A well moderated discussion on religion

Religion and Secularism
1

If you don’t know Matt Dillahunty, this is a good introduction to him. On the Austin Atheist show that he often hosts, he can be pretty feisty (I think that’s his word), and he even admits it in his intro here. But Justin is one of the best moderators of discussions like this I’ve ever seen, and this a decent 1.5 hours. It gets into the basis of morality and the evidence for Christianity being good for humanity. Near the end, Scrivener, the Christian, starts to argue really poorly. Matt grits his teeth until the guy says, “we’re having a symposium when we should be fighting a war”, in reference to a hypothetical conversation with Hitler. The guy backs off a bit, but Matt explains at least twice, that this is typical for Christians, say God is the basis for morality before Jesus or even the Bible, then say any other culture just stole from God/Christians, then reject any reasonable discussion that builds on Biblical morality saying there must something beyond that. It’s basically rejecting secular morality because people won’t accept reason, but Matt rejects religion because he doesn’t accept the God claim. It’s a well laid out explanation of the stalemate human beings currently find themselves in.

2

Yes. Matt is excellent.

He’s been around for years so has heard every argument under the sun and has a solid counter argument in his pocket.

Not sure when I can watch the video, but it’s probably like 99.9% of the other discussions I’ve seen with Matt. They make great listening when cleaning the garage or cooking a big supper on a weekend (just make sure you’re alone in the house- I have found daughters and wives are very not interested.)

3

I am now at 48.57 into the discussion and the two combatants are still circling each other. No blows thrown yet. It’s obvious to me that they don’t like each other.

4

Why do you say it’s a stalemate, Lausten? Scrivener handled himself very well up to 50.00 in expounding the founding of human morality (inspired by Christian concepts) and pointing out that secular humanism is a repackaging of Christianity (my contention). He should have stayed on philosophical ground. He didn’t. As soon as he made Jesus flesh, Matt took him down. I couldn’t bear to watch beyond 50.46 to spare myself the bloodbath. Matt looks brutal.

5

I don’t think he made the case for Christians founding morality at all. If you can force yourself to listen to someone else’s opinion after that 50 min mark, Matt summarizes how this conversation went and how they often go. First, the Christians say only they can do what they did, that is, write a book with some rules and ideas in it. So, Matt shows them how others have done that. Then the Christians say those others borrowed it from Christianity. Or, if they did it before Christianity, they say it was God working on those other cultures, bringing them toward Jesus or something. If Matt proposes a different approach, like using reason to arrive at morality, even if the Christian admits there are things that should be removed from the Bible or that there is this “Old Covenant” that needed updating, then the Christian rejects that different approach, saying there has to be something beyond our own reasoning.

Finally, the Christian makes the case that you can’t get everyone to accept the reasoning, saying that is proof that only God can do it. That’s the objection to secular humanism. It’s also the objection to every religion or attempt to force a philosophy on anyone ever. Religion did not solve this problem any better than secular ethics has. Religions however are designed to solve the problem by imposing an authority. Secular humanism assumes reason is an innate skill of human beings, with the occasional exception.

6

“Matt looks brutal.”

He is brutal if you decide to say stupid things in front of him. Avoiding saying stupid things is a good way to talk to anyone, but especially when it’s in a recorded conversation where you’re supposed to be smart.

7

And where do you think Matt got his brutal streak from if not from his Father, the Lord God? Fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah (think Los Angeles and New York); the Deluge to drown all of them sonavabitches. The end times are coming, so they say. The planet is burning up. Environmentalist believe they can save their skins. No way.

8
Sree said : The end times are coming, so they say. The planet is burning up. Environmentalist believe they can save their skins. No way.
Sree, you are a piece of work.

Your ability to twist reason and make it sound logical is astounding.

The end times that are coming are man made. It is a result of our “industrial revolution”.

Holocene extinction

The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity.[1][2][3] The included extinctions span numerous families of plants[4] and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods.

With widespread degradation of highly biodiverse habitats such as coral reefs and rainforests, as well as other areas, the vast majority of these extinctions are thought to be undocumented, as the species are undiscovered at the time of their extinction, or no one has yet discovered their extinction. The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates.


It’s man made and if we are smart, we can try to reverse this trend of human activity caused pollution. It is the environmentalist who have identified the main cause and it isn’t anything to do with God’s wrath . If something cataclysmic happens it is Man’s own fault. The earth doesn’t care who survives or dies. It’s been around for a lot longer than mankind.

9
Write4U: The earth doesn’t care who survives or dies. It’s been around for a lot longer than mankind.
This is an interesting thought: the earth existing before me. And yet, everything - I perceive and conceive of, dream of, think of, come up with, including the separation from the earth - is me.
10
Write4U: "Your ability to twist reason and make it sound logical is astounding."
Actually, Sree's ability to do that is exactly as bad as one would expect. The latest smelly loaf they delivered to us is worthy of Deepak Chopra.

I hope to watch the video of Matt and Glen this weekend. My wife works on Sunday, so there might be time to play it while I’m doing something that doesn’t require my attention, like laundry or washing dishes or cooking.

11

Why do you pick on me, 3point? Did I harm you in anyway? Sounds like you do the housework when the wife is out working. Nice arrangement. A blue collar worker wouldn’t be doing this. And even if he did, he wouldn’t admit it. Too macho. This is just my surmise. Are you a millennial with a beard and ride your bicycle to work? You sound college-educated. I hope you don’t have student debt. Sunday is a good time to wash your beard.

12
Sree said : This is an interesting thought: the earth existing before me. And yet, everything – I perceive and conceive of, dream of, think of, come up with, including the separation from the earth – is me.
Actually that's not quite true. You are not everything you see. You make a best guess of external information which you perceive through your senses. It is your "self" that creates what you see, but that does not make you the creator but only the interpreter of what you see, from the POV of the observer.
13

I think I’ve got a bite. Like an anxious angler, I am hoping I don’t lose you in the attempt to reel you in.

Write4U: Actually that’s not quite true. You are not everything you see.
Correct, if there is separation between "you" (the observer) and "everything that you see" (the observed). Scientific dogma dictates that the separation is immutable. I question that.
You make a best guess of external information which you perceive through your senses.
Can anything perceived, not THROUGH but BY the senses be, external? There is a very subtle but critical distinction in the use of the words (in CAPs) here.
It is your “self” that creates what you see,
What is the "self"? And how does it "creates what you see"? These are not trollish questions. If they are dismissed as such, then critical inquiry shuts down.
but that does not make you the creator but only the interpreter of what you see, from the POV of the observer.
This is a conclusion. It's validity can only be verified through rigorous use of logic and reason in dealing with the above questions I posed.

 

 

 

14
This is a conclusion. It’s validity can only be verified through rigorous use of logic and reason in dealing with the above questions I posed.
There is a kernel of truth in this statement. However, there is also ample evidence that Sree would not participate honestly in that discussion. There are scientific inquiries in to this, but Sree will reject them. There are some simple facts, like our eyes don't send out waves that interact with the world then interpret what is bounced back, they just receive waves. But Sree will make something else up about that.
15
Write4U: Actually that’s not quite true. You are not everything you see.

Sree : Correct, if there is separation between “you” (the observer) and “everything that you see” (the observed). Scientific dogma dictates that the separation is immutable. I question that.


I think you are confusing “being part of” with “having similar constituent parts” i.e. we’re all made of atoms, but we do not share the same atoms. Each physical pattern has it’s own constituent parts that form the pattern.

W4U ; You make a best guess of external information which you perceive through you senses.

Sree: Can anything perceived, not THROUGH but BY the senses be, external? There is a very subtle but critical distinction in the use of the words (in CAPs) here.


I understand the difference. What we perceive internally is what we expect to see, “our best guess”. But all information processed by our senses comes from external sources, except those that are processed by your “interoception”, those are srictly for internal control and mostly unconscious abilities.

W4U : It is your “self” that creates what you see,

Sree : What is the “self”? And how does it “creates what you see”? These are not trollish questions. If they are dismissed as such, then critical inquiry shuts down.


Your “brain in a vat” is your “self”. This conscious 3 lb lump of neurons and microtubules is wholly dependent on the electro/chemical information from external information, as translated by the senses . If your senses are impaired , you get distorted information.

W4U : but that does not make you the creator but only the interpreter of what you see, from the POV of the observer.

Sree : This is a conclusion. It’s validity can only be verified through rigorous use of logic and reason in dealing with the above questions I posed.


No, as Anil Seth demonstrates we create our reality as much from the inside out as from the outside in. He introduces the term “controlled hallucination” and explains how that works.

Do watch the entire Anil Seth clip. He really explains how we create (hallucinate) our personal reality in very clear and direct language based on extensive testing. This is good stuff, trust me.

 

16
Lausten: There is a kernel of truth in this statement. However, there is also ample evidence that Sree would not participate honestly in that discussion. There are scientific inquiries in to this, but Sree will reject them. There are some simple facts, like our eyes don’t send out waves that interact with the world then interpret what is bounced back, they just receive waves. But Sree will make something else up about that.
I appreciate your response. Honestly, I do. Yours is light years better than Write4U's. I wish I could haul you out of your paradigm, but the divide is too wide to bridge for now.
17

LOL

Using cosmic measurements even, interesting perspective.