Richard Carrier "Why Science is Better Than Religion and Always Has Been" Skepticon One Redux 

This guy makes complete sense. You really have no basis to argue his points. The best atheist ever. Thank You, Richard.

Whoever was operating the camera should be banned from operating a camera ever again for the rest of their life until the end of time.

Yeah this camera work is rough. But the talk is fascinating. It's best to treat it like a podcast.

I think who videoed this must have just discovered how the zoom works.

The idea of connecting "is" and "ought" statements by proposing the whole thing as a conditional statement was brilliant. Or I'm just easily impressed :p

The most coherent refutation of God and Faith (aka nonsense) EVER. Even more articulate and compelling than the great Christopher Hitchens.

"Faith,Intuition and Insight,untested and unsupported,are insufficient guarantee of Truth"....Bertrand Russell(1872-1970)

When people don't need god anymore...god ceases to exist. When there is no more god to believe in, human beings grow with knowledge and wisdom. It is at this point as an intelligent species we regain our human dignity.

@deemzje My pleasure, Thank you for your appreciation. Everything that I do is volunteer so It is very nice to receive encouragement. I might have to re-upload this talk, aspect ratio issues. My raws are in 16x9 and somehow this got cut in 4x3. If the consensus among viewers is such were it is fine the way it is, please let me know and I will leave it be.

I wish these guys wouldn't drag out these ridiculous terms like "scientific religion". I mean I know what he's getting at, but it's imprecise and vague.

Thanks for posting these talks, Hambone. I have been really enjoying them.

Mr. Lehr, thank you for re-uploading this lecture in one piece. It will be featured.

The comments for this video are delicious.

An Historian who quotes Bill & Ted...? Excellent!...

this was a very enlightening and incredibly interesting video. Thank you.

The first thing I learned in English 101 in college: you can't make an argument that something is "better." You may prefer it, but that doesn't make it "better."

While I am not an Atheist I have vast respect for this man and the way he presents, and his information and his speaking style. I would love to attend one of his live speeches.

wish i had open my eyes long ago!!!!

You're right that an atheist has no reason to be honest when no one is looking. An atheist is only concerned with one thing, and that is the rejection of theories that rely on god. However, no atheist is just an atheist. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a humanist, a naturalist, an empiricist, a rationalist. I'm a brother and a son. I'm a lover, I'm a fighter. It's not those things which we refuse to believe in that define who we are and what we do, it's the things we do believe in.

This is Carrier's best talk as it doesn't gratuitously poke fun at religion and doesn't fail to show and explain the validity of his archeological findings. Here, he builds each of them, religion and science, from the ground up and compares them, using simple reasoning and common human intuition to show the comparison, religion defeated by science time after time. Morality from the ground up as well. Nice talk.

3:50 I think the merchants run out of the marketplace would disagree that Jesus rejected "any and all violence".

Batmandeltaforce, every sentence you wrote is false. Nine sentences. Every one false.

Richard Carrier, Education: BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history) Alma mater: University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University Very easy to find for those willing to look before blathering on about things of which we're willfully ignorant.

@HamboneProductions I really do appreciate your effort. While I'm primarily interested in Richard Carrier, I watch nearly all of your uploads with pleasure. No aspect ratio complaints here, I only wish the sound were better, but I know that's not feasible.

Videos like this always bring the creationists and believers running to try and discredit the speaker and the ideas presented, and this one was no different. It's disheartening to me, seeing all these poor delusional people spreading the misinformation and lies propagated by creationist websites and apologists in a vain attempt to maintain their delusions, but I'm gladdened to see the number of responses to those untruths by rational and sane people. Maybe there IS hope for us after all.

How many times do I have to keep making the mistake of reading RU-vid comments?

My right ear loves the audio.

I'm an atheist Christian. I had the samadhi experience in the Spring of 2001, apparently somehow self-initiated. Lasted 3 1/2 to 4 days. Like living twice at once. Changed my personality, completely obliterated the morass of alienation I was in. The experience has many components, but banishing alienation is probably the benefit that makes the experience worthwhile and an improvement of the well-being on the individual, and perhaps the group as well. Carrier also claims to have had a profound religious experience - perhaps the same one. I'm sure he would agree it is a Good Thing. It's the basis for being "born again", Paul's vision on the road to Damascus - and Jesus. The Jews' method was to take the existing religious practices and holidays of the people of Canaan, then scoop out the mythological back story, replacing the myths about gods with stories that were supposed to have an historical basis. The idea was that people already believe stupid shit. People don't need religion to believe stupid shit. Each individual, lacking an education, will simply believe the stupid shit put forth by others, or will make up stupid shit, themselves. This is just how we are. The Jewish idea was to drain some of the magical thinking out of their people, replacing with with rationalism - ostensibly of the kind they observed in the Greeks. In the end, if the experience is majorly worthwhile (it is), then what you want to do is lead people to it. Once there, an individual becomes unafraid to become educated, because all fear is essentially banished for a while. That's when reform happens. And I look at my own example. I believed stupid shit, and that openness to error somehow resulted in me believing that I could have an experience of "merging with the godhead". If I didn't believe in God, I don't know that the experience could have happened. But it did, and now I am an atheist. Funny how that works. Anyway, many times atheists, and especially new atheists, are generally angry for waking up to find they have been in error, and often they feel like there is someone to blame. They feel tricked, so they project the intent to trick on the other Christians, forgetting that they were just a short while ago one themselves, and it wasn't based on a desire to trick anyone. All of it is normal, expected, but try to overcome the anger, try to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, and mostly try to be a friend to a Christian if you really feel like they are in need of correction. Don't tell yourself you have noble ideas about helping people if what's really motivating you is anger and discomfort, and what you really want to do is hurt "Bad Guys". Remember we evolved to lie to ourselves first.

Ha ha! Jesus didn't know washing his hands kills germs and prevents illnesses. That's just gross!! 😲

Almost fell off my chair when he said 'the giant spaghetti monster will burn me with it's delicious boiling sauce'!

Good examples, I hadn't seen that perspective before. You do point out one of the main problems with psychology/sociology, the difficulty of getting empirical data. I had heard of the Martha-Mitchel effect before but somehow it skipped over my head when answering your questions. Thanks for pointing it out.

Could I have your source on that? Pretty interesting

Everyone of the scientists you mentioned accepted the evidence and would change position based on new evidence. Richard acknowledge these principles repeatedly, especially with Galen, who with science and the evidence available at the time, showed intelligent design to be a valid theory, and he would have changed his mind in the face of new evidence. Over and over he explains that the incompatibility is between unsupported supernaturalism and evidence based empiricism.

Beautiful arguments. No hate. It's a pleasure to watch this.

i know you have tons of evidences for a common ancestor but i'm only asking for a simple evidence. what is the color of the common ancestor? thanks.

I enjoyed the speech, but the guy on the camera seems to discovered the zoom-button just few seconds before this started. ;)

Esuchar al Dr. Carrier no solo es un placer, es también una experiencia intelectual que le recomiendo tanto a ateos como a creyentes. Su trabajo sobre la historicidad de Jesús y sobre los evangelios son fantásticos. En esta charla en particular delinea su pensamiento con una claridad y una lucidez impresionantes. Felicitaciones.

Perhaps his best speech.

Since I am studying psychology, this reminded me of another study I came across in my readings that the most "well off" countries in concerns of education, wealth, health, criminal activity, ect. were the highest "Athiest" or non-religious countries. (ie, Norway, Sweeden, Germany, Japan, ect.) And the "worst off" over all were highly religious countries. (ie, Iraq, Kenya, Brazil, ect)

"Atheism is not a belief that deities do not exist, it is an assertion thereof though." - I have seen atheists like that but that only a narrow set of them. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." - Wikipedia's definition and the definition of most dictionaries. The vast majority fall into the 2nd category (some only when pressed hard enough with questions).

Audio mixing is off. But to my question: In the example Carrier gives in the "is-ought" Hume problem, if you have an advanced vehicle that doesn't need oil, why would you consider it whether you ought to or not put oil in it? Love his books though, have most of them. They're my go-to more than most.

Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Johannes Kepler, Robbert Boyle, Isaac Milner, Heinrich Hertz, Louis Pasteur, Richard Smalley, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, John Eccles, Charles Hard Townes, Gerhard Ertl, Brian Kobilka. All of them have contributed either a small part or a big part to scientific discovery and most of them wrote about science and religion.

Excellent presentation.

In the comment you withheld, you pointed out a subtle assumption I made. You're right, I didn't notice the subtle assumption. Thanks for pointing it out. I was being hasty.

IF the author of universe and authentic religion is same, therefore a true divine religion CANT possible contradict with PURE SCIENCE. * A pure science is an empirical observation of relevant reality.

Whats the difference between him waving a magic wand, and creating a universe from nothing via magic? If you believe in purely naturalistic process creating the universe just set into motion by a god then whats the difference if said god isn't involved? Just curious.

From the beginning he points out that religion is not based on objective facts or science and this observation applies to all major religions. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, but a belief without evidence is irrational. Scientific method is a means of understanding the world rationally. Given the choice, I would prefer to base my world-views on empirical evidence.

The camera operator was a member of Westboro Baptist Church.

Sound is pretty rough. 🤦‍♂️

Today's evidence roundup report on current species origins: -- Species by natural selection and mutation: apx. 34,878,321 -- Species by supernatural design: 0 Today's report was brought to you by The Encyclopedia Britanica, Wikipedia, On the Origin of Species, several thousand biology textbooks, tens of thousands of other books and articles from libraries around thw globe, everything currently understood about natural selection, geology, archeology, chemistry, physics, botany, taxonomy, etc.

senior, If you ever come to Cambridge, please let me know i would like to meet you,I admire your work. Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge .

Hey Hambone, My Favs are: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Tracey Harris and i have now added you to my list, and thats great company in anyones book.

I changed one word in that comment and re-posted it as the sentence did not make sense as I had phrased it. I tend to write long sentences which results in grammar errors on occasion.

I read the title as "...and always has beer"

Rick has found the secret to eternal youth. He still looks like this.

I don't have "faith" in the pilot, because there can be things that happen to the plane that are outside the pilots control. I also don't get on a plane "knowing" that I'll get there in a safe manner, that's part of the risk. But that also doesn't mean I put "faith" in the pilot, the plane or anything. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence and past experience that I can get there safely, but it's not a guarantee.

Being unreasonable isn't a virtue, but simply a constant to human existence. Being reasonable is necessary to efficiently fix issues. Being perfectly reasonable all the time is tiring as fuck. Perhaps most of the people who have been through academic environments in developed nations have adapted themselves out of the need for religiosity, but the rest of the world doesn't have a need to even explore or break down these concepts; only to experience them and link them to their everyday life.

You are implying that everything has 1 single ancestor and that that one is the only one from which everything else evolved. Do you have any source where someone states that that is the case?

His statement was meant to be somewhat ironic: what he is actually saying there is, 'There are natural explanations that can account for, so far, all observed phenomena, and the universe, so far as we can tell, is CAUSAL in nature.' So, if the universe is mechanistic, your mind, regardless of how you FEEL right now, is obeying causal laws that are NOT of a mind. Hence: "everything is a mindless process."

Evolution is observable, testable, and repeatable. It is also observed, tested, and repeated. Reasonable expectation is not faith. Faith is belief without or despite evidence. For evolution, the evidence is there, no faith required. For creationism, the evidence is not there, and faith is required.

Regardless of what you read and your interpretation I find his lectures entertaining and very interesting. I'm interested in facts and ideas not backdoor drama. His position that jesus didn't existed might be against the current scholar concencis but we will see when his new book comes out and goes through pier review.

@kilorat thanks, copy pasta error, will fix

@thruthem thank you for the heads up

"Science and God co-exist. They do not oppose each other." What is the age of the planet Earth?

Lone Rook If you want to disagree with the speaker then disagree with his message but not with his right to deliver it

I think he has strong views and they seem to come from his thinking in a certain frame work and perspective. To me what he says makes sense in only a certain perspective and that's about it. There will be others who will come up with more balanced arguments and improve on what Carrier has established. I am not discrediting Carrier at all. I believe that's how it works in science and academia. People keep improving based on what others have established. I see this as process of obtaining more balanced and appreciate approach on science and religion. I wish Carrier could get some funding and opportunity to meet with main stream scholars and collaborate with them. If you support him please give him opportunity to do so. It will help him more and he can improve his arguments and have more balanced views by closely working with main stream scholars. And please have patience. For a great discovery, it takes time and a lot of discussion and research. I think Carrier could achieve great things but it takes time. He makes mistakes in his arguments and sometimes can't let go of his bias and prejudice as we all do. Let's help him in that process so that he can achieve good things that can benefit humanity with his work.

i uphold the scientific standards to which he adheres too. but i arrive at a different conclusion. A fitting analogy might be this: If man can empirically observe how information is processed, by making saltatory conduction visible- has he thus been able to explain how thoughts are generated? Has he demystified what "electricity" stands for ,or more precise, what lies behind the electric current permeating our neurons, braincells etc.? I strongly doubt it.

Very well put. Your videos make me happy 😜Thanks.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

The irony is the only reason this conversation is possible because a group of scientists developed the internet. It wasn't revealed to a theologian. If you look at the track record of theologians and scientists, it immediately becomes clear who is benefitting you more. And if you believe that the real benefit is in the afterlife, then why work now, why take medicinal help? All good things happen after death.

I know. I wasn't arguing that.

Excellent! We need to make the argument that science is good, moral, and reasonable.

" We can all see there's a god " ????? Actually... no, " we " can't. And no, none of those odds you gave are zero.

Thank you

47:07 And if I'm a sociopath, psychopath or are Autistic?

Argumentum in terrorem. Appeal to fear - logical fallacy. Great example here! Bravo.

A reply not addressing the previous. Bravo again! Here's a quote for ya.... "I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

12 years later, my main question is still: (ahem) Was there really nowhere he could’ve put his water, other than the floor??

My problem with Occam's Razor is not so much when it is applied in empirical science when selecting hypotheses, as it is a most sensible application therein. However, when it is applied to sociology and psychology, it becomes very error prone. For example, it is simpler to assume that N. Koreans who wept over Kim Jong-il were sincere and not coerced, but that is inaccurate. Similarly, the Martha-Mitchell effect is a situation where applying Occam's Razor results in damage to the patient.

Science says that the well being of humans is affected by the creative process, that is to say appreciation of beauty and art gives an increase in dopamine levels in the brain which has a positive affect on the experience of the individual. Likewise art and literature have a positive affect on the progression of culture. All of these are positive things and supported by the scientific process. However it is apt to appreciate that art imitates life, it does not describe it. Science only does that

I'm interested to know how science was used to support the idea that the universe is a creation of God "back then" but it can't still be used like that now. Surely the universe would seem like even more of a process toward greater intelligence and complexity from a starting point of simplicity now than it did in ancient times when they didn't know about all this stuff?

Whats with all the fumbling with the camera?

(cont5) One of the primary reasons I am an atheist is due to the rules of special relativity which indicate that time is an intrinsic physical property of the universe and, given that fact, no conscious being could exist outside of that universe due to the fact that time must exist for consciousness to even being to make sense. I have never independently verified time dilation. I do not have access to equipment which would allow me to do so. (cont6)

Camera man is experimenting with the video

What of his definition of religion do you disagree with?

Much better quality audio. best Bruce Peek

This video definitely provides insight into why it's worth questioning religious beliefs. I'm not religious and support scientific reasoning. However, I think any movement towards raising consciousness should make better efforts to understand the psychological aspect of all this which can improve the way this communication is conveyed. Someone like myself can appreciate and agree with most of this video. However, a deeply religious person may only hear the ridicule and offense thus not allowing them to have any motivation to be open minded about the information being presented. Instead, most of the time, they respond with religious quotes and references in an attempt to shut down anything that refutes their beliefs. At least this is is what I have observed in watching videos and articles like this. I think it's worth exploring other methods, thought processes, etc. Just wanted to share this perspective.

Yeah, I really don't get how some religious people say the earth was created in 7 24 hour days and is only a few thousand years old. I believe Genesis is a metaphor and God was in control of the physical processes and the morphing of the energy to create the universe, but not that He waived a magic wand and boom stuff came up.

A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith-over 20% of total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11 % in Peace and Literature each. Of Nobel Prize winners 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners.

oh boy. who edited this video? don't know how to balance our audio channels, do we? ruined.

"Okay, great!" the scientist said. "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said. "That's fine," replied the scientist, and bent to scoop up a handful of dirt. "Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast. You go get your own dirt." I love this one.

Why do they always get 5 year old kids to operate the camera and sound?

You need both.

You talk total sense, you back up every "shocking claim"

do you think everyone agrees with you on Grey? it is important for me because i believe Science should be observable, testable and demonstrable.

With out science you wouldn't have medice, cars, and that fancy little computer you're sitting behind,

(cont) And, yes, I was just making fun of your automatic, a word which is derived from Greek meaning "self-thinking" and implying the idea that it is done habitually and in the context of an individual's rhetorical technique with a sense of general assumption about the opposing party, assumption that I was unfamiliar with psychology's semantic concept of compartmentalization.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly.”-Einstein

Carrier is brilliant, as usual.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”-Einstein