Thoughts on Joe Rogan?

Meyer to me seems pretty classy in his ability to separate his political views, whatever they may be, from his discussion of ID.

I don't even consider these other people to be on his level...I recall the old days when Rogan would advertise sex toys for men for extended periods before starting his show. Perhaps ironically the quality of the actual program was better then.

Maher I do tune into from time to time though he seems to overextend his expertise, and last I checked Peterson became a drug addict after telling us addiction is the province of the weak...also he and his daughter only eat meat or something like that...very odd...

I think you have to be very careful to draw conclusions without spending meaningful time listening to all those you mentioned.

I think that all four of those you mentioned have been worthwhile for me to listen to.  I don't agree with everything any of them have to say, but I found all four to be authentic (at least at times) in expressing their views.  I've also found all four to be, generally, intellectually honest.  Certainly not with everything they say, but generally.  Generally authentic.

Meyer to me seems pretty classy in his ability to separate his political views, whatever they may be, from his discussion of ID.

I don't even consider these other people to be on his level...I recall the old days when Rogan would advertise sex toys for men for extended periods before starting his show. Perhaps ironically the quality of the actual program was better then.

Maher I do tune into from time to time though he seems to overextend his expertise, and last I checked Peterson became a drug addict after telling us addiction is the province of the weak...also he and his daughter only eat meat or something like that...very odd...

I am a bit ambivalent about Rogan which is why I asked the question that started this thread. Upon watching the whole of the Meyer interview, I felt sorry for, yet impressed with, Meyer. I felt like Rogan was like an iron fist in a kid glove with his interrogation of Meyer's faith and I would rather he had directed his questions differently. For example, my question to Meyer (or James Tour, etc.) would be to ask why the biblical idea of God is the inevitable explanation of some kind of universal creative consciousness. Surely they must have considered something, some philosophical ideas, other than the scriptures? Meyer admits in his books that his faith leads him to certain conclusions about the nature of the intelligence behind design but that there could be other concepts to consider.

But Rogan seemed to me to go for the cringe questions that are almost impossible to answer for someone like Meyer. "Why did [your] God allow the holocaust?" ... "What if there is an infinite number of universes?". Perhaps Rogan had been coached by the resident atheist on "killer" questions but I found it embarrassing. But to his credit, Meyer attempted to answer all the questions while constantly complimenting Rogan on coming up with those questions.

As for Peterson and Maher - I have not watched enough of their content to make a solid judgement. I think they are deliberately divisive figures who like to shock but I'm not sure that their opinions rank above a fairly intelligent bar-room debate after the 3rd. beer.

I think you have to be very careful to draw conclusions without spending meaningful time listening to all those you mentioned.

I think that all four of those you mentioned have been worthwhile for me to listen to.  I don't agree with everything any of them have to say, but I found all four to be authentic (at least at times) in expressing their views.  I've also found all four to be, generally, intellectually honest.  Certainly not with everything they say, but generally.  Generally authentic.

Oh I've listened or read a decent amount from Maher/Rogan/Peterson, though really have only gotten started with Meyer.

I feel pretty comfortable in my judgements, though I don't mean this to be a guide for others. Everyone's mileage will vary.

I am a bit ambivalent about Rogan which is why I asked the question that started this thread. Upon watching the whole of the Meyer interview, I felt sorry for, yet impressed with, Meyer. I felt like Rogan was like an iron fist in a kid glove with his interrogation of Meyer's faith and I would rather he had directed his questions differently. For example, my question to Meyer (or James Tour, etc.) would be to ask why the biblical idea of God is the inevitable explanation of some kind of universal creative consciousness. Surely they must have considered something, some philosophical ideas, other than the scriptures? Meyer admits in his books that his faith leads him to certain conclusions about the nature of the intelligence behind design but that there could be other concepts to consider.

But Rogan seemed to me to go for the cringe questions that are almost impossible to answer for someone like Meyer. "Why did [your] God allow the holocaust?" ... "What if there is an infinite number of universes?". Perhaps Rogan had been coached by the resident atheist on "killer" questions but I found it embarrassing. But to his credit, Meyer attempted to answer all the questions while constantly complimenting Rogan on coming up with those questions.

Exactly - the only rational way to read Meyer and James Tour is that they provide evidence that some intelligence created life on Earth. They do not offer evidence that favours Christianity.

Beyond the question of how life started, they also provide strong evidence that life has not evolved primarily because of natural selection.

My feeling is that they come from a point of view where the only alternatives are fundamental Christianity or materialist atheism. Meyer seemed a little stunned that the discussion with Rogan entered new territory for him about shamans, psi, etc.

David

[Ninshub]

My feeling is that they come from a point of view where the only alternatives are fundamental Christianity or materialist atheism. Meyer seemed a little stunned that the discussion with Rogan entered new territory for him about shamans, psi, etc.

David

This is just me but I have to question the judgement of people, in this day and age, coming from a place where those are the only alternatives.

This is just me but I have to question the judgement of people, in this day and age, coming from a place where those are the only alternatives.

Well again I emphasise - I think they do good science - so we didn't get here via RM+NS! I find that a very remarkable conclusion.

The problem doesn't lie with Darwin. When he came up with his idea, nobody knew what a gene was - they were purely theoretical. If he had been told that they were the equivalent of a long sentence or a short paragraph, then mutating them would never have seemed to be a plausible way of causing evolution.

David

This is just me but I have to question the judgement of people, in this day and age, coming from a place where those are the only alternatives.

I seems to be very much a cultural thing in the West?

And even more so the US?

This is just me but I have to question the judgement of people, in this day and age, coming from a place where those are the only alternatives.

No, it's not just you, Ian. I've been hammering away at this point for years and it depresses me no end. Perhaps I am so triggered by this observation because it affects me personally and, I am sure, most of us here. Our discussions tend to occupy a neutral territory, neither materialist nor religious and we all generally understand that. Many of us are equally averse to either ideological pole.

But this forum is not where the problem lies. Away from here, if I get into a discussion with someone religious, then I find that no matter how much I insist that I am not an atheist, they argue as though I am (I must be otherwise I would have let Jesus into my heart). Likewise with atheists who use terms like "your lot" effectively placing me among the religious faithful. Either way I face a straw man argument because they cannot envision another alternative.

Our discussions tend to occupy a neutral territory, neither materialist nor religious and we all generally understand that. Many of us are equally averse to either ideological pole.

I think I'd rather say that our discussions are far more wide-ranging - unconstrained by dogma.

'Neutral' sounds a bit wimpy!

David

When we think about The DI and Meyer, I think the work they have done has pretty much ruled out the standard explanation of how life appeared and evolved.

If science were in any way rational it would be trying to attack that conclusion in an honest way - if one is possible. After a while if no realistic alternative comes up, Stephen Meyer and several other researchers at the DI should unquestionably share the Nobel Prize for arguably the most stunning scientific discovery for a very, very long time.

When you watch SM expounding his views, you can well understand why prominent scientists with a different viewpoint don't want to debate with him. However that is definitely not the way science should work.