The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice10241 LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you wonderful person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more (occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
This video was great, but I want to extend some of what you said in the last section. I believe atheists should make FULL hearted defenses of theology. I tend to label myself as a non-theist rather than an atheist, since I think “God” could be “real” in some senses of those words, just not necessarily as an externally existent personal theistic being, though I don’t completely reject that idea either. But I think in large part, a lack of atheist understanding of theology has been hindering dialogue between theists and atheists for decades, if not centuries (just look at Dawkins’s ability to grapple with theology compared to yourself, O’Connor, and Harris for example) I believe there is a need, potentially an urgent need, for more atheists to enter theology (this is also encouraged by top schools like Harvard Divinity) to give fresh perspectives on things like the role of cognition in theological reasoning. I also think there needs to be more concrete theologically based challenges against traditional ideas like finality of revelation (from a theistic perspective there’s process theology, from a non-theistic perspective there’s moral evolution) to really shift the current paradigm, and I feel that atheists in many ways are capable of taking up that mantle. I feel this is especially important considering the decline of religiosity and increase in categories like “spiritual but not religious”; I think atheists perspectives are essential if we want to figure out how to provide spiritual care to those who want/need it outside of religious frameworks. An atheist for example could argue that theology as an intellectual and creative tool is necessary and valuable, not to formulate metaphysical beliefs, but to see what ideas one’s heart resonates with and act upon that information responsibly without necessarily feeling pressured to adopt a belief about the nature of existence. Another thing we can ask is, is the feeling of belief itself, the feeling that some metaphysical claim is true, enough to actually warrant belief, or can we allow ourselves to feel like God exists without believing in God? This could open up the door not just to open minded engagement with multiple theological systems as a reflective tool, but also for the creative formulation of new hypothetical theologies as a tool of self expression and self understanding, which is a possibility I feel is grossly overlooked in current discourse, possibly due to the centering of theistic perspectives, especially those that treat treading original or innovative theological ground as inherently foolish. In general I think with all this there is so much we can learn from things like Greek and Roman mythology with how they personified and deified abstract concepts like truth and cognitive processes like dreams. And we can also look at how people have used fiction for spiritual purposes.
Jesus wasn't the first person to be ' Divine ' . Buddha preceded Him by about 500 years and in Buddhism it is accepted that there were at least 32 Buddhas prior to Guatama ( who we generally think of as The Budda ) .
The real challenge to atheism is the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - which is the PhD level of religious understanding. If you want your atheism to be challenged then I suggest you watch Swami Sarvapriyananda's videos on RU-vid. He teaches Advaita Vedanta but brings in Consciousness studies as well as quantum physics . Anyone who has a grasp of quantum physics and then comes across Advaita Vedanta ( or vice versa ) has to nite the similarities . Schrödinger definitely saw the connection ( and Schopenhauer was a big fan too ) . Bernardo Kastrup PhD PhD also gives fantastic scientific and philosophical evidence for Idealism ( and hence Advaita Vedanta as Advaita is essentially Idealistic in nature ) . Eastern philosophy in general and Advaita Vedanta in particular find it quite strange that people don't believe in god . Being Itself is regarded as god , so by denying god is like denying your own existence ! It's like a fish asking if water exists ? You would laugh if you heard a fish asking that 🙂. E=🕉️
My question to this stance is about the people with no perceived right or wrong. It's not about how they ignore their sense of morality and judgement, but rather they don't have one. Some people wouldn't have the hairsplitting dilemmas that most do because the idea to question never appeared in their minds. You will occasionally see this in interviews with people who are considered by the public to be psychopathic. These questions never come to the forefront of their mind, and they just simply acted on impulse to what their heart desires.
As a Christian I love your videos, I find you and Alex perfectly challenging for my beliefs and it forces me to contend with all aspects of my faith in testing truth
Used to watch Alex but he seems to rely on less Curiosity and objectivity lately and takes a more condescending and biased approach to his guests and position. I also do not like Alex making follow up videos criticizing his guests' positions and intelligence after the interview. Just comes off as insecure, disingenuous and disrespectful. Childish even.
@@GlitchInTheSkatricks Yes same, I do watch them but it must be so wierd for them listening to Christian’s. Our worldview is more conducive to human flourishing on every level, they should be actively seeking to be convinced. Where as the athiest position has 0 emotional or psychological pull, only the fact that they can claim it as true, but tbh they can’t even say that as truth is subjective from their worldview. It’s like I can watch them all I like to see if I’ll be persuaded but theirs no emotional pull that would even make me disregard my logical mind or emotional bias for a second, just meaninglessness.
@@AstroRoxy Hi! I'm not taking any formal education in philosophy or psychology since I'm still in high school --- though I might plan on taking a philosophy degree (as my pre-law major) for college soon. Right now, I'm studying it as if it were more of a personal interest. I've mostly been reading books, watching videos, and consulting my sister (majoring in psychology) to accomplish this.
Christian here!! Love your videos, because you encourage people to think beneath the surface on light and complex philosophies and literary pieces. Thank you for your effort and for consistently uploading quality essays! Though I may not agree with the conclusions you arrive to, I respect and admire the journey you go through to get there.
I have such an unhealthy crush on this random curly haired dude talking yapping about philosophy, funny thing is i discovered this channel through the "why crushes are so painful" video🚬
Voltaire believed atheists cannot be moral but praised Jean Meslier for his criticism about theism, Ironic because Jean Meslier is a kind man who stayed as a priest until he died because of the people who he take care of.
It's strange, but one of my acquaintances gave me to read the book by C. S. Lewis "Beyond the Silent Planet. Perelandra"... And our circumstances are as follows: the Russian army has been shelling civilians in our city for three months. Two weeks ago, the Russian army attacked a city hospital with drones, and when rescuers arrived, the occupiers launched another drone to kill the rescuers. 9 civilians died, 21 people were injured. Tonight, the Russian army attacked a residential complex in one of the districts of our city with a ballistic missile. There are wounded. As you can see, our life is not completely normal. But we do not give up, because truth and justice are on our side. I try to read whenever I have the chance so I don't go crazy. Greetings from Ukraine!
I'm an atheist but I've been reading Kierkegaard lately. I 100% agree with the "it's a powerful man-made construct so we should learn more about it" viewpoint. I think religion can for better or worse bring about very powerful states of mind and knowing how this works and, if possible, how to do this ethically could be very beneficial.
Exactly. Even if you’re not a believer like Dawkins, it’s foolish to just ignore something that’s been such a deep part of humanity and source of meaning for what looks like our entire existence. It depends on how you interpret the fossil record, but people have been burying the dead and creating images and artworks consistent with some kind of religious activity for 100,000 years or so
Kierkegaard was a big influence on me while young, say 17-23. Then came Nietzsche, who says somewhere that our new definition of truth will be "what is life-enhancing." And a case for Christianity can certaily be made in terms of that criterion! Nietzsche said of the older association of 'truth' with reality: “What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions." ...And atheism is also just one such illusion!
@@mbmurphy777it’s like destroying one system that works, like democracy for a potential system that in the long run like communism, will be corrupted more often. Yea it’s a good thing to critique our systems of government, but also to appreciate what you have, as certain rights like making fun of a politician, wouldn’t be afforded to in china.
How to do this better is really simple and millions do it every day: reads the Bible or Torah, reflect, pray, meditate and hold communion with other believers. Faith is a grain as small as a mustard seed, so you are welcome to bring your doubts as long as you also bring an open mind and heart.
As a former Catholic, I love researching Christianity role in history, culture, and the shaping of various nations and ideologies. Its fascinating when you isolate the belief aspect and focus on the psychological aspect of how it makes people feel and act.
@@mitchell989 The psychological aspect of it is very interesting. Especially when it comes to the figure of Jesus Christ. As someone who struggled with the problem of evil I found comfort in knowing him. Not to rational but I don’t think humans are that rational anyways.
@@isiahs9312 Witchcraft was not a canonical crime, but a secular crime, and those prosecuted from witchcraft were not sentenced in the canonical courts, but in secular.
In many of your videos, you call yourself an agnostic-atheist. It made me consider my own agnostic beliefs, and the realization that I am an agnostic-theist. Yet, I'm much less charitable to religion than you are. Growing up evangelical has left me with a keen distaste for how religion is used to manipulate and control and also justify atrocious behavior.
@alena-qu9vj There are many things that do the same. Pretty much any ideology can be used in such a manner. I'm am not very charitable in those situations either.
@@Kaylos29 well I deeply feel for you then and much of the Christian church in the rest of the world looks on with horror and disbelief at some of the high profile charlatans who use Christianity for their own financial or poltical gains. However, there is an authentic Christianity based around an authentic Jesus who roundly condemned the religious folk of his day for the way they misused the OT scriptures to control the people of their time. He of course caused them such a headache that they ended up crucifying him which of course is exactly what would happen again if he appeared in some Southern Baptist Trump-supporting churches.
i agree with another commenter down below - i've been trying to study philosophy and such (a pursuit of knowledge and truth that i'm still not quite sure even exists), and this channel provides such perspective! i like how you always promote openmindedness, too. that's an important thing to remember. thank you for doing what you're doing.
I'd also recommend GK Chesterton, either Orthodoxy, Heretics, or The Everlasting Man. These aren't clergy or trained philosophers, so don't expect meticulous arguments and airtight systematic theology, but they introduce you to the Christian style of thinking. We're all so entrenched on the main arguments and our opinion of Jesus and his ministry, but Christianity's truth or falsity changes everything, and books like these are a great way of seeing that in action.
I am an ardent Catholic, and I listen to every video you post, because I love your open mind, I learn a lot about what I believe (and most especially why) from you. Thank you very much.
As an evangelical preacher & bible teacher for 30+ years, I was a proponent of Lewis' trilemma argument. I used Josh McDowels framing Liar, Lunatic or Lord. After deconstructing, I eventually realized that this argument ignores a fourth, more viable option - Legend. And we get to keep the preacher's favorite rhetorical device - alliteration! 😂
I find it quite interesting that Christians who become atheists usually don’t have any actual understanding of what Christianity actually is nor its purpose. This is especially true within Protestantism. It is completely devoid of the ethos of the Christian faith preserved by Christ and further down the line, the church fathers. Protestantism is a watered down version of Christianity. This is coming from someone who is not a Catholic by the way. Being an evangelical preacher for 20 plus years does not then make you an expert for what Christianity is (you think this which is why you mentioned it in your preface). Within the gospels, the Pharisees (teachers of the Divine Law) studied the Torah and Scriptures their entire life just for them to reject the prophesied messiah. They were learned and the most advanced of their society at the time. “At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.” (Matthew 11:25) Not everyone is able to believe in the truth, if it is not revealed to them first. It can only be revealed through God. This was the response an elderly Christian man gave to a pagan philosopher who could not find truth within the various schools of philosophy of his time. Read the live of St. Justin Martyr on Wikipedia (for a short synopsis). May God enlighten you, my dear brother. Knowledge and wisdom means nothing to the Creator of the cosmos. He regularly mentions he associates with the lowly and humble of heart. All the knowledge of the world will account for nothing, when facing our merciful Creator. The heart is deceitful. It is why the Holy Scriptures testify against it. Our emotions as well. I’ve seen you comment under a post about our God not being a merciful one. I am able to tell your reason for rejecting God is not an intellectual matter, but an emotional one. They ultimately could not believe in Christ due to their haughtiness, which is the precise reason for why you rejected Him. (ironically it is the reason for why all atheists do). Do not harden your heart.
@@Cato_Minor I'd offer that it's entirely possible that a first century, apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, but that the specifics of his life, as related in the Bible, are mythological in nature.
@@Cato_Minor I appreciate your question since I was not specific. shassett79 answered this the way I would. I'm reasonably confident that a first century apocalyptic preacher named Jesus was a real person and, like so many others of that era, had a clutch of followers - very similar to the way there are thousands of "hindu holy men" across India and nearby countries. The "legend" is the mystical narrative that gradually accumulated to the character across centuries and cultures. If humans are prolific at anything across history and cultures, it's imagining wild things and making them into stories. I find this exceedingly more plausible than miracles.
0:38 this charge isn't often leveled by Christians. It's because you've heard it from many Christians, naturally, because you live in a country with a lot of Christians. It's a matter of sampling. I'm sure other theists would also tell you that you, as an atheist, don't understand theism. I know this because I'm an Indian agnost, having heard similar things from Hindus, Muslims and Christians
That’s why I said “often” because it doesn’t imply a particular portion of the “set of instances”. It can be true that many different religions “often” put forward this criticism :). That’s why I didn’t try to say it was the majority.
@unsolicitedadvice9198 I get it :) Perhaps I wasn't clear before; I suppose it's a matter of framing. "This charge is often leveled by Christians," vs. "*I* often hear this charge leveled by Christians." To me, at least, the former speaks about which group of theists often level that charge generally. While the latter speaks more specifically about whom *you've* heard it from often. Anyway, I do get your point more clearly now. Thanks for the reply, and great video, as always. Cheers!
You explain stuff so clearly that might be hard to understand. I would love for you to dive into some eastern stuff too, indian philosophers like osho, krishnamurti and chinese and japanese philosophy like taoism and zen.
I second this! I would love to see your perspective on Eastern philosophies/religions. I just started reading, and highly recommend ''Dao De Jing: Making This Life Significant - A Philosophical Translation'' by Roger Ames and David Hall. The introduction observes that MOST Western philosophers have rarely considered this non-theistic philosopho-religious movement, which creates a huge blind spot for all of us in the West.
Definitely. Recently started reading the Buddhadhamma as well and so far it seems pretty cool. Western ideas also don't really consider "godless" religions and it would be very awesome to spread these ideas to a western audience
Theology is hightly interesting in general; from my pov even more interesting as an atheist, because you are not preoccupied with your own religious experiences and believes. I grew up somewhat conservative christian (my family believes in creationism and such) and after i became atheist after reading and thinking a lot about philosophy and religion, I refused to take anything religious seriously and had nothing but hate and disgust for it. But now the hate is mostly gone and I really enjoy to read about theology and try to understand where the different believes of religious people come from.
As someone forced to believe in the existence of something greater than ourselves due to an experience I personally had a few years ago, I don’t think I’ll ever view religion in the same way as people who rely on faith but it helped me understand their position better at the very least
@@SeekingVirtueA that's fair, I don't doubt that that would strengthen your belief but to say forced it just feels like it goes against your own agency 🤷🏿♂️
@@danieldiri2969 According to many NDEs - yes, sometimes it goes against anything they believed untill then. See the stories of many a materialistic scientist.
As a Christian of over 40 years who recently became an atheist, I find Lewis very unconvincing. I read this as a 20+ new convert and was amazed. As a 70+ atheist with years of ministry experience and an honours degree in theology , all I see are vacuous arguments. Lewis is fine until you do textual and historical criticism of the gospels and see the specific biases of the authors who wrote decades after the crucifixion. They are literary fiction with a gloss of history which makes arguments based on them moot at best.
@@lyleneander2100 I couldn't agree more. My background is similar to yours. With both an undergrad & Masters in religion and decades as a professional aplogist, the cognitive dissonance between how the bible described the world/humanity and what I actually witnessed living (not just visiting - resident's visas) in10 different countries across 35 years simply wore me out. I'm now an atheist and also find Lewis unconvincing. His arguments front-load far too many presuopositions. They resonate best when preached to the choir.
I'd argue the bias cements his point, it doesn't work against it. Because while the gospel authors have some disagreements on how to be Christlike in the finer points, they all unanimously agree that they must imitate Christ as he was with them. This doesn't make one author more right than another, it means that different situations call for different actions. And writing decades after an event or series of events seems ludicrous now, but up until the printing press was invented, this was commonplace, as things weren't written unless 1. The thing was becoming widespread and near impossible to separate by word of mouth 2. Historical and losing ground 3. Was being attacked/shunned/hated to the point of action, and some way of keeping track of the idea by surviving was nearly impossible. There's certainly more reasons, but due to the shortage of literacy, the shortage and difficulty of papyrus, writing a thing was not easy until the printing press was invented, and even then, it took money for the first while. A modern convenience is often a past dream of the rich. This is with all things in life, even apples used to be for the well off folks, now a struggling college student can afford them. Multiple clothes. The passing of time made everything easier and more understandable from its previously difficulty, including writing and recording events, which again, typically took around 50 years before a record was made of them. Even most Caesar's didn't have records made of them until half a century later, one 90 years later.
exactly,Lewis is rather eloquent bullshtter,convincing only to the lowly and unlearned,well,this just goes for all these apologists,who cannot get rid of the 'religious delusion' virus.They simply are ignorant of human psychology unwilling to learn more about their own being.
@@frankiewally1891 you do realize that being an atheist doesn't make you intelligent right? You can decide to not believe in a god and have the IQ of a potato. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
I find that any argument for one religion falls apart for others to religious people. Except for specific bible verses, you can change the argument to anything else existing and it becomes apparent why there’s still a problem. It still feels like mental gymnastics with just more steps
Great video. Your thoughts here have mirrored many of my own recent thoughts about the function that religion has played in the development of our societies and how there are lessons to be learned there, even in an expressly secular world. Lessons that a lot of fellow atheists seem to not want to pay any heed to, comfortable in an entrenched position of obstinate rejection of all things even remotely related to religion. Recently, Richard Dawkins himself has actually made some statements that I feel imply he has come to see some value in, if not the underlying theology, the practical rewards of a society unified by shared belief. I can't help feeling that, while I do think there is value in secularity, things may be moving in that direction too quickly to be stable. Also, while your diction is great and I definitely don't need them, I do appreciate the built-in subtitles.
Yes, I read Mere Christianity back in the 80s. It's a very good book. Briefly, in the 80s, I was Christian, but eventually it wore off, and I came back to atheism. You're making a very responsible recommendation.
Back in 1974 I reviewed several of C.S.'s books for our university newspaper. "Mere Christianity" struck me as very lucid, comfortable, simplistic, almost heart-warming. He's not the book I'd recommend to atheists to understand Christian theism. The best is by an atheist: Russell's "Mysticism and Logic."😅
@@James-ll3jb I think the best book to understand Christianity is De Spectaculis imo Chapter 30 goes on to explain how the people in heaven will be able to happily watch the sinners be tormented in hell. Isnt that nice? If you are good christian you get to watch human agony for all eternity just feasting on the screams.
@@isiahs9312 Tertullian writes that that which is not permissible to say or do should not be permissible to see or hear. Still a good argument against the affront to human dignity we call pornography ..imho
I Just read this a few months ago shortly after the Screwtape Letters and loved both of them. CS Lewis is one of my Dad’s favorite authors and I’m really enjoying your content on him
Your vocabulary is amazing. I often suggest your channel to my friends not only because of the content but for learning of English too. And thank you for titles that are built inside video. It really helps for us non native speakers. Sometimes I struggle to understand everything but I try to keep up. Thank you for everything :)
@@sophie.liri. well that's new for me because I always tough that native speakers understand each other perfectly in every situation :D Meanwhile I sometimes hear British talks in tram, here in Belgrade (Serbia) and they talk so fast that is impossible to understand anything so I think, well I have so much to learn... And thank you for your compliment :)
"People need to work together to get anything of note done, and this would be impossible if there was a general attitude of screw you got mine" Descreveu o Brasil perfeitamente.
As an athiest, my own moral code has been the ability to feel other people's pain, and an innate desire to alleviate it. Which in reality may not be altruistic because the purpose may be to alleviate the pain that I feel. Point is, I do see how people that don't feel empathy would turn to a higher power for a moral compass.
I have empathy and believe in higher powers. My own journey through science and failing health in a failed medical system brought me to asking questions. The only answer everything leads me to is that the universe had a single cause and it didn’t cause itself. And that the cause led to all of this by choice not by chance. Chance is the failure of the models to make perfect predictions in line with nature. You and I are here for a purpose.
"Point is, I do see how people that don't feel empathy would turn to a higher power for a moral compass." Sorry are you only claiming that people that don't feel empathy tend to be more religous or are you claiming the reverse too? If so that's demonstrably false... Just based on what percentage of the world is somewhat religous.
OK, but why do you feel empathy for other people? Why do they matter? Why do they have value? It’s pretty difficult to answer those questions through scientific rationalism. Even if you can, there’s no reason for you to act on those feelings versus concentrating on your own survival and benefit. After all in a materialist atheist universe, other peoples suffering is just molecules in motion and energy states in quantum fields. That is a deterministic universe as well, everything they have felt or thought, or desired, or done, has been determined through an unbroken chain of causation leading back to just after the big bang. Also, it means that free will and consciousness are illusions, that there is no self, etc. That’s a big pill to swallow.
It’s amusing to consider that C.S. Lewis’s argument for religion shaping moral role models might have not worked so well if applied to the gods of Hellenistic traditions. it’s kinda hard to set a good example when your deities are busy indulging in fits of jealousy, vanity, and the occasional selfish deeds 🫠🫠 like i can't imagine someone going "act like zeus"
This comment reminds me of the euthyphro dialogue. One of the comments that Socrates makes is that piety cannot be that wich the gods love. Because when you have so many gods, there can be some disagreements. But reading it i thought that the monotheistic religions don't have that problem.
Maybe that’s why people gravitate towards monotheism and no longer worship the Greek gods. Even the Hindu religion, although ostensibly polytheistic, really ultimately believes in one being/source: Brahman if I am understanding things correctly.
What like the Christian god is any better? Even in his more chilled out form he is still setting people on fire and sending them to eternal damnation. Where they're tortured for all time. At least Athena ended Medusas torment at some point. No, the reason Christianity took over is they're intolerance of other gods, and threatening people with Hell. Not because one genocidal manaic was a better roll model than the other.
There is nothing more I would like than for you to make a video regarding miracles - like the “scientifically proven” Marian apparitions, art, Eucharistic miracles and so on. You are the type of guy who could accurately and charitably examine such an argument
I'm an athiest that finds appeal in various parts of nihilism, absurdism, and existentialism. But I draw a lot of my personal morality from very Christian beliefs. I'm constantly interrogating what it means to love unconditionally, to forgive others and seek forgiveness, and why those things are valuable to me. Striving to be like Jesus is not something only Christians can or should do. There's so much to learn from religion, it would be a shame to dismiss it all just because one disagrees with the assertion of God's existence.
I’m not discrediting your aspirations as they a good and noble on their face. What I am questioning is how does one follow Jesus when there are no contemporary writings about him or anything writing or words that can be directly attributed to the individual all this is attributed to. At best one could claim they a following the views of the people that wrote the words which then attributed to the individual identified as Jesus. Basically you’re either following the hearsay of Jesus or you’re following the creators of the literary Jesus but in no sense could one objectively say they follow Jesus.
That isn't what the text says that is what you made the text say. For instance Matthew 5:43 tells you to love your enemies and then immediately mentions praying for them. It isn't love like a verb, like bake a cake for them, it's a passive love. The equivalent of "thoughts and prayers". It makes you feel good but it doesn't actually do good. I am happy you are trying to be a nicer kinder person but you didn't get that from the bible. If you read the Bible literally you see that Jesus isn't telling you to look after anyone but fellow Christians. No where does he help anyone who isn't of his tribe or professed loyalty to him yet.
You're not drawing your morality from christian beliefs. Some of those christian beliefs simply coincide with human nature, nothing more. That's like saying that water must've been invented by the coca cola company because many people are drinking coke. Also, if you want christian morality, you can't just ignore all the heinous parts. Like stoning women if they aren't (perceived) virgins on their wedding night. Stoning unruly children etc. Because THAT is christian morality. That's the part that isn't semi-universal in humanity. I don't just disagree with the god question when it comes to christianity. I completely reject christianity as a worthwhile institution. It's barbaric and archaic.
@@g1lbert68 please show me the non-jew he helped who he helped prior to them, or someone close him, pledging loyalty? You wont find it because as he said "I was sent for the lost sheep of Israel only"
I'm a Christian, I have read Mere Christianity a few times. I just want to say well done for actually giving a fair description of some of Lewis's arguements. It's always hard to repeat back someone's arguments in a way they are happy with.
My quote of the day this morning when I signed in to my Notion dashboard is: “Morality is not distinctively Christian, any more than it is Mohammedan. Morality is human, it belongs to no ism, and does not depend for a foundation upon the supernatural, or upon any book, or upon any creed. Morality is itself a foundation. - Robert G. Ingersoll. And now, this video pops up in my feed.
The problem is that that statement is unsupportable. In a materialist universe, everything is determined by the motion of molecules and the ongoing rules of physics. Morality doesn’t make sense in that kind of universe, because things can only happen one way. Other words for some act to be bad, there has to be the availability of another choice. That’s not the case in a deterministic universe. Therefore all value words like good, bad, ought, etc., become meaningless.
@@ecta9604 well atheism implies materialism. If you’re an atheist because there’s no evidence for God, there’s certainly no evidence for anything other than materialism. So if you don’t believe in God, but you believe in something supernatural, you’re not really an atheist. If you don’t believe in anything supernatural, then you are by definition a materialist/physicalist
@@mbmurphy777- While I’m not an atheist (more like one of those “in-between” he touched on”) atheism in no way whatsoever implies a material universe. It is perfectly compatible, in fact more so, with holographic/virtual reality theory. See Nima Arkani-Hamed. I listen to educated atheists because they are generally more rational than most theists, with few exceptions. They understand that beliefs serve no real useful purpose, especially when people are stuck in nonsensical belief structures instead of questioning everything all the time. This is why so many are so easily manipulated. All belief blocks further insight.
@@mbmurphy777big assertion, but I think it’s wrong. Plenty of atheists aren’t materialists - Thomas Nagel for example who is mentioned in this very video. It’s fully possible to believe that there is some sort of “higher” part of reality that exists over and above the mundane world of everyday events, and even to believe that we may have certain higher obligations to that reality or higher benefits we can expect from engaging properly with it, without also believing in god. The idea that atheists must be metaphysical naturalists is a stereotype.
I read Mere Christianity by Lewis while trying to hold onto my Christianity many years ago and found it unconvincing. From what I could see, he set up premises (like biblical accuracy) that lead fairly quickly to his desired outcome. A friend described it, perhaps unkindly, as just rhetoric. I came to the conclusion that the true value of religion is not in what it says but what it gives us cause to think about, especially as a community. As an atheist, it is often difficult to dind a place for thoughtful conversations about ethics, personal responsibility etc.
This is a long comment/response, and I know a lot of people would just dismiss it, and it’s very likely you would not see it yourself. That’s okay, I’m an old man now, basically. I have followed your channel for a while, I will disagreed with some of it from my own personal viewpoints, but I have valued a lot whether I might agree or disagree; or even find it interesting, with or without a personal bias. Mostly, I think you engage with marvellously varying and disparate philosophical subjects, and you provide a solid grounding for considering how we might read it. I am not someone with further education, yet (hopefully), thanks to chronic illness and personal background, and also being of an unavoidably working class background which forces one into an existence within your own material positions. Obviously that will and does place us within different backgrounds and origins, but I feel that your drive to open up philosophy to a wider audience makes you clearly broad-minded and you engage with a marvellous variety of theory. (I am planning to study philosophy very soon, because it is the subject which most interests me, even as an older, more alienated, and disconnected person.) The only reason I write this very long comment, finally, is because I was glad to see CS Lewis discussed as an intriguing philosophical subject. In high school, when I was still a somewhat Christian believer, or perhaps at least open but questioning, I wrote an essay, based on the Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce (both books I still value and enjoy now), which two atheist English teachers were thoroughly impressed with. I drifted from religion, and I am now probably fairly anti-theistic or heavily sceptical now, but looking back, I think CS Lewis, and particularly those two books, actually directed me towards a more open and philosophical viewpoint on humanity. I would hope that that demonstrates a value in reading theistic or atheistic thinking from the opposite perspective, and also demonstrates the value in theistic writers and their creativity and thought. I’m just glad to hear CS Lewis cited as a worthwhile author regardless of his or the readers’ beliefs, and thoroughly enjoyed your breakdown of it. Valuable and engaging.
I know more about Christianity than other religions. All I can say about it is that it is based on wildly improbable (think-+physically impossible) stories, irrational, magical, wishful thinking. Why anyone would want to believe in this fantasy is beyond me. In 2000 years, Christianity has not come up with a single answer that all its followers understand in the same way.
Im an orthodox Christian and I really find your videos intellectually honest critiques of my worldview which is something I appreciate so that it doesn’t make my beliefs lazy. Thank you for your work!
Hello, growing up in an overly religious household and dabbling a bit in Athiesm. Found the definitional misgap. And have prepared for Athiest encounters who are honest in their seeking. Thus if interested, let us begin with the logic chain that initiated Athiesm. Thus offering a Falsification against this line. And helping every Athiest realize that not only do they believe. They are actually amazingly fanatical believers who are in need of some dots being connected. If allowed, let us connect these dots. And to begin, let's point out that Athiests aren't crazy. In fact Athiesm serves as a reference point at at higher developmental plan. Thus to continue, here is the Logic which brought us Athiesm. "God is unlike anything in his Creation" -> "Everything in Creation Exists" -> "God is unlike something which exists" -> "God doesn't Exist". Let's hear the response and see if the conclusion is understood to explain the Definitional Misgap. Otherwise have a nice day and thank you for your time.
@@johnnytass2111 hey I searched my own heart and found plenty of blood but no skydaddy. Maybe he is hiding behind a bit of cholesterol cause he is shy?
@@Ordinal_Yodaactually, this doesn’t represent atheism, not at all. This strawman is common among religious folks; the notion that an atheist is someone who rejects the possibility of a creator. Atheism does reject the notion of Yahweh, Allah, Shiva etc. however, nothing about atheism suggests that a god doesn’t exist. It simply dismisses the claim that a god does exist as unfounded, until said claim is proved. Sorry for interrupting, I’m not the one you initially responded to.
I have a Christian friend I debate with every Sunday after church, I'm agnostic leaning to atheist but I love learning religion as it is like a mix of philosophy, culture, and politics, which is fun! However the debate never goes one way, he always answers with a question or a story that doesn't give an answer that directly addresses my question. It gets infuriating at times but I also answer his (Yes or No) questions with "It depends" which I think is a good and balanced way to answer, but I always revert back to his question with a concluded complex answer that directly addresses the problem. He also uses, just read the bible and you'll understand to end an argument, I only read parts of the bible and I don't know if I want to or am capable of reading it all as it is quite boring and sometimes infuriating, as it is a lecture of rules without explaining said rules sometimes. I'm glad I found this video, it scratches an itch of mine, I don't want to make my friend convert, I only want him to be more critical in mind and for me to understand Christianity more because perhaps there is something I am missing that I can learn. The one philosophical question I had for him that made me draw a line is: "If you had a choice to renounce Christianity, burn the bible, and go to hell but save a bajillion lives from anti-Chirst ransom, or keep your faith and honor but allow the ransomers to take a bajillion lives, which will you choose?" He chose keeping his faith. His reasoning was that the bajillion lives will go to heaven anyways so it doesn't matter that they die since earth is temporary and heaven is eternal. As to does he feel bad for causing the massacre of a bajillion lives? No, he isn't as it is the ransomers fault. I draw the line here with Christianity, he is so afraid of hell that he'll compromise his morals and be the most selfish person in the world just to go to heaven? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the compassion? Where is the selflessness and charity? If it were up to me, I'd rather go to hell if I could save a bajillion lives, knowing my life saved or is in purpose of others gives me a good conscious, and if I am sent to hell for doing the right thing which is mostly in line with Christian morals, then you gotta ask if Heaven is arrogant and idiotic, not wanting to make exceptions and really understand the full picture. I think the Christian God heaven that my friend describes is quite theocracis and daft, sounds more like the devil than God, which makes me wonder if Heaven is heaven, or is it really Hell disguised as a reward for doing good, not for actually doing good for goodness sake. It feels artificial and manipulative heaven and hell via Christianity, it feels like it runs through fear disguised as love and respect, same as you would a dictator. There are many things I like about Christianity, but the mix of manipulation is so potent I could see it everywhere especially in cermons. During church I'd often see the preacher talk about evil then immediately talk about other religions and countries they are against, those who prosecute Christians, without even giving their side of the story. It reminds me of gossiping girls who preach how the other popular girl who isn't there is such a bad person. I think it's cowardly and weak debate wise, as if the audience has an ounce of critical thought and asks "But Why though?" then a simple google search with balance out the argument the priest made. I feel like Christianity wants me to not think too hard and just worship, I fear that, as doing so might make me do things I regret but refuse to think about. Which is why critical though is necessary.
Always refreshing to see an intellectually honest and respectful atheist. I’m sure we’ve all gotten tired of the “New Atheists.” Best wishes from a Catholic.
Hello, former atheist now born-again Christian here. I appreciate you looking into the works of C.S. Lewis here, and you do speak very eloquently. I was a big fan of richard dawkins, hitchens, and other eloquently spoken atheists like yourself up until I was saved a year ago. I was honest in my atheism to the point of nihilism, as the sun will die in a few billion years hence life will cease to exist, thus no eternal meaning in life. Hence I sought a life of hedonism (corn, drugs, looking down on others, you name it). These things I thought were giving me life turned out to be the very things taking life from me, hence I hit a low in life, and found a bible in my childhood closet that belonged to my family. I was grasping for straws at this particular time, so I figured why not see if this Jesus guy has some wise words? I went to the book of matthew and got to Jesus’ sermon on the mount in chapter 5-9 and the words jumped out to me. Jesus said “whoever looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery in the heart” and talked about sins such as lying, hatred of one another, etc. I recognized that I checked all the boxes of sinning against God. Although I didnt take these things seriously before, the God who gave me life, my family, and every breath we take did. I realized I sinned against God and my sins weighed on me for days until I read what Jesus did to save me. (John 3:16) “for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son so that whosoever believes on him shall not perish but will have eternal life”. My atheist and agnostic counterparts please see that your not just random space dust with no eternal meaning. You were fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God. Yet you have sinned against God and his wrath is upon you once we leave this world into eternity unless you repent (turn from your sins) and believe on Jesus Christ dying on the cross taking the punishment for your sins. Please honestly look into the fine tuning argument, moral argument (as moral relativism may sound ok in principle but falls absolutely flat in the rewl world as we can see with the degeneration of the United States culture as our society has become secular). These among other arguments are strong cases for God. I urge you in love to seek out God with an open heart, and He will draw near to you as He did to me. I love yall, and want you to be in heaven after our short time here, not to suffer the punishment of your sins in Hell!
Oh boy another one of those "my life is bad so I need Jesus" people. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm going to fall into hedonism. I know that pleasures like this will end up doing damage. Life is pointless and the only real goal is to avoid pain and those pleasures will cause pain. Fine tuning is dumb because obviously everything has to work or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Everything is so convoluted and rube goldberg machine-like that it couldn't have been made by a designer. Morals are a man-made concept and not even real. The only "law" is the law of the jungle. You hurt me and I hurt you. However since we are a civilization we have delegated the violence to the police. The 2nd amendment exists so the government fears the people and can't take advantage of us. "Morality" is just fear and power. You just fear God sending you to Hell. This is a perversion of the natural order of things.
When has anyone you truly loved felt your wrath? When has anyone you truly loved done anything causing you to wish to banish them and keep them from you for eternity? Sounds like you were living a life that didn’t satisfy you and you went seeking meaning. People in that state will often find it wherever convenient.
You couldn't have paid too much attention to Dawkins or Hitchens if you are now peddling the same arguments that both of them dismissed easily with pretty basic rebuttal. 'Fine tuning' is an abhorrently poor conceptual framework and the moral argument is completely undone the moment you consider literally any of the other countless theistic religions on the planet for whom your 'objective' morality is objectively wrong. You have made no argument or case for a belief in any higher power, much less your own personal pet one. You were either not an atheist and were just behaving as such because you liked living in vice and that was the only way you could justify it to yourself, or you were a piss-poor atheist who never actually bothered to have a cogent thought about theism.
@@kevinstreeter6943 Just because there is a gap in your knowledge this does not indicate a god. The fallacy is called "god of the gaps", and every single argument for a god is based in this fallacy.
I believe that his argument is more that it is something to understand because other people believe it and make certain arguments. So it is the other people that he seeks to understand.
@@greyone40 To help a person with mental illness the idea is to guide them to the truth, not dive into the realm of fantasy with them. Any religion is delusional, to argue about religion is the same as arguing about a sci-fi cannon.
Our moral "intuition" is learnt through the evidence of our experience. If you live in a society that makes eg- attacking people, have a detrimental effect on you . eg- loss of friends, jail etc. ( like touching a hot stove. It hurts more to touch it, than it gains you.) The equation in your brain, turns out to show it costs you more to attack people etc , than it gains you in feeling temporarily better. Then you will learn an intuition that attacking/ unthought-out behaviour is "wrong". If helping someone makes you feel good & gets you society gains, then it is learnt as morally "right". ( doing it gives you more benefit, than it costs ). Just cos you ,consciously, arent aware of all the calculations your brain makes ( Every "right" behaviour etc goes all the way back to a basic set of atomic or chemical interactions that favour life and/or which direction that chemical interactions have to "fall" into) doesnt mean that your brain isnt calculating every interaction & experience you encounter. Theres a constantly calculated & evolving equation , that tells your brain what is beneficial, detrimental, and to what extent. ( As in, how much can i do this detrimental behaviour before the cost becomes too much in comparison to the gain.) All of this is behind your minds conscious "wall". It isnt conscious. You can ONLY choose from behaviours that your brain has ALREADY built neuronal pathways for, & calculated are exceptable risk vs reward. You can NOT choose to do behaviours that your body hasnt built neuronal pathways for, & isnt chemically ok with. ( Which is why depressive non-motivation, addictions etc behaviours are not choices. Because chemically and so physically, they are NOT options you have .) Intellectually knowing things doesnt change behaviour, unless your hidden inner equation is also balanced to allow it as an option.
Believers mostly do not give a f.. for the MATERIAL evidence, because faith is not material science by definition. Are you forcing your loved ones to present measurable scientific material evidence of their love for you?
Yep like I understand they love Jesus and want to feel him deeeep inside of their...... hearts but with that comes a very cult like almost dare I say brainwashed mentality
I have a hard time with strict empiricist philosophy. I cannot “prove” I am not a brain in a jar. There is no evidence to the contrary. Evidence only gets you so far. And then you have to figure out metaphysics.
Great video. I read the book some years ago and did not think much of it. Beyond a few interesting points, I thought it silly. But then, perhaps I did not understand what I was reading. Your video gave me a new appreciation of the book. I think I've associated the book with some of the worst Christian apologists who seem to love Lewis, and that coloured my perspective.
So he claimed. Like with so many converts the claims are post conversion. There is no source or recording of CSL being an atheist from the years he claimed to be an atheist.
@@marknieuweboer8099 i’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. For example, I could doubt that you’re a person and think that you’re actually a bot. Despite what you claim. But you were the one that’s making a positive claim without evidence.
@ Mbm: nope. I merely observed a fact. You were the first one to use the word "doubt", remember? I merely agreed because of that fact. And doubt is not a claim. Funny how quickly you became dishonest. Why would that be? 🤔
If you truly want to know whether there is a God or not, I recommend just praying to a God. Worst case scenario nothing happens because he doesn't exist and best case scenario he leads you to the truth. I said this because it very hard to understand a God(a divine being) without the intervention of a divine power. Our brain is of very little importance when we try to understand something that is infinitely higher than us.
@@marknieuweboer8099Is the non-existence of any deities something you believe, or something you know for certain? Agnostic Theism & Agnostic Atheism are much more defensible than Gnostic Theism/Atheism.
@ Evdog: I am as certain as possible. However that was not what my previous comment was about; when I prayed I still was an agnost. For a proof of atheism I refer to Herman Philipse's God in the Age of Science. As so often: as soon as you see it it's not difficult.
I think that we do have moral sense, I agree with Lewis there, but I think that it's far more likely to be developed while we mature, and is dependent on the culture you grow up in.
"Doctrine" IS NOT religion. The word "religion" stems from Latin re-ligio, and means re-connection. Religion is primarily individual, unique, personal relationship of a specific person with that which they perceive as transcendence. You may call it God, Universe, Source.... When you call it Source, you understand the meaning and intention of "re-connection" better. THAT is the main thing which atheists do not understand. Atheists are obsessed with the different organized religious structures, Churches and their denominations with their respective dogma, which they are trying to criticize from their modern material "scientific" point of view. Of course there are many "religious" persons out there, members of official Churches, which would discuss or fight with atheists from the point of view of their respective dogma. Funny thing - in those discussions both side "understand" each other, both know what their fight is about. It is those individual, non party religious/spiritual souls, which are frustrated from the lack of understanding of the atheists. Their agenda is mostly not to persuade atheists about the "scientifc truth" of their belief, jbecause they know only to well that faith is non-material, subjective and the only truth which matters is everyones own personal authenthic experience.
The term “Big Bang” conjures images of an explosion, and usually when we think of an explosion we imagine a highly chaotic, stochastic event that destroys any order that is present rather than creating or preserving order. The Big Bang was not that kind of an “explosion.” It’s much better understood as a “finely tuned expansion event,” where all the matter and energy in the universe were expanding from an unimaginably high energy state. However, matching that energy was control and guidance through natural laws that were designed to produce a habitable universe, a home for life. Consider some of the finely tuned factors that make our universe possible: If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence. If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form. If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced. The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life. The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe: Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34 Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37 Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120 Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59 Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55 Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123) The last item in the list - the initial entropy of the universe - shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes stated: “Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.” Sources: Google, Discovery.org
@@mrman5066 The number of well-read individuals (at least in The U.S.) these days is unbelievably small. As of right now, the data even suggests it’s shrinking (which is depressing). I consider leaving behind comments like this to be like “caveman drawings” that I’m leaving behind for curious minds to accidentally stumble upon in the future. Old, hopefully archived, comment threads on serious subjects and topics like this one will probably be perceived in that way someday by younger generations. 🤷🏻♂️
show me your evidence that vaues of the constants could have been other than what they are? Before we discuss probability we need to discuss possibility. What is the probability of a 4sided triangle might be the same as the probability that gravity is the way it is. I await your response but I know you wont answer my question, since you have no answer.
I agree with you, but I do conclude that there's satisfying evidence to demonstrate, what the ancients already knew, God exists, even without philosophy
What you forget about the moral argument is that its entirely possible to feel the "wrongness" and still choose to do the wrong thing, and in ultimate consequence "wear away" the feeling of wrongness so you dont feel it anymore. That neatly explains how things like the witch trials, human sacrifice and slavery can happen when objective morals exist. If there were witches, or if human sacrifice was the only way to avoid disaster, it would still be wrong to condemn those witches for being a witch(if they weren't guilty of anything else, of course) or to sacrifice humans.
Even then the argument still can be applied. It was wrong to kill the witches because factually they were not malicious. Often the reasons given as to why the witches should have been killed is that they aligned with the devil. But if this isn't true, then Lewis' point about a factual incorrectness still stands.
As a Christian I see almost every atheist v Christian debate as silly. They usually just talk at each other. Apologists understand the other side vastly more than atheists.
you say that as if all apologists are these intellectual giants and there's no atheists out there that are just as trained in philosphical and logical argumentation who simply disagree with them and are quite capable of holding their own when debating them. Another thing about apologists is that they're using arguments for their God that the vast majority of people in their religion aren't even aware of, like the Kalam, fine tuning or transcendental argument for god. Most christians believe far more based on their personal experience and cultural upbringing than logical argumentation and highly sophisticated philosophical arguments for Gods existence.
I have to hard disagree. I've come to see how many of these apologists misunderstand or outright strawman the atheists' argument. Meanwhile, we see so many atheists who go out of their way to read the Bible cover to cover just so they can be fully equipt with dealing with the apologists arguments
@@Valeriesthoughts Probably depends a lot on who you're talking to, just like for christians. Of the muslims I've seen argue for allah online, the arguments seem much the same as those coming from christians online. These people are rarely trained theologians though. If he can find some novel arguments from islam, it would make for an interesting video.
@@Valeriesthoughts Every religion has their own argument. Also yeah it depends wether you are talking online kids or actual scholars. Greetings from a Muslim :D ❤️
As a Christian you're the first atheist that I've heard that makes sense. I have a feeling that one day you will know the truth. I will subscribe to this channel
The reason why you do not understand theological arguments well is because you do not understand that Christian faith extends beyond philosophy. Kierkegaard makes this point very well in his books Fear and Trembling and Sickness onto Death. If you ever truly want to understand truth I also recommend reading Descartes Meditations.
That’s interesting - I’ve read the three books you reference but I am surprised you picked Descartes. Blaise Pascal criticized him for basically only using God to establish his epistemology and then dropping the whole subject
I see. So is "extending beyond philosophy" what you are doing when you torture LGBT teens at those re-education pray-the-gay away camps? No evasions, xian. Answer the question. 1 Peter 3:15 your own book compels you to answer. Watch as we get the No True Scotsmen logical fallacy.
A superb lesson, as always. Thanks. Also, I believe that the key to establishing new (secular) moral grounds is asking the question- "Does our empathy shape our socially agreed upon ethical code, or does our ethical code (a human construct) shape our empathy?". I would really like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks for such a wonderful content!!
@bdnnijs192 While what you said is true in some sense, it isn't exactly what I meant. What I said was that the drive (incentive) to do good is the promise (greed) for an eternal reward, and the drive (incentive) to abstain from doing bad things is fear of eternal damnation or punishment from God. So, while the ethical code we follow is somewhat independent of religion, the reason we follow it isn't. That was the whole point of this video. People follow morals for these religious and supernatural reasons. And if this drive (incentive) is taken away from them, why else would they follow the moral code? It is with reference to this point that I said we need a secular ethical code. One that doesn't require religious and supernatural incentives to be followed.
@@HarshilMehndiratta I pointed out an angle you missed. Hooray. Even I think when parents run into a burning building to save their children ONLY for a reward in the afterlife and no other reason is depressingly reductive. But thank God for theism. Otherwise people would do bad stuff like slavery. Good theism prevented that from ever happening in human history. My five cents. We should get rid of the concept of morals entirely. When we got rid of honour people stopped killing eachother. Good people will do good things, at least we can get rid of the performance. Especially when that performance turns detrimental.
as a Classical Theist, this was well done. i might add that Augustine's view of Evil being the Lacking of an Ought is from St John of Damascus lest i am mistaken, in which case i suggest a discussion of his works. they are short.
>It is indeed better that men should be led to worship God by teaching, rather than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected... many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering. -Augustine your boy was okay with torture of the heretics.
I find your analysis and critics of the book is very fair and valid. Given that I don't know any better and you are far ahead of me on this kind of reasoning. I'm on a journey of reading about, analyzing and criticizing both sides. And your videos help me a lot. I think the end goal is not really about whether God exists or not but what is truth and how can I follow it and changing our perspective honestly in the light of new information.
Ah yeah it’s a very enjoyable read! Love your videos by the way - they were really helpful when studying for my exams and I still use them for research today
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 That's great to hear and an interesting coincidence considering I started a deep dive into Lewis about a month ago - including part three of an in-depth biography (I started with part three for notes on the genesis of the Narnia series, which I have been re-reading). If you're ever up for it, could be fun to chat because I remain an atheist despite a very public scripting error that made it seem otherwise to a lot of people. I just do a lot of experiments that take various traditions and claims seriously because memory is involved in them. And as you're suggesting with Lewis, there's so much richness in considering them from within that does not lead to any consequence of buying in. If anything, it opens up great empathy to why and how memory allows for such conclusions in the first place. Or so it seems to me thus far, with reports on this to come a.s.a.p.
I find videos of yours that discuss theological topics, especially concerning Christianity, fascinating to listen to. As others are in the comments, I am a Christian. I am also a great lover of philosphy. I enjoy your channel because despite your own personal worldview you always play devil's advocate from the perspective of the devil. You always try to approach both sides as if you were in their shoes with their own personal belief systems. It's refreshing to see someone that is willing to discuss topics like these simply from a point of reason.
Pretty good video and I only noticed 1 big issue that being implying that the horrors caused by people using religion as an excuse are rather the resut of doctrine even when scientific data goes against that.
As a Christian, I really respect this, and I want to add that the knife cuts both ways. I am so weary of cultural Christians who are not really secure in their beliefs at all and so are scared of engaging with outside worldviews in anything approaching a fair and earnest attitude. Both sides end up looking like uninformed and/or insecure fools when they attack a hyperbolic caricature that has little to no resemblance of the real thing.
As a non believer a never been a believer thats the issue isn’t it, the claims made by believers have absolutely no resemblance to the real thing, in fact it’s a dismissal of real thing. If religious people were to keep their construct contained within their circle there would not be this level of contention. Trying to infect our schools and government with these beliefs that aren’t grounded in reality are what has caused the opposing voices to speak up and speak out. We could all get along but Christians see it as a mandate from their god construct to assimilate or conquer all outside the realm of this particular belief system.
@@Jcs57 While I obviously don't agree with your core worldview statements, I heartily agree with your critiques about Christendom seeking political and cultural power. My personal view (which is certainly NOT shared by many Christians) is that a pluralistic society is ideal. The problem with any worldview that seeks to further itself through political power is that many, if not most, of its adherents end up being followers in name only. The same can be said today of certain progressive ideologies in the West. And unfortunately, I think that's why pluralistic societies are usually short lived. If everyone is going along to get along, then eventually someone with a firmer hand and less moral scruples will commandeer that general goodwill and turn it into a vehicle to enforce their ideology through political and/or cultural power. I believe Christianity should be a religion that spreads through persuasion, not coercion, though there's certainly been a lot of coercion historically
@@DMIwriter My core worldview as you put is one that is based on what we know and what we could potentially learn. This is grounded in the scientific method that most humans employ to some degree whether they realize it or not. When you buy that table at IKEA you read the instructions gather your tools and begin assembling using skills you picked up along the way. Buying the table and praying for a god to put it together leaves you with a unassembled table. How can a pluralistic society work when a great number really don’t care about this reality because they are praying for it to end to so they can get on to the next reality of singing praises to some entity for endless eons. Religion is built of the incoherent unsubstantiated claim that at some point there existed nothing and you cannot get something from nothing. Christianity then completely undermines their premise by claiming there was something that something originated from nothing and they call it god. Nothing to back this up just straight up a bald assertion based off a presumption. Not satisfied with making those unsubstantiated undemonstrated claims they made another leaping assertion that it made all the matter that is the cosmos that we know out of wait for it ……..absolutely nothing that it got from nowhere. Did this creature build this vast universe billions of light years across just so that on a tiny rock it could put a linguistic bipedal ape there to remind it just how wonderful it is? Vampirism and cannibalism rituals pleading to a zombie nailed to two sticks for favors isn’t a world view it’s a death cult grounded in the barbarity of our past. I’ve read the bible and in the context of its time period you can see what and why people believed what they did using those beliefs , but the inhumanity within is completely out of place in this world. We don’t sell our daughter’s stone a bratty kid to death and most everyone likes bacon or shrimp and lobster along with tattoos everywhere and slavery will get you thrown in prison.
@@Jcs57 It seems to me that most of your complaints are more specifically about dispensational Christianity, which makes sense because most American Christians are dispensational. It's a worldview within Christianity that developed in the 19th century that really doesn't care about this world and is always looking to the end, and I agree that it tends to end in unhealthy and unhelpful places. We probably share a great deal of criticism when it comes to dispensationalism. They tend to be the wackier Christians who have not thought through things very critically, are constantly glued to the news, won't stop talking about the rapture and great tribulation (which they have greatly warped from how it's actually written about in Scripture), and tend to be either cultural isolationists or cultural conquerors. But there are many other historical traditions of Christianity that hold a much higher view of the world, its cultures, its institutions, and its inhabitants and see it as their duty to see to the welfare of all these, regardless if they are believers or not. As to origins, I think it's erroneous to assert that Christianity exists because of an effort to explain why and how everything exists. The central core of Christianity is not built on our dependant on this. Christianity exists because of the historical truth claims surrounding the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and those who have been persuaded by their veracity and moved by their implications. Within Christianity there is plenty of room to disagree about origins. There are actually quite a lot of evolutionist Christians. And besides, all worldviews do have to wrestle with aseity, and every worldview ultimately has a figure of aseity at the top of their chain, be it God, or the Big Bang, or the eternal universal Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle, or consciousness, or some sort of quantum phenomena we don't understand. Aseity is not unique to Christianity. Every well-thought worldview has it built in.
@@DMIwriter Very interesting since there exists no direct written words from Jesus or from contemporaries of Jesus. To follow Jesus is to follow the hearsay of Jesus or the mythology invented by those establishing the identity of Jesus. Jesus is the character in someone else’s book.
16:20 I actually never got Paley's Design Argument. If I find a watch on a meadow, my first thought is not "someone has made this", but "someone has lost it", as a watch clearly does not fit on a meadow.
Im publicly an Atheist, Officially an Agnostic, personally a believer in a God. Im not Christian, Muslim, or any other follower of a religion. I just believe in that single universal point, and we exist merely because it does. No action needed.
I was waiting for the reveal and it’s a book I had to read in HS for religion classes! (Lutheran Private School). Although I will say, I was a believer the last time I read it. So there wasnt a lot of processing on my end, it was sort of all serving as a massive “evidence” boost. I would Ironically 100% get a better understanding of the doctrinal explanations in it now than then, even tho I am now an agnostic athiest.
I think that Christianity, at least in the apostolic, is more platonic than what you described as an agent + a set of rules. The agent effectively is the set of rules, but they are also not so much rules as much as they are laws (in the sense of laws of physics). Our alignment to those laws is what brings us into right relation with that agent, which is Being itself.
