Recorded July 12, 2018 Brigham Young University’s Daniel Peterson and Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer debate whether faith and reason are compatible.
Just found a presentation from Peterson about Hitchens. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-slQEE1BAqmA.html He's a pretty funny dude. Seems like Peterson was much better prepared for this debate than Shermer, who seemed to think he'd be debating an evangelical fundamentalist and wasn't able to pivot when his opponent was different than he'd expected.
Nice to see Dr. Peterson, a Latter-Day Saint / Mormon, consistently come out on top in his debates. The faith position is a strong position. If someone as smart as Dan Peterson is a Latter-Day Saint, then maybe we should start taking that faith more seriously.
I appreciate the debate but in general the big problem is Professor Peterson is obviously so much more educated than Mr. Shermer that it was an unfair debate. Professor Peterson wanted to have a discussion on the topic and Mr. Shermer simply wants to convince the listeners that Atheism is superior to belief. Professor Peterson seems to accept truth regardless of where the truth comes from. This seems most logical because religion and reason should both be seeking for truth which would make them compatible.
What a waste of time for Peterson. I liked that Peterson did not go off topic when Shermer was all over the place and never addressing the topic of discussion.
Daniel Peterson had him dead to rights at the very end of the q-a lololol "Actually, you'd be surprised" lololol Daniel "the intellectual gangsta" Peterson
Anyone who thinks Dan Peterson doesn't demonstrate profound reason is simply not paying attention. But psychologist Jon Haidt often says, when experience conflicts with belief, experience gets thrown under the bus. If people are mentally healthier - and they are - when they have faith and practice a religion, and if reason leads one to a successful life, then faith and reason aren't just compatible, but rather they are mutually reinforcing.
Actually faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). 1 Peter 3:15 says we have a reason to believe. Those that believe in God have a reason for it. Michael doesn't understand what faith is.
Dr. Peterson is a personal hero of mine. I love how he can take complex topics and break them down to be easily understandable. He has a brilliant mind. As Dr. Peterson mentioned, in this debate, he was really handicapped by arguing for faith in general without getting into specific faiths or beliefs. If he could have gotten into specific beliefs, he could have provided more specific evidences of God. I don't believe God wants us to have completely blind faith and Dr. Peterson wasn't arguing for faith contrary to all evidence. God has provided evidence for his existence and wants us to weigh the evidence we do have and excercise faith in areas where we don't have all the information. I believe God has given sufficient evidence for a rational, reasoning individual to decide that it is enough for him or her to believe. While an individual might not know all the answers, he or she fills in the gaps with faith. Athiests do the same thing with gaps in logic and science. They fill in the gaps with theories and choose to continue not believing in God. I believe an existence where we have some evidence and some confusion is how God intended this Earth life to be. That way we really are free to choose to believe in God or not. That choice isn't forced upon us by overwhelming evidence one way or the other. God wants it so we are temporarily cut off from his presence so we can learn for ourselves to distinguish truth from error and good from evil.
What? Faith is believing in something without reason. Peterson was handicapped because he is arguing for something that doesn't have reason to it,lol. And atheists don't fill in the gaps with faith, did you even listen to the debate? Atheist will use hypothesis, an educated guess or theory but will never qualify that as truth until proven fact. No scientists or real scientist would put forth an idea without it being falsifiable, providing evidence that can be tested or that will yield predictable results. Faith is just saying something like, "God is real because it feels good or the Bible is real because it says it is." Those are just claims and feelings without providing evidence that can be tested. Just claims and feelings. And they don't yield results that can stand up. For example I can say that unicorns make the world rotate because it feels good to believe that and I'm claiming it. Sure you may never be able to 100 percent disprove that but doesn't mean it's true. And why is my claim about unicorns and having faith in that less than a Christian's belief in Jesus?
@The Last Danite Really? That old claim made by faithful people? Hand to forehead. Morales come from evolution of our brain. We see that surviving together as a species makes for less work and makes the world better. An atheist has morals due to their brain and from seeing what works to survive and thrive. Your claim of having morals because your sky daddy gave them to you is unfounded, zero proof and only makes your God immoral at best. Think about it, God allows innocent millions to die even though he could interfere yet does not. He allows innocent children to be raped, tortured and starve. At best your God, if real, God (s) have shown and proven to be indifferent to human suffering. So other than using testimony or claims made by others prove that morals come from a God. My proof comes from neuroscience, studies and research. Please study it, and don't look for the simple way out in trying to find meaning. It's kinda sad.
@The Last Danite Also another good book to read that is easy to understand is Sapiens and listen to Sam Harris podcasts he often talks about morality coming from the brain and evolution and demonstrates it. So, my argument is: how can a Christian/ Mormon be moral if those morals or rules are coming from a God who changes the rules? Doesn't that just make you obedient and not moral, as morals are doing what it right according to you even if it means not following orders? Yet Mormons always teach that one must be obedient, even if it means believing that blacks were curses, women had to be multiple wives and gays are evil. All throughout the Bible we have God changing his moral code from genocide to loving the enemy. This proving the Bible is a terrible moral map.
@The Last Danite Morals are about survival, lol. Notice people without morals end up in jail, dead or alone a lot of the time. What would be the point of morals if we saw them as not good for our survival? So if God allows a child to be raped repeatedly despite having the power to interfere, what does that make him? What if a person saw this happening and did nothing despite having the power to stop it? Would that person be moral, in your opinion?
That "You'd be surprised" comment from the Q and A. I take it that Michael Shermer didn't bother to look up his opponent or try to understand his faith before this XD
Shermer was so cringy. My goodness that was hard to watch. And can we talk about his opening? It reminded me of fourth grade speeches. “today I’ll be talking about faith. Webster’s dictionary defines faith as...” Trying to land his points by saying “like...NO!” Is something that high school freshmen say when they’re first learning how to debate in class.
Anybody else notice how bored Professor Peterson got with the whole thing by the end. He seemed to be the only one in the room who was actually talking about the question at hand. The key to the whole misunderstanding was when Peterson said that people are always giving the word “faith” a uniquely religious meaning. His whole position was based on the fact that the word “faith” is not limited only to things pertaining to God. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is the evidence of things not seen. So, you collect evidence of things not seen, (i.e. your future life after marriage, the trajectory of a stock, the existence of God) you choose the action you are going to take based on the evidence, and you exercise faith to take the step without knowing what the outcome will be. Seems straightforward. Dr. Shermer just seemed to straw man faith, like so many often do, ridiculing others to shame them into doubt and to elevate himself over them. Even though the might makes right gentlemen has not thought through his position all the way Shermer’s treatment of the man shows his contempt for many people. Most of the prominent atheists treat people in that same way. Ridicule first, shame, get the upper hand, then state the argument. It irks me every time. Dawkins specifically states that as his preferred tactic in “the God Delusion”. It ultimately will not help their case.
An intellectual conversion often proceeds a spiritual convention, even if you can only be convinced that it is reasonable to kneel down and ask in sincere prayer if God is really out there somewhere.
What I learned: If you define faith as "something you do without reason" then it isnt compatible with reason. If you define faith as any other way than Mr. Shermer does (which seems really convenient) it is definitely compatible with reason. Also, its not fair when Atheist have to debate latter day saints. Its such a different brand of Christianity that is much more natural.
@@carlsmith6673 If there is one thing life has taught me, it is that we rarely understand what each other mean because people are not great at communicating what is in their heart. But my point remains, you don't get to win a debate by making up your own arbitrary definitions and then broadly applying them to everyone.
@@drewhanna9057 Notice, I used the word "experience" which suggests - my experience. To construe that to mean, everyone, shows a lack of compression on your part There is a reason why religions are sometimes referred to as "faiths"
It’s reasonable to believe people have faith in a lot of religious beliefs and teaching because they are taught these things from a young age - how important it is to have faith. But it still leaves faith and reason at odds, not compatible. Unfortunately, along with the attributes attached to having faith, so many of us brought up in a religion are taught to fear not having faith, and the dire consequences of not believing, or at least not trying really hard to believe, often in a lot of goofy stuff. I felt a tension between faith and reason from a very young age because intuitively a lot of religious teaching didn’t seem to make sense, and it seemed to me a lot of people were struggling with religious beliefs or distressed by them. A religious person has to constantly subordinate reason to faith, and the pretense that goes into having faith, or trying to have it, is a waste of energy. It creates a lot of confusion and distress for some people. There is a relief in being able to just say “I don’t know.” For example, there can be a lot of peace in accepting that we don't know if there is an afterlife or what it is like.
Not true. Many people come to faith on their own. Many people don't continue in the same faith as their parents. Faith works-because it has been scientifically proven that faith creates positive effects physically, emotionally that atheists dont have. So faith and reason are compatible.
I don’t find religious faith and logical evidence mutually exclusive. As a religious person who relies on faith in some ways, I also find quite a bit of logical sense in the teachings. I don’t think God gives random commandments just to see if we’ll do them, but gives us commandments because they naturally lead to true love and joy.
@@tylerahlstrom4553 God doesn't give random commandments, because people wrote those commandments as sensible rules to create an orderly society, or to control people. Don't you find it confusing that there are over 300 sects of Christianity and about 10,000 different religions, most which believe they are the one exclusively correct religion to follow, and that there are dire consequences for believing something else? It's perfectly reasonable to think we have a creator, but that we don't know the nature of this creator because no evidence has been provided, except by texts or traditions that were written/followed by people who were supposedly inspired by god or part god themselves. If you want to claim god did something, what might be reasonable to claim is that god created the universe, the environment of Earth and all planets and celestial bodies, and for us specifically the genetic codes and material for humans and all life to evolve, but that he isn't listening to our every word, every thought, every action, or if he is, he doesn't really care about it. There's too much proof that he isn't doing that. So much of religious belief or faith is found throughout history because of fear of the unknown, as a way of explaining things, and in particularly "the denial of death." In a book by Becker by that name, he explains how humans find it difficult to cope with the concept we might be finite creatures, and after we die we simply cease to exist, do not meet up with our relatives or a thousand virgins or whatever in an afterlife. It's impossible to convince a religious person to be agnostic or to not believe, unless they see some problems with their religious texts and/or beliefs, or problems their religious group has in modern society. And in a way it is logical to want our spirit or consciousness to go on beyond death. However, once you get to the point where you can embrace that we may not go on after death, and that it is this life we have to make the most of for its own sake, fill with the most understanding, meaning, happiness and love that is possible, then there is a big release that comes with being able to say, "I don't know."
Daniel Peterson's argument @45:51 is the heart of LDS Mormon theology and argument for the process or evolution of "the Gods" (see The Book of Abraham and The Doctrine and Covenants) - revelations of Joseph Smith about the nature of the gods - not a monotheism, etc.
Yeah, they believe in a form of process theology, spiritual materialism, and a kind of Christian trans-humanism that Shermer's evangelical-focused attacks really don't work well on. Something Shermer could have known if he'd bothered to check who his opponent was before getting on the stage.
@@isaacmathews4693 not sarcastic at all. I love LDS theology and joined the church because of it. There is a major difference between believing that God decrees and makes the rules for everything (which logically leads to God made evil and thus the holocaust or whatever other evil you want to insert) and the lds doctrine that evil always existed and God has overcome it and teaches us to do so as well. Thats just such a beautiful thing at its root.
Does an atheist ever wonder why a person who has faith got to that? Michael keeps bringing up random things that have nothing to do with the topic. He doesn't seem to understand the debate or doesn't want to address it because he doesn't have a good argument
Naw we don't wonder, there's tons of Anthropological / Psychological / Sociological data to understand why people hang on to imaginary friends through adulthood.
@@isaacmathews4693 Depends on your own personal level of experience in what you are putting your faith in (the success of the next physical step you attempt, the efficacy of studying a specific book, offering a prayer, etc.), but it usually comes down to past experience of success or the examples/testimonials of others. Remember faith is just trust or confidence as they discuss in the video. Shermer's definition speaks only to Atheists that are attempting to ridicule religious people. Religious people themselves don't use faith in that way, nor do more sophisticated atheists that are actually interested in talking to/persuading religious people.
Shermer has issues with general Christianity that Peterson as a mormon wouldn't hold to either, I wonder is shermer thinks faith in his wife would be based on nonsense. Redefining terms and attacking your own definition is not logical
@@hollyodii5969 peterson is a mormon, if you think they worship the god of the bible, you either dont understand mormon doctrine or don't understand the bible
@@hollyodii5969 i didnt say the book of mormon, ironicly it doesnt teach the idea god is a man on another planet, it actually says jesus is the eternal father, modern mormonism says we are all of us eternal and literal sons of god like jesus, if your lds you should read the new testament and focus on what jesus taught
@@hollyodii5969 mormonism denied alot of pretty key things from the bible in an attempt to distance themselves from christianity, they teach investagators that all the denominations are abominations yet at the same time want to be viewed as christian too, the gospel message and reality of the historical jesus is the important thing (both altered in mormon doctrines)
33:00 that’s a contradiction. You don’t use reason when marrying? It’s a choice based on how the other person makes you feel - that’s the relevant evidence for choosing that person. You can’t know what the person is going to be like in the future? Have you never heard the saying “If you want to know what your wife is going to be like, look at your mother-in-law”? That’s the relevant evidence. Wondering if the person will be monogamous in marriage (what is actually meant when people equivocate on “faithful”)? Observe how s/he is in your relationship and how s/he has been in previous relationships - that’s the relevant evidence. Love should not be faith-based. His next sentence is a contradiction too. You don’t blindly invest if you want to do well - he even says that. You use reason an data to make the best investment decisions, projecting the data into the future. Even that process is not faith-based. The reason projecting data into the future is done is because it has been shown to be a reliable method of making decisions.
And yet every investment advert (in the UK, at least) by law has to include words to the effect of "Past performance is not a guide to the future", because when all is said and done, it's not. The evidence is useful, but it can't, by it's nature, make the decision for you.
FraggleH that’s kind of besides the point. For one, the legality of something does not make it true, false, good, or bad. It’s also just a cover-your-ass type of law. But more importantly, projecting data does not mean a guarantee. There are tons of variables that could affect the success of a company. However, past performance IS a guide for the future if things remain similar. That statement applies to all things. Otherwise the universe would be crazy. Yes there will be some variability but things tend to stay within a certain range if circumstances don’t change. If a company is continuously doing poorly and there isn’t anything being done to change that, you can bet your ass that past performance is a guide to the future and I’m not investing a penny into that company. If my girlfriend cheated on me six times, how much confidence should I have that she won’t do it a seventh time unless things change? If she’s been happily monogamous with me for 20 years, should I assume that she’s going to cheat on me? No, because unless some crazy events happen, past performance is a guide to the future.
I mentioned the UK law simply to illustrate the point, not as some kind of authority, but the investment (and business) world is littered with the corpses of people who thought "things will continue pretty much the same as they have" until some Black Swan event (aka a crazy event) happened. Something which couldn't have been predicted. People have been happily monogamous for longer than 20 years before deciding to throw it away. Stuff happens. Peterson's point is that even after we know what we can know, there will always be some element of a leap into the dark. As you say, that doesn't automatically mean we don't take that leap, but it's still a leap.
FraggleH and those would be the corpses of people who had unjustifiable beliefs, ie faith, that nothing will change. Part of looking at past performance is recognizing that unforeseeable events occur and you should use reason/science/data to plan as best you can and be flexible to those changes. Happily married people don’t decide to just “throw it all away” on a whim. If it seems like a whim, you probably weren’t noticing important details in the relationship. Which means again that you’re using faith to unjustifiably conclude that things will indefinitely remain constant. I don’t think that was his point at all. His point really came out as equivocating faith with trust or confidence, which is absurd. That is not how anyone else uses the word unless you say “trust in without reasons.” I cannot think of any situation where there is a true leap in the dark - we can relate anything to anything and so even in unfamiliar situations, we can say x is similar to y in this way so I should try reacting to it in a similar way. Is the outcome uncertain? Yes. But it’s not a blind leap in the dark.
"Part of looking at past performance is recognizing that unforeseeable events occur and you should use reason/science/data to plan as best you can and be flexible to those changes." You speak as though as long as you do that, you are guaranteed to never fail. "If it seems like a whim, you probably weren’t noticing important details in the relationship." In individual cases, possibly (even probably) true, but if you think the betrayal from nowhere never happens, then you haven't been around long enough. "His point really came out as equivocating faith with trust or confidence, which is absurd. That is not how anyone else uses the word unless you say “trust in without reasons.”" Erm....what?!?! That's *precisely* how the word is used in common parlance. When you say to someone "I have faith in you", it is precisely an expression of confidence and trust in that person's competence, judgement, and/or integrity. People put 'faith' in the legal system, in an engineer's design of a theme park ride, in the sturdiness of a log straddling a brook. Such phraseology is common. Note that nothing here tells us whether such faith *is or is not* justified. That's an entirely separate question, and in some important senses (depending upon the thing in question) can be subjective. "Is the outcome uncertain? Yes. But it’s not a blind leap in the dark." I didn't say it was blind, and neither did Peterson. But it is uncertain, and that's the key point.
@@thomaseastmond7184 Actually, that's a good question. I'm not in the habit of commenting on videos that I have not watched and yet, thanks to your comment, I watched it (again) and I honestly don't remember it. Maybe it was forgettable as it wasn't a particularly high quality debate. Although the questioner near the end who forgot to use the mic did trigger a vague recollection. So I'm going to go with "yes".
The more Science vs Religion debates I watch the more I become convinced that Religion slowly but surely leads its followers down the road to Insanity 😳.
