Ben Shapiro calmly EDUCATED by Stephen Woodford

Love him or loathe him, I’m sure you’ll agree with me when I say that Ben Shapiro is one of the greatest debaters around. He’s intelligent, logical, quick-witted, excellent at avoiding distractions, is amply armed with references, and, of course, he wields some fantastic one-liners. “When you make a substance illegal, the people who are criminals were criminals before and they're criminals after. Al Capone was not going to turn into a banker after prohibition ended.” “Let me ask you this... okay, I won't ask how old-- I will ask you how old you are, because you're young enough that it's probably not insulting enough to ask you." I'm 22 and so I'm probably naive right?" “No – why aren't you 60? Why aren't you 60?" "Because--" And yet, despite Ben’s prowess, I disagree with him on almost every major issue. Sure, I’m with him when he’s dispensing unrehearsed, emotional college students who embody the regressive left (“I'm not denying your humanity if you're a transgender person – I'm saying that you're not the sex to which you claim to be”), but on most topics – such as politics, abortion, and free will – I’m fervently against him… but I can always understand where he’s coming from; while I reject many of his assertions, such as morality requiring free will ("If you don't have the capacity to choose, how do you have moral responsibility?"), he rarely commits a logical fallacy. That is, unless he’s arguing for religion… on this topic, I find him staggeringly poor! In fact, the reason I haven’t addressed his religious arguments before is because I consider them low-hanging fruit. In my (and many other people’s) opinion, religion is Ben’s soft underbelly – and over the next few months I'm going to do my best to illuminate this. This is Ben Shapiro calmly educated by Stephen Woodford (come on… if one is to create a Ben Shapiro video, one must follow the Ben Shapiro YouTube title guidelines, right?). “So today’s Sunday Special, featuring Sam Harris, the author of Waking Up, and the host of the Waking up Podcast – we’ll begin in just a second – first, I want to remind you that you’re going to die--" “How do you do your job in a politically correct universe? But first I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Lending Club, so--" “Aside from talking about all this uplifting stuff, let’s talk about your death. Okay, so life insurance is pretty important --" *laughing* Ben, dude… I appreciate that your business model requires adverts, but can’t you prerecord them or something? I mean, they’re so invasive… but talking of invasive adverts, Debunked is a hilarious and highly strategic card game that’s now on Kickstarter! Jokes aside, it really is on Kickstarter! The aim of the game is to debunk fallacious arguments while preventing your opponents from doing the same – by, say, stealing or discarding their cards. It’s genuinely really fun to play, and my hope is that you like the idea enough to back it on Kickstarter. The arguments are real, and so too are the fallacies that they commit, and so not only is this game thoroughly enjoyable, it’s also a fantastic learning tool. And so, please do checkout the Kickstarter – I’d really appreciate it. Anyhow, back on track. When asked to justify the existence of his god, Ben predominantly relies on two arguments; that being the Argument from Sufficient Reason (“One is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason – this idea that we have the capacity to understand the universe”), and the other (and most prominent) is Thomas AQUINAS’ rendition of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover (and it’s this argument I’m going to respond to within this video… as given away by the thumbnail): “I'm going to make now an Aristotelian / Aquinas argument for the existence of god. So the basic idea (and I'm going to try and boil this down to make some sense)… the basic Aristotelian argument for the existence of an unmoved mover is the idea that there are bunch of-- every object around you has actual and potential, right? It has an actuality and it has potential. So if you have a candle and it’s made of wax, it has the potential to be a pool of wax, but that potential is not fulfilled unless something acts upon it. The only thing that can act upon an object and make it fulfil its potential is either another object that has its own potential or something that is pure actuality – right? Does not have a potential, it’s just actual – it just exists. So the idea in the Aristotelian argument for god is that if you don’t want an infinite regress of causes – if you don’t want an infinite regress of things that have actuality and potential, and then something has to actualise it, and some has to actualise it, and something has to actualise it, you have to come to the unactualised actualiser – right? A thing that just is, right? A thing that just exists, and as AQUINAS says, this is what we call god – right? This thing that exists, and has the capacity to actualise the potential of other objects. And so this is his argument for the existence of god, otherwise you get an infinite regress, and there need not be an infinite regress of causes.” So there’s Ben’s explanation of the argument – but before giving any objections, I want to bolster it via Edward Feser – who is a philosopher that Ben both endorses and often defers to: “If you want to read a good book about proof of god, then Edward Freser is a book I recommended on the show.” “Basically, the Aristotelian argument starts from the fact that change occurs – right? So, you know, the water in the cup here started off really cold when it came from the fridge, and now it’s kind of lukewarm, right? That would be an example of change. Or I move my hand through space and so forth, that’s an example of change. Aristotle argues that on analysis change always involves the actualisation of a potential, something going from potential to actual (my hand is potentially over there, now it’s actually over there; water is potentially lukewarm, then it becomes actually lukewarm). […] Whenever something goes from potential to actual, there’s always something already actual that makes that happen – and if that already actual thing goes from potential to actual, there’s something already actual making that happen. So we’ve got one thing being changed by another being changed by another, or one thing being actualised by another being actualised by another, and so forth. […] And Aristotle concludes that we would have a vicious regress if there wasn’t something at the bottom level, you might say, that actualised everything else without having to be actualised, because it’s already, as he puts it, purely actual. It’s moving other things, or changing other things, without itself being moved or changed – it’s a-- what I call in the book, a purely actual actualiser, or and an unchanging changer, or an unmoving mover.” Or an uncaused cause, or a non-contingent contingency, etc. (it’s PRETTY MUCH all the same). Now Feser’s rendition of this argument is composed of forty nine premises! Yeah, I’m serious… forty nine! But Aquinas’ was much more in line with most arguments, being four. Now truth be told, I’m torn between who’s rendition to primarily address, as Ben more often references Aquinas than he does Feser, but the latter evidently takes every opportunity he can to accuse atheists of not understanding the arguments that he upholds (And then you encounter sceptical writers like Nietzsche, or David Hume, or Bertrand Russell, or someone like that… you’re very impressed by that because you haven’t heard it before, and you realise that there are people who’re presenting these objections. So, you’re very impressed by it, you’re usually a teenager anyway so you’re open to hearing the language of rebellion […] A lot of the objections that were trotted out I realised were aimed at caricatures – they were aimed at strawmen – they weren’t really attacking what AQUINAS or Leibnitz, or whoever actually said”). On this note, the esteemed biologist Jerry Coyne wrote an excellent rebuttal to Feser, and correctly predicted his reply by writing “His response will consist in noting my failure to have spent half my lifetime studying the works of AQUINAS and Feser.” Indeed, this is the same trick that many Muslims employ when they insist that unless you’ve read the whole of the Quran in Arabic you can’t possible dismiss it’s divinity. You know, Einstein put it best – if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”; as did John Adams, when he said “mystery [and in this case a billion premises] is a convenient excuse for absurdity.” Anyhow, I’m going to focus primarily on Aquinas’ rendition, but I’ll simultaneously touch upon Feser's. So here’s Aquinas’ rendition, as translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province: Premise 1: It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. “If you have a candle and it’s made of wax, it has the potential to be a pool of wax.” “Basically, the Aristotelian argument starts from the fact that change occurs – right?” This premise, I of course accept… things change. Premise 2: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. “The only thing that can act upon an object and make it fulfil its potential is either an object that has its own potential or something that is pure actuality […] If you have a candle and it’s made of wax, it has the potential to pool of wax, but that potential is not fulfilled unless something acts upon it.” “On analysis change always involves the actualisation of a potential, something going from potential to actual […] Whenever something goes from potential to actual, there’s always something already actual that makes that happen […] The water in the cup here started off really cold when it came from the fridge, and now it’s kind of lukewarm.” Now I’m happy to tentatively accept this premise. Feser had the potential to make a four premise argument forty nine, and then he actually made a four premise argument forty nine. But the reason I say “tentatively”, is because, sure, everything we’ve observed appears to adhere to the principle of causation (that is, everything that’s actual, appears to have been actualised by a prior actualiser), but since we’ve only observed a TINY fragment of the universe, and since we’re yet to discover the theory of everything (that is, a coherent theoretical framework that fully explains and links all aspects of the universe), we can't honestly assert that EVERYTHING adheres to the principle of causation, less we want to commit a Black Swan Fallacy. And so yes, I accept this premise, but only under the rubric of ignorance: But here’s what’s funny – the proponents of Aquinas’ unmoved mover don’t accept this premise, even tentatively... while they insist that “Whenever something goes from potential to actual, there’s always-- always-- always something already actual that makes that happen”, they make a special exception (or commit a Special Pleading fallacy) for their god. They insist that their god had the POTENTIAL to create the universe, that it then ACTUALLY created the universe, but that it did so WITHOUT something actualising it. Either this or they insist that their god doesn’t have any potential to be actualised (“Does not have a potential, it’s just actual – it just exists”), but in which case it follows (according to their logic) that it can’t actualise anything, because “On analysis change always-- always-- always involves the actualisation of a potential”. Anyhow, moving on, premise 3: Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. Now there’s a fair amount of confusion around this premise, and it’s generally agreed that it’s not needed for the argument (which is presumably why proponents, including Ben and Feser, don’t include it). Given this, I’ll keep my thoughts brief; some see Aquinas as simply describing the law of non-contradiction, which states that “contradictory propositions cannot both be true”, but others see him as asserting that an object cannot change itself, but then the question becomes “What exactly is an object?” If, for example, a steal rod that’s heated on one end counts as an object, then objects can actualise (or change) themselves, because if the rod was left alone, the hot end would warm up the cold end. Hence, this is a false premise. But again, Ben and Feser don’t employ this premise, and so I’ll move on. Premise 4: But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. “If you don’t want an infinite regress of causes – if you don’t want an infinite regress of things that have actuality and potential, and then something has to actualise it, and some has to actualise it, and something has to actualise it, you have to come to the unactualised actualiser.” “We would have a vicious regress if there wasn’t something at the bottom level, you might say.” Yes, if we don’t want an infinite regress, it seems (given what we know) that we must assume an unactualised actualiser (or a first cause, or an unmoved mover, or a non-contingent contingency), but that’s definitely not sufficient reason to conclude that there is one… in fact, that’s simply an Argument by Assertion, and in Ben’s case it’s also an appeal to emotion (“If you don’t want an infinite regress of causes […] you have to come to the unactualised actualiser”). To quote Ben, “Facts don’t care about your feelings”, and I don’t care about what we want, I care about what’s true… Now unlike Ben and Feser, Aquinas does provide a argument, that being that if the deterministic chain were to go on forever “there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover”, but this simply doesn’t stand to reason (and this is primarily because it’s based on outdated and flawed Aristotelian physics). If there is no first mover (which is to say, if cause and effect IS infinite), we have an answer that accurately accounts for our observations, and, most critically, one that doesn’t require us to make an unfounded assumption that violates everything we know. Or to put this all another way, given all the evidence we have for movers absolutely requiring a mover, do we have sufficient reason to believe that there’s a mover that doesn’t require a mover? No. As weird as it might seem – as unintuitive as it might seem – the evidence indicates that everything is contingent on something (and this is further bolstered by the fact that the Law of Conservation of energy has never been violated… even by quantum mechanics). Instead of thinking of a long ladder-like chain of events, think of a long circular chain of events (one in which every cog is turned by another cog, and hence there being no need for a cog that turns itself). Now just in case you’re thinking “What about the Big Bang… doesn’t that prove an absolute beginning?” The answer is defiantly “No”. I won’t explain why here, as it would take too long, but I’ll leave a link below to a video in which I do. And finally, here’s Aquinas’ conclusion: “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “You have to come to the unactualised actualiser – right? A thing that just is, right? A thing that just exists, and as AQUINAS says, this is what we call god.” Do you know how new-agers label inanimate, unconscious, mysterious things ‘god’? Well, it seems that Aquinas beat them to it. Now to his credit, Aquinas didn’t propose that this argument proves the existence of his very specific Christian god (for that, he offered additional flawed arguments), but my point being here is that even IF this argument was valid and sound – even if it proved the existence of an unmoved mover (or an unactualised actualiser), that’s literally all it would prove. It wouldn’t prove that there’s only one unactualised actualiser, that it still exists, or that it’s conscious. And it definitely wouldn’t prove that it inspired a 600 year old man to build a boat in order to survive a world-wide flood, etc. Now to be fair, Ben evidently offers additional arguments as to why he attributes such qualities to this unactualised actualiser, and Feser spends premise 19 to 49 doing the same, but these are, really, additional arguments, and so I’m going to tackle them in a subsequent video. So, to recap, the objections I’ve brought up in this video are as follows: premise two commits a Black Swan Fallacy, since it’s based on incomplete knowledge; premise three either states the law of non-contradiction or it’s simply a false premise; premise four is a Argument by Assertion (and in Ben’s case he also commits an appeal to emotion fallacy); and the conclusion is a special pleading of the second premise. What’s more, even IF the argument was sound, all it would prove is an unactualised actualiser, and that’s literally it. Anyhow, thank you kindly for the view, and please do check out the Debunked Kickstarter! For those of you unaware of how Kickstater works, if the project is funded within thirty days it’ll become a reality, but if it’s not it unfortunately won’t. The cards have the potential to be made, but only if they’re actualiser by apes such as you. As always, an extra special thank you to my wonderful patron and those of you who’ve supported the channel via merchandise and PayPal.

Channel: Rationality Rules

Views: 811,258

Rating: 4.4853692 out of 5

Keywords: Ben shapiro debunked, Ben shapiro destroyed, Ben shapiro educated, Ben shapiro religion, Ben shapiro religion destroyed, Ben shapiro religion debunked, Ben shapiro argument for god, Ben shapiro unmoved mover, Ben shapiro unactualised actualiser, Edward feser debunked, Edward feser exposed, Edward feser religion, Ben shapiro debate, Ben shapiro jordan peterson, Thomas Aquinas debunked, Aquinas unmoved mover debunked

Id: KAHJM9TcoYg

Length: 17min 9sec (1029 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 25 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/schludy]

I'm kinda interested in watching the video, yet I don't want to subject myself to a headache from hearing Ben Shapiro talk

[u/littlekidlover214]

Ben Shapiro gets destroyed by facts and logic!!!EPIC STYLE!!

[u/blankstare19]

Jesus, Shapiro, eyebrow plucking is not expensive.

[u/birdinthebush74]

Nice little article deep diving into his debating tactics https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

[u/GermanRedrum]

I watched this. Bens and his fellow gawdlians, are talking in circles. They are using a lot of words, where a simpler person would assume “they know what their talking about because they are, apparently, smarter than me”.

Issue here is this ‘actuality’ monicker, makes a PILE of presumptive assumptions. (Redundant??) it reminds me of the Ray Comfort / Kirk Cameron banana argument. The fault there, is they sure as hell, don’t talk about GMOs or pineapples, or watermelons, or star fruit. An intellectually lazy person will just see deity influence.

It’s truly sad and I can not wait till humanity, truly, wakes up from such a farce that is supposed influence of “gawd”.

[u/DumpdaTrumpet]

Punchable faced Shapiro is an eyesore. Could he exude anymore arrogance?

[u/nixylvarie]

Just from the video cover pic, I can tell you that “Unactualized Actualizer” is just the same old argument with different words. I’d be interested if a theologist came up with an original attempt at a proof.

[u/giantking1355]

Funny how he says "facts don't care about feelings"; what about saying "fallacious God arguments don't care about feelings".

[u/[deleted]]

Ben should stick to his lane: capitalism. Listening to him talk to Sam Harris was torture enough.