Steven Pinker vs Nick Spencer • Have science, reason and humanism replaced faith?

32 thoughts on “Steven Pinker vs Nick Spencer • Have science, reason and humanism replaced faith?”

1. For more video debates, updates & exclusive content sign up http://www.thebigconversation.show

2. All these discussions on theology vs. atheism seem to have one fundamental flaw with them. Terminology. Even though people are using the same words, it doesn't feel like they are talking about the same thing. Which is a real problem. A problem that costs excessive amounts of time and energy. When Jordan talks about religion, he seems to be talking about aspects of religion, which I haven't ever heard before. It might even be a transitional problem; talking about topics we don't have terms for yet.

3. Science has not replaced faith, but logic has clearly replaced atheism.

4. I've watched a couple of these and the host is excellent. He's informed, impartial and asks extremely pertinent questions at every twist and turn of the conversation.

5. Umm… I'm not sure about Africans being human beings though. I think more research needs to be done in that area.

6. Saying that Russel was wrong with his claim that the universe was always there did not mean that a supernatural creator was more likely… terrible argument from Nick Spencer. Considering biblical claims put the age of the earth as a few thousand years and only a few days before man, finding out that the earth is over 4 billion years and the universe over three times that is closer to the Rusell's concept that its all been around long long before any of us, which was the point of his claim in the first place.

7. Steven wiped the floor with Nick. Did Nick make one point that was robust?

8. What worldview gave humankind scientific inquiry? Which worldview provides a rational basis for the necessary assumptions required in order to conduct good scientific research?

9. When people not very knowledgeable defend through ignorance war crimes such as those committed by Israel and say nothing as the Anglo-American empire (the U.S. and Allies) basically declares to all nations "our way or the highway" it can be perhaps be understood as they are merely parroting what they read in the military industrial complex-corporate owned mainstream media.. (Are you really telling me that this empire is EVER going to give up on its quest to eventually bring Iran to it's knees?)
   But when a man of massive reading is an apologist for such things, preferring to peddle his "don't you worry about a thing were doing good" books rather than having the spine to speak out against countless horrors one can only say he has sold his soul to the establishment as Chomsky, who is way more learned than Pinker would probably view this man who started out by popularizing Chomsky's work in his "Instinct to Acquire an Art" book about language. That book was great and if only he stuck to that line of work instead of seeking to have the last say on everything and selling millions of books.
   Pinker is nothing more than an opportunist.
   And what utter cheek to suggest belief in God is a childish superstition, thereby basically declaring to have the last word on the experience of billions of fellow humans.
   I don’t identify as Christian nor as any kind of –ian or –ist. I don't even know what people really mean when they say they believe in God cause everyone is different. I don’t pretend to have the last word on others experience and nor should anyone. Yet Pinker has no problem elevating himself to some high place above most of humanity to do so.
   What Israel is doing to the Palestinians right now is pretty much Nazi-like. It certainly compares well with the policies of apartheid South Africa where I grew up.
   What does Pinker say about it? Nothing at all. In fact he is an apologist for it.
   This guy is all about self-promotion.
   Whatever has improved in the world it’s because people of heart, WHETHER RELIGIOUS OR NOT, have sacrificed themselves and worked hard, challenging the establishment and often dying in the process to make a better world. Not writing books about how wonderful things are and making a wonderful buck in the process.
   Pinker needs to go on a tour of the many places in the world where things aren't so rosy. It might wipe some of the glow out of his eyes. Perhaps he should hang out in an American prison for a while to learn something about the country where he enjoys most popularity.
   People say how nice he is. Well I personally don't find massive arrogance attractive in the least. I find it perfectly abominable.
   Pinker is a fraud and its high time he realizes he's just one of us. All this worship is sickening.
   Buy a book on practical ways to help the world. Not some kind of sedative or dummy(pacifier) in the form of one of Pinker's fantasy books. There was a book that came out some decades ago called “How to Lie with Statistics”. In light of the euphoric trip Pinker is on right now perhaps a book is needed with a title like “How to peddle statistical data to create a myth and make a big buck in the process”. If you're deceptive enough you can bend any statistical data to back your thesis.
   The comment below “ Steven is absolutely killing it with that suit and tie combination………" says it all about this book salesman disguised as a thinker of substance.
   As regards this debate in every case the other guy is way more convincing than know-it-all Steven. Yet the endless mantra “Steven Pinker is utterly brilliant” that Pinker and his followers blindly chant to themselves makes them unable to actually consider alternatives to what is actually an incredibly narrow minded and myopic way of viewing things. This view helps no one. Except Pinker make more bucks! What an opportunist!
   The world is getting better because of a huge wave of spiritual thinking. Spiritual in the sense of caring for others. Not due to unimaginative academics who get orgasms thinking about how rational they are.

10. Such a shame to see a smart and brilliant person like Steven Pinker be on atheistic side. Great debate though. Thank you for posting!

11. It just amazes me how delusional religious people are..so sad.

12. Spencer ruins the conversation by speaking twice as much and interrupting multiple times. I really think he did not mean to do that, but he was so happy to be speaking to such an intellectual giant as Pinker, that he just could not restrain himself.

13. Nick Spencer….my hat off to You 🙂

14. "Nothing comes out of the blue – out of nothing" says an atheist

15. This conversation is too smart for me

16. Nick Spencer really impressed me. He was able to engage and counter arguments with named references on the spot time and time again. I think I will see what he has published. Pinker, usually an interesting speaker, was not so impressive when his argument for why humanism excluding Christian influence came up with a reason to see slavery as wrong was to repeatedly state that its not hard to see that we all (black and white) have a brain and they justifies that one should not enslave the other! But very thought provoking. Another great unbelievable!

17. 26:00 – Sounds like maybe what people were thinking when they were first drafting the theology of christianity out (at least those that wanted to do good with it).
    Basically just an easy way to say 'yeah we all feel pain, so we're all children of god'. Fundamental christian belief has often worked out the idea of equality already anway – they were able to do it in ancient times, because that's how christianity first got started, and why it was popular enough for the initial explosion of belief. Islam did the same thing.

    In fact, stone age tribes did the same thing within the tribe. So saying WE'RE ALL EQUAL isn't fucking new when christianity decided to include that in its many theologies. Atheism isn't borrowing from christian ideas, it's borrowing from something that's basically a silver rule (but not a golden rule, because not all cultures support it; but we all feel it on a fundamental level, such that small social units will try to impose equality within themselves of some form or another).

    The only thing most people disagree on is WHAT should be equal, not whether or not their should or shouldn't be equality (in a vague sense).

    Just wanted to get that rant out of my brain pan. We cool?

18. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this but I think that an important takeaway from this conversation is that the underpinning of human morality should not come from Darwinism.

19. Nick Spencer "human equality" – in the Bible??? Between a man and a women? With slaves? With one side claiming privileges based on the unsupported claim of a god the right to kill "the other". Where one of their leaders, reportedly a god, says to forgo your family?
    Really? Oh what thoughts twist and swirl in Spencer's mind

20. Would it be totally ironic to say Pinker is having godly patience in this debate?

21. What's the alternative(s) to the impossible i.e. evolution? Evolution is impossible because it would be an incremental, serial process on a random walk, a chain, where one link out of place breaks the chain e.g. in the glucose cycle in photosynthesis, which has to somehow circle TWICE in the krebs process. every catastrophe- such as Thea smashing into the Earth at a 45 degree angle and the fragments coalesceing into our Moon- has to be right. [ life needs the tides and of the right size to thrive ]

     It's obvious life has to include a parallel process, just to get over 5,000 enzymes to get together to act as catalysts in the substrate; and lock and key. Evolution doesn't do parallel, 2 or more processes acting together and at the same time. Evolution needs mutation, or/and drift or/and frameshift to be a mechanism for beneficial change. [ now they're even looking to junk genes for causality. lol. ] Well, at least 7 types of pleiotropy and duons rules that out. A beneficial mutation, if one occured, would need to be fixed in the population. [ i suppose a virus like measles could do that ]
     
    Evolutionists have to prove a LUCA. or that we're on a family Hominidae. WE COULD EQUALLY- more than equally- BE DESIGNED to a masterplan using a universal toolkit and judicious use of timing and spaciation. So obviously we have
    similarities- we're 70% sponge with interchangeable genes- that's design, not evo. Evolution doesn't explain orphan genes or the octopi; or even deep homology, why things haven't changed: Nearly identical genes play key roles in the formation of the eyes in mammals and fruit flies, for example. That divergence with humans was 782.7 Million Years Ago, on Time Tree. That beggars belief, on an evolutionary perspective, when comparing human and fly eyes..

    as arthur conan doyle said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
    So let Pinker argue from a non-evolutionary perspective.Let's not rule out Natural Selection, though; No one denies variety or that things change over time. they get worse, in fact. lol.

22. ….Im gonna say no for the most part. To be honest, I would have said yes, but there are many factors to consider here…such as the fact that most of us are humanistic and good on our on, and those who believe in God have merely learned about it in a different way. Whereas most religious people learn it through their God and their words, others learn the exact same thing, minus faith, through other means. I wouldnt say that Faith is being replaced, I would simply say that Faith isnt a mandatory method in this topic anymore, but it is nice to hear from such a faith based perspective.

    Sincerely -A Christian

23. Christians follow Christ and to follow Christ does not allow one to partake in slavery. This supposed Christians who had slaves were not Christian. Discussing human history involving false Christians is actually to discuss a flavor of humanism which is definitively unChristian.

24. Nick Spencer made no coherent argument for his point. All he did was appealing to a theological vieuw which he didn't defend as a source for morilty and ignoring the overwhelming evidence for reason, science and humanism.

25. Our moral progress is more darwinistic than either of these two gentleman would suggest. We're moral because that's what type of people survive. Immoral people cause pain and suffering to others and do not reciprocate favors, so they naturally get culled by the moral people who work together. To work together, you have to be moral. Cooperation is an enormous survival advantage.

    The larger your cooperative group, the better you survive. Hence, why inclusive circles have been growing larger and larger with time. It's not cause we're smart and figured it out. It's cause it works without us having to figure it out.

26. 16.03 … christianity created the problem for which it also created the solution !  classic ! ..

27. We ara aman in betwixt two having a desire to depart even how you well educated ,and to be on the other side whall will happen

28. I'd be interested in further debate about Pinker's assertion that everything is getting better.

29. Nick totally avoided answering why slavery is allowed in the bible.

30. Data supports Pinker’s findings and claims, but erosion of trust, loss of unity and happiness are obviously too elusive to be captured by this kind of statistic. However; it’s exactly these (left out) things that concern ME … and that’s not debatable, I’m afraid.

31. Spencer argues from a detailed historical perspective, he knows better than anyone that progress is messy. Pinker is essentially pushing Whig History 2.0.

32. Pinker is clearly wrong about the origins of abolition. First strong case for abolitions is made by Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, a catholic monk who denounced slavery and abuse by spanish conquerors in America. His fight ended up with the first law that recognized native americans as kingdom citizens with equal-rights and the prohibition of slavery. And the reasoning was the as they were humnas not beasts, tey were sons of God so the could no be treated as slaves.

Comments are closed.