Where Does Morality Come From? | With Sam Harris
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2022
- Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris sit down to discuss the origin of morality.
Watch the full interview here: • Sam Harris | The Ben S...
#BenShapiro #BenShapiroSundaySpecial #DailyWire #SamHarris #BenShapiroSamHarris #Religion #Morality #Judaism #Christianity #History #RomanEmpire #Science #Catholics #Catholicism #Physics #IsaacNewton #Alchemy #Bible #Torah #Morals #History #HistoryLesson
I wish more people had the ability to discuss and debate like this. It's the only path to a healthy society.
This video is the sound of inteligence and civility.
Stupid people are incapable of talking like this.
Stupidity is the worst thing for humanity.
This is the most bot worthy comment. I would literally be rich if I had a dollar for every comment like this posted under a Ben Shapiro video. These IDW guys have been having these discussions for years now ffs and it’s still the same old bland and unchecked conversations.
@@rayd9639 the same thing can be said about your comment though. There's always somebody who knows better, haha I guess today that's you.
@@rayd9639 It is indeed a bot comment that you see under every daily wire video ever.
Bro, these discussions aren't bland.
@John Andy Agreed.
Sam Harris is not the typical college student that Ben tends to dominate.
Yeah. Ben is intelligent, but not on the level of Sam Harris' intelligence.
Yeah, it is a video posted by him for what purpose? To show an instance where his argument won over Sam's? I think not. He conveniently ends the video on one of his points, omitting Sam's rebuttal. Is this supposed to suggest you won the argument? Maybe if I was an idiot. Good job, Ben. Keep up the dishonest work.
@@SLCSStrengthCoach
Ben found out that developing a MAGA focused product sells better than playing it straight up.
@@SLCSStrengthCoach yeah but still Sam came out winning for me even if there was some malicious editing
@@HearBobbyRoar Sam Harris makes JP look like a dummy. And JP is smart.
Love Sam’s style. He doesn’t feel the need to rush, raise his voice or become shrill to make a point. He calmly outlines his point, and is so much more effective than many others out there.
Yes I agree, he softly points out all his BS.
I love Sam because he it the most religious atheist there is. And he is also a pretty nice and funny guy it seems.
@@theohuioiesin6519 the most religious atheist?
@@theohuioiesin6519 you should probably look up both of those words
unlike ben lmfao
If only our politicians could debate like this.
politicians aren't smart enough
if politicians debated like this noone would vote for them because most people wouldn't understand what they are saying.
Fully agree. The Trump Biden debates before the 2020 elections were disasters
Politicians won't debate like this because most Americans would not watch it. Much of our political debates are meant to be confrontational as they are meant mostly to rally their support base. This is the culture in The United States, most Americans already form their beliefs and opinions, and ignore any information that might challenge those existing beliefs. Its called cognitive dissonance.
Trump makes a lot more sense then Ben Sh*piro
I’m a Christian and I thought this was such a great conversation. A constructive exchange of ideas, even when seeing things through different lenses.
As a professed Christian, can you please explain what was constructive about the conversation? I'd say it was instructive, but constructive?
@@spotthelies I thought it was constructive because two people with fundamentally different worldviews were able to share their thoughts with respect for one another.
Totally agree. Wonderful discussion.
Sam: "Historically a real war of Ideais". Really? Do not go to Sam Harris to know about History. He is really Bad at it. Tim O Neil which is a Ateist Historian, call him out all the time. During the middle ages and Renaissance there was not a conflit between science and christian faith. One can see objetive data in a short (4 mn) v ideo in Voitheia Ruc : Age of Reason.
Ben says: Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," meaning a civilization that values individual rights above the values of the collective.
Later, the conversation turns to Thomas Aquinas:
Ben: Aquinas said that if it was in science and it was contradicted by the book (the Bible), then you're misreading the book.
Sam: Aquinas thought heretics should be put to death.
So Aquinas thought that people could believe anything they wanted to, as long as it was Christianity. Otherwise, they would be put to death. This is the exact opposite of Ben's assertion that Judeo-Christianity was the catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here," in Ben's words.
As Aquinas demonstrates, for most of its history Judeo-Christianity has been a massively stifling influence on mankind's journey toward valuing individual rights over the values of the collective. It was a modernization of thought, and a moving away from this kind of historical religious "group think" that was the actual catalyzing enzyme necessary "to get here."
One should take notice of the calmness emanating from this discussion. Notice how we, for once, do not suffer two people aggressively trying to debunk each other with wordplay and low comments. It is nice to hear each two people actually have conversation about a fairly big topic - this also, when one is a believer and one is not.
for once? This is normal. What happens between people on facebook and twitter isen't, it's a bubble.
Harris is pretty much always like this, regardless who his audience or partner/opponent is. Ben, however? No. He's only being more honest here because he knows he cannot pull his favourite go-to rhetorical tricks with Harris, just like he did with Tyson before. Note how Harris points out how Aquinas' and Augustine's ideologies contributed to the inquisition's murderous qualities. And instead of addressing *that* point, Ben deflects and notes how "instrumental" those beliefs were to scientific development. Yes.... only because science *had* to emerge to counter the very wrong and incoherent and inaccurate teachings of religion. He *could* admit that yes, those beliefs of Aquinas and Augustine -- to torture or execute heretics -- are immoral, but he can't, because that would ago against his presuppositions about religious morality.
He does the same thing in his defense of the biblical slavery. Doesn't address its presence in the old testament, and then generally notes, "oh well, a bunch of cultures did it..." which is just a blatant ad populum fallacy.
I'm just so happy that Harris actually says like, oh let's back up a bit, which is something very very very very few people ever say to Shapiro because he tries to steamroll discussions.
Calmness from one side at least
@@Sanxioned1 Absolutely spot on. Shapiro is backpedaling and equivocating in the face of Harris' relentless facts and logic. I think Ben is used to, as you said, "steamrolling" his interlocutors, and is thrown off his game here. Also, Harris' argument is much stronger.
@@Sanxioned1 lol science "had" to emerge? Really now, so why didn't science emerge over the course of thousands of years of aboriginal culture or with the Inuit, or the melanesians in the pacific who were still cutting off people's heads for sport well into the twentieth century? Why didn't Science emerge during the thousands of years of pre-christian Celtic history in Britain, or among the Teutonic tribes?? You're full of it.
Considering the long-standing animosity between these two, it is quite remarkable to witness them engage each other with such respect and class. This is a masterclass on how every debate should unfold if the participants are genuinely in pursuit of truth.
Even though I disagree a lot with Ben Shapiro, I do like listening to his debates and discussions
They have a common enemy in Islam and Sam has been increasingly supportive of Israel, plus for all Ben's faults, he does seem fairly genuine. So makes sense they can sit down and have a respectful chat about reality.
Although Ben does sound like he’s been inhaling helium, I must say. JK
Was there ever any animosity between Sam and Ben?
I couldn't stop thinking that Dr. Strange was going to come through that wall.
This video should be used in schools as an example of how to respectfully disagree and debate.
the core of debating or arguing is not just expressing opinions who are opposed to each other with respect but to seek for the truth though dialogue.
at the end of the dialogue if the participants gained nothing from the opposing idea then the dialogue is fruitless.
two things shipiro doesn't know how to do. be respectful or debate
The public schools are not interested in fair and respectful debates
@@MrGoldhandles did you even watch? Both guys were extremely respectful
@@MrGoldhandles lol what?
I used to dislike Ben. But as someone who considers himself “open minded”, I have been listening to to him more and more. Since he was on Bill Maher. I have come to like him a lot. I don’t always agree but I respect the guy. Also, Sam Harris is a beast as well. Good to see two very smart, well spoken guys debate the right way.
A round table with these two and an agnostic “beast” would be perfect. Hmm…
You and I are of the same ilk man. I used do deeply dislike him. And now I see a ton of good in his work and point of view
you should check out steven crowder
Sam harris is a beast ???? LOL LOL LOL
Maybe a beast of privilege, ineptitude, cowardice and whining about trump who is hitler according to harris
@@greencarpetgrowing4539 actually a soyboy beast like harris is nothing to be impressed of, a rich kid since birth who has whined his entire life most recently crying trump is worse than hitler because he wanted to pull out troops from afganishtan…2 atheists have one thing in common, marxist sexual perverts
Wow this is what debates should be like on the news incredible
janisim dont fight on war of course they are of "peace" weak argument! Harris is janisim
but it's not, and you went back to your life, and so did I.
@@ejw1234 what do you mean
@@someonenotcringy2064 I meant that it won't ever be this way on network news because everything is programmed so tightly due to scheduling, advertising, etc. I agree this content and style has way more substance. We go on with our lives, nothing changes, except we watch more podcasts, while mainstream scratches their head as to why their shows/ratings have plummeted.
Massive respect for both of these dudes! Great back and forth...they obviously respect each other as well.
“Christianity was responsible for the fall of the [Western] Roman Empire.”
Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) Roman Empire surviving until 15th century: “Am I joke to you?”
Rome devoured itself long before Christians cam on the scene
@@Mike-qc8xd that is categorically not true.
@@Mike-qc8xd Rome was doing awesome until Christianity took over, destroyed all accumulated knowledge they didn't like, declared everything they didn't like 'heresy', and threw the West into the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Age of Enlightenment that secularists finally gained enough control back to put Christianity in the backseat and propel us into today's modern world. Take a look at the USA compared the the rest of the West. Highest rate of Christianity. Biggest divide between rich and poor. Decimated education system. More people per capita in jail than any other place in the world. And a violence rate equivalent to a 3rd world craphole....and everything's only getting worse as Christian nationalists gain more and more control.
Because the Emperors of the East put all 5 Bishops under his control. Then the Bishop of Rome broke from his brothers and formed his own autonomous Kingdom. Monasteries hoarding wealth and men was a problem, but the Church of the East would actually help out the temporal powers. If the Church didn't aid Heraclius, Rome would've fallen, both halves, much earlier. The guy in Rome didn't help out the Emperor, but the Partriarch of Constantinople did.
There was a lot of reasons the western Roman Empire fell of them Christianity is rarely listed by historians.
How much of Gallileo's persecution was because of religion and how much was because of academic jealousy?
Like most things when individuals have been persecuted by the "Church" it often was political or personal reasons that drove high level clerics to act. See St. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake after being declared a witch. But really she was simply too popular and an accomplished military leader and represented a threat to the powers that were both inside and outside the church driving those folks to sin. Of course later the Church has recognized her canonization. There's always more to the story; the Church has always supported scientific advancement to understand God's creation (which he created intelligible in the first place)
Didn’t god say don’t covet your neighbour?
I totally agree, I think people completely blow that episode out of proportion. Non-religious people seem to have a tendency to judge religions based on the actions of the followers, which IMHO is just not a valid way of evaluating religious beliefs. Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach, and I don't think there is any scripture mandating persecution over differing astrological conclusions.
When Galileo explained that his heliocentric theory of the solar system was not intended to challenge or supplant the Judeo-Christian view of creation, his censure was lifted and his pension was restored. For a detailed explanation, see Karl Keating's " Catholicism v Fundamentalism. 😊
@@cb6562 *Religions should be primarily evaluated on what they teach*
I'm going to compare this to postmodern/leftist ideology. They teach inclusion and non-racism, yet the manifestation of it is very different. it is this way because of the multi-facted influences on the human condition and needs there of, most of which is unconscious.
Listening to Sam years ago was when I started to really deconstruct after 20+ years as a Christian. Learning to understand why I believed what I believed changed everything, still does to this day. I've found myself being more humble, understanding, learning as much as possible about the world and above all being empathetic to the world and it's inhabitants.
I get asked all the time "why? Isn't that a sad way to live???" No, it puts the focus on the NOW and helps to encourage me to truly live the one life I can confirm I have. No offense to anyone, but I feel like I've shed my mental blinders and shackles. Your mileage may vary.
As a Christian, I am sorry you have fallen so far. A moral and meaningful life isn't about enjoying yourself and its about living a principled life which will make things better for generations to come.
The trends of your ideology is clear. People are more miserable, lead more meaningless lives, have less relationships, and families and communities are not maintaining themselves. If you were right, why is this happening? Shouldn't a cultural and moral flourishing be happening? Where is the atheist-inspired enlightenment? Aside from your personal anecdotal experience can you tell what good new atheism has actually produced?
@@RA-ie3ss I'm relieved to not be religious anymore. I can think for myself, and I don't have to hold on to a book for morality. I can choose to be a good person on my own accord. If you have to have a religious book to tell you to be good, then maybe you need to re-examine your own morality. You act like Christians can't have depression, or suicide or myriad of other issues. Keep telling people that they're sinful low lives who must be saved in order to be worth anything. I don't want to be preached at, I've had it done my whole life. What you consider fallen, I consider enlightened. I actually have more self-awareness, empathy and considerations for the people around me.
To think that someone who's a non-believer lives a miserable life is a horrible argument. We all choose our meanings in life, our values in those that we care about. Instead of focusing on an everlasting life which you cannot even prove, you have to admit it, It moves the focus of life to now. This current life is what matters most. What concerns me is that people are so hell-bent, pun intended, on heaven being real that they want the baggage of hell for everyone else. It's a very self-centered view, that everything is made for you. But if you don't kneel at the cross, you burn. Like it or not, God created the entire scenario for people to either love him or perish. If you ever view other religions and belief systems with a certain level of scrutiny and criticism, at least be consistent and apply it to your own belief. The biggest reason you have your belief, most people, is because they were indoctrinated into it from childhood. Yes indoctrination is a very accurate term. Have a nice day.
Let me correct you on that "deconstruct" thing. The more appropriate term is "fall away" or "backslidden" but I could be wrong. You could be an unsaved person from the get go. Hence, using the term 'backslidden' would have no effect because no one would backslide if there is no starting point (moment of salvation) to backslide from.
Repent towards God and believe in Jesus Christ.
@@drakeydrake1076 this is the annoying part. You might as well tell me that Santa Claus is going to give me coal for Christmas. People don't care lol. Yes, I deconstructed. Because terms are not bound by religious text and doctrine. I offered my experience for others who may have similar experiences, not to be preached at. But Christians just can't help themselves, because their reality is everyone's reality. You smear it like feces all over everything. No disrespect but I simply do not care.
@R A , that has nothing to do with God, or lack thereof.
We live in a hyper-indiviualisitic consumer world where, at least in the USA, have put profits over people and the individual over the community. We have a wealth gap that is becoming unsustainable to keep a society functioning for all. It's designed to make a few insanely rich and powerful. If we had a society that put people ahead of profits, the individual did what was necessary for the good of the community, and where 3 people didn't have more wealth than the bottom 50% we'd be living in a far better society.
None of which has to go with religion.
It’s great that they both give each other space to shape their argument and clearly identify different points of their view to create a strong narrative for both sides and you get good reason to give merit to the ideas discussed. Very illustrative 😊
Sawadee kap
Right! This is how we make progress!
It's a stretch to say that the Roman Empire fell because of Christianity, especially since the Eastern Roman Empire was devoutly Christian and maintained itself for 1000 more years past the fall of the western empire. We know the reasons for the fall of the west, and if a change in culture such as Christianity can be blamed, it would have only contributed on a minute level.
Western Roman Empire fell more because of its economic and financial problems, plus the pressure of migrating populations. A lot of the emerging fragments were soon Christian but not all of them. I find Visigothic Spain particularly interesting. We know that Visigothic nobility intermarried with old Roman families who owned most of the land. They wanted to inherit the land, not conquer it.
@@immortaljanus There were problems that came with the Visigothic migration though. They had clashing religious views with the Romans. The Visigoths were Arian Christians while the Romans were Trinitarian, which later on contributed to making the Iberian peninsula so politically and religiously divided that it was easy for the Arabs and Berbers to invade and take over.
Hey, don't let history get in the way of his argument.
Sam stretches history on a few points in this short clip to be consistent with his narrative. For instance, his comment about Galileo was refuted by Alex O'Connor (cosmic skeptic) on his channel a while back.
What Harris meant is that if Shapiro wants to ascribe the "good" we have in our culture to Christianity/Judaism, then he has too ascribe the "bad" to it as well. You can't cherry pick the good and the bad options. It's all connected.
Ben- good on you for hosting this format of discussion. We need more content that encourages real thought!
The left does not like to discuss with opposing views is why we don't have real thought on many issues. Harris is more open minded so he will talk to anyone that is on his intellectual level.
@@SpongeGod-YawehPants The crazy leftists are a small but loud minority of the left. Leftists are supposed to be liberal not woke puppets.
The reality is there is more common ground between the honest left and the honest right. Each of us has a left brain and a right brain. That is why we would be stronger if we work together.
The new left is out to destroy any cohesion with continual manipulation and division through scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more.
I think there are powerful interests behind the new left which is why these losers are even given a moments notice.
I am on the right but I don't believe in magic, I am college educated (doesn't mean as much as you think), not religious but I have problems with saying there is no overall theme to existence.
Muh conversation
@Pharisee Spot If you are a leftist and willing to discuss issues you probably don't have current woke lefty views. Everything those people push are scams like climate change, open borders, racism, gun control, Jan 6th, Russia collusion, even the current Roe v Wade overturn, and I could list more. Pick one let me know which one you buy and why?
@Pharisee Spot Ok, so you think CO2 is dangerously changing the climate? And we should spend trillions to stop it and completely stop using fossil fuels asap? What's your arguments for these lefty talking points?
The retort to his last statement: They haven't done this by their moral appeal but in every instant by ruthless violence.
Their success if not rooted in morality but in greed in violence.
Sam is so relaxed, and reasonable.
And then he uses reason to deconstruct you into a sack of meat as opposed to an image of God.
@@araaraara12 if you remove all personal biases, you can not, as a scientist, declare atheism as a fact. Science has not disproven or proven the existence of God. At best you can defend a position of agnosticism. The very first thing you have to be able to say as a scientist is 'I don't know'. SA, thinks he knows for certain, which he doesn't.mthis is why same is a preist, not a scientist.
@@owenduck As a philosopher and a scientist, Sam very well would be the first between the two to say he doesn’t know the truth of how everything came into existence. All he is saying is that the belief that God wrote a certain religion’s particular book in “his” name is something fallacious. He argues that one should come to reason when thinking about metaphysical existence rather than have faith in something that has been limiting to human understanding, food for human ego, and a cause for many evils to be justified. He never said he KNEW, but like all great philosophers, points out that nobody really knows. Therefore, there’s no justification for putting your faith into something without reason.
@@owenduck and “the deconstruction into a sack of meat” is simply the realization that we are animals. Biological evolution has shown this is the case. Our egos cannot change that, although we like to believe we are something greater than a “sack of meat” like you say.
@@jamesvail4927 biological evolution didnt happen. It's a fairy tale.
Love hearing Sam and Ben have discussions like these.
Denzel Washington from Philadelphia: "explain to me, like I'm 4 years old".
Give Ben Shapiro credit for uploading a clip where Sam Harris owns him.
@Acceleration Quanta Practically all experts will disagree with you. Although you're not exactly being a subjectivist, there's a thing in philosophy called 'student subjectivism' or 'student relativism', which is a phenomenon teachers noticed of most students starting out being subjectivists about morality, and almost all of them being cured of it by the end of their studies.
@Acceleration Quanta It's not a fallacious argument, if you're referring to my argument from authority. I've long been saying that it should be renamed to 'an argument from FALSE authority' so as not to confuse people. What experts think is simply what you would think if you were the expert. I am not so much telling you what others think, as I am telling you what you think, or at any rate a more knowledgeable version of you.
David Hume is a great philosopher and should not be taken lightly of course, but I disagree that he proved what you say.
To me, what you're claiming does indeed fall under nihilism. I can prove everything that you asked, but it will take a long time. What I can prove to you more easily I guess is that you cannot be a nihilist. You cannot see anything in the world as deprived of value. It's just talk. You don't honestly believe in it. What you're saying is that, from the disembodied 'objective' point of view, nothing matters morally speaking (which is practically the same as saying that nothing matters, since 'mattering' is a normative issue). Well, to use a Thomas Nagel phrase and book title, you are adopting what he calls 'the view from nowhere'. From a rock's point of view, nothing matters, that much I agree with. Problem is, there is no such point of view. And you, unless you're an AI, have a point of view. It's impossible for you to be a nihilist. Go ahead, try it. Look at anything around you, and try to look at it 'objectively', and tell me what you see. I do mean this literally: try and do it and get back to me!
Oh and btw the ought/is distinction, which again causes fascination to students and for a long time I considered it an unassailable truth, I started doubting it after a lot of thinking, and then I discovered that other philosophers did too, for instance Hilary Putnam. Among other things, he wrote an essay titled 'The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy'. But that's just grazing the surface.
Btw I'm a staunch atheist, just so you don't think I'm coming at this from some brainless mystical angle. I would have no problem accepting moral nihilism if that's what the evidence showed.
@accelerationquanta5816Ok star wars intellectual
It’s cause he makes money from it lol
@accelerationquanta5816 Hi Acceleration
“David Hume disproved moral realism in the 1700s in A Treatise of Human Nature" is a fallacious appeal to authority. :)
However, David Hume did not say it was impossible to get an ought from an is. He said it couldn't be done with the moral systems he was familiar with, namely Western philosophy with its theist/deist backgrounds. Western theist attempts to ground moral obligation always run into the problem of prior obligation which cannot be solved by appealing to the way theist’s ground moral obligation on obeying the commands/will of their preferred god. Theists can’t answer, with a reason that can’t be dismissed out of hand or denied, the question “Why ought I obey the alleged commands of their alleged god?” A Western theist worldview can’t get an ought from an is as Hume noted, but I think he suspected that a secular worldview can.
Hume was not familiar with Eastern secular thought on moral obligation and moral values as at that time, unlike us now, he could not go into a bookshop in England or Scotland and buy the translated works of the Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists. That wouldn’t happen until after he died. Though there is circumstantial evidence that he had some awareness of some Buddhist ideas obtained from talking to the Jesuits he socialised with in France while writing his Treatise.
Over 2,000 years before Hume put forward the is/ought issue, the Confucianists had an answer as their secular worldview did not have an is/ought problem as they didn't have the crushing baggage of Western religions.
The Confucianists were not only philosophers, they were also very practical political scientists and understood that morality is a practical political solution to a practical political problem - how do we live socially and live socially as harmoniously as possible. Morality is fundamentally a political issue of power relationships; it is a group issue and not fundamentally a theological or philosophical personal self-issue. This is a major difference between Western and Eastern approaches to moral obligation and moral values.
Confucianism is still guiding the Chinese and since the Politburo in Beijing has realised that it needs Confucianism to deal with the corruption and cronyism in Chinese Communism, it has come back to the fore after a century or so of English and then Commie suppression.
The Confucianists basically said - social living is necessary therefore we ought to follow the rules of social living, rules we know as the commonly held moral values encompassed in the Confucian Golden Rule of Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. Morality is not a solo gig, it’s about the group.
Like many other animals, but more so than other animals, human babies cannot be self-sufficient and will soon die unless other humans live socially with them. Children and adults cannot be truly self-sufficient, we always rely on co-operating with others. What we commonly call self-sufficiency or self-made people are always instances where those individuals rely on the efforts of many other people to achieve their sufficiency.
Evolution through natural selection gave our very distant human ancestors the abilities of empathy and reasoning which enabled them to work out the rules for social living. It takes a village to raise a child is an observation probably as old as human society. Social living enables individuals to survive and prosper, materially and emotionally.
The secular worldview grounds moral obligation in the necessity of social living which gives us an ought from an is.
An ought requires a condition of necessity otherwise it doesn’t follow logically.
In order to refute the necessity of social living, a person would have to explain how they, as a new born baby, could survive to grow to be the child who grew to be the adult who uses social media, without living socially with others during all those years.
And, it is a practical and logical contradiction to use social media to try to prove that social living is not necessary because social living is necessary for social media.
If Hume had been born 200 years later, I think he would have written quite differently as he would not have been oppressed by the church and its religious thought police and he would have got the university professorship that his genius suited him for and he would have had access to a world wide source of knowledge and ideas.
Great video, I'm on Sam's side on this but really appreciated the civil discourse. Only problem I had was that the video ended, will scoot over to the full interview:D
Although I agree with Sam Harris, I have to respect Ben for putting this on. This is the type of human interaction I like.
I don't agree with Sam Harris claiming the bible to endorse slavery while it's clearly restricting slavery.
@@BlacksmithTWD it is clearly not prohibiting it (like murderer)…
@@javieradorno2503 prohibiting slavery in those days would be similar to prohibiting electricity and consumption of fossile fuel today. Note how we were only able to abolish slavery after we invented the steam engine to replace them.
@Minni People decided to enslave other people, just like people decided to murder other people. The bible mentioning restrictions on those is not the same as god allowing those.
Why are you attempting to make it personal by referring to it as "your god"?
Let's not debate under this nice comment 🎉
Most of us don’t have a grasp of history, let alone the vocabulary to have discussions like this. Thanks for letting us in -as flies on the wall.
I've lost a lot of respect for Harris lately....
I lost most in 2016...his TDS was already through the roof back then.
I don’t always agree with everything they say but I appreciate their composure and ability to have a conversation while being in disagreement. This is what freedom of speech should look like. 🇺🇸 🙏
Likewise
@@dariofromthefuture3075 wrong context. fyi…the world likewise is used to respond to a comment directed at or about you. :)
@@anthojones520 nope
Love how Ben can go from pragmatic, statistical political analysis to abstract and profound discussions, so easily. Very interesting individual.
We knew it's finally here
czcams.com/video/oCzl7EmYY6E1/video.html
Delusional
@@dadtronicgood choice of name
The idea that the Enlightenment of human rights and science came from studying Antiquity is a really poor argument to make if one wishes to be historically accurate. And if one wishes to be taken seriously on these statements I would absolutely suggest to not use ahistorical terms such as the "Dark Ages" which no modern historian worth their salt uses.
The idea that we got our ideas from Antiquity, and indeed the very idea of the Dark Ages comes from Victorian Era people who looked back on the Middle Ages with disdain and saw it as a period of barbarism, uncleanliness, stupidity and no technological advancement. When in reality this view of the Middle Ages is the polar opposite of reality.
Ironically the people of the Middle Ages were in fact cleaner and typically healthier than the Victorians who looked back on them with so much disdain.
The point I'm getting at is, this idea that we get these values from preserved documents from Antiquity is a biproduct of the Victorians hating the Middle Ages (with no real accurate knowledge of it mind you) and looking elsewhere to a time before it to claim that these times, the times of Rome and Athens, must be the true source of our humanitarian and scientific values.
They then tried to point to the Renaissance as proof. Which is laughable to any well read historian or history hobbyist.
The overwhelming majority of these advancements in the sciences and views of humanitarianism developed prior to the Renaissance, and almost every major advancement of the period that the Renaissance did exist in, took place outside of the cultural influence of it, which was largely limited to Italy.
In reality, the cause of our modern values (including the spirit of science) sprouted out of Northern Europe in places such as modern the British Isles, Germany and Scandinavia. Which is where pretty much all of the major universities were too.
If one wanted to distil our way of seeing the world to its base, it is a combination of Germanic and Norse tribal views on individuality coming into contact with the Bible.
Wonder why he avoids talking about Shireen Abu Akleh
Did you answer the question? Morality comes from the understanding that all human beings are one in spirit and therefore hurting another is actually hurting yourself - and so the saying do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is literal - hating another means you are hating yourself.
Morality comes from two simple things that separate us from the animals: Empathy and Self-awareness. The awareness of your own actions and how they impact others, and the actions/experiences of others and how they shape everything. Note: not even all people have empathy or self-awareness....and they are the monsters will no morals. Always.
i really don't understand why Christians think the subject of morality is good talking point for them...we have all read the bible
You have duplicated the same question. But also I'm not sure one can call empathy the upholder of morality, more the opposite by their definitions.
@@BringJoyNow do you keep slaves??....do you stone homosexuals??....do you think a person who has been raped should marry the rapist?? do you think women should be classed as 2nd rate??
Many animal species studied pass tests for empathy and self awareness.
So is morality subjective or objective?
(Revised)
As an Evangelical Christian I respect Sam Harris, even if I disagree with his views. I am very grateful for Ben Shapiro's work & values.
@That Fellow, Christian
While I disagree with almost all the things he says, he is civil when he is expressing his views and I respect him for that.
We have so many people who are behaving like those on CNN, or the View, that it's refreshing to hear someone speak like a mature adult.
@That Fellow, Christian I also dislike Sam Harris’ views. I do appreciate that he argues calmly here instead of attacking the person. But yes, I think Sam’s views will ultimately lead to misery because without God, society goes downhill. If you look at the vast majority of nations that didn’t allow the free worship of God, you see how bad it gets (Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.)
@That Fellow, Christian Sam Harris is A GENIOUS he said Orange MAN bad me vote for hairsniffing senile old guy that shut down gas.
Watch his debate with William Lane Craig and you will see how uncivil Harris was and is.
@That Fellow, Christian You shouldn't believe in something(i.e god and afterlife) just because you think you need it to be moral(you must be a really ethical guy if you do indeed need that). Facts don't care about your feelings :)
Ironic listening to Sam Harris discuss morality and individual rights considering he fully supports vaccine mandates. He is a shameful creature.
Sorry but you're not too bright. Think. Vaccine mandates recognise the rights of others to not be put at undue risk by selfish morons during a pandrmic. There are no absolute human rights. Everything is a compromise and Harris understands this. I'm shocked that you don't. You are the shamefull creature because you are against saving lives.
Ben: ''Facts and logic!''
Also Ben: ''So, let's pretend facts and logic don't exist when I don't like the reality'' :D
I’m really grateful to Harris for standing up for reason.
Too bad Harris didn't stand up for reason when he tried to go past skeptic David Hume's is-ought problem when he came up with the idea that science creates morality in The Morality Landscape. Immediately he thought humanity should be in a state of overall well-being. Why should that be the case? Because most humans emotionally desire it? Science is NOT about what people desire. Otherwise the sun would have gone around the earth when humanity wanted it that way.
What reason would that be?
@@mattblack118 He's not standing up for reason, he is standing up for HUMAN morals against the willfully ignoratnt delusional religious folk who justify genocide, rape, murder, war, incest, pedophilia, theft, and all other disgusting immoral behavior that RELIGION ENABLES humans to do, in the name of their imaginary friend.
@@mattblack118 reason against three desert cults
@@darkevola7975 Nihilism is not reason. Besides that you can't reason your way through the deepest questions of human existence. Sam Harris might be able to but no society can survive it. Hence the 3 desert cults.
The lack of athiest/thiest squabbling and name calling in the comments is very cool
It is a little worse if you scroll down lol.
@@lordverulam2492 well shit....
@@KaYem_inc yeah lol there is always those few...
I love listening to conversations between Harris and religious people. What drives me nuts about Harris is his attribution of people's action to the religion rather than the religion's attribution to people's actions. In the Galileo example, it was not the text that was commanding his political superiors to threaten him with death; it was their pride in thinking that what they perceived as true was final and absolute, and any threat to that should be punishable by death.
Yep.
His findings weren't against the Bible, they were against the church.
Lots of similarities between Renaissance Catholic Church and modern day progressives.
So how did u want the church to interpret the text which states that Joshua commanded the Sun to stop and it did
Finally someone who gets it!
*it was their pride in thinking that what they perceived as true was final and absolute, and any threat to that should be punishable by death.*
Think of it as a cognitive causal-chain heirarchy. The human emotion and social needs/survival needs etc are underpinning, yes, but the software of theism didn't help them process it in a healthy manner.
The religion acted as a preventative mechanism to self-evaluation here. Compare the same process with Bhuddism. Much different outcome.
Harris utterly demolished him without even trying.
i love how calm sam remains in all his debates
It's easy when you don't lie.
Until you say, “Trump!”
@@TP-om8of I don’t think anyone should be calm when trump is mentioned 🤓
I’d say he’s a threat but he’s already made y’all even more ignorant
Two of my favorites finally having a discussion. Next I’d like to see Ben and Richard Dawkins.
The people have spoken! We want more of this conversation! Thank you.
The full interview is in the description lul
Yes lets debate about fairytales and not anything relevant and important.
@@bboybreezi2417 Who has time to debate anything when we could all be dancing by ourselves to crappy music! 🤣
@@bboybreezi2417 but isn’t everything pointless anyways in the deep sense, so let people discuss whatever they want
@@amt5911 again not relevant or important. Or do you care about what others hobbies are over the state of your country. America has major issues you should be discussing, not fairytales and random people's hobbies lol
Great debate, gentlemen...and I do mean gentlemen.
This is how we do it, people; getting all of our ideas out there for discussion.
Sam Harris has always been one of the very best clear thinkers today. He points out the obvious and no matter how you defend the obvious flaw, like slavery, you can't get it out of the mud however way you want to because you can't unsee what Sam has just obviously pointed out. Clear thinking with no BS... I like that. Does it depend on what I mean when I say BS? 😂
Until one realizes that Sam doesn't deserve to take any moral highground and he has a worse alternative system.
@@RA-ie3ss Why is that so? I can't see him taking a moral highground because anybody can make a theory where it comes from, so just because you don't like the alternative you go on to say he's taking a high ground? If that's so then everyone is guilty of taking the high ground by just trying to make their own theory of their own moral landscape... Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you get to claim that he is intending to place himself above anyone else who has a different idea about where morality comes from
@@lauderdalerobite3549 That makes no sense man
@@RA-ie3ss enlighten me
@Lauderdale Robite Implicit in criticism is the idea that you are not a hypocrite and you follow the principles you have set out. There is always a moral claim on oneself when they critique others.
Bravo for an honest interview with an honest thinker about religion.
I commend you for bringing Sam on. This is a great discussion. Thank you.
He doesn’t bring much to the table. His basis on his arguments are suddle.
Is there an extended version of this interview that can be found online?
It's in the grey section above your comment, just below Ben's ID pic, where it says "Watch the full interview here"
Ben Shapiro Otherwise: Facts dont care about your feelings
Ben Shapiro on religion: Feelings dont care about your facts
I need more of Ben debating the philosophy of religion
Really? Debating about fairytales is what you want okay...
@@bboybreezi2417 I do enjoy it actually! My favorite fairy tale is the one about primordial soup and lightning bolts starting life! That one is so fun!
@John Andy Specifically?
@@bboybreezi2417 I think it’s hilarious how y’all atheists think you are Intellectually superior for believing The world exploded precisely into existence💀…. Your world view is the fact that u don’t have one so you should refrain from taking
Shapiro doesn't know anything beyond Israel, that's his problem
Ben, as a Religious Sephardi, I am happy that You are able to understand topics from ALL angles while always being true to Yehudim.
You are Blessed by HaShem with a great mind.
i like to think morality comes from an attempt by human beings to reduce negative emotion
I think we certainly want to avoid suffering, and the way to achieve that often includes not causing suffering to those around us. It's cooperation.
@@sibco96 you can also reduce suffering by being a predator and making your enemies suffer. Romans did this quite well.
Problem is that all your "rational" morality just boils down to rationalizing the moral values you already hold, which are judeo-christian in origin.
One of the few people who has a higher intellect than Ben, you can see it by how Ben treats Sam, very respectful
An elephant has a higher intellect than Ben
you must be joking, sadly i dont think you are
A civil and nice conversation, Good job to Ben and Sam💕
Sam's a lunatic. Last thing I heard him say was that anyone who voted for Trump was just as bad for society as a far left Wokel. Also that they are 'at least, closeted white supremacists'.
Very interesting. Actually, this was outright fascinating. I wanted more.
there's a full 2018 interview that this is from linked in the description
Sam Harris and William Lane Craig had a debate on morality’s foundation as well. It is well worth you time.
Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris debating Morality. If you can pay attention it's absolutely thrilling.
Then watch Atheist-CZcamsrs who have it as a Job to cover this.
No it wasn't. Lol....Sam Harris never answers questions he's asked. Which part of this did u find interesting? Do u even understand what they're talking about? Cause I sure as hell have no clue what Harris is going on about...this is his thing....he dodges questions during debates and goes off on his own about how much he doesn't like religion.
Ben shapiro: Facts over feelings. Also Ben Shapiro: I feel god exists
Ah more atheists concerned about what a religious person thinks… if at the end of the day if none of it matters to you and everything goes to black for everyone no matter what then shut up about it and live your life that you yourself admit has no meaning and we’re all clumps of meat floating in space
Harris is so enthusiastic 😂😂😂
he's flogging a dead horse
@@darthbog2125 yeah basically. Shapiro, like it or not, has a very sharp mind. But when it comes to religion, like every believer he ends up defending irrational positions. So trying to change someone’s mind in these cases is a waste of time
Nice to see a civil debate. I find Ben's last comment (just before this cutoff) very compelling. I wish we could have heard more about that (perhaps I missed the rest of it?) In any case, the most successful (by a LONG shot) societies are all on the heels of societies that embraced the judaeo christian value system. Sam's argument re buildout of the western world mostly happening (infrastructure buildout/society shaping etc) through the catholic church simply because there was nobody else to do the job - seems moot to me... It doesn't really answer the issue. IE Asia/middle east had a much more populous base than the western world at the time, by a large margin. So I would pose the same question back then, why did Asia/africa/middle eastern nations not get built out (society wise) in the same way? I don't understand how Sam could miss that point so much. Ben's suppositions seem to clearly make more sense in that regard.
Lots I'd like to say in response, but let me focus on two points:
First, your -- and Ben's -- assertion that the most successful societies are Christian is (even to the extent true) almost entirely based on the last 500 years or so. For the first 1500 years of Christianity - not to mention the first several thousand of Judaism - no such argument could have been made. Indeed, the first major Christian civilization fell apart with just a few generations, and what happened afterwards is still sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages. Yes, over time they began to build Cathedrals, but those feats of engineering stood in rather obvious contrast to the poverty, violence, and oppression that characterized most of rest of the societies that built them. Indeed, the Church itself, far from promoting individual rights, the pursuit of knowledge, and other features Ben would say represent success, aggressively undermined them. It exploited the poor, oppressed women, threatened those who challenged its moral and intellectual authority, and actively participated in the wars that destabilized Europe for hundreds of years. That these societies are now among the most stable and progressive on earth is not only relatively new, it is despite rather than because of the religiosity that dominated them for sol long. (And worth nothing that most of them are increasingly irreligious, in particular the Scandinavian countries that are consistently at the top of global wellness measures).
Second, you (and Ben) seem to miss the role that evangelism has played in the growth of both Christianity itself and its host societies. Asian religions -- Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, etc. -- do not seek converts the way Christianity does (nor does Judaism, which is why its original society was so insignificant). Most are still followed almost entirely by people who live in the areas in which they emerged. Christianity, by contrast, has grown beyond Europe almost entirely due to violent conquest and forced conversions. The conquest of the Americas by itself not only added hundreds of millions of followers (eventually), it led to the enrichment Christian Europe. That enrichment is among the key reasons "the west" has led the world in science, technology, etc. for so long. Prosperity wasn't actually all that different between places across the globe through the 14th century or so. But when European nations, backed in no small part by Christian evangelicalism, stumbled onto the "new world," they emerged as financial and military superpowers. The Catholic Church became the richest institution on the face of the earth, European societies had the time and money to begin pursuing scientific knowledge, and the gap between nations grew massively. Poorer nations in Africa and Asia were not only left behind, they were in many cases subjugated by European (which is to say, Christian) colonialists. It is no coincidence that the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, two of the forces that have shaped the modern world, took place after all this. Science in particular is a rich man's game, so it has quite naturally been Europe and its progeny who have led the way for the last 500 years. If Christianity gets any credit for that, it is because of its expansionist philosophy, not because of its religious doctrines.
Just a quick note, the Bible in its entirety has an intention woven throughout it, for achieving true liberation. It’s a story about freeing captives. It’s dialogue about how difficult this actually has become. It’s also about how deceptive forms of peace really can be, as opposition to this liberating endeavor.
If that were true, the bible wouldn't be pro-slavery though out, and wouldn't celebrate the idea of becoming a slave to bibleGod and threaten eternal tortures to those who don't comply.
@@TheHigherVoltage well it doesn’t. It’s degrees of increased liberation, which is difficult to achieve lest masters achieve inward breakthrough and systems do as well. Otherwise people assume perpetual warfare is better than strategic processes of actual freedom. Whereas continual transferences of slave/master produces torturous the conditions.
It's also completely full of shit when it comes to describing reality, nature and the universe. The bible hamstrings the intellect and you would be much better off never touching it.
Excellent point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Ben and Sam talk about how "slavery was just a human norm at the time of writing", but I think that's not the right way of looking at it; I think that it was depicted (whether as a historical retelling or metaphorical proposition is actually irrelevant) in the sense of "this is a reality of the human condition" and as a backdrop to the ancient and ongoing battle for freedom that you described. It's almost a condition of our environment to be overcome, much like recurring bad weather.
My problem with Sam Harris is that every time I listen to him talk with someone, I hear him make many (what seems to me to be shallow) Arguments Against, and never any Arguments For; I never seem to hear him actually say what he believes is right and/or true, or present any ideas for a good alternative way forward. I hear him say what he doesn't believe in, but never what he DOES believe in.
@@BULLTRONHERO I think deep down reading of his life and his own personal spiritual experiences, he resonates with the spiritual mystery and having an effect in causing a discerned seeking - of which he’s admitted reveals interest in some biblical
claims, but he doesn’t know how to merge it with the entire text. He continually returns to the felt critique of the experience with inability to see it with integrity in the text.
Every time I Shapiro speaks, his critics lose credibility . I'm a DEVOUT atheist who disagrees with his positions vehemently, but he is eloquent, concise, polite and smart... Sam Harris was at his best because he had a solid human to banter with. There should be more of these.
Respectfully I am curious to know what an atheists can say about events like as Garabandal or Kibeho. Thank you.
I will always respect someone who is willing to debate. The people that talk smack and never actually allow themselves to be challenged in a public square get zero respect or an ounce of my time.
@@MrsMimi-hn5ft I view all unsubstantated claims with the same skepticism... Those events occur to the faithful and are supported by the faithful. It is an uncontestable loop. That separates it from science. Science is - by definition - contestable. There has never been an independently verified "miracle" from any faith.... ever.
I wish it was otherwise. I like the idea of there being a god. I also like the idea of ghosts and aliens... Unfortunately, I must apply the same standard.
I'm sure you've heard Sagan's phraae, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'd settle for plain verifiable evidence. Sadly that doesn't exist independent of the people who wish it to be so.
All the best.
I'm an orthodox jew and think the same about Sam. I truly respect the man and the way he debate.
@@MrsMimi-hn5ft Mass hallucinations just like UFO sightings
Ben wants Sam to be stoned; Sam wants Ben to get stoned.😂
jainism does not have converts because they never forced people to do so. the idea of conversion in eastern religions is little to none. conversion is more prevelant in abrahamic religion due to their desire to spread and dominate.
buckle up, ben!
Slave trading is explicitly condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Please copy paste it here. Can't find any condemnation of slavery.
@@ussspirit4812 1 Tim 9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for *slave traders* and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine".
@@shostycellist good catch, and thank you
@@ussspirit4812 No problem!
Cherrypicking much?
Once again Sam Harris casually attributing false quotes to Jesus. It requires some real intellectual dishonesty or straight up ignorance of the text. Jesus did not say a single sentence remotely like "Slaves serve your Christian masters especially well" Sam seems to have not even read what he is attempting to quote. His quote is a badly garbled attempt at a completely different passage in the NT, written by an apostle and certainly not said by Jesus.
Well God explicitly gives rules on how to beat your slaves and how to sell your daughters, does that make it any better?
@@NotoriousMinion Did you not read my comment? As I said Sam Harris falsely attributed this verse to Jesus and also misquoted it too, both true statements. You just confirmed both statements by posting the verse and then went on to make another totally baseless claim with no evidence whatsoever.
Peaceful debate..! ♥️♥️
Recent positions from Harris politically blow my mind, in that he is so logical and rational on this subject and some others, but not in his politics. Also, I respect Shapiro for reposting this given how effective Harris is in his arguments on this subject. In the end, we need to allow religious people to have their beliefs and institutions as long as they aren't hurting anyone, as there is not question that having FAITH is essentially having HOPE and that has served humanity extremely well. So while Atheism seems to have more of the facts on its side, I can honestly say that religion does service a lot of people very well, as well as communities when it is done well. These guys show that both sides of the question can coexist in a totally cooperative spirit.
Yeah i mean keep in mind albert einstein would find mr harris's arguments "against God" ridiculous and he's agnostic..so was carl 'atheism is stupid' sagan! As for belivers in Christs Divinity you have heavy hitters like founders of NASA & Harvard..Not to mention werner heisenberg, Freeman Dyson & Francis Collins finding "nothing" in arguments against a creator!
Whether western civilisation could have arisen without judeo-Christian ethics isn't really the question; it's more that those particular ethics do explicitly promote a rational, legalistic civilisation based on equality, honesty, punishing cruelty, and valuing mercy
Yup, and not human rationality...rationality led us to the 100 million corpses of the 20th century. Coz, rationally speaking, what's wrong with invading a neighboring culture and pillaging if it's to my best interest? What'sirrational about taking my own life if I'm having a bad go at life? This is what Nietzsche realized by the death of God, that all definitions would by necessity be done away with, "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?" "Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?"...Karl Jung said we cannot create our own values, without being doomed to Awshcwitz, rather we rediscover values, values that are codified in the Judeo-Christian Worldview....otherwise we're left with moral relativism on the behest of which no act can be morally condemned (Dostoyevsky). Human rationality is bankrupt, Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" You cannot put your faith in human nature unless you're an imbecile without any self-awareness, relational experience, or a cursory knowledge of history.
Telling a slave to honor his master is a reflection of christianity, but it certainly doesn't ENDORSE slavery.
The Bible also tells how hard you can beat your slaves and how to go about buying and selling them.
@@at8630 what chapter is that?
Slave trading as we think of it today was illegal. The slaves your talking about were basically indentured servants. They sold themselves to pay off debts.
@@alejandrocanela691 Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46. There are other mentions also, just read your Bible.
This is how debates should look like, they did not even need a moderator….. great job !
I'm still waiting for the part where they discuss the origin of morality.
Wouldn’t it just be Christmas morning if you and Sam had more of these conversations! Truly insightful stuff
Sam Harris is such an extremely brilliant and well spoken person. Would love to see more of this.
He is also an authoritarian prick who likes big tech censorship
He has a body of work that would take years to go through
really? theres a backlog of him saying these same things for the last two decades, just go have at it.
@@authenticambience4765 wouldnt that be a result of people asking him the same questions all the time?
@@authenticambience4765 are you guys referring to me? I've heard several several several hours of Sam's stuff over the past many years and was referring to hearing more of this particular conversation.
Nowhere in this conversation is this question, "Where Does Morality Come From?" directly asked of Harris and he allowed to answer.
A significant reason most people cannot have civilized debates is because of cognitive dissonance, and close mindedness because of not wanting to be uncomfortable through cognitive dissonance.
Cognition is simply thinking and reasoning. It is the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, reason, analysis of information, and experience. Dissonance means a tension or clash that results from disharmonious or contradictory components.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence introduced to that person. To reduce the psychological discomfort, the person will have to change either their mind or their behavior so that the inconsistency or contradiction is resolved, thus restoring mental balance and emotional harmony. That is, cognitive consonance.
Hence, people continually reduce their cognitive dissonance to align their beliefs with their actions, thereby maintaining psychological consistency and feeling less mental stress.
The cognitive dissonance of religious people is astounding
Shapiro - makes a point for 2min
Harris - castrates it in 20sec
What a nice respectful and insightful conversation. Glad to have watched it.
It makes no sence, that god could not have been clear about slavery being imoral.
Too much discussion around Judeo Christianity Islam. Zero discussion on Confucianism which developed a very strong moral rule based on observations of human behaviors, not from God.
Sam Harris's idea of morality is whatever promotes the flourishing of conscious creatures. But he can't explain why we have a moral obligation to care about the flourishing of anyone but ourselves
and we have to just ignore all the historical evidence
It can also explained without any religion. One tries not to tell lies or steal or murder first because they may see the consequesnce of those actions sooner or later and second we find necessary to keep society safe and pure because we live in it. You don't want to piss in the swimming pool that you yourself are swimming in. It doesnt need a God to explain morality.
Because it’s better for ourselves.
I personally rather live in a stable society, in which I do not have to fear being raped at any given time in any given location, or be killed randomly. I like to have a house that’s mine with stuff that’s mine.
You can’t seriously expect or demand safety and ownership, if you don’t respect safety and ownership.
We live in social societies, so that means we (have to) deal with others, it means we share space together, we work together, we are dependent on an another. It’s all very simple.
And yes, it is fragile, as we see in wars of gang related violence, but even in those circumstances we see humans, being the group mammals they are, want stability and peace. To much stress is bad for us.
@@nimash6273 But where do the consequences come from? Why enforce a law against murder or rape? That in itself is morality in action. Morality, depending on what culture is referenced, does seem to be instilled in us .
@@Earthtime3978 "Where do consequences come from?" The society. Living with other people as a group make us act the way that today we call morally, So Morality is in fact a survival skill, Like every other thing related to living creatures. why? because humans are social creatures. We naturally tend to protect our group agaist outside dangers in order to personally survive, because we undrestand that to be in a larger group increases our survival chances. Thus We act like a team. We are also naturally herbivorous, So We naturally are not into seeing other creates suffer, unlike carnivourous creatures. Is it absolute? No. That's why we care more if somebody in our team suffers than somebody from a competing group, or enemy. Can you honestly say that you care for your neighbor Christian friend the same as an ISIS member? No you Don't. So Morality is relative. Is it the way I like it to be? No. But I don't find any evidence in nature or society to be convinced that morality comes from a God or something other than humans. I liked morality to be absolute, Just the way I liked to fly like the Superman. That we liked something to exist doesn't make it real.
Love how they give each other room to speak and get their thoughts out. Bravo 👏
I wish Thomas Sowell had participated in conversations like this.
I love the fact that you are not of the same opinion and still you're discussing these things. That should be a normal occurance
Morality comes from obedience to God’s commandments. It’s not that difficult.
And God's law tells us that we should sometimes stone people to death for adultery or disobedience so is that morally correct
Ben asks "How many converts does Jaynism have?" Has he asked how many converts Orthodox Judaism has? What are they, .001% of the earth's population?
Where does morality come from?
Over there
Where?
There!!!
Oh ok
The calmness demonstrated here as so many have pointed out is hidden behind the real reason for it. There is no call to action in this interview. It's an interview ABOUT a belief with counter points being made. Add in a call to action of "ought to" and even this calm interview will be ratcheted up quite a few notches.
I find it frustrating that the argument they both seem to support (church = religion) is so prevalent. Just because the church committed an act does not mean the religion supports it.
But there are verses in the bible which condon some acts that we now find as terrible
@@nyakabb2472 IMO I know what you are talking about, and I think those verses are usually completely taken out of context. I personally do not, and neither does the Church, interpret the call to "serve your master well" as a blanket approval of slavery. In early biblical times slavery was just a part of life, much like recreational hunting is today, never-mind what Jainism might prescribe. I think it was just much more of a way of guiding slaves to make the best out of their situation, and not rebel like Spartacus. When racial-based slavery by European nations began to appear in the late 15th century, the Popes published various papal bulls (I forgot the names but I can find them) condemning the enslavement of natives/africans and demanding their return. However, nobody would listen, as that is pretty much the geopolitical equivalent of Andorra telling France and Britian to relinquish their nuclear weapons. There are definitely verses in the bible which can be twisted to justify terrible things (slavery, stoning, genocide in Canaan), but IMO that is why the Catholic Church has the magisterium, which has scriptural authority to interpret the bible. No major church leader, let alone the Pope, twists the bible in such a way as to use a story of something that once happened in the past to justify doing that action again.
Example: the critics of Christianity conflate the Catholic church with Christianity, when the Catholic church had already wandered so far from Christ's teachings by the 5th century that Peter and Paul wouldn't have recognized it.
@@cb6562 so how do u justify then Jephthah's burning of his daughter coz that one is definitely not taken out of context
@@nyakabb2472 Child sacrifice was clearly outlawed by the mosaic code, so the sacrifice of Jepthat's daughter was a violation. The story was primarily included in Judges (I believe that is the book) to evidence the moral decline of Israel in adopted the practices of the neighboring nations. Furthermore, this is what I largely mean by "context", because an action was performed by a biblical character does not mean it was moral or right. Many people take a story from (primarily the old testament) such as the genocide of the canaanites and try to twist it into a blanket approval of genocide. That is just a terribly wrong interpretation. In conclusion, I don't have to justify it.
Sam Harris has the issue of Galileo wrong. He wasn’t found to be in error because of the Church’s fear of science. Galileo was teaching his theory as scientific fact and not theory. And it turns out Galileo’s math was completely in error. So while his theory proved ultimately true, the how he arrived at his theory was proven to be incorrect.
Secondly Galileo was never tortured. He was given time again and again to recant his position and admit it was theory and not fact. The Church didn’t have an issue with him teaching a theory. Galileo was violating a basic principle of calling his untested theory “fact.”
Exactly. People want to believe he was tortured etc to push their own agenda. The ignorance of the true history is astounding and really unforgivable for Harris if he wishes to be taken seriously on the subject
He interprets history through his worldview, not objectively
he was in solitary for a bit, house arrest for a bit more, but was not tortured as far as I know.
@@stevendoty9408 no he was not tortured. This issue with him and the Spanish Inquisition is a bunch of malarkey. The priests for example during the inquisition didn’t torture anyone. It was expressly forbidden. That was done by the courts belonging to the monarchy. People who were accused often chose the courts from the church because they knew they were much more likely to get a fair hearing than they would in the kings courts
Protestants and atheists have been peddling this debunked propaganda for centuries
Another one is witch burning. Protestants in Germany burned about 65,000 mostly women at the stake in Germany alone but somehow Catholic Church gets the rap
Comes from ignorance of historical events
Yup. Just listening to his arguments you can tell he is being intellectually dishonest.
The fact that slavery is mentioned in the Bible should not be mistaken for a Biblical endorsement of slavery.
But it is so. It is clearly written that owning slaves is okay and that beating them is okay as well. I see your belief is blinding your ability to see that truth.
Would like to see Ben discuss the lecture by Dr. Neal Stoughton regarding Ethics(Morals) in the Business world.... it's no wonder our country is in its current state...
Why isn’t a scholar ever debating Harris on slavery? Gosh he’s always bringing that up and no one is there to dispute it. Please get me a debate with Harris I’ll pay whatever fee he charges.
The word “slave” for starters isn’t even in the original languages it’s a word coined centuries after the entire Bible had been written. The original word is “a-bed” which means simply a SERVANT …a servant could be entirely voluntary (read Genesis 47:19) it even saved people from an extreme hardship such as a famine.
Holding someone against their will (kidnapping) was a CAPITAL crime under levitical law (Exodus 21:16)
Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. A real Christian would never have a slave anyways. Doesnt matter if it was mistranslated or not.
@@mastershake4641 You are oversimplifying the subject a lot by saying "slave". Please read Genesis 47:19 where people that were STARVING along with their families were looking for someone to take them in as bondsmen. A bondsman is someone that is fronted goods or money in exchange for the promise to pay back with labor then be released. So one question for you, well maybe three:
If you were a father of two kids and had a wife and were one of the guys starving as seen in Genesis 47:19 would you sell yourself or not?
2. Are you immoral for selling yourself to save your family?
3. Is the person that paid for you AND DID NOT ASK FOR YOU ...and probably does not need you the immoral one for saving your life and your family?
Please answer thanks
@@AutotuneSucksBalls No im not disagreeing with you, im saying by the way we view slavery today (one person owning another person and considering them less than human), that the bible still would contradict that with love they neighbor as you love yourself.
@@mastershake4641 For this subject to make any sense at all, you have to first understand the ENTIRETY of the servitude premise in the bible ..Israelites were themselves servants of God because He freed them from an enslaver (Egypt). As soon as they broke the CONTRACT (called the "covenant" with God akin to a marriage) God as seen in the bible "sold" them into servitude to the surrounding nations (book of Judges shows you many times God did this with the Israelites and then rescued them only for them to "fornicate" again so God had to rinse and repeat. This spiritual servitude is important for people to understand. Jesus also has a "contract" , baptism is like signing a contract , you come to Jesus with a huge debt , Jesus pays the debt and you become a servant of Jesus ...that's it. This is akin to some of the servitude that was allowed to Israelites to engage in. Jesus said "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved , you and your household" This means you have to "sell" yourself to Jesus and he pays the debt and you become a servant to be released into complete freedom when the time comes.
in the meantime I'm going to explain to you one of the four types of servitude mentioned in the bible , criminal servitude. If you for example stole 20 cattle and you had two witnesses against you and nothing to pay it back with you were to be sold for your theft according to Levitical law. I'm going to use dollars and an operation so you understand what this servitude was for and why it made sense:
. Let's say Joe stole 20 cattle worth a thousand each so 20k
. Let's say Joe gets caught and is sold (his debt was sold not the person) to someone willing to front the money to repay the owner of the cattle ...the "buyer" was supposed to pay HALF of what a hired worker made as an incentive to even consider buying the debt of the criminal (this appears in the bible , paying people half a hired worker salary) . Let's say a worker makes $20k in a year, so the thief has to work for TWO YEARS (gets paid $10k a year but the money goes to the owner of the cattle right off the bat)
. So let's say after a year the person TURNS OVER the thief to another buyer that is willing to pay $10k for another year. This is the outcome of the whole thing:
1. The owner of the cattle gets paid in full
2. Each buyer (there was two) gets one year of labor for half the price of a regular hired worker
3. The worker is disciplined and this helps him thinking about stealing again ..this was done both as punishment and to deter theft but also to help the thief with some form of reform.
4. Everybody wins , even the thief comes out of this deal with some knowledge of what is like to steal and having to pay for it with forced labor.
I don't know about you but I don't consider this a bad idea or an unfair system at all. In fact I would have no problem if thieves were forced to work in prison to pay back for what they stole ...don't want to be a forced laborer ? don't steal period
The Jesus covenant has some of these elements in it ...for example everyone has a huge debt , it's called sin. This debt can be paid if you approach a benevolent "master" (Jesus) and become his servant. Israelites were servants of the Egyptians and God rescued them so now they had to serve God , when they broke the agreement (covenant) God "sold" them into servitude to other nations ...in fact Israelites were servants for a long time to nations such as Assyria , Babylon , Medo-Persia , Greece and Rome...
All this "servant" thing is embedded into both covenants the old one and also the new one ...what do you think baptism is for? it's a CONTRACT after which you enter servitude. Jesus said "my joke is easy and my burden is light"
if there is a joke and a burden then it's servitude ...this is why God allowed bondage at all , God cannot contradict himself , He can't put people under spiritual servitude and ban servitude altogether that would be an oxymoron. The thing about servitude was that it was to be VOLUNTARY . The times that Israelites were enslaving other people (book of Jeremiah) they did this against what God had commanded and he even said it himself that the reason they would be destroyed was for enslaving people and not freeing them when their time was up (Jeremiah 34:17)
@@TheWholeTruthAndNothingBut don’t say slave ..but SERVANT. A slave cannot leave , you are free to leave Jesus if you so wish to do it. I don’t like when people just throw the word “slave” around , it’s detrimental to the faith ..atheists can then just claim that “Jesus owns slaves …hence Christianity is a hoax and it condones owning people “
See what I mean ?
I thoroughly enjoy both Sam and Ben's thought process.
He still never answered the question of were does morality come from.
People
@@ShOoToSpill more probable than a god. At least we can show dolphins actually exist. 😂
@@caseylee6441 do you have a mind?
@@kashankhan6950 yah. Because I have a brain. Do you?
@@caseylee6441 show it to me
Just wonderful, a Republican lecturing on morality.
You're probably one of those people who's never met onr.
For me at least… All it took was a conversation with my mother when I was small. She said.. Everything you will ever do WILL affect yourself and other people.. So it is important to do the right thing regardless. And, even though you try, you will fail at it from time to time and in the “Big Picture” you will only repeat those failings if you forget to take time to understand all the possible permutations of how you live your life. I think I was around 10. She then gave me cassettes of Alan Watts lectures about ego, the temporary nature of our lives and the delusion of self-importance. As religious as she was, she never made it about God or any biblical passage. And it stuck. In an era before the internet, I loved those tapes and my friends did too.. sparking great conversations though my teens and through to today 40 years later.
For me at least, God is the source of good, so it's a no brainer to invoke Him when it comes to morality. I understand "being good for goodness sake", but Jesus Christ taught no one is good, similar to your mother teaching you will fail. Jesus takes it a step further in that our righteousness is just filthy rags to God, demonstrating we need salvation, yet it can only be found in Christ Jesus as opposed to a good report card.
In short we all are 1 of the 2 thieves... Both died but only one went to heaven. We all should be careful not to think ourselves higher than the thieves.
Great discussion. I’ll always remember Sam Harris’ debate with William Lane Craig, at Norte Dame, as the most epic debate on morality.
It was an interesting debate. Sam Harris was clearly outclassed.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 - I think you'll find (if you'll allow yourself to) that the inverse was actually very much the case. Harris' arguments were superior and potently delivered as is usually the case.
@@Robert44444444 ummm you may need to rewatch it then with less bias. Harris’ arguments have gotten stronger since then but he was decimated in that debate
@@Robert44444444 Maybe explain why, rather than try to sound polite. It’s pretty obvious moral values and duties require a moral law giver, which is why Craig had the more effective argument.
@@invoker5465 delusion at its best.
Judeo-Christian values, whatever that means, seems like a calculated way of saying, "Not Muslim."
Of course but remember that “Judeo - Christian” is a oxymoron
That would be awesome with Matt Dillahunty 😂😂😂
In this day and age to have a conversation be awashed in good faith arguments is... replenishing.
Rationality Rules has multiple videos about Shapiro. Seen?
This is 3 years old, even though a great conversation. Would love to see them have another.
Why are all these debates from an _Abrahamic_ religion’s POV?? What about Zoroastrianism, Baha’i, Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism?? Whenever there are religious debates and discussions like these its like people think the only religions that exist are ChristianityIslamJudaism and that the only valid debates are the ones regarding _Judeo-Christian_ theology.
Because they know those religions are not based in truth, and they’re trying to attack the truth
Does Harris ever get around to showing where morality comes from? Please give time code.