BYP Responds EP 14 to Apologetics Roadshow on New Atheism the Laughing Stock of Society 

In addition to Bacon, Bayes theorem was developed by a minister specifically to answer David Hume's argument against miracles - specific evidence and the posterior probability, not just the prior probability based on past experience must be considered. This whole line of thought touches on a different dimension that exists in the Christian & Post Christian conversation that doesn't seem to be much realized in the Mormon & Post-Mormon conversation. Christianity has tons of these types of cultural contributions that still undergird our way of thinking, regardless of what we believe. Mormonism has cultural achievements, but just not as far reaching or grand. Going out from under the Mormon umbrella still leaves you under a larger Christian umbrella. But what is outside the Christian umbrella? We're finding out. Maybe consider having David Wood on as a guest? I'd love to see you two mix it up.

You always make me think!

Great video, professor! The concept of new atheism honestly reminds me of something Christian apologist JP Holding used to say years ago, that many atheists may leave Christian fundamentalism but they never leave fundamentalism behind and carry it over with them and thus become fundamentalist atheists. I think you make a very valid point here that the new atheists were intrinsically wrong because society has become more secularized, but we certainly haven't become smarter. I think the biggest problem in society today is really two-fold: the first is that we have gotten to a point in our world where many people believe that there is no such thing as the truth or the truth is something that is individualized (which you can find in the saying speak your truth, which I think is an absolutely stupid statement because perhaps someone else's truth with a line with a worldview or perspective that the one who would make such a statement would find problematic). We have basically become a post-truth society where facts no longer matter but where opinion and feeling override all. The Trump era of American politics illustrates this point very clearly will you have both ends of the political spectrum saying incredibly outlandish things which are more charged with emotion than with reality. The second problem is due to the Advent of the internet and other media people have become less willing to engage with ideas which they disagree with because they can find a plethora of material which confirms their presuppositions and they don't need to critically engage with opposing viewpoints but can simply place themselves in echo Chambers either online or on the radio or what have you. People are more concerned about reinforcing their beliefs than challenging them or exploring other viewpoints from a nuanced perspective. Of course this isn't representative of everyone, but it is a large and very troubling subset of the population.

I’m about your age. What I’ve learned over time and especially lately is that humans will believe just about anything. It’s startling how science has been so vilified. My own family is riddled with uneducated science deniers and ridiculous conspiracy theorists. When I try and reason with them, emotion takes over then I’m suddenly portrayed as the idiot that needs to seek and find “truth”.

If takes about 10 seconds with well-placed explosives to take down a building that may take 5 years to rebuild. Those who take a wrecking ball to traditional culture and think that something wonderful will replace the existing culture spontaneously are woefully ignorant of how difficult a stable society is to put into place in the first place, and how difficult it is to maintain. Unfortunately our culture is full of academics who've never done any real manual labor in their life, and somehow believe the falsehood that most people are "good" by nature. We have many academics who live in illusion about this: they believe if they can just through off their oppressors (usual the rich oligarchs) that the whole world will turn into "disneyland" and a wonderful utopia will result. Peterson & others try to point out that hell on earth is much more likely. I think that any philosophy that gives human beings direction and hope for the future, and teaches them to treat self and others with kindness and respect is good in and of itself. Without regard to whether you think that any of the religious systems are literally true or not, I'd much rather live in a country where everyone is anchored to those core Judea-Christian values then not. I think the new atheists vastly underestimate the great harm that can result when the entire population loses religious faith--what exactly does that get replaced with?

14:46 I would ask who this hypothetical "person in power" is, what way do they have power, etc. Because the media operates as a more effective "person in power" here than any politician, regardless of how you might feel about any politician

I never found Dawkins or Hitchens to be particularly interesting or insightful, primarily because they rarely, if ever, dealt with actual classical theology or philosophy. Hitchens was a good orator, if nothing else. His philosophy, history, and geopolitical analyses were certainly wanting. I think what David Wood's primary point is history and civilization is necessary entropic, with forces such as Christianity offering a pronomian civilizational force. It's a secular argument for religion - compare it to the Whiggish history espoused by secular types (that history is perpetually and spontaneously aiming toward Enlightenment) New atheism lacked a lot of self awareness and still largely does. It posits epistemic assumptions that it does not question with any legitimate rigor, though may posture as if it's doing this. I say this as an ex-atheist and not to be polemical. I'm generally nitpicky about the term religion and prefer its classically Christian definition, which is something to the effect of "a subvirtue of the virtue of justice meaning giving what is owed to God". I recommend Brent Nongbri's book "Before Religion", since how it is used today is a fundamentally liberal, Protestant category. With that said, with respect to how it's used today, people (especially Westerners) effectively have some belief system or ideology representative of a religious superstructure, even if they claim they're "not religious". Within a Christian (and a specifically Catholic sense, which I am), a mystery ought to be something inexhaustible as opposed to something inaccessible. I don't know much about the LDS faith, but I understand my conception of mystery to be uniquely Catholic. I would heavily prefer that the ancient Trivium or Quadrivium model re-emerge in education. Johannes Niederhauser actually has an interesting take on the concept of the University not actually existing anymore.

Very astute observation by Apologetics Roadshow, Peterson & co.

How can you watch this guy. It is possible to see what happens in society if you get rid of God. Northern Europe, South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom and Australia are societies in which Christianity is dead. How is it all going in those places. In Japan and South Korea both countries had an ethical system which was secular. Confucianism. That continues and people work in a society in which there are obligations to family society work place and so on. Finland, Denmark and Norway are secular countries which are rich successful and high on the happiness index. Jordan Peterson is not a thinker he is a performer. Does he have the slightest interest in testing is assumptions? Looking at how things work in other countries moving outside the box of his mind. Rhetorical question the answer is no. Does David Wood have any interest in testing his crazy theories to see if they are true? Of course not. Both Wood and Peterson can push this gibberish as they live in America a country which lacks a curiosity about the rest of the world

Check out Seraphim Hamilton and Jay Dyer

Eccl my best advice all repeats so observation can be best without judgment just tell PA.

I'd pay attention if God spoke to me. But I'm not interested in all about other people's claims about God. The idea of God is useless and archaic. Theists don't have anything interesting to add to conversations about morality