Tim Keller explains the problematic approach of New Atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens and how Christians can fall into the trap of arguing in a similar manner.
Wow. I could not have described you better myself. Your self-descriptive poem here is revelatory. Every sentence applies to you so well. I am impressed!
@DetectiveTackett what are your examples of permissive change that imposed a different social order and how Christians were under attack by big government?
I totally agree with you, Justin. I am a firm believer in the resurrection. I was replying to someone else who doubted and assumed there was no evidence for it. It's so true. Atheists, anti-theists can be some of the most closed minded individuals. There is an active force behind disbelief, not just a lack of data.
its true. I can rarely find people on youtube to have a civilized philosophical debate about my beliefs with on youtube. In person it can sometimes be different. But there is a lot of emotion between the varying beliefs and dogmatism exercised as well.
According to my dictionary faith is (1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. If you are making a valued decision to get on an airplane then you are making a faith judgement. BUT... if you go by the 2nd definition: (2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence- then you probably don't need faith. I bet there are also a lot of theists AND atheists who do not rest their beliefs on logical proof or material evidence. I do.
Holy crap... I don't know how anyone could possibly refute your brilliant logic! No, really! That was the most conclusive argument I've ever heard! I'm NOT KIDDING!
@archdtaylor I wrote something else too, but I removed it because I want to get clarification from you first: are you suggesting that morality is not objective, but rather subjective (or relative) to the ideals of the majority?
@MrGoodNKinky Please answer my original question. You said that things comes from human choices, and I asked you how about the start of universe. Is the universe also the result of human choice? I think you have answered yourself, whatever theory it is(btw string theory is not a explanation of how universe started, but only for explaining sub atom level physic phenomenons). Is this theory also something out of human choice? Or are we merely observing something that is already there?
I've seen Tim Keller in other talks mention the total emptiness of the atheistic world view and he makes a very compelling case. He mentions the philosophies of Tolstoy, Russell, Gould, Camus, Sartre, and Huxley. If you read these folks it would depress you and put you into utter despair. The real problem is that if you apply the world view they are correct. Life is meaningless. You have to delude yourself to find meaning. Is love just a psychopharmacological reaction in your brain. It is if atheism is true. The new atheist demands that you prove that God exists by showing them. We can't show an atom but it is reasonable to believe that it exists base on imaging. One can come to a reasonable conclusion that God exists and not proving something has nothing to say about it's existence.
Michael Carlsen The difference between the believability of the existence of an atom and God is that we have evidence that an atom exists (via quantum mechanical prediction, for example) and that we can now reliably predict behavior of atoms. While you claim that "one can come to a reasonable conclusion that God exists," most atheists would disagree with what believers cite as evidence since the evidence given isn't scientifically testable.
Terence Traut I'm sure that all atheists would disagree by nature. I would ask the question " if your brain is just the random compilation of chemicals and your thoughts are just the result of the sequence of these chemicals then why would you trust it?" You see this is where the naturalistic world view leads you. The fact that we can do science at all is an evidence for the existence of God. Proof is more of a mathematical term as where evidence leads one to draw a conclusion based on the compilation of evidence and determination of the best answer but one can not escape the influence of their world view when it comes to drawing a conclusion.
Michael Carlsen I don't get how you get "the fact that we can do science" is "evidence for the existence of God." And perhaps I don't understand the atheist point of view, but I'm not sure I'd start with the premise that they believe "your brain is just the random compilation of chemicals" or "your thoughts are just the result of the sequence of these chemicals." However, the fact that I don't understand something doesn't make me automatically jump to "and therefore there must be a God."
I love Tim's appeal to both the "New Atheists" as well people of faith to extend common decency and respect for each other rather than hoop and holler about control and power. It's all about the love maaannn... (hippy van voice from cars)
No, that is not primarily the evidence I am speaking of. First off, the differences in the gospel accounts are evidence for, not against, their veracity. In a court case, if 4 witnesses gave the exact same testimony you would strongly suspect that they got together before and agreed what they would say. If you want 800 pages of real evidence I suggest you read NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. Elaine Pagels writes about gnosticism which is utterly distinct from Christianity.
For someone that probably doesn't believe in life after death, how could your understanding of one being wasteful? What's more important is that what about wasting the life before death spending time telling people who believe in life after death is wasteful? For something you don't believe in you sure do spend enough wasted time trying to convince someone otherwise.
I love Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris, but I have to admit that I really like this guy. His humble demeanor is really effective at helping communicate his perspective without putting people on the defensive. Perhaps us "youtube atheists" could learn something about respectful communication and humbleness from this guy.
@archdtaylor Thanks again for your reply. I think you're confusing moral ontology with moral semantics: confusing the basis or the foundation for moral values with the meaning of moral terms. I know that morals are how we think we OUGHT to act, as I already pointed out. I'm asking WHY? I'm not asking what constitutes "good" or "bad", I'm asking what these "oughts" for behavior are grounded in under Atheistic theory?
There are some historians who believe as you do. There are many more who treat them as historic documents. Have you read NT Wright's book on the resurrection? It's one of the best on the subject. Also Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Are you open minded enough to read both sides?
@wachnathan You are correct that there are different levels of respect and different forms. I understand respect in the military sence and that is also earned but it is also respect of the rank.
In the middle ages, theologeons tried to comprehend why people were dying of the plague. They were wrong every time.The puny mind of man did try to comprehend the way things work and wiped out this desease, as well as smallpox. We have actually found out a hell of a lot about the universe.
@sthoma07 But don't worry, I am not saying reasoning is not effective at all, it is a very important tool for seeking for the truth. Reasoning at least, can tell you what is not possible, if we admit that our world is indeed orderly and has its consistency. By the way, can I ask you why do you think that reasoning works? How did you prove that to yourself? And is there any evolutionary evidences that reasoning is required for human survival?
Something I should mention is that Dawkins certainly illuminates the downfalls of fundamentalism however he said himself that no one has the right to not be offended because he gets offended all the time and has to suck it up in other words everyone has a right to express concepts of life. What he has a problem with is when it manifests in to physical force and violation.
I love how this guy goes from correctly stating that 'new atheists' say that *religion* doesn't deserve respect, to completely misrepresenting and vilifying them by stating that these atheists say *religious people* don't deserve respect. If you can't distinguish between an idea in a person's head and that person themselves, then how can you even hope to have a meaningful conversation about religion. I can't decide if this video is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water or just vapid waffle.
@stephenexmachina I'd be interested in hearing how natural selection could possibly advance without death. This is one of the foundations of the reasoning discrediting natural selection even as a possible tool for Biblical Creation. It used to be some Christians would say "sure, well, maybe God used that as a Creation tool". But once we recognize that in order for evolution to function, something must die so others may move forward, it falls down due to the absence of death before the fall.
@stephenexmachina How so? I've never heard "natural selection" used to s\describe the differences between two still-existing species, have you? Sounds like a stretch to me. :)
(1) with not respecting people who hold harmful beliefs. It can be that way, but I personally view the effects of religion similar to that of alcohol. Relatively harmless in moderation, problematic when approaching alcoholism and catastrophic when overdosing. This is independent of the question of whether its actually true or not.
But most the authors Keller mentioned, Dawkins, Hitchins etc. a) Often, whether they admit ir or not, villify relifious people b) Use a minority of extreme cases to represent the entirety of a religious group c)Most relevant to this video, they discoutnt any good religion has done and scarcely examine the benefits it has brought about in our world. People assume religion has caused more harm than good simply becase bad thigns are easier to remember than good things
@JoeWantsCake "Implicitly equate" is your judgement, and I won't deny you the right to take it that way. From previous exposure to Keller, I know he is theologically against that kind of defensiveness, and I personally admire him for not exhibiting it personally either. Last sermon I heard from him was on Westphal's "Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism" on Nietzsche, Freud and Marx's criticism's of christianity. You might be surprised.
CHALLENGE: find me a quote where any of the horsemen identifies religion as 'the [single] worst thing that ever happened to the human kind'. (or something of equal strength.) i seriously am interested in this.
im quite impressed by this guy. while hes not totally correct about richard dawkins (im not sure about the other author's exact messages), he makes an intelligent statement, unlike most christians ive seen in youtube videos. as far as i know, richard dawkins considers himself agnostic. he doesn't say believing in a deity for strength is a bad thing (while it isn't for everybody). his point is that the earth formed over a long time and beings weren't created, but evolved.
(part 1) I don't think that the new atheists are saying that there shouldn't be rational discourse between believers and non-believers or that they do not deserve respect, as I haven't seen any examples of this. Part of the idea behind "new atheism" is that atheists should mobilize politically as a response to the effectiveness of those on the religious right. New atheism also seems to be rejecting a couple concepts that are not challenged nearly enough.
saying that the arguments are bad doesn't make the them bad and if someone knows why the arguments are bad please say why don't just say something that you can't back
(part 2) These concepts include things like: morality cannot be examined using reason and logic and religion is good for societal health by creating more virtuous individuals. I see new atheism as being about getting people to feel comfortable calling themselves atheists and wearing their skepticism with pride. Furthermore, it's about engaging in a new level of discussion by actually investigating the claims that the religious make about morality and whether those claims make sense or not.
We are not in the sales business to try to work hard to somehow convince every person through some technique....we faithfully declare the Gospel....if they believe in some other fashion, they indeed may appear to be a believer but their salvation is in serious question
okay, i'm militant, then. sounds kinda warlike. :S i don't like the word. i haven't read any of his books (because they're mostly about evolution, a subject i've studied in quite some debth at uni), so i don't know much about his arguments. from some debates i watched i can only say that i usually agree with him. anything in particular?
I enjoy the intellect and addictive personality of Hitchens and miss him as well. However, because he is so intelligent and clever witted people take every word as truth and do not question. I have noticed him being corrected many times without him defending his point and I have picked up on things that I know where incorrect. I would like to see Tim Keller debate the new Atheists as he seems knowledgeable. calm and rational. Sad he missed debating Hitchens.
Forgive me, I should have said that atheism is a component in a worldview, and that everyone has one. However, atheism is the belief that no gods exist. What you described is more properly an agnostic response to a theistic truth claim. What would you define as harmful beliefs? Would you agree with Dawkins and others that religious instruction of my own children is child abuse?
well, i have read a few of her books, but i don't think there is anything directly from her in what i have said so far. I try not to appeal to authority but to form my own opinions wherever possible. Historians look for certain criterion to assess the validity of a claim. They want the sources to be unbiased, comtemporary, independent and numerous. One cannot say this about the gospels so, for these and other reasons, they are not a great historical source.
One more thing: you've also got a problem with reduction. If these senses of "oughtness" are illusory, and they're only for evolutionary purpose (i.e., beliefs are aids to survival), then doesn't that make the belief in evolution as illusory as belief in God?
We have an inkling that sub atomic particles (quarks and the like) "exist".But, they are so fleetingly observed in THIS realm,one has to question "where are they coming from and where are they going?Not only that, we have no idea how these things assemble themselves into more complex materials and then to biological organisms.Like I said, I'm with the Hindus on the primacy of consciousness.I've heard the materialist perspective and it's like reading a book with the most important pages taken out
@TheFeroxConspiratio Yes, you are right. As an atheist I believe it wise for all to constantly question what they hold true especially in the realm of ideas. This is why scientists are subject themselves to rigorous scrutiny and peer review when new theories are presented. Unfortunately many theists don't seem to follow this practice, preferring instead to hold a particular religious faith dogmatically, mindlessly and without question. To even question their faith means the devil is at work.
There's no real truth where there's no understanding. It takes patience and courage as a Christian to want to understand others, but if you really want to help them then that's what you have to do, you have to humble yourself. I'm still learning myself but I've made it my goal.
I'm also really disappointed that my original comment which is the highest rated no longer appears at the top of the comment thread. So much for respect and dialogue @The Gospel Coalition.
@enderilles I've read Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God". It's a very unsatisfactory read that fails to offer "reason" as it's title suggests. It is Tim Keller who misses the message of "the new atheists". The new atheist's primary message is to no longer make it taboo or rude to question one's unfounded beliefs. NOT ERADICATE religions. A secondary message of the new atheists is that modern societies do not get their morals from ancient texts, and they are right. So, what do we get?
They keep doing this "the arguments presented by Dawkins/Hitchens/Dan Dennet etc are such incredibly super bad lame poor easy to disprove bad arguments, Oh they are soo bad and so really poor!" But then, after they say that, they never actually just easily disprove a single one.
Hmm I'm Agnostic Atheist personally. Religion has hurt my mental health some and I will never understand how people can say it does so much good as they yell at people and start wars over it. However I know some tolerant, reasonable people who are very religious and don't care that I'm Atheist. I happen to live in an area that tolerates a lot of people (I have friends who are Mormons, Wiccans, Deist) and I'm really thankful for that. I just don't want to try and convert people or be converted.
@MrGoodNKinky im not dure where you get this from, but most of the ideas i get from scripture in regards to sin or anything for that mater is based on careful historical, linguistical, religious and exegetical study of the text. this is so that we minimize as much as we can the amount of bias we put into the texts, or otherwise known as isegesis. A Sin is any offence against God. thats not to hard to figure out.
Also, if morality is just a set of evolved social customs, it doesn’t refer to anything that has objective existence, as moral values and duties must. Atheist Michael Ruse, & Richard Dawkins say, “morality is just an aid to survival, and any deeper meaning is illusory” and “there is no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.” So, I still don't have a reason for why we have a sense of how we OUGHT to act (morals) & why "survival of the fit" isn't the rule of the day.
religion.. It may be to some benefit, it gives one an absolute truth, idol to follow, and guidelines to accept. It creates a common ground and fellowship for those within said ideals and insures, to a relative extent, common goal as well. It's a, as one could put, 'control' system that insures societal solidarity through various means. The presence of other religions messes things up, though The deeper flaws and benefits are too complex for me to post properly post here
Not sure how to respond to this Glory!. I do not loath myself, do not beliive in God, and do a great deal to help my fellow man. Most importantly, I do not feel i am sacrificing myself when i do.
There is a difference between saying that respect for religion is bad and saying that respecting religious people is bad. New atheists don’t hate religious people, they see them as the victims of religion. This should be an easy distinction for christians to make because they make the similar distinction of “hate the sin but love the sinner.”
@stephenexmachina Right. My questions was regarding your statement that it isn't advanced "through death". Without the death of an "inferior" species, how does the "better adapted" species become "naturally selected"? Evolution requires death to function, that's all I was saying.
(2) I don't think religious instruction in general is child abuse, and neither does Dawkins. His beef is with labeling kids too young to know for their own, what religion they supposedly adhere to. What I do object to is particular facets of religions, like creationism, homophobia, the RCC's campaign against condoms, anti-intellectualism, dogmatism, fear of hell, fear of science, credulity as a virtue, the idea that religions deserve unbridled respect etc.
Yes he did declare that it would occur in some of their lifetimes..The overwhelming sentiment in the NT is that it was coming soon,imminently. I don't think i have to make all the references and quotes. I am sure you know them, but you hang on to a line that says we just don't know the exact hour or day...not mellenium! Do you think Jesus is waiting for some pocket in New Guini(sp) or the Amazon to be preached to?
Agnosticism is also based on faith: faith in the presupposition that faith issues are not very important. Everyone has faith in something. Theism, Agnosticism and Atheism are all faith-based: none of them can be *proved* in an absolute sense. To say one has respect for another person's belief is to say one respects that other person's right to place his/her faith in something other than one's one faith object.
...And the reason I (as a Christian) can (and do) sit down with my Muslim, agnostic, and atheist friends believing that they are wrong is because 1) I don't believe they are automatically bad for society and 2) religion is a matter of conviction, so all I can do is give my best arguments and leave it at that. No compromise in my Christianity required.
(part 2) Evidence that the great philosophers of the past didn't have access to. Back then the Cosmological Argument sufficed. Also, some scientists like Newton expressed doubts about Trinitarianism and other areas of divinity in notebooks and private papers. They only professed religion in fear of persecution. Some 19th century philosophers even used the Church as a sort of research grant. They would convert to Christianity and become monks in exchange for funds to pursue their science.
It does not follow that because some scientists were christians that christianity is the cause of science, or should get credit for the enlightenment. There is no warrent for this inference. there is nothing new in the atheist camp, and nothing new in the theist camp-so what ?
I am happy that you find that God is indeed relevant to us, one way or another. The most dreadful idea I found during my atheist years is that you have to "believe" in your reasons. There is no evidence that human reasonings are especially efficient in dealing with everything a person faces in his life. Trying to depend on philosophy or going through all the proofs in order to act is just not efficient enough, even in an evolutionary standard.
The greatest menace to our civilization today is the conflict between giant organized systems of self-righteousness each system only too delighted to find that the other is wicked each only too glad that the sins of the other give it the pretext for still deeper hatred and animosity. Herbert Butterfield
Dawkins talks about the Kalām quite a bit. Could you see (if only a tiny shred) that Dawkins' interpretations that the Kalām and it interpreters Ibn Rushd, Al-Kindi & Al-Ghazali agree it is plausible and a good thing? I understand they are Muslim polymaths, but the Kalam is essential to Christianity and Islam. If anything, Dawkins DOES give those points to both Christianity and Islam. Do you agree? Wiki "Kalam" if you need a refresher.
It is difficult to understnd how a good God would torture a child with smallpox. Do you think a child suffers from smallpox because he/she turned away from God?Why would God curse a baby with cystic fibrosis for what Adam did? Does that seem reasonable for a good and just God to do?
@JoeWantsCake Sorry, I've lost the thread, I thought I was addressing your challenge. A number of critics agree there is a lack of respect and sympathy. I alluded to two quotes from TNA. Understanding grace is one of the most difficult things to do, and takes many years of bumping up against personal failure to realize. The purpose of God is to create a people who will be united to Him, and join in the love that is the eternal experience within the Trinity. You are allowed to say no.
@MichaelBlue72 Lack of resources and fluxing mortality rates contribute to the success of a species. But the process of natural selection is more complicated than being "advanced through death" and most certainly "describes difference between two still existing species" or rather the process by which two species are competing.
Re: 1:05 - Wrong! Sam Harris (among others mentioned here) has clearly stated that it is the IDEAS of these people that do not deserve respect. It IS possible to be respectful when telling someone that what they believe is bullshit. I myself have become very good at it. Re: 1:46 - when you argue for the existence of supernatural things, and ignore half of your own holy texts (as moderate Christians do), the only thing left to do is yell and be unsympathetic. It's okay, we understand! :)
What makes you think that religion deserves any respect? There is not a single benefit of religion that cannot be achieved by secular means, so there is no basis for respect there. The claims of religion have yet to be demonstrated as being at all valid in the thousands of years that religion has been in existence...many claims have been demonstrated as being false. Religion relies on faith, it relies on belief without evidence. In any other circumstance, that would be called gullibility.
@JoeWantsCake I have read BR's Why I am Not, and bits and pieces of Hitchens. Dialogues I have attempted to have with trollers (someone posting rude and provacative comments to worship music videos on RU-vid, e.g.) clearly show the lack of courtesy and respect for my humanity. So I don't believe Tim Keller is mischaracterizing "what is new is the lack of basic respect necessary for civil discourse" (paraphrased). Keller himself demonstrates quite a different tone and openness.
The pursuit of truth -- through the modes of scientific, historic, philophical inquiry are absolutely essential! I affirm that 100% But it is an incorrect notion that "faith" is a mode of KNOWING. Instead, faith is a decision -- a personal response to a specific invitation by Christ. It's more like the "I DO" the bride and groom say at their wedding. Faith is not a substitute for the normal pursuit of knowledge -- and rational people CAN have faith (See "Francis Collins", for example)
@archdtaylor You know, I would also like to point out that ridicule does not constitute argument for your point. It's a distraction--I see it used again and again on BOTH sides of this issue. None of these attacks on my intelligence, beliefs, etc, etc, have anything to do with the question I asked. So you are doing exactly what you blame "the religious in general" of doing. How can we ever get anywhere with that kind of pandering?
Out of all the Christian apologetic speakers I've listened to, I have to say that Tim Keller gets most of my respect, which is why I watched this. I'm atheist and I love the new atheists. I think Tim misunderstands and misrepresents what they actually assert. Never once have I heard any of them claim that religious people are undeserving of any respect. However, I would like to know more about what he is referring to when he says most scholars see the holes in the arguments. Like who? Where? I would like to read some of the analyses of the new atheists. I've done my research. I've watched all of the debates. I haven't heard any convincing arguments that dismantle what they have to say. Just because their books haven't received a positive review from the London review of books isn't convincing enough. Hitchens himself wrote a substantial amount of reviews for the London review of books. It's just opinions of writers. It's not like they are an elite society of high minded thinkers. So a negative review doesn't mean much. I'm honestly asking. For myself, in order to remain objective, where can I read or hear an honest scholarly critique, without a religious bias, that refutes arguments of the new atheists. I have identified a few weak spots myself, but I still find most of what they have to say quite convincing. Seriously, does anyone have any sources to point me to?
This article might lend some clarity. www.salon.com/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/ I would also just caution that it may be difficult to find sources without religious bias. Most work is done in a reactive manner. It's hard to find people who will, for purely intellectual reasons, attempt to refute the arguments of another. They generally will react when they feel attacked, or something they sympathize/empathize with is being attacked. This page might also lend some clarity: jaysanalysis.com/2014/12/28/new-atheists-refuted-logic-presupposes-ethics-metaphysics/ If you would consider a Christian scholar, I recommend this book: www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213
I would consider mocking and ridiculing someone who is not well educated enough to intellectually defend himself being disrespectful. Not everyone who hasn't have enough education to defend his worldview is an idiot, and not everyone who has is a genius. Let the educated people argue on their educational platforms, but leave the not-so-educated alone (and there are uneducated atheists en masse as well...)
If you believe something that cannot be proved in an absolute sense (for example, Atheism) than you have faith. EVERYONE lives by faith. Every time you get in a car or an airplane you are exercising faith in its reliability. Same with belief systems, whether Theistic, Atheistic, Agnostic, Pantheistic, etc.
Stronger claim (with inherent support): We have no words of a God, only the words of men, since, given the errors and contradictions of the text it CANNOT be representative of something claimed to be perfect. Therefore, ANY claim BASED on the error ridden texts are intrinsically false with regard to the claim of any perfect God. or put another way... The texts claimed in support of a perfect entity are an insult to the idea of a perfect entity...
@wormite Even MORE on WHY Wikipedia is NOT A GOOD SOURCE! One specific instance is an entry on the actor/comedian "Sinbad". The Wikipedia listing says that he died of a heart attack. This is untrue. The actor/comedian is very much alive and still performing. There is a very high instance of errors in Wikipedia.
a) Not often, i would say around half the time b) They do do this in some cases c) They have discounted any good religion has done, but would you not agree that religion has done more bad than good? From history we have learned that because of the discrimination in religious books, and people's willingness to accept such crud, there have been entire wars started. I know religion has done good, but for the most part its done bad.
I don't think anyone is saying to disrespect people. The "New Atheist" position is to disrespect disrespect-able beliefs. Ridiculous beliefs by definition are worthy of ridicule, so if you have ridiculous beliefs don't be surprised or butthurt when your ridiculous beliefs are treated as such. Keep in mind the distinction between ridiculing YOU and YOUR BELIEFS. However, if your ego is such that you can't distinguish between yourself and your beliefs, then you get what you deserve.
