Bill's statement regarding free will is also self-defeating because it renders rationality impossible. if everything that we think is merely the result of the chemicals in our brain, as Bill claims, then we arrive at conclusions not because they are rational, but solely because that is how the chemicals fall out. Thus, there is no possibility of rationality. Though it does seem that everything Bill says is in fact merely the chaotic collocation of chemicals.
And your God cursed generations of people with black skin to make them unattractive to white Native Americans. Bill's chemicals win out over your chaotic concoction.
Exactly. As fas as I understand, empirical science still can't explain how consciousness happen and this is why there is a "hard problem of consciousness" which nobody - and of course not Bill - has solved.
Great conversation!!! Jordan Peterson’s point on psychedelics and smoking sensation bridges the scientific/spiritual realm in a spectacular way. Also his points of the biblical texts being the best literary source for truth because it is the most quoted and cited book in our English language thus making it the most true book we have.
Jacob did surprisingly well. I've had my misgivings about him (esp given his political leanings) but he didnt let them getin the way of argumentation. Bill Reel also wasn't as dumb as I thought he was, but was still being evasive the entire time.
I prefer Jacob’s WWE-type persona when he’s on Midnight (strike through) Mormons. I’m glad he regularly gets to go off the top rope on your show. Thanks for having him
@@shibainferno That is all these guys are, personalities. Hansen loves his own flatulence, and Cardon peddles drummed up controversy. They use the church for clicks, and attention to build their own brands while promoting conspiracies, political fearmongering, pseudo-philosophy and childishness to entertain waning Mormon youth and disgruntled conservatives into staying a while longer. They selfishly make a game of people's faith.
But you see, your head was predetermined to explode . . . XD Ya, Bill lost me there too. Granted I wasn't convinced of his arguments to that point, but I find his foundational premises so at odds with reality that it is laughable.
Finally, Bill simply refused to limit himself to the debate topic. He merely wanted to badmouth Mormon leaders and not talk about ethics or morality. He offers no discussion or argument at all for his position -- he simply asserts without support that he subjectively believes that certain things are good with no basis other than his gut or mere assertion. That is just not based on rationality.
@@123mneil If that is what you think a confirming spiritual experience is then it is evident you have not had one. Such a complete caricature and reduction demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@blakeostler8965 is the confirmation of the spirit something more than what sone might call a gut feeling? I’ve heard many faithful members describe their testimonies in terms very similar to if not exactly that. A gut feeling or sense of understanding that it’s just true. Why is that a misrepresentation of what this commenter was asking. Also, why is there push back against those that accept truths that’ve been learned through 1000’s of years of social experiments what works best for the most people?
@@Sayheybrother8 I suggest a good course in ethics as a starter to this conversation. 1000s of years of "social experimentation" will never give us an ethic because ought does no equal is. Observing how things are will never provide information about how they ought to be. Further, the kind of experimentation you suggest is exactly what the Nazis did -- literally -- and it is itself unethical in extremis. Finally, the experience of the spirit is not at all like a "gut feeling" -- it is an experience of the heart burning in knowing with an awareness of pure intelligence flowing into one that confirms the truth of a matter or matters. It is quite different.
Just because a bad decision may lead to a good result does not mean that bad decision was good. A woman marrying a bad man may lead to abuse and divorce, does that mean any children born in that marriage are bad? Good results come from bad decisions all the time. That doesn't change the morality of the decision made.
Bill talks about doing those things that science says creates the best outcomes. However, I would guess that he wouldn't push for things like children being brought up in 2 parent heterosexual families. This is backed by science as being the best situation for children.
And it is an example of The Prophets being ahead of their current times. In 50 years we will see the world rediscovering the law of chastity and the word of wisdom as the cure to a lot of social issues.
13:00. Is divine command theory any different than a believing LDS saying "what ever the Prophet tells me to do is right?" Does Jacob believe divine command theory is correct?
Great job Jacob. I think Bill’s position is extremely vulnerable in two points, one of which you hit on well but one that want raised. The one you mentioned was that morality is a non sequitur in the “no free will” world. At best, he can say (and he tried to say) that we use language like “morality” to convey a more impactful punch in our discussions. (Of course he’d say that wasn’t our choice to do that.) This is as much a core belief as a belief in God. The science is far less settled on this point than he suggests. Perhaps on certain short term reactions he is right (something approximating mental reflexes), but on longer-term considered decisions (eg whether homosexuality is right or wrong) he has no evidence. The second point I wish you’d brought up was his constant refrain of “the church is at best hit or miss”. I love this comment by nonbelievers because actually our society is VERY hit and miss. The vast majority of ideas are bad, on an individual level and a societal level. Consider that society supported eugenics, a phobia of world overpopulation, affirmative action, kindness as a highest good, that gender is malleable, and even his idea that free will is an illusion have all been societally accepted, mainstream views. These are just a short sampling. For this reason, the leaders of the church have recognized that there is tremendous truth in tradition. So it requires an extremely high evidentiary bar to override those truths. So it is hardly surprising that the world will be ahead of the church on most new changes. What’s more important than adopting a good change quickly is to avoid adopting potentially devastating changes quickly. The world is an extremely dangerous place. Ideas can be dangerous. And the good ones will bear themselves out with time, consideration, and yes revelation.
Wow. Truly an uninformed comment. It's better to slow roll civil rights????? I've heard some goofy Mormon stuff in my life but this has to take the cake.
This podcast has been posted on both Bill Reel’s Mormon Discussions podcast site and Jacob Hansen’s Thoughtful Faith podcast site. Bill Reel blocks comments that show the fallacy of his point of view. Bill’s inability to understand and digest comments that demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the subject simply confirms Bill doesn’t have the mental acuity needed to defend his point of view to serious criticism that he is unable to defend. To my knowledge Jacob doesn’t block comments contrary to his viewpoint. That alone tells you Jacob’s morality is more valid than Bill’s morality.
@1:01:00 (around this time) But in our modern society most people still don't truly care about the well-being of people outside themselves, their families, and/or a few close friends (their tribe, so to speak). Sure, lots of people give lip service to this idea of helping others outside of that tribe, but most people only do that if it's not too inconvenient or too costly to themselves or their tribe. So this idea that our society is progressively becoming so much less selfish is just not something I'm buying
Your use of the words, "so much less selfish" makes it difficult to find fault with your belief on this topic. While humans do tend to be tribal, there are ways to strengthen or weaken tribalism. While Jacob and Bill are both intelligent, neither appears to be well versed on this complex topic. In the book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature", Steven Pinker explores this idea in depth. Robert Sapolsky's, "A Primates Memoir" provides a unique and fascinating glimpse into social morality. If you are interested in this topic, and wish to learn more, E. O. Wilson's work in this area is also amazing.
21:00 - 24:00 & 58:00 why ought we do what Bill says? 1:30:00 "if the science gives us a way to take care of the planet and treat each other nicely, then that science is a credible source for determine morality" what?? We pick and choose science now based on if we prefer its results and the morality it supports?
I love how Bill says he wants to demonstrate how he wants to show that he can be part of a congenial conversation with faithful members, then you read any of his comments he makes online and he shows he’s such a hateful individual toward those of his former faith. He comes across as owned by pride in this conversation.
Great job Jacob. Absolutely awesome. He wouldn’t stick to the subject. He wanted to throw out red herrings for you to chase in order to throw the discussion off of his indefensible stance of relative morality. In the same sentence he says there is no moral truth but yet some things are moral absolutes. Completely irrational position.
So we don't want to bring up the topic of not having agency in terms of child molesters, or bestialities because we can't pass judgement upon them because they don't have free choice. However we can pass judgement because the child and animals can't consent, and consent is important.... why according to Bill's viewpoint?
What about the thousands of people who have died and have gone to the spirit realm and then have been revived and tell their experience. In every case, they meet a being of light from whom they feel all-encompassing love. They are given a life review and are able to feel all of the feelings of those they interacted with in life and the impact of that behavior for joy or sadness felt by the other person. There is an after-life-- we have thousands of NDE's who can witness that reality which they say is more real than our earthly experience.
Exactly Bob. Or the NDE stories in which people float into different rooms and then come back and explain in detail what was happening in those places. How do you explain that? There have been MANY stories like this that can be verified.
@@davidfrey5654 Many people today are so hard-hearted and hard-headed, and don't want life changes that point them to God, so no matter how much reliable data is provided for all to see, none of that information will convince most people to seek out God or to seek out what God wants them to do. They choose to believe in what is popular and pleasurable.
The first part of this revolves around the moral and social dilemma of Utilitarianism. Which is: a society can be perfect as long as one person suffers. Do you give up a perfect society to stop the suffering of the one? Star Trek plays with this concept nearly constantly. Suffering is perceived. So in that way I disagree that our religious beliefs eliminate suffering but actually increase it in some ways. So even a moral framework given by a god almost has nothing to do with diminishing suffering in our lives, but more about which kind of suffering we experience, strength to overcome one type, find healing from another, submission to one, preventing another, and ultimate salvation from the final suffering. I think to be LDS is to accept that there will always be suffering, mortal suffering and then godly suffering.
Eat Beef, read the Bible and the Book of Mormon, refrain from Soy Sauce, repudiate the man bun. Bill Reel just needs to stop listening to Morrissey and peel off his Coexist Sticker off his Volvo
Who was more wrong on race? Science or religion? Who are the prophets of science? Are they infallible? Is it a closed system that doesnt take feedback? Are their gatekeepers? If God could be transmitted perfectly into a code of conduct there would be no faith, no veil, no opposition, no fun! If science could be petfectly known their would be no adventure to find answers and solve problems. The restored gospel is the only place where both ways of knowing truth are in harmony! We want all the truth
The restored gospel is silly. I mean really? Eternal baby making with polygamous wives in heaven? Just watch the John Larson episode on the evil nature of a plan that fills space and eternity up with billions of souls in outer darkness.
Ya, when the conversation ends with one side saying 'everything is predetermined' and 'everything is subjective', I think that is a ridiculous position to have. If one truly believed those things, the only path out of despair (from my point of view) is deluding yourself that it's not true. It's no wonder this world-view assumes religions are just delusional things people do to cope with the world, the very world view that alleges this necessitates deluding one's self.
You make a great point and explain why I was onboard with the objective reality of Bill’s being the reason to hold to certain morals. Then the lack of free will talk made me jump off that train. But I couldn’t just get onboard with agreeing with the subjective morality of the objectively fallible leader that Jacob holds to. That’s why it was a good discussion. These are ideas that haven’t been fully explored or resolved by mankind but are extremely interesting and relevant.
@@Sayheybrother8 I agree it was a good discussion, but I guess for me, in the best discussions I come away thinking there was something to the person I disagreed with that really made me think. Here, I had no such positive take away. Bill seemed quite intent on bringing other topics into the discussion, and laying some specific accusations at the Church of Jesus Christ, which I'm fine with, but that wasn't the topic at hand, and none of his accusations seemed to further the conversation imo. I just came away thinking that Bill still has a chip on his shoulder, and a world view that makes no sense to me. Also, I'd add that while Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ definitely are fallible, they can be pretty objectively judged by the Christian morals and principles they teach - I wouldn't categorize them as having 'subjective morality'. You could say each prophet might have a different interpretation on various scripture and topics, but that is pretty different from 'subjective morality' imo.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos would you agree that Jacob believes the LDS church is the ultimate authority on earth of what truth is? I think Bill and Jacob knew this going into the conversation. Remember Bill was a true believer and he knows, from experience, that Jacobs truth and morals he refers to ultimately come from the current prophet of God. Bill wasn’t adding things that weren’t part of the conversation just addressing the elephant in the room. Jacobs truth is based on the words of a fallible prophet who speaks for God but doesn’t always speak as a prophet.
Why perpetuate the species if there is no point to life and suffering? And death is the end? From the things I have suffered (emotional, physical and sexual abuse and trauma I’ve endured as a child) I would have jumped off a cliff and been done with it, if I believed it would end the suffering that had no purpose for enduring. And I would have never had children thinking they too would feel horrible pain in a life that had no purpose. Let the species die out and suffering and trauma with it? 🤷🏼♀️
2:00:53 but if God were to appear to him, would he change his mind? He would continue to perpetuate the same questions to God and assume that the world was right and that God was wrong.
I was disappointed to see Jacob avoid Bill’s point that on social issues it is usually the brethren resisting new perspectives then in hindsight acknowledging that they were wrong. That is something I have wondered about for a long time.
How do you know that the ban was wrong, and not just the reason for the ban? Many groups of people have had to wait for messages and blessings throughout history. I’m an idiot, so be kind in your response. I’m asking with sincerity.
@@dcarts5616 I'm not the original comment poster, but I think you are completely right to ask this question. God has an order for everything, and he has revealed it in every single one of the standard works. He did not send Christ to the gentiles in his mortal ministry because He had a specific mission to fulfill in which only one group of people on earth would have the capacity to carry out. In Jacob 5, he planted the branches where he wanted them to be and in the order he wanted them to be in--and then he states that in harvest time, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. In relation to the Priesthood ban for black people, God needed that field to be as ripe and ready to harvest as it was in the late 20th century so that more hearts would grasp on to the Gospel with less perversion and outside political and tribal interference. We can view Jacob 5 and the hindsight of church growth as a road map to which groups were planted where, and which were first, last, and in between. With this insight and more, I cannot see the ban as inherently bad or evil, but rather that God administered his gospel in the manner and order He needed to. I do not believe that it came out of racism or bigotry from early church leaders, because if it did, why did the Prophets feel that there needed to be a revelation from God to reverse that ban? We ought not to quickly condemn past actors based on all the social values that are elevated today, many of which are blatantly false.
23:34 we DO have prophets who speak with and hear God in His purity… ayayay I feel so bad for this guy. Because he clearly adopt the whole premise on which Christ came to the world. But he rejects the foundation a Christ built.
8:50 If he wants to reduce suffering and pain, why does he uphold narratives that cause suffering and pain? He hasn’t left the ideals of Christianity all together. His statement shows that he adopts some Christianity.
You are merely raising the problem of evil -- and there are numerous very sophisticated and thoughtful responses. The short answer is that God honors individual freedom.
@@blakeostler8965 Jacob covered what I said later in the debate. Basically, Bill said he adopts Christianity to a degree. But his degree. And his argument for morality falls apart at his assumption there is no free will.
Will someone help me understand how LBGTQ belief/structure is somehow better than the traditional family structure. Bill takes this idea as a scientific fact when it is merely an article of faith. A predisposition to do something dosen't mean you you have lost your will around that behavior. Bill is free and fast with the assumptions all the way through this discusion when he thinks he is being only scientific. Amazingly blind guy.
The natural man is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19). Therefore, I can choose not to do what I naturally feel like doing. This is what is known as discipline. Those who choose to do the opposite of what they feel at the moment - I am mad and want to swear and insult the person who hurt me - but decide I will turn the other cheek, I have shown discipline which then makes me closer to being a disciple (descpline) of Christ. Hence, the only way to reach a perfect society is to follow the only perfect person born, Jesus Christ. Therefore, you can not reach a more perfect society without righteousness. That will never happen naturally through evolution.
Science came from the Greek world. Christianity adopted science in the renaissance largely by read preserved Greek literature. Greek thinking heavily influenced Christian theology because Christianity emerged in a Hellenized society. We can thank, Plato Aristotle, and Alexander the Great for that.
@@nathanpeterson5906 we can thank Greek thinking for influencing Christianity, but “science” as we know it today did not come from Greek thought. It came specifically from Christian thought. It was the only thought system that could provide the three religious pre-suppositions: 1) that the universe has order 2) that we are capable of understanding that order and 3) that it is good to do it. These can not come from a naturalist/materialist thinking. The curse of knowledge clouds our thinking about it today but I’ll refer you to Darwin himself: "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been develoned from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" ~CHARLES DARWIN
@@lrsvalentine He established that he is convinced that he is very wise and his subjective moral standards are better than every other religious standards in spite of the fact that he says he believes there are no moral absolutes. Makes no sense at all.
Around min 50, Bill's use of primate family and group association to validate an innate species morality is ludicrous. Taking care of family groups is a farm of self preservation, and that setting to learn morality to the point where you can grow that family group to an increased size makes sense. But imaging an entire species living in harmony for self preservation just doesn't work in practicality. Not without a powerful influence to make it so. Its inherently why the USA was designed to be a single nation of seperate autonomous states. And yet we see how it all falls apart without a higher force to keep it united.
23:21 interesting he suggests the privilege of living in 2023 allows for an undefined “better” morality or that current society is “better” than hunter-gatherer society without ever defining what “better” is
Like ones about sharks, black widows, frogs etc.? And if we’re all just animals, how come humans are the only ones self deleting via sterilizing sex changes and homosexual behavior? I’m gonna be banned for that last sentence, I don’t care. Loving people is what we’re commanded to do, period, and I do.
Another example of Jacob claiming to be building a steel man when his is actually building a straw man: He pushes a Eugenics argument on to Bill’s position that Bill never claims. Bill asserts an evolutionary morality based in reciprocal altruism of social species. That is not the Eugenics of the Nazis, but Jacob tries to apply that kind of evolutionary morality in Bill. It’s not fair to tie that baggage around Bill’s points. That not a position he ever took.
How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints not do what Bill here is saying is what makes people good, and leads us into a better world? I disagree with him, when he says, that people in poverty are the ones who fight against others to get what they need. I saw just the opposite on my mission to the Philippines. Most of the awesome people were so poor, yet would feed us and help us in anyway they could. Of course, us missionaries weren’t even supposed to take their food, but they would often insist. They wanted to give even when they had very little to give. That’s not a naturalistic, evolutionary nature. They first believed in something. They didn’t do it because they had to either. But they had a belief system that they followed, that said, “Do unto others as you have others do unto you”.
The church does a great deal of harm in many ways. It also does a great deal of good. It purports to speak for God and has held positions on gays that have cause many people self loathing and resulted in suicide. It continues to hold scriptures that call white skin color and indicator of Gods favor. The church labels people who leave it as dark and under the power of Satan. This teaching result injury to family relationships and pain on both sides. When I was in the church I could not see the harm only the good. I hope that maybe you can see and acknowledge the harm rather than perpetuating the pain and judgement towards those whose conscience does not allow them to continue to participate in the organization.
@@nathanpeterson5906 you mean, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints upholds male female marriage, which produce off spring, propagating families, which strengthens communities, therefore making the world a better place?
At least peer reviewed science has never commanded a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl (Or, a 60 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl). I'll take god of science over that disgusting god ANYDAY.
Good conversation. I can sympathize with some of Bill's critiques of the church and christianity... but his alternative is empty illogical and empty. This sums up my feelings well: John 6 67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Well Bill, within the timeline of evolution, you can count on the human race becoming perfect, in your way of seeing things, in about another 2 million years. Or we could do it God’s way, and get there way faster.
@@lrsvalentine good luck to you in 2 million years, or not. It’s not really human nature to progress and become perfect, is it? That’s where morals come into play. But I wish you well.
You should try & have this conversation with someone who will actually go to the place you want in regards to eugenics, that would be really interesting, for you & to watch. Although i guess it might get you cancelled, the only people I can think of who will go there are people who are considered “too bad” to talk to.
20:17 humanity would not be good without religion. The only reason it has any goodness it’s because of religions that I’ve come forward perpetuating ideas that have help it survive. The society is in which they for seek religion are the ones that killed themselves.
2nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.
I have a comment about racism. Everyone on earth is racist. It is inherent in our make up for self preservation. The key is to not act on it. We must learn.
Where Jacob makes unfair assertions: 1. Bill outlines that you can create a subjective reality, then Jacob claims that because it is subjective it is no morality at all. Based on this argument alone he throws out all criticism Bill has of the church as invalid because he has no moral authority to criticize. This whole line of thinking is circular reasoning (begs the question). He assume the his version of the church has the moral authority, and criticism by an atheist is invalid, because they church has the moral authority and the atheist has none. 2. Jacob’s entire promise for why Christianity is the engine for morality is based on the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. He picks through history identifying where Christianity and Mormonism got it right, then assigns that goodness to the correct version of God. Then when his interlocutor identifies a time when Christianity or Mormonism got it wrong, he asserts that not true Christianity or Mormonism. By applying this fallacy he gets to claim all of the good and none of the bad if historical Christianity. This is manipulation and just as subjective of a moral position. Anytime morality improves he can change and claim that we always should have known. That isn’t really objective morality, it Monday morning quarterbacking.
Bill’s assertions are a cacophony of logic manifested in absurdity disguised as thoughtfulness. He kept contradicting himself and then stating Jacob didn’t understand him lol no one could logically understand his assertions, they’re simply incoherent. I feel I lost brain cells listening to this. Props to Jacob for enduring to the end.
Hi Bill. I wanted to let you know that there is a God and Jesus Christ is His Son. I know this for a fact. Ive witnessed it first hand. I've had a miraculous experience with Christ, as a former athesit. Jesus is the Christ and the only way to the Father. There is life eternal. I hope you come back to believe this. Whether or not the LDS church is the restored church I do not know. I have not been given an answer.
I am more convinced that Satan is real and I see the power he has on this man. He gives me a gratitude for my testimony of Christ and the restoration of the gospel . I know their is a God we do have choices, and we stand before God and account for them
Bill (and Sam Harris) say the 80% have no right to burn the person at the stake for the good of majority. I say they have no moral position to say that is wrong. Sam Harris et el can't say Hitler was evil without a morality coming from God. The C.S. Lewis quote is spot on. Really like the comment " morality is a non sequitur" meaning the non believer can never use the word morality. They have no bases because all I have to say is I don't believe what you do.
@@nathanpeterson5906 Is lagging behind the world somehow better? Especially considering how many countries have hastily retreated trying to undo the dumb choices they made in the name of hastily implemented “progress”?
I am surpised to see Jacob on your podcast after he went after Patrick Mason for podcasting with John Delhin. Wouldn't the same arguments he used to shame PM apply to himself for being on with you?
@@wendyfoster5579 Partick Mason was doing an on going "This week in Mormonism" type podcast. Jacob did a take down for PM using Hollands musket talk, along with other apostolic quotes.
I have watched several "theist vs. atheist" debates on youtube. Normally the theist in the debate believes in some kind of evangelistic Christianity and they always use the exact same arguments, i.e. since morality is objective it must come from an independent source which must be God. Jacob merely repeats the arguments of those evangelists, adding nothing, and fares no better than them in this debate with Bill. Mormonism gave Jacob no better ammunition for his arguments than evangelicism gives to Frank Turek or any of the others. As far as the rest of the conversation where Jacob kept repeating that Christianity has led the world in its evolution of human rights, his shallow understanding of history gives me the impression that he has mostly been educated by silly Prager U videos.
He seems to be under the false impression...well many actually, but one is that God put us on earth and then tasked himself with making the world better based on our idea of Utopia. We are like the ingredients in a mixing bowl and are going through the mixing stage. And people could make it better if we collectively lived the gospel.
Nobody knows why someone is gay, to say they were born that way is just as naive as saying it’s a choice. Complex and unknown many factors. The most consequential is your belief about it.
Jacob great job, he accused you of wanting it both ways but in fact he did. You really caved on Joseph smith, calling him a lair! Brigham’s lying got pushed unto Joseph. Bill made some reasonable criticism of the church but lost the debate because of it.
I'm twelve minutes in. And I can't take anymore. All I sense is a deep darkness and confusion and emptiness here. Why do I need that? I don’t. Discerning spirits isn't that hard. This guy projects the absence of God. No thanks.
@@lrsvalentine but we're now finding that the mutation hypothesis may not be viable considering how old we think the earth is and how long it takes for mutations to create successful variations over time.
