Irrelevant discussion/debate for the theme proposed.

Unbelievable? Pinker is a full blown idiot how is this the best time ?? We are killing the only planet that we can live on !!

Hahahah comment section summarized

Hahahahahaha. This is utterly true of all significant intellectual debates. Both sides have too many strong arguments where both parties will be satisfied no matter what.

I wish I was 1% as bright and word clever as either of these people...but the one who argued for my own inclinations was so clearly the winner!

Nicely played :)

If this isn't top comment, I'm quitting youtube

@Armenias Thunk Why am I a putz? Are you just a bored young person who just found the word putz? And take your respect, fold it eleven times, and stick it where the moon don't shine. Shmuck.

It was cool to witness

The fear of God leads to a submissive and weak society Tsarist Russia or the Ottoman Empire, for exsample

"Wonder is the beginning of wisdom" Socrates "I know only one thing, that I know nothing" Socrates

@Nim Boo except when you have wonder and don't give a damn about somebody's so called 'lord'.

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 The ottoman empire which is the longest empire to ever exist in human history also before hand you do know that Joseph Stalin was a Atheist right

“The first step to wisdom is to realize this universe isn’t a coincident”

They already talked to eachother. It's on youtube somewhere.

oz karmi . Peterson is a coma in Russia rn

But cannot prove his stand

Please read David Berlinski's review of Stephen Pinker's book. Its a brilliant indictment of scientific groupthink

tobo86 I’ll say combining both pinker and the other is more precise watching it till it finished I saw how pinker is fine but idealistic in humanism. Humanism is a good one but it would be so unrealistic if it would be just on atheism. The other guy stressing the importance of religion in the present otherwise it will cause catastrophic global shift if you would to implement just humanism in today’s society while pinker already wants the ideal future the other guy knows that this won’t happen anytime soon so we should slow it down a little until it is okay to do so.

tobo86 I think his wording was more than merely avoiding stepping on toes. I think it was a critical difference. I’m an atheist. For a while I considered myself an anti-theist, but I certainly wasn’t against all religious people or even all religions so I had to figure out why. It didn’t take long to realise I was anti other things like dogmatism, superstition etc and I was only anti-religion if the religion did these things. So there’s a real distinction there; caring about the well-being of other humans is what drives progress forward, and it’s something both atheists and theists can do (and they can both fail to do). So religion is actually nothing to do with it.

That's what "class" is!

[...some of the original purveyors of enlightenment concepts were Christians] I wonder which ones. Christian concepts come from the ancient Middle Eat via Judaism, from Greek, from Zoroastrianism, from Celtic and pagan culture and religion, and others. Christianity helped consolidate these ideas in one place so to speak, and developed them, but the enlightenment was at its core was a philosophical movement away from Christianity. That the movement would adopt tried and true ancient ideas that existed before Christianity, such as those from the Greeks, is not surprising

@hatter00 I was thinking how they were consolidated under the early Catholic church, but thinking about, although the Catholic church was dominant, there were still dissenters right through the reformation, but they were relatively insignificant. Still, it was the Catholic church that was the only formal educator for centuries Judaism at least, acted as the secular humanity and knowledge for a Hebrews. The faith gave them a purpose and direction. It has been positive for them at least. I suppose despite their shortcomings, Abrahamic religions brought a peace to particular groups of people. the problem comes because Judaism, and Christianity more so, is divisive and inherently contradictory. Islam has also inherited these values

@hatter00 [I don't see Judaism as being secular...] Some are today anyway. [ i don't see the Torah (especially Leviticus) as containing any secular teachings] Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” is a form of the "golden rule". The rule has varying strengths depending on how it is stated. Leviticus 19:11"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. OK, overgeneralized, and certainly one can make arguments for when one should steal, deal falsely and lie, but still, secular laws, just take out the word "god". [they still fellowship due to cultural inheritability rather than anything.] Fellowship is inherently part of the social human condition. Gangs are formed because of it. Clubs are formed because of it. [I don't see the Abrahamic religions as merely having shortcomings, they have taken the world backward regardless of whether it did good for certain individuals, whose only positive assertion comes from feeling solace & comfort..there simply is no truth in their teachings.] Overall, I would generally agree with you, but when looking at religion from a historical perspective, the ideology has contributed to progress as well as to regress. Today it seems it is more into promoting regress

@hatter00 [ If Judaism, Christianity & Islam are so secular...] They aren't. I was aware of secular or cultural Jews, but it appears there are secular Christians and Muslims as well. The Bible contains the Torah (it is the Pentateuch or books of Moses). The Quran does not plagiarize any more than any writing of the day did, but does borrow some thoughts and beliefs, just as the Hebrew Bible borrows from Middle Eastern myths (the flood being a good example). Muslim beliefs are so different it may as well be another god. [Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any free society...] One of the pillars perhaps, but I can get behind that. [It just amazes me how 21st century people base their values & assert cosmic truths derived from our primitive & barbaric ancestors who didn't know the earth was spherical, didn't know about evolution & didn't know germ theory of disease.] And what would it take to understand why they do? Interesting to note that the Jewish people have been long noted for their money wisdom, and as lawyers, doctors, etc and whether they were portrayed as shylocks or benefactors with strings, throughout centuries of persecution, central to keeping their identity and fortitude against aggressive attacks, the one thing that remains constant is their faith in what their Bible says. And for many other religions their scripture empowers them to carry on though travesty and trial. [It's convenient for you (like many other religious apologists)...] Just to clarify, I am a skeptic first, especially against anything supernatural, pseudoscience and woo, and an atheist specifically for religious matters. [The ideology didn't contribute to progress, give me one example of such! ] I am not sure what you are asking for. I can give examples that much of modern geology was founded by Muslim scholars such as Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni and Al-Biruni, which Wikipedia says "His religion contributed to his research of astronomy, as in Islam, worship and prayer require knowing the precise directions of sacred locations, which can only be accurately found using astronomical data." The Earth was also initially explored by creationists or Christians looking to understand god's wonderful world such as William Smith, James Hutton, Nicolas Steno among others. And of course there is Georges Lemaître, who already had the notion of a beginning of the universe in his religion. The concept of zero: considered as arising out of the Indian religious beliefs. [There's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" as much as a scientists who's Christian.] There are scientists that do profess to be Christian. You must know of Kenneth Miller and Mary Schweitzer as examples. The two have stated they keep their beliefs separate from their work. [Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical deed performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.] The Hitch challenge. "Apostasy." -- Rizuken on reddit

@hatter00 [oh come on now..so if he was born in the same circumstances BUT the only difference is that his parents were Hindu & he was, would we credit Hinduism to it? It's just silly!] The book that dealt with the mathematics, astronomy, and astrology by Al Biruni was written about 1097 ACE, in other words, before the open sea navigation that would allow European countries to colonize large parts of the world. In Islam you are required to face Mecca to pray. With vast Muslim Empires and the need for increased sea trading, it was necessary to find which direction to face when far away or while at sea (thus they improved sea navigation as a consequence). This is not a requirement in Hinduism. Most other ancient religions require you to go to a sacred place, the religion in a sense was tied to that place. The Hebrews being nomadic, and constantly having their sacred places destroyed, developed the idea of a more portable religion. So in Abrahamic religions, you could either build representatives of that sacred place where you found yourself, or in the case of Islam, face in that direction. [Earth being explored by creationists or christians is still being explored by humans...] The motivation for the early creationists was to study god's work. The freedom to study the work in this way and not seem sacrilegious may be due to the Reformation, and the idea that it was possible due to the Enlightenment, but it did release them to think they could understand their own religion better by studying Nature. The difference in comparrison to modern creationists (the "new" creationists if you like) is that they actually did the exploring and experiments, and gave an honest assessment of their findings and results. This laid the basis for showing and providing evidence for a Earth older than 6000 years, which would later come into place when C. Darwin formed his ideas on natural selection as a way to explaining animal variations

Good point, but one minor correction. Islam did take in Aristotle's writings around 800, and then persecuted the thinkers who took those writings in. I am totally blanking on this one, but there is a specific sect of Islamic philosophy centered in Baghdad that drank deeply from Aristotle and got ruthlessly persecuted for it

Christianity was more interested in Platonic ideals than Aristotelian methods. It took the decline of faith and the rise of literacy and education in abstract thought back to the Greek philosophical approach for rationalism to re-emerge and spark the scientific revolution.

Eric, This I am not aware of. I have something to look into. :) It sounds quite likely. Tribes. lol

@@unicyclist97 Paul used Aristotle methods to explain sin in Rome.

I would say that the morality of religion *is* grounded in reason. Religious morality didn't come out of a vacuum, of course, it was carefully articulated over centuries.

Fair enough but if it is based on reason why not cut out the middle man? Why not simply admit that even if god doesn't exist reason is still valid.

Morality isn't based in reason. I say that as an atheist. If you want a great atheistic non-rationalistic explanation of the origin of morality look up Jonathan Haidt's critique of hyper-rationalists. His argument is that morality is largely based in our temperament and intution, so caused by evolution, but not arrived at through reason. We then go and rationalize whatever we instinctively believe to be "good" or "bad" anyway. For example, what about homosexual incest? Or heterosexual incest between infertile siblings? We all feel instinctive disgust and claim those to be immoral. The reason is some innate disgust of incest that evolution probably outfited us with, as incestuous groups produced defect offspring. Our disgust sensitivity doesn't distinguish between those and cases where reproduction isn't an issue, though. Now, you could say: "Why not rationally deem it moral in the above cases?" Because that goes completely counter to human nature, and is thus rather anti-humanistic. From a Pinkerian humanism perspective, one would really *have* to support gay twins' ability to have sex and marry, and their dignity, the same way one defends unfamiliar gay relationships. But is any humanist out there campaigning for that? Does anyone *really* feel the same level of outrage over anti-gay-incest sentiments? I really doubt it. But it's completely hypocritical. We'll just have to deal with the fact that, at the end of the day, all our first principles *can't* be based in reason. You can't create a complete ethical system without priors you take for granted, any more than you can do the same with mathematics. It's necessarily incomplete. We know since Mill that *what is* can't tell us *what ought to be,* objectively. No observation can, and no introspection can.

I actually respect Jonathan Haidt a great deal. But moral philosophy is a different subject than how people in general approach morality. For example many theistic moral arguments such as a divine command theory are non-intuitive. So how humans generally approach morality doesn't essentially undermine the process of justifying a process of morality. I know that Jonathan Haidt would not in any way want us to not use reason to justify moral precepts; on the contrary he would hope we could do better than our biases.

Reason is simply a catalyst, a layer, that connects the primal and allows society building activities, culture - language etc. Thus reason is sort of a translator of the innate, primal, evolutionary. No translator IS the original author. Thus things get lost and reshaped.

Taz LDN, who did the tearing, if I may ask.

HI Taz, even though I disagree with Pinker, I enjoyed listening to him, whereas it's painful to listen to certain other atheists such as Peter Atkins.

I have found that thinking about the supernatural in the natural world can be quite maddening Like the damn Warner Bros frog who only sings when nobody is around... the elusiveness of the supernatural is not just a cosmic joke on the living, it has to be there.

See comment above by @UCD09rzXUngonYKvXl328ecQ...

I'm way more impressed with Steven Pinker I think he makes far more logical sense.

@@Build_the_Future I'm going with Spencer this time

@@forpetesake1647 Why is that?

Yes, he's very eloquent, I never heard from him before I'm glad I subscribe to this channel.

Crap.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi Wan Kenobi.... George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry are far from solid figures of moral truth and behavior. Lucas will sue you for a nickel and Roddenberry wrote about a fictional future where crime exists everywhere but home.

Therefore there must be exceptions even to the laws of physics.

Bible says that anyone can live or try to live a moral life (Matthew 7:7-14) , it has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. Pinker has very little knowledge about theology and for an atheist writer that is like suicide as much as theologians who don't address the secular morality that is inside anybody's hearts and not taught by the Bible (Romans 2:15). At the beginning, Pinker says "nothing comes out of the blue" but at the same time he believes in evolution which is contradictory with that statement. Thus, theologians should always address Bible verses not only books concerning to morality but I fell he didn't want to sound like a preacher but because of that he gave more foundations to Pinkers' arguments which are just his opinions once he doesn't believe in objective morality.

Who is it that is running the world's refugee camps, orphanages, homeless shelters, shut in programs, and bread pantries? I'll give you a hint, it's not largely the atheists, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. John 3:16-18 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."-Jesus

The bible still justifies it. We could still be burning "witches" too.

@@Hirnlego999 Lightweight thinkers are those who equate the slavery in the Bible with more modern versions of slavery. Actually, lazy reader.

@@TesterBoy LOL no, slavery in the Christian world is not a coincidence. And the religious themselves wish for a master and slave relationship with their god, if they disobey they are perfectly fine with being tormented forever as even Jesus was when he visited heaven for 3 days. Thinking is not for sheep, it's downright discouraged in their own scripture. Period.

I don’t understand, when we right things in this book of secular humanism does that immediately update our CPU? Haven’t we been telling people not to do terrible shit through out the ages ? What will make this book any different?

KayJay2017 If your open minded and intelectually honest yes That this one approached the conclusion trough analisis, reason and evidence, is open to change and be debated, plus requieres the least dogmatism possible

Pothead from the Future So you think by sheer virtue of reading this manifesto, somehow this will solve the problem of evil? Or is this strictly to base legal legislation off of, kinda like a kelly blue book but for morality? If so that’s terrifying, I don’t want people forcing onto me what I must accept as right or wrong I am my own person and can discern for myself would you agree?

Yeah I disagree on both counts. 1) Religion has been in constant debate, flux, and change for millennia all through debate, analysis, and _progress._ Just because they weren't doing it based on atoms, neurons, and statistics doesn't invalidate that. 2) Humanism as Pinker promotes it does require belief, it axiomatically assumes the truth of intrinsic human value, dignity, etc. These values cannot be rationally proven, full stop. The current humanist manifesto recognizes this as well in its opening, saying explicitly "[The humanist manifesto] evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, *however carefully wrought*, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance." However carefully wrought. And yet, Pinker and any humanist will stand completely resolute on these notions of the universality of human value. I guarantee that there is exactly no argument you could ever pose to Pinker to change his mind on that from now until death. Yet, "however carefully wrought"... Do you see the same problem I do? If you don't describe that as dogmatism, then I don't know what you'd call it but it functions the same way. It's just that the authority being appealed to is switched from a book from a god to some disembodied idea of reason, which when practically applied means _his_ reason. Rationalists idolize their own reason. His dogma is that there are certain values he holds that his reason has deemed correct, and they are incontrovertible. And this is where dogmatism creeps back into humanism in my opinion, and it shows how Pinker plays a funny game with his definition of Enlightenment values, that is to say "everything I disagree with is counter-enlightenment." He just throws social Darwinism, Communism ("scientific socialism" as Marx called it on occasion), and the French revolution that birthed the literal Cult of Reason, out of the pantheon of enlightenment products, let alone allowing them to be labeled humanist. Now his specific arguments for doing this I don't know, I can't find him ever taking about it maybe you know some, but I assume he does as all other humanists do. Claiming they either weren't philosophically/rationally valid (again basing the truth on their personal reason) or saying they don't follow the _true_ tenets of humanism (which is a dogmatic, non-provable assumption similar to what I mentioned earlier). The reason I believe those types of movements are excluded is because they show that rationalism like Pinker promotes can easily fall into dogmatic catastrophes, despite the opposite being the expressed goal. I also don't think this kind of emergent dogmatism is really avoidable, it's impossible for everyone to be perfectly rational, people have to live and make decisions with some axiomatic assumptions (you can't live day to day constantly reevaluating the foundation of your morality), and people also can't group well with people who have different axiomatic assumptions, so they group with people who agree with them, then form political movements for the changes they all want. Then bang, you have a social movement working toward an ideal goal based on unprovable, dogmatic assumptions about the world, complete with their own right/wrong value structure, i.e. an emergent religion, for all intents and purposes. I'm sorry this was so long winded but I don't know how else to make my point. Essentially what I want to say is that dogma is something intrinsic to human behavior, doesn't matter the framework you use.

Dīvīna Simulācra Indeed a cero dogma point is impossible, the fact that certain axioms are taken in consideration simply because of 'self evident' and no because of reasonally fundamented is present on every idea, the thing is that secular humanism admits this and is open to permanently challenge this kinda axioms and question them

Wonderfull this ..😎

If you're interested might I recomend some reading material? Plato: The Last Days of Socrates Volataire: Letters from England Nietzche: Thus spoke Zarathustra

Are you still one ?

@@eJohndoe yes, i am stll a Muslim and my faith only increases with the wonderful insights i gain from studing different philosophies and meaningful debates

@@baseera6532 Just like people of every other faith.

Christian Cardona Done. Twice.

Ciaran Dudley I wouldn't score it but I agree with your conclusion

This speaks more about the ineffectualness of the mediator

Ciaran Dudley, you have a bizarre notion of truth.

Darryl White: Thanks for the response. My notion of truth is essentially Hegelian; i.e. I understand the truth to be “the whole of objective reality” which includes the negatively self-opposed subject(s) as the inward side of its own substantiality. IOW, you can’t have the universal sport of football without the particularly opposed clubs to play it.

And it was actually the Charter of The Forests signed a year later that gave "the common people" the rights and freedoms they enjoyed until Enclosure and Industrial Revolution and always wrong attributed to Magna Carta.

Randy Lee Thanks. Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this conception of the OT being a Capitalist oriented document and the NT being a socialist one. I can understand with the Parable of Mustard Seed that there is a socialist element but can't tease apart the OT example.

Old T is more about law and order while Jesus hung with thieves, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Jesus was the man who could provide for the sick and the needy without asking for a fee, Job knew the cost of life no matter the power a mere mortal could obtain. Old T is a bit more anticulturalist while the New is much more multicultural. This is why you see so many Berniebot Atheists quoting Jesus verses at Republicans. The Berniebots are following the constructs of the Bible, even if they do not wish to follow the Bible. I wish I could go on further, but I’m in need of sleep. I hope this was enough to paint a picture. I believe the Mustard Seed analogy may also be a metaphor for mental growth, seeds meaning schools of thought.

Bullsfan, Salman may find more answers about the beliefs structure of socialism especially toward the bottom. I never said that Socialism was word for word from the New T, only that it was inspired by its verses. Much like Jesus inspired Individualism, he inspired Socialism as well. The idea of a loving all powerful god inspired Socialism, where do you think they got the idea of utopia? They think to themselves that a perfect god would heal the sick for free, where did this idea originate? What construct in the Western World might have given them that idea? I’m pretty sure they were not influenced by that Greek or Roman guy who gets his eyes pecked out, then they grow back, then they get pecked out again, and so on and so forth. This is a very specific principle. Let us not forget that the Catholics did this as a State on tax payer dollars for well over a thousand years before the Protestants reinforced the idea of Individual giving as well as Individualism. And you have to admit that Socialism has a very strange streak of Individualism, it’s just not the kind you and I care to share in. You won’t catch me in no pink hair unless it’s Halloween. Their individuality is that they’ll join a collective that you and I will not subscribe to. Their faith in this is so strong that they even doubt the Swedish government website stating that Sweden has a 22% corporate tax rate. They tell me with the upmost faith that they “tax the rich over in Sweden.” Like the Swedish government is releasing Fake News on itself. ☹ The level of faith needed to be like this is astronomical. One failure you may be making in understanding modern socialist atheists, they view Jesus and God as the State. They are oppressors. They could have made a “better” world. One with less wars and more healthcare, video games, sweet rides, etc. They think God taught us violence and justified rape yadayadayadayada… Most “atheists” truly do believe in God in many ways, they are just mad at him for not being a genie granting unlimited wishes. Trust me on this, I was once one and still know many of them. Atheists like myself may not believe in god, but we love him. Like any good book the Bible describes the world and inspires the mind. I wish I could say more, but I’m compiling a lot of original ideas for my own channel which I hope to launch soon so I don’t really want someone getting a jump on my tech stupid ass. I wish this place would host me!!! Lol I love their atmosphere.

Salman, I hope I was able to illuminate this enough. I'm unplugging from the internet today. I'm gonna spend some time learning to make furniture out of wood and hopefully figure out how to edit video to launch my own Chanel one day.

You're an atheist who believes in prayer? Did I miss something? To what do you pray?

Hey that's what you get when you debate a Linguist. His speech skills are really effective. He is an expert at being concise and to the point.

Yes no need for long caveats.

You only think that because you agree with Pinker. Spencer used a rich historical context to support his arguments that humanism and scientific progress sprung from the basis of Christianity---interestingly, Jordan Peterson makes the same case in his discussions. Spencer made a lot of good points, and I say this as an atheist.

Rija Nah.

M. Woofington What about sanctioning slavery, commanding infanticide and genocide or the subjegation of women is in accordance with humanism? What about magical incantations and witches is scientific? Neither science nor humanism have anything to do christianity. The fact that humanism and science arose in christian countries doesn't mean they're christian concepts. Thinking otherwise is committing the genetic fallacy.

This is absolutely true - If life rather than death is always better, and if that's one of Pinkers' moral cornerstones then what are we to say about those who suffer excruciating pain daily, what about issues such as abortion & euthanasia? I don't think that being alive rather than dead is inherently better or at least obvious. Pinkers moral reasoning would rule out pro-choice arguments which I believe he is in favour for.

Precisely. The trouble with constructing a moral framework that does not include a moral lawgiver or some form of externally prescribed objective morality, is that it is based on illogical assumptions. Secondly, if these illogical assumptions contend that all human life is sacred then you simply move towards Judeo-Christian ethics, as these rationally stem from this core metaphysical belief. The irony is that a 'moral atheist' is simply a person who follows Judeo-Christian ethics but bases their beliefs on illogical assumptions because they can't move past the 'is' 'ought' gap.

DJPeachOfficial - God enough with this silliness. Of course it would be nice if objective morality existed, but *that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist.* Therefore, we have to make collective judgments about how to make a moral framework, not pretend that there's a sky daddy. This is so blindingly obvious.

@Emailjwr - If objective morale values do not exist then you writing a comment to this post is just as morally arbitrary as torture, mass genocide or concentration camps. If you have no grounding for your morale framework you have no right to say what anyone does is right or wrong, you can only say its relative - like an opinion or fashion. Where as I say we do seem to experience an objective morality in our day to day life. >Therefore, we have to make collective judgments about how to make a moral framework, not pretend that there's a sky daddy. This is so blindingly obvious. If the Nazis won the war and purified Europe, you would have no basis to say what they did was wrong, because it's just a collective judgement made as a result of a particular sociological evolution.

Ahhh I see the utilitarian perspective has always served us so well hasn't it. Let's make collective judgments about morality and see where that takes us. The problem with this is that the collective judgments can very easily change with time, I would hope that this is clearly evident to you. Unfortunately, with no ultimate standard to measure against there is always the issue that these collective judgments do change and perhaps change for the worse. Who is to say that the mass genocide of people with mental or physical illnesses is not an overall benefit to society? What if the collective judgment was to deem this as morally fitting and acceptable? Does that make it right? I would hope you would agree with me that this clearly can't be the case and that a genocide is abhorrent. You see there is very slippery slope with collective judgments dictating morality. Secondly, consider this, when we talk about progress it needs to be measurable against something right? The question being asked is, are we getting closer to our intended goals and aspirations? But if the standards we use are constantly changing (as with collective judgments) then we are constantly shifting the goalposts and therefore how can we really say if we have made progress?

That's actually a misrepresentation of what Nick said. In the video, he specifically disambiguated between historians determining whether or not progress just happened to be made in a Christian culture, and progress actually occuring *due* to this culture. He then proceeded to show that it was the latter that was happening.

That was clearly not Nick's argument. Let's be a little more careful.

No Nick quite clearly said many times that it's tricky. This is because Pinker makes a great point. Nick gives it away when he states that Christianity created the problem for which it also created the cure. This is a sad attempt to have it both ways. Christianity was perfectly happy challenging science when it disturbed it's theological ideas.

William J McCartan, to be fair, that wasn't his argument.

poor analogy. you may as well just say that nothing deserves credit.

Steven dodges so much when it comes to giving religion any credit (and this isn't just based of this convo, i saw it in his talk with Jordan Peterson too) What about the abolition movement?- "I don't know the history of abolition" "the first COMPREHENSIVE argument for abolition was secular "-what about Gregory of Nyssa? "we can't lay out that experiment with other civilisations/cultures" -but looking at history, we kind of can... "they lived in Christian society, so all their arguments were made using a Christian basis" -so there were no secular bases to make any of these arguments? no aristotelian ethics? no stoics? why is it that when arguments from a secular basis finally came about (again, by people living in societies that were still Christian) they had often been preceded by arguments made on Christian grounds by centuries?

Hank Chinaski JP did interview Pinker on his book. As he was the interviewer, he didn’t push Steven too much, but every time he did, Steven certainly had no problems returning serve.

PascalsWager5 Peterson served pinker softballs and didn't even respond to the returns. Pinker actually conceded that Christianity is the reason for the western desire for universal human flourishing and compassion for all (especially the weak) which us basically the majority of the universal declaration of human rights.

Denver Britto Do you think that the dynamic/ spirit of the exchange was intended to be anything approaching a “debate”, Denver? My take was, that it was just a conversation essentially promoting Pinker’s book. Pinker certainly acknowledged that there was “nothing new under the sun”, and that antecedents for compassion & flourishing could be found in Christianity. It wasn’t my impression that Pinker considered it a concession to acknowledge the idea though. It would have been interesting if the dynamic was a bit more of a debate though, so they could tease out, and explore their differences, which is why I made my initial comment

No not at all, i might have liked something where they were a bit more willing to push each other though (i shouldn't have phrased it in terms of softballs etc.). It seemed to me that Pinker was conceding everything in that sentence but they both moved on as if it was nothing. I mean there's a lot of components to the enlightenment , but compassion for the weak (desire to help everyone, not just those who "matter") and the desire for human flourishing (or a promotion of universal development/ improved living standards for all) are huge, and he conceded that they weren't there in the West before, but came to the West from Christianity. I like Pinker a lot, but i do think he has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to religion (i noticed it before when he seemed a bit grudging/snide in his admission that only 4% of all war casualties has been due to religious warfare) and here in the above conversation (he seems to, but i'm just guessing here, subscribe more than a little to the old Conflict Thesis, and maybe that might be clouding his judgement). I totally agree with your initial comment then, i think the first reply sort of implied that a meeting between the two would result in a UKposts video of Pinker "destroying" (haha) Peterson, so i was just saying that that wouldn't really be the case.

Denver Britto I don’t really want to get too bogged down, Denver, but I reckon the emphasis on human flourishing (eudaimonia), could definitely be traced at least back to Aristotle. I’m also pretty sure that Socrates considered compassion a virtue. But I definitely agree that a more robust exchange between JP & Pinker would be fascinating...

God came out of nothing says every theist.

@Miguel Cisneros You are clearly very ignorant of the meaning of 'nothing'. Nothing means 'not something'. If God never came into existence, it means he didn't come from something. In other words: God came out of nothing.

@Miguel Cisneros You are hilarious ... You simply don't know what 'nothing' means! Let me help you: nothing = not something. That's what that word means. You can't picture 'nothing'. Nothing is not something. It doesn't mean empty space. It's just a word and it literally means: no thing. Get it? Example: "Miguel did not do anything yesterday" = "Miguel did nothing yesterday". Example: "Miguel does not know a thing about logic" = "Miguel knows nothing about logic". Example: "Miguel did not say one thing that makes sense" = "Miguel said nothing that makes sense". Example: "God did not come out of something" = "God came out of nothing".

@Miguel Cisneros Really, that's your response? You should consider responding to what I actually said. I'm not trying to insult you (you are the one who uses words like 'dummy' anyway). I'm merely pointing out that if you say God came from no thing, that's the same as saying God came from nothing. If that's insulting to you, I feel bad for you. For the record: I took a philosophy class in college. I suggest you take a class in semantics. Or just take a dictionary and look up the word 'nothing'.

@Miguel CisnerosYou're still not listening to what I'm saying. We are talking semantics. I understand you believe God is not created and didn't have a beginning. That's not the point here. The point is: you are saying God didn't come from anything but also saying God didn't come from nothing. That's a contradiction. Clearly you believe God didn't come from anything, but you keep refusing to say God came from nothing because you wrongly interpret that as if it means God began to exist. It doesn't, because nothing is just a words meaning ... not (some)thing.

@hatter00 I will be the judge of whether the actions, tendencies and beliefs of atheists are religious.

Hi @hatter00, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheists are entitled to the same protection under the First Amendment as are Baptists, Catholics or anyone else, so in that sense, atheism is a religious stance. As for behavior, why should a man not spread his seed far and wide as that will help the species survive, especially if he is wealthy and can support all those children.

@@AP-bo1if "Judge not, lest the be judged" Now who said that again? 🤔

@@GustAdlph incorrect I've seen Constitutional Experts discuss this. See, Athiests enjoy the same protection and right under the law as religios people, But Athiesm itself was not defined as a religion.

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 a religion is a religion whether it's official or unofficial

For some reason those ideas never occurred to the pagan Greeks and Romans tho.

@@denverbritto5606 Really? "Be kind to evryone, for evryone you meet his fighting a hard battle" - Socrates understands humanism "Wonder is the beginning of wisdom" - Socrates understood how learning starts off

@@denverbritto5606 The idea that Christians didnt learn all the basics of philosophy from the Greeks is laughable

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 philosophy Yea, they learned plenty of that from the Greeks. But the Greeks didnt hold charity and compassion for the weak, the downtrodden as virtues. Greeks and Romans were big on citizens rights, but the concept of human rights would have been entirely alien. It was a Christian nation thar held the first public conversation on what rights a conquered people had in Valladolid, 1550. The Roman and Greeks couldn't have cared less about what rights conquered Gauls, Spaniards and Britons had.

Denver Britto Muslim conquests in India, Middle East and Africa carried with them discussions on the topics of conquered people’s rights many hundred of years before. Look at the Mughal Empire (and compare with how the British behaved) and the Ottoman Empire for examples of this and compare to European conquests in the Americas and Africa. What did the European Christians learn from their talks if they didn’t apply it? The Greek settlements in Africa was much more accepting of other cultures because in their view those cultures didn’t compete with them on religion. They were by definition open to many gods and didn’t chop people’s heads off if they didn’t succumb to their faith. All those areas became distinct in the way that they kept their distinct culture but adopted a Hellenistic administration. Compassion for the less fortunate is not exclusive to Christians since it’s at the very core of Buddhism.

Viviana Lara You are correct. That's why it'd be stupid if people came on this thread to tell you that you're wrong.

You've just agreed at the end of your statement that many truths cannot exist which is the first principle of Christianity, I recommend you watch Frank Turek's apologetics videos.

@@jesselevyvieira3588 seriously? Frank turek? I guess he’s a little better than Ken ham 😂😂. I suggest you study science and how things really happen and how facts work. Good luck finding reality

You took the words right out of my mouth. It's as if those commenting in the ways you've mentioned missed that this conversation is two-way, and that what Pinker said wasn't always an actual refutation of Spencer's words because of its clarity and briefness. Spencer unfailingly broadened the words of Pinker to bring clarity, and not obfuscation. This should, at least, bring the secularists into a wider understanding, and not into a cursory reaction of hollow words, like "Pinker was twice as effective with fewer words".

"17th century that lead to Christianity, at that moment, executing it." You really couldn't be anything else at the time could you? Even today coming out as atheist can be a social suicide in places like USA. Because that's how the religious operate. It's essentially the ideas of the enlightenment that opened the doors to get rid of religion as the sole source, if we still used Christianity as a source we would still make efforts in useless things such as faith healing or praying. We can still see how religion poisons just about everything in Africa and the middle-east, where dogma is more important than actual knowledge. And in the west it is is the Christians who try to smuggle in fake science of creationism into school. The religious are still very much left behind.

Hirnlego999 I totally agree. Being a Christian in Western Europe and also having good ideas that are not specific to Christianity is not a point scored for Christianity!

It's not the fact that scientists that happened to be Christian that made the scientific revolution Christian in character. It's the fact that their motivations to study science were due to Christian values rather than secular values.

What Christian values would that be? Eat from the tree of knowledge and everyone shall be punished. Try to build a tower of Babel too see how magic man has it up in the clouds? Punished. The bible states that no evidence shall be provided so take it on faith. Christianity is not exactly for enlightenment values. Heck, one man was even burned alive for translating the damn book into English in England, this is how much the priests wanted to keep the mystical mumbo jumbo to themselves and with it power.

Where was the checkmate in the video, exactly? Nick Spencer clearly showed, without any successful rebuttal from Pinker, that humanism is better grounded on Christianity than atheistic thought. This entire video was checkmate on Pinker.

He did. Did you watch the video? Did the entire discussion on human liberty, God-given rights, and Darwinism/eugenics escape you?

Well you use the word grounded. So this can have two meanings. One is of origin, that humanism's origin is in Christianity. It is fairly easy to see that that is A) a very non exclusive claim, perhaps Christianity being one of the many factors in the process of the cultural evolution of humanism, but it has no exclusivity on it as a theology. and B) that even if it was its exclusive fore bearer that does not mean anything in regards of what is better just as primitive medicine could have stumbled onto antibiotics it is in no way better than modern medicine even though you could claim modern medicine is "grounded" in primitive medicine. The second meaning is that religious humanism has a better coherency or philosophical foundation than secular humanism. Pinker plainly explains away the claim that secular humanism is merely an aesthetic preference but more a mindset that is comprised of game theoretic and secular rationalism trying to figure out what would be "good" for man. Yes it is true that secularism embrace of humanism is in no way guaranteed in foresight. It can also give rise to other ethics. Yet neither is Christianity as one can plainly see in its history. to claim that secular humanism ethical development came from a christian background is to claim the first meaning of the word "grounded" and back you go. The point is that because of humanism's better truth claims it is superior in its ability to deliver the moral "good"s in an ongoing, adaptive way.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Atheist tears are delicious. I'll just copy and past what I said, since you couldn't respond to it. Did the entire discussion on human liberty, God-given rights, and Darwinism/eugenics escape you? The moment the word 'magic' is brought up, it's clear the atheist baby has had to shrivel up, call for his mommy, and scream at the fact that Christianity provides a better basis for everything they consider good, including their very own humanism, then the irrelevant atheistic philosophy they ascribe to.

religous humanism has all the benefits of secularhumanism + religion

Atheist troll?

MHM EEKK ...yeah...i think spencer did really well

True. Spencer swept Pinker.