Good podcast. Disagreements w/ Ben: 1.Yes. We can make “ought” from “is”. Because we know what it is to suffer . We can construct an “ought” from this. Outside of creatures that can suffer, nothing else cares about actions taken.
-
-
-
2. Christianity has lot of value, we need to continue studying it & learn from it like
@jordanbpeterson is doing with the lecture series. But, we mustn’t create illogical connection with “unmoved mover”. It’s objectively one of the better religion softwares now. -
Its adherents are successful & live better lives. Biblical content can be explained without claiming “unmoved mover”, both the good & bad. Its long term success shows it has allowed its adherents scale, while surviving multiple selective pressures.
-
Surely other religion softwares did exist (some probably were much better suited for current time human wellbeing). But they didn’t survive bc they weren’t fit for some past time-environment. Cruel texts in the bible are a clue to our past. A time when the environment was cruel.
-
Important to appreciate christianity & learn from it. It has helped get us to the position we could ask these questions. Deterministically , Christianity has an influence on how we think (including Sam).
-
But that doesn’t mean our values of good/bad are derived from it. We can construct this, from first principles, from human experience.
-
3. On Jerusalem question: Ben made logical arguments, but all based on an event in 1960, not first principles. That only revealed his bias. Not his commitment to truth or ethics. I do agree on the ethical argument, to keep Jerusalem open for all people that believe it is holly.
-
Overall, Sam has the better position here. Best possible path is to help people lose the specialness they have associated with it. Thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just listened. It was funny hearing Ben use the same fallacious arguments for his religion that apologists use. ‘Unmoved mover’, ‘your values are based on my Judeo precepts’. Weak arguments that have already been debunked.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This conversation was a real treat. You and Ben represent the very best of the left and right. I enjoyed how Ben didn't hold anything back when confronting you about religion and freewill. It was graceful sparing if you will.
-
Sam is not left wing.
-
Anti-trump. Pro Hillary. Pro gay rights. Pro abortion. Pro stem cell research. Anti religion. Pro universal healthcare to a degree. Your move
-
You can be pro gay rights and be conservative. A lot of those positions are classical liberal views, not with the spin of leftism.
-
Well I didn't call him a leftist I said he was on the left. Big difference.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In which Sam Harris comes down against the Separation of Church and State by agreeing that religious people have a right to not sell cakes to gay people.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
By minute 32 Ben has completely lost this debate by making naive assumptions about science and free will. His hokey argument about needing religion as underpinning for moral systems is a humorous joke. The young man doesn't understand the human animal very well.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Finally listened. Ugh. Takeaways: Ben wraps his pseudo-intellectual babble in clever quick quips and hides his insecurities in humour. His shtick is to question, push back, reduce w/o context yet offers nothing. But he does have a nice laugh.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
fantastic stuff... on the masterpiece cake shop case i think there are a lot of important angles not discussed. thought about reaching out to
@DavidColeACLU who argued the case in the Supreme Court? The oral arguments are fantastic. -
The flip side of the pure libertarian argument here is nearly just as purely libertarian except this time it allows the veneer of religious lunacy to run amok. (it's not about cakes like ben was wanting to pretend).pic.twitter.com/qxEbGdmvRW
-
i think i understand the "compelled speech" challenge that Ben (and Sam) were pointing to in this discussion and they allowed for moments when the market will fail to correct bigotry and claim we're not in that moment when it comes to homosexuality and wedding cakes...
-
...but the point of law is to try to draw boundaries and guidelines so that we know how to deal with the situation when it arises. The test of "protected identities" has it's own imperfections, but it's not a terrible starting point for argumentation.
-
@DavidColeACLU For reference the cake talk starts at 1:25:30 in the q&a
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.