruist7530

7 жыл бұрын

flyingphoenix113 It can be said then that good morality can manifest from selfish cooperation. If helping you can help me, why does that making helping you not good? Its been scientifically proven that helping others makes you happy. (unless your psychopathic). This is in our nature. Side note: Prager's Coke analogy was awful... (and Shermer has been wrong about things plenty before as well)

@Valanor1

7 жыл бұрын

Explaining where morality came from and human moral behaviors has nothing to do with what is moral and not. That is the field of philosophy and theology. As soon as scientists speculate on morality, they are being philosophers, not scientists. Social Incentives to moral behavior say nothing about the "intrinsic worth of people" that is a philosophical truth claim.

@alinagortz2273

7 жыл бұрын

Except you could make the exact same argument for humans. All human altruism can be interpreted to be ultimately self serving, too. Someone dedicates their life to helping the poor? Well they might be doing it because it makes them feel good about themselves. Because they enjoy others praising and admiring them for it. Seeing a stranger smile makes them feel better than anything else in the world and they'd do anything to get their dopamine/oxytocin high from helping others. Stuff like that. You wouldn't be able to prove that it's 'truly' altruistic in the sense that they don't gain any benefit or have sacrificed more than they gained at the end of the day because non-material gains are hard to quantify and weigh up against material ones. Some people get more psychological benefit out of 'altruistic' behavior than others. The desired goals would just be slightly less obvious than the ones of other animals, because they're not necessarily physical or material but rather a matter of neurochemistry. What distinguishes humans from other animals in this realm is the degree of sophistication, but they're not fundamentally different.

@makeshiftaltruist7530

7 жыл бұрын

Resplendent I agree that Morality is a philosophical study but your philosophy is heavily influenced by science. I dont agree that science tells us what the good life is, aside from good health (which is still a vague notion).

Love these two, both are making excellent points.

I'm really starting to enjoy these shows.

For someone that frequently references the title of Dawkins' work, Prager doesn't seem to have actually read the selfish gene.

Cringeworthy moment: Shermer- "..well, well what is objective?" 😣

This is great stuff here! I grew up religious but very much consider myself an atheist now. I'm a huge fan of both of these guys and they both make solid points, maybe particularly Dennis Prager. That bit on the monkey and selfish wrong... I just heard Unreal Tournament in my head "HEADSHOT!!"

I wish we could all agree on 3 things no matter what our politics are: 1) civility 2) denouncing the imitation of violence under any circumstances and 3) intellectual honesty. Although I disagree with Mr. Prager on many points I see no point in calling him (or anyone else) a moron. Let's attack the arguments and not the person.

Lets get Bishop Barron or Jordan Peterson for the next debate

@georgechristiansen6785

7 жыл бұрын

JP would be a great person for this because he has as much knowledge of evolutionary biology as he does morality and psychology. He also has a very humble epistemology.

God was introduced to humanity by the old testament? Um... no. They have found idols of seeming supernatural deities as old as 40,000 years. No God who is good would have waited until the 5th century BC to reveal himself, to paraphrase Prager from part one on what a good God would and would not supposedly do. I'd not want anything to do with a God that let humans rot for 10s of thousands of years before cluing them in on morality and his existence. Maybe open your eyes to other religions?

@azgreenskeeper

7 жыл бұрын

Kon Berner Exactly... We know of the Enuma Elish and the other texts that came before... and were the impetus for what became the OT.

@dawolfe30

7 жыл бұрын

(This is not an attack.) Kon Berner in the Old Testament it says that Abraham was the first person to find the one true G-d.

@konberner170

7 жыл бұрын

And those who found God earlier claimed to find the one true God also. It is one thing to be open to a God conjecture, it is another to believe that your particular version is the only one.

Love this!!! I would religiously watch these kind of discussions if they were done on interesting topics like this one.

One of my favorite videos on this channel

Where is Sam Harris when you need him? Sam has written books on ideas (morality from science) that Dennis openly says doesn't exist and are not debatable.

Prager isn't very philosophically sophisticated.

The strongest point left untouched by Dennis was about how we evolved our sense of morality by surviving in the tribe. There is obvious variation in how individuals act within the tribe, but the tribe survives when individuals work together. Compound that with post enlightenment reasoning and we have relatively civil society. Abnormalities such as serial killers and sociopaths can only exist because of the sheer size of the modern tribe and the rules that allow them to exist and hide within it. A lone wolf human in hunter gatherer times would be picked off fairly quickly.

Rubin, this was awesome. What interesting perspectives!

Notice how shermer never interrupts authoritatively and prager always does? Pretty common among the religious

@white-christianheterosexua1388

7 жыл бұрын

Dan K Generalising a group of people is not an argument.

@nualln

7 жыл бұрын

Pretty common among KZread commenters.

@danzwku

7 жыл бұрын

Allen Arrick I wasn't interrupting anyone.

@danzwku

7 жыл бұрын

White-Christian Heterosexual-Male wasn't making an argument. But it's a statement. It's not a fact, nor was I saying all religious people are, nor that most are, just that I wouldn't be surprised if you found one.

@danzwku

7 жыл бұрын

Daniel McCauley what's my narrative? wasn't making an argument. But it's a statement. It's not a fact, nor was I saying all religious people are, nor that most are, just that I wouldn't be surprised if you found one. And even if I was, which I wasn't, finding one example doesn't “blow my narrative out of the water.”

Shermer seems to lack any ability to distinguish between preferred behavior and goodness.

I love the debate Dave. Good job all!!!!

It's really amazing how Prager just states certain things and asserts that he's completely convinced of them and solid logic that refutes his opinion just does not register.

I don't agree with the religious guy but let's not be insulting

Oh God, Prager is so low brow after spending countless hours listening to Jordan Peterson ... they've got some cool videos on conservatism, but this is painful to watch

OMG! Just release the last part already! This is so good!

We are the only animal species on earth with complex definitions of morality. This is agreed upon by everybody. The debate is over why this happens to be the case. Did we reason our way into it, or was it revealed to us. I happen to BELIEVE we reasoned our way into it. Others happen to BELIEVE it was revealed to us. It's a good debate. I don't agree with Prager on this topic, but I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you guys!!

Respectfully, I think Shermer is really misding the mark over here. The question here is can there be OBJECTIVE morality without God. Shermer providing arguments about how in society being "good" is benefitial, does not prove that we can objectively define morality for ourselves.

@jayzonedc6474

7 жыл бұрын

Samuel Appiah I think his argument is that children have an innate morality which would be as close to objective as possible (helping people is good, hurting people is bad). If all children are born with this morality then this could be considered objective. As an adult our morality is screened through our conscious minds while young children have a subconscious morality free from societal pressure.

@georgechristiansen6785

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed. His argument is only pragmatic, but it is also wrong even on those terms. The most pragmatic thing is to APPEAR moral to others while simultaneously being completely self serving. Cheat, but don't get caught. Everyone knows this. His claim that you should be genuinely good requires an objective metric as to what good is and another one as to why we are obligated to be good even if there is genuine good. That said. I think Prager is wrong about the need for God as the cause of morals. I think that transcendent and objective morals are at least as "old" as any god that may exist. Otherwise we really only have that god's whims, that are only good because they belong to that god. Essentially this is might makes right. "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?"

@whoopsie890

7 жыл бұрын

Stefan Molyneux sure feels like there can be objective morality

@gilfiazon2575

7 жыл бұрын

I would argue that not only do you not need religion to be moral, but that you can't be truly moral while being religious. If I am an atheist and I do good it's because I want to do good. If you are religious and doing good only because your holy book says so or because of your fear of whatever god your worship, then your not really doing good for the sake of good, your just what your told.

@CrazyIvanovich1

7 жыл бұрын

To me, the question is really, "can the majority accept a morality that doesn't come from God?" But, it really depends on the goal. Are we designing society or being philosophical? You can replace God with any abstraction you want if you're being philosophical, but that doesn't imply that your replacement abstraction will have the same effect on society.

So Coca-Cola is God.

@BastiansChannel

7 жыл бұрын

in a nutty shell

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..." J.S Mill. I keep thinking of this quote watching Prager hopelessly flail around in this discussion. It's so clear he doesn't know the opposing arguments, nor care to understand them.

This is phenomenal.

God is 100%. Whether it was man made as a necessity to establish moral authority above man or if its an actual divine creator above our understanding can be debated until the end of time.

@georgechristiansen6785

7 жыл бұрын

And here you are wasting it.

this is your best work rubin!

Lets bring this conversation down to earth. If you do something wrong and no will ever judge you for it was it wrong ? The question should be without god do morals matter.

This is awesome. Do more conversations Dave!

Fabulous discussion.

Nice to see a respectful debate. I've heard this happens sometimes, but didn't believe it until now.

Great Job Dennis!

Great discussion.

I believe in objective morality through evolution in 5 steps: 1. It is our evolutionary nature to will to survive. This is our natural programming; our default setting.2. If we lose the will to survive, it is because our setting has been altered to something it's not meant to be.3. We should not make something the way it's not meant to be.4. Human suffering causes us to lose the will to live, and therefore makes us what we're not meant to be.5. We should not inflict human suffering.

Dennis Prager won this one -- optimistic agnostic.

Here are my main gripes with the arguments used in this part of the debate. I hope someone reads it and we can talk about it, I´d really like to hear what people think of this issue. Anyway, here´s my take. 1) You can tell when something is morally condemnable through biology and studies on behavior, hell, you can see it in many highly developed mammals, they may not have the intelligence to make moral judgements or develop a defined set of ethics, but even mammals don´t kill their own without reason (there are outliers of course). This kind of pre-morality is what developed into what we know as a moral conscience. I find that easier to believe than an eternal, magical and unknowable being decreed it so. 2) It does matter that it would be okay to murder, steal and so on, if God revealed all of the commandments arbitrarily, saying so admits that it is in fact random, and this randomness makes whatever reasons God had for decreeing murder to be wrong null and void. 3) Moral values, at least how we define them, are based in evolutionary patterns of behavior, they are based in survivability and the furthering and protection of a community and its peace or stability. It is objectively wrong to randomly choose and kill another member of your community because it would throw it into disarray and potentially lead to more killing which risks the end of the community as a whole. There´s an argument against murder that is objective and makes no mention of divinity. 4) The experiment shows two things: first, it indeed shows a longing for selfish gain, and secondly, it shows a sense of community and the forming of relationships between animals. Rather fittingly too, experiments show, as Michael says, an almost inherent desire for a moral terrain to be built. I respect Dennis Prager intellectually, but you can´t just choose to ignore facts you don´t like, I thought he´d made that point to (correctly) attack liberals. 5) To say that all it takes for morality or a set of ethics to develop in a human community is only possible because of some transcendent being is a poor argument with no evidence backing it up. If goodness is rarer, as Dennis says, and God happens to be good, that is contradictory, because if God is an all-perfect, all-knowing and caring being, then we have to assume that the world we live in is the best possible one, as it is his own creation and therefore must reflect the creator´s perfection. Dennis denies that this world is perfect, which contradicts the very nature of what he refers to as "God". Leibniz would be disappointed here. 6) I agree with Dennis that the origins of an argument are not relevant to its truth or falsehood, but he shouldn´t have asked Michael if he would have agreed with him 300 years ago, as it is the same as calling his rabbi teacher limited in his ability to know. 7) The whole Coca-Cola argument just sidesteps the problem of "what god?". He didn´t address it directly. It is the case that Islam is heavily influenced by Christianity and Judaism, so the "ingredients" are not all that different. What stops people from believing it is a different take on the same God? His argument doesn´t address this. (Just to clarify, I do believe that those religions are distinct enough, but there are far better arguments, mainly from a historical perspective that would make a better case than "they´re talking about a different God").

@Emil-Roma

7 жыл бұрын

On your first point, I agree, morality (by this I understand our ability to make value judgements on our own actions) is far more than simply an evolutionary mechanism. Though I think it certainly comes from that, humans being far more developed and capable of both reasoning and abstract thought, means that our judgements of morality are far more complex than simply "advantageous vs. detrimental". I still firmly believe a transcendent type of morality is unnecessary and ultimately unknowable. I think it is our ability to combine abstract and reasonable thought that would make some people (most, I think) answer your case by not killing the person, regardless of how much one would want him or her dead. Also, we can take another form of abstract, and apparently inherent thought: the extreme value we hold over life in general, this probably more anthropologic than anything else, but it gives us a "compass" so to speak, when it comes to analyzing the validity of an action that we deem moral or immoral. I think this value manifests itself in most if not all religions, as life is treated as something sacred (to varying degrees, and with differences in every religion of course). The second argument, I agree, depends on definitions. If we take the standard definition of God as perfect being and creator, etc., then yes, his perfect aims or actions could be considered objectively correct, and his mandates objectively good and worthy of being followed because they are his own artifices. However, the moment you take this argument to someone who does not assume the existence of God, or who doesn´t see God as a perfect creator, and so on, the first premise becomes void and the argument falls apart. In the end, it is my view that in order to sustain this argument, a believer must do so without begging the question when it comes to the existence of God. Prager cleverly avoids this fallacy by saying (in the first part) at the very beginning that his belief in God is not the central point. In my opinion, this undermines his own position, but otherwise he would have had to come up with some kind of proof for God´s existence, and this would have shifted the debate, so I suppose I understand why he clarified that. On the final point, I think we both agree it is ultimately a subjective matter. Hell, I happen to prefer western civilization for a number of reasons (including, even as an atheist, a preference of Christianity as a religion over Islam, Buddhism and all the rest), mainly because of its effect in the world (a secular argument for Christianity, if you like), ultimately, I think our views are fairly similar on that based on your response. Thanks for taking the time to read all that man, really nice talking to you. You made some pretty valid points that made me rearrange a couple of my positions there. *Edit: I´m adding this because I only now saw your second comment. When I talked about a perfect world created by God I referred to his infinite wisdom and capacity for good, which should make the world we live in the best there could possibly be. This argument is accepted by several modern figures and intellectuals. This would hold true even if we take free will into account because, while the world is perfect, humanity, being free, is not (This is also part of Leibniz´s argument). I think it would have been reasonable to think that up to the 17th and 18th century, but now thanks to evolution epidemiology and several other sciences that reveal the imperfection and sometimes tragedy of many parts of the world, I think we can say with some degree of confidence that this world is not perfect after all.

@Emil-Roma

7 жыл бұрын

Here, this is the main argument I was referring to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds I find that article to give a fairly decent explanation, but if you want the really big one, this one´s better: plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/ I think that is roughly what I think is the most philosophically sound version of a creator, and I was following the same line when talking about perfection in both God and the world. I think the main religious argument tends to be similar to the one you laid out, this being that despite having a perfect creator and overseer, humanity is given choice in order to derive some sort of meaning from the life we live. I am not a believer, and I agree with the second part of the argument. I think that choice, hardship, tragedy, joy and any type of shaping experience a person can have is what ultimately permits us to define a personal and subjective meaning even among the ocean of apparent meaninglessness in the world (this is as someone who does not believe in the possibility of a clear or objective meaning to life. I think admitting and finally embracing the lack of meaning is the correct course of action). That said, the very idea of a God and all that it entails (similarly to what you said with good, evil and so on) is enough to derive a form of meaning whether those ideas turn out to be true or not.

Prager made a good point at the end about how in different circumstances the same action can either be good or bad. Sex with wife = good. Sex with unwilling stranger = bad. Killing in self-defense = good. Killing innocent person = bad.

I lean more towards Prager's side, but it seems that Shermer has more philosophical education and nuance. There are philosophers out there who are real experts on this topic. A discussion with them would be more educational than this. Not that there was anything wrong with this, of course. I am happy you are discussing these crucial issues!

I really like both these guys to be honest

Here's my take as a humble observer; Those who wanted power and dominion over the masses for the furthering of society without the hiccups of random killings invented 'God' as a justification of morality. This means that religion still is the reason why morality exists, but it doesn't mean God exists.

The problem with these types of formats is they will never get anywhere when both sides are not going to change their mind. With religion you have to hold onto certain beliefs otherwise the house of cards comes down.

Really liked the debate format and the topic! Not really sure what Prager's philosophy is because he was switching between a "religious people do it better" approach and a "I can argue my position philosophically" approach. If he stuck to one and argued it more thoroughly his opinion would have been more compelling. idk if I had to argue for divine command theory I would have said something like "yes, we can know morality from human nature. Part of human nature is existing in relation to God, so that's why God enters the moral scene. In other words, we are created to relate to God in a certain way, and our intuitions of what is 'good' and 'bad' take this into account, providing some evidence for the claim." Shermer didn't press the question "what role does God play in morality" which would have led to a more in-depth discussion. Also it sounded like he wanted to say "moral intuitions come from 'survival of the fittest' and outline the good way to live. We understand morality from subjective experience but because those experiences come from biology they aren't arbitrary, so you can ground objective or "transcendent-seeming" ethics in a materialist worldview." But he never got there because Prager was switching his approach. Would have been cool to see like Jordan Peterson as a third guy here lol. Or the only guy :p which reminds me I gotta clean my room...

I liked this discussion, I do appreciate much of Dave Rubin's work, it just bothers me how he constantly apologized for the right.

Arguing over religion in 2017 is like beating a dead horse. This is a generational issue more than anything. Kids today are growing up with access to the worlds combined knowledge in their pocket. As long as we continue on this path, the next generation will not care the least about organised religion.

"Science doesn't tell me to be honorable." If your purpose is to improve upon your own happiness and well-being, then science DOES tell you that being honorable is a better strategy than being dishonorable. The thing science doesn't do is tell you what purpose or goal to have. The best way to accomplish that goal IS a scientific question.

wonderful discussion between two different views. people need to be more civil when discussing they're different viewpoints.

I think Shermer does not understand that murder is wrong because it is objectively wrong, not because the definition of the word describes it as wrong. The definition could make it morally acceptable, and it would still be wrong. As an aside, the comments here are not half as insightful as Rubin's videos. Keep up the good work Rubin. Its nice to see open discussions rather than boorish behavior on topics like this.

I really enjoyed this format of open conversation/debate. I agree with Shermer, but I'm biased for reasons I'm not interested in quarreling over. Instead, I'm interested in this- In regards to "moral facts/truth", I would like to see Dennis Prager and Jordan Peterson debate over the definition of "moral facts/truths". Peterson pragmatically identifies moral truths as Darwinian. Prager seems to view moral facts and the Darwinian worldview, to which Peterson subscibes, to be directly in conflict. So what exactly is the definition of moral truths/facts?

Dennis "I'm right because I say so" Prager

Praise the Lord!!!

Children do not lean true gratitude by being ordered to express thanks. If anything, such commands only make them resentful. Children learn through mimesis. The way to have a child sincerely say thank you to people if to frequently express your own gratitude to them and to others.

These back and forth arguments are beautiful. I wish the regressive left and some right wing nut jobs could accept that disagreements are a natural and often essential part of life.

During the 6th minute of this video, Mr. Shermer puts forth the evolutionary idea for why goodness is advantageous in a group setting. This same idea is also known as the "altruism gene." If you listen closely however, you will find that from an evolutionary stand point, it is still impossible to say why war is wrong. In war, you have one nation (super-tribe) of people trying to out compete the other tribes. From an evolutionary perspective, this is entirely necessary because the world has limited resources. Just as one strain of bacteria tries to out compete the other strains on a single petri dish, so human nations fight over control of the planet. This is an apt description of the way humans behave, but the evolutionary atheist has no logical basis to condemn it as wrong. Hitler and Nazi Germany where doing nothing more than acting like good evolutionists. This is the essence of Mr. Prager's argument.

This was a wonderful chat. Of course, everyone here in the comments is biased (and on a subject like this, very much convinced that they are right). Although very few are likely to be convinced by anything said here, I'd just like to add to the discussion with my own two cents. First of all, I'm very religious. Intellectually, I love listening to some brilliant atheist writers and thinkers and there have been some great things that the enlightenment has done for religion. I loved the Golden Compass series by Phillip Pullman, I love when Rubin here interviews people, all of that. There are many ways in which I sympathize with their arguments and I can certainly see the appeal. I don't think there's some sort of "atheist conspiracy" out there actively trying to destroy religion - well, some groups can get pretty ridiculous - but for the most part, they're just people finding answers where they can. And I respect that. However, it leaves more questions for me than answers. First of all, Prager here I think sums many of them up beautifully. I think he makes the wrong approach when he talks about murder because murder is universally recognized as wrong. Perhaps a better example is slavery. Yes, many religions either turned a blind eye to it or even supported the institution. Yet today many people would agree that it is just as indisputably, objectively wrong as murder. Why is that? Before many of you say that "even the Old Testament justified slavery", the Mosaic Law was one of the first in the world to give slaves rights, give conditions for their freedoms, and to encourage them to be treated fairly and humanly - ideas that the Enlightenment wouldn't reach for millennia. There are many other examples of the Judeo Christian philosophy going the exact opposite direction as society. For instance, Christ himself. Even an atheist would agree that his ideas of being selfless, perfect pacifist, and dealing in mercy were good and moral. Yet society rejected him so hard he literally died. I feel like the New Testament is a very direct rebuttal to "good is in the nature of man, so morality just happens", and rather that God sets the bar on morality very, very high, so that only a few who try really hard can reach that morality yardstick. Footnote - the New Testament is also just as harsh, if not much more, on those who profess to hold religion and yet throw away God's divine code. The rebukes of Christ on the Pharisees are SCATHING. So I back Prager's universal, objective morality, and I don't think you can arrive at that without an outside source. And I agree that moral relativism is a dangerous philosophy - one that's leading to the Charlie Gard case, because the government has just as much moral weight on the child's life as the parents, right? Why not if there is no universal morality? One more point - this post is already plenty long, I apologize, just been thinking - the question that still escapes this thread is What is the soul? What is the "me" that is watching this, typing this, thinking this? I don't care nearly as much about the creation of the earth as I care about the creation of me, and the why of my existence. The question of "is there a soul" is a stupid one. Of course there is, I'm right here. All the best atheist philosophers simply throw in something along the lines of "consciousness is an illusion" because we have big brains - something implied in Shermer's comments. To me that's just junk. I exist, I am here, and I think and reason far beyond where the nearest food source is. Why? I strongly believe that there is a reason, and that reason is divine. Obviously feel free to disagree. I can't guarantee I'll reply to everything, but let's keep this conversation civil.

I think the selfish gene is the most important part of this argument and for all the reasons shermer gives. HOWEVER, (even as an agnostic) I think Prager's POV although he didn't articulate it well, holds more gravitas. We all, shouldn't say all; most, subconsciously recognize the value to ourselves by doing good to another and not in some mystically karmic way, but through learned experience of repeated events. I think that makes most humans decent people, those who consciously recognize this I think will hold just as true as the most ardent theist in their good nature. Then there are two other groups. The group who because of life experience has been subconsciously programmed solely because of their environment that they receive more rewards by slighting people, and the worst group is the conscious group who understands this whole thing yet thinks they can exploit other's good nature as a weakness. The later group will always be there, but thinking big picture Shermer's side only affects 2 of the 4 groups, whereas Prager's affects 3 of the 4.

I would like to see a debate between Michael Shermer and Jordan Peterson on God and morality.

prager won this one pretty handily. the circle of logic "why is it wrong, because it is wrong." who defined it and why do we have to listen.

Ah, so this is that whole "no need for disagreement, just give someone enough rope" thing Dave has been talking about. Have my doubts, but got to give it to him on this one.

2:00 I know not to steal because of my culture, not my non-religion. I have never committed murder because I was raised to value life. I have never read or participated in any religious gatherings, church, or anything. So reason and culture has giving me the ability to determine right or wrong. So to say how do we know unless scripture tells us is false.

I think the better way for Prager to have argued this is to find the root assumptions of what Shermer is calling good. Most 'secular' systems of objective morality, when you dig deep enough, do take certain leaps of faith; for instance, the idea that a human individual is valuable. Why is that? Or that human suffering is objectively bad. Why? There are those that claim moral systems benefit humanity's survival. But why is humanity's survival necessarily good? If we live in a completely indifferent universe, what significance would there be if we all led immoral lives and self-destructed the species? Eventually you'll get to a first moral principle that reason alone can't justify. Shermer claimed that Prager's religious ideas were actually grounded in Enlightenment ideas. Prager should have countered that Enlightenment ideas were actually grounded in Judeo-Christian ideas that were taken for granted.

Dennis Prager was on the ball here.

It seems like they're arguing two different things here. Shermer is making and argument for why we have moral feelings from an evolutionary perspective and Prager's original argument is about the metaphysical nature of morality. The argument that we evolved to be against things like murder because it's good for building a community and being in a community is best for survival is true, but it doesn't actually do anything to debunk Prager's claim. We can be hard wired to believe and act certain ways, but that is still ultimately humans deciding right and wrong through their nature, which may or may not be consistent over time. As animals evolve, so will the genetic basis of morality, meaning there isn't one moral truth making cases like murder objectively wrong. This is still in a sense the subjectivism Prager's is arguing against. Unfortunately Prager doesn't seem to have picked up on this so his rebuttals aren't succeeding in defending his point. Looking forward to part 3 though. I like this new format.

A great recommendation for debates in the future: Dr. Richard Wolff vs. Dr. Thomas Sowell Ben Shapiro vs. Sam Harris David Horowitz vs. Slavoj Zizek (they've debated before on the Julian Assange Show) Lionel Nation vs. Sane Progressive Scott Adams vs. Lawerence Krauss Karan Straughan vs. Christina Hoff Sommers Dinesh D'ouza vs. Richard Dawkins Milo Yiannopolous vs. Joe Rogan Jordan Peterson vs. Jared Taylor

The gall of a god-believer to judge somebody for listening to an "inner voice". Wow.

After watching this, I'm far more ready to accept Rand's "altruism is evil" over Prager's platitudes. Yeesh. Thanks for facilitating the conversation, tho, Dave.

I think the works of Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker, and Harris have all shown -- in a clear and convincing way -- that human moral intuitions are an evolved characteristic, just like our physical characteristics. As Sam Harris describes, moral precepts ultimately come down to facts about the well-being or detriment of conscious creatures. Facts can be studied, and if morality has a factual underpinning, then at the very least there is enough of a factual, testable basis for the founding of a "science of morality".

I never understood this argument "murder isn't wrong if god told you it isn't wrong". It's like saying "you don't know this meat is rotten until somebody told you it's rotten". Both things have consequences that greatly affect our survival and hence we have evolved defensive mechanisms against it.

Pragers best arguments seem to be to speak loudly and over everyone else.

Prager, how do you determine if gods goodness is good? How do you determine if Gods moral framework is a good framework to use?

DAVE! I wish you'd upload this all on the same day!! LOL

Here is the thing, Mr. Prager: the point of is precisely that morality can come out of the selfishness of the gene.

One cannot understand God's mind unless we try to get to know God and understand his way of seeing and his thoughts.

Love the new format Dave. You should bring on Matt Dillahunty, especially for a discussion with a theist. Make sure he changes his attire though, it's usually horrible

this really is pretty much summed up in the euthyphro dilemma either you: 1) accept that god's commands concerning good and bad are rational and therefore must be consistent with some principle or set of principles such that a human mind could predict what god could call good and what he could not or you 2) accept that god's commands concerning good and bad are not rational in this way and therefore humans are not in a position to predict what god would call good and what not this is a dilemma because neither option is especially satisfactory. under 1 though we no longer need god to tell us what is good because we can theoretically intellect the very same principles that constrain his commandments, we have so far had insuperable trouble spelling out what these principles are in a non-paradoxical way. so 1 leads to something like moral uncertainty, where we believe things to be inherently good but where we are unable to quantify them precisely and weigh them against each other, which is undesirable and under 2 we must abandon whatever we think we understand about the logic of why god has commanded what he has and must then commit ourselves to the position that if god called good something we thought we knew to be bad, we would have no reason to doubt him. so 2 leads to something like moral nihilism, where we give up the notion that moral goods can justify themselves in a way we can understand for ourselves and so we resolve to leave reason behind and just take god's word for it, which is also undesirable take your pick for my money, id go with #1. but i do that not because i am convinced that reason can get us very far but because i refuse to subordinate myself to the supposed wisdom of something i cannot understand. but unfortunately this rationale for my choice cannot justify itself and is essentially free-floating as an act of self-assertion and is powerless to explain in any objective way why it is preferable to the a-rational subordination implicit in #2 so again i say, take your pick

I genuinely like Prager. So it's disappointing that he's so crippled by his epistemology that he can't even approach the possibility of accepting the idea that the manifestation of moral reasoning is a function of increasingly complex social-living (and social brains)being processed through the cheese-grater of natural selection.

Life is existence, survival, procreation, accomplishment and death. It seems as though people want to spice that up with spirits, fairy tales and religious royalty with funny hats.

Wow, as a Catholic I find it really curious to see both sides of this specially the jewish side I find it curious. Because in my religion it's kind of "both ways", for one part we do believe that God revealed himself and gave us guidelines, from the other part we do believe that it is intrinsic in every human to have a moral conscience. Of course the theology and philosophy around this goes way beyond what I have written here. But still, I find it interesting to be right at the middle.