How utterly delightful. Surrendering to a higher intelligence. The one consciousness! And thus a greater joy, and a living of life fearlessly. So glad I left my own particular atheism behind. It all makes total sense now!
Woooooohooooo. this is wisdom. See so clearly sees the fear and the 'trying to control' here. I recognise this exactly same fear-and-control-thing and I see it in romantic relationships (doubt doubt doubt) and relationship with God as well. And the very same thing happens: scared to give up control. And seeing 'letting go' as 'rehearsing for death' is so amazing! This woman is wohowhowhoooo amazing! More woman in ministry! (Because men have this 'fear-->rational certainty as control'-thing way stronger than woman!) I love this man's journey and I am so glad he met Sarah Coakly!
Moments of great calm, Kneeling before an altar Of wood in a stone church In summer, waiting for the God To speak; the air a staircase For silence; the sun’s light Ringing me, as though I acted A great role. And the audiences Still; all that close throng Of spirits waiting, as I, For the message. Prompt me, God; But not yet. When I speak, Though it be you who speak Through me, something is lost. The meaning is in the waiting. (R. S. Thomas, 'Kneeling')
An absolute masterpiece of psycho-spiritual dissection. Very interesting when the interrogator becomes interrogated. He discomfort was palpable and I was waiting for a “you damned psychologist” remark as per Stavrogin’s confession in Dostoyevski’s the Possessed/The Devils.
6:46 'Where are true joys to be found?' I bet you she's referring to every Anglican's favourite collect, that for the Fourth Sunday after Easter: _O Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen._
William Craig would have "bulletined" the answer regardless of what the question is. Sarah is very focused, and skillfully crafts the best answer! 🙌👏she has such a great gift of intelligence to navagate the interviewer with such emmense skill and Highest possible intellectual level to defeat his logic!💯💯💯
"When we are no longer afraid of death; then we are no longer afraid of life" [07:55]. What a wonderful statement! Ten years ago, and prior to retirement as a Registered Nurse, I studied theodicy at doctoral level, because I thought it might help to inform my nursing. Owing to the writings of people like Stanley Hauerwas, and large numbers of others, human suffering became not only one of the reasons I believe in the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth, but it also deepened my concept of divine love, and the GRATITUDE I feel to have been given life in the first place. To have been able to become comfortable with mortality (since January 2008, my life has been sustained by a small 3-lead cardiac generator; as I am in complete cardiac block), and the overwhelming sense of mystery which lies at the heart of my belief. Sure, I follow the teachings of an historic young male Jew, in whom the Creator God of Israel was uniquely active; but as a student of theology, I have to treat, and read, our scriptures in a manner which is conducive to modern reason, and which is fair to the God those scriptures are intended to help reveal. Perhaps GRATITUDE for life might have formed part of this discussion?
I’ve watched this clip dozen of times. It feeds my soul. Because while I believe in God and I’ve had experiences of God, I’m a skeptic by default. I LOVE questioning almost anything. So this dialogue has me rooting for both. But, when she says “When we are no longer afraid of death, we will no longer be afraid of life.” It stirs my soul. Wonderful video.
I'm a skeptic by default too although one with no belief in a god. I was taken by her admission that many modern theologians no longer discuss the arguments for God. So how exactly do they spend their days?
very stimulating...I once believed and like the gentlemen I would love to believe in a benevolent God...but I'm not there yet....She is much more erudite then most I've heard on her side if I can say it that way. Thanks for sharing!!
...we must take our journey, to the land unknown, we may fail in courage, homeless and alone: Angel-host to guard us, God in heaven above: And we dare not falter If we trust His love (AC Benson)
Hear hear, brilliant! As a cultural Christian in my ethics I doubt what is traditionally feed to us because I honestly have no idea what reality is ultimately about if that exists at all. Isn't this the unreachable, impenetrable quest for a sense of godness we all yearn for? Isn't it written all over our religion, philosophy, idiologies and science? Is it possible to have a full, meaningful and purposeful life by just cultivating connection, caring and loving in all its forms? Alas, we are restless beings, wanting to stretch out to a bigger picture. Deep inside it is hard to exist ultimately alone separated from a desired whole. We are finite and yet yearn the infinite.
I think she catches very well his mindset which is clearly grounded in a scientific view of reality that seems to be truly independant of personal preferences or desires although he admits that hi is in some way contaminated by this so called "Weltanschauung".
GOD, NATION, and DEMOCRACY are the results of a common understandings and agreements. You won't find any of the as an individual through arguments and logical deduction. That's is my view. And, if anyone doubts about the existence of God, it legitimate knowing they fact that we are living in a time when individuality or individualism becomes core of our daily values. The ultimate essence of individualism is in turn the detachment of oneself from the existing reality.
What is the difference between believing or not believing if you are law abiding, happy and satisfy with life. Nothing to request more than what i have. If there is god who'll meet after i died, i will say " thank you" but i dont know in what language should i say, sanskrit, latin, arabic, english, jewish...??
Don't worry there are many scientific questions we would not be able answer in any of those languages not even math. No need to wait until we die to have such experience.
What is meant here by "God"? Is the question QUID SIT DEUS assumed to be answered already by contemporary Anglican Christianity? In questioning her interlocutor's skepticism against our natural yearnings, the Reverend Professor Coakley seems to confuse Philosophy's God with Christianity's revealed God. Do we know of any medieval theologian who ever taught that natural reason has access to Christianity's personal God, as opposed to Aristotle's impersonal divinity?
Greetings mukashinomichi As far as I can discern, _every_ mediaeval theologian thought that natural reason could lead to Christianity's personal God, or at least _point_ to that God, if not deliver one hands down completely. Nor can I think of a single mediaeval theologian who thought that reason led only to "Aristotle's impersonal divinity". You may have in mind St Thomas Aquinas, but while he certainly made use of Aristotelian philosophical concepts in arguing for and about God, he certainly did not believe that reason gave access only to Aristotle's impersonal divinity. That would not have interested Thomas. I don't think that Sarah Coakley confuses the two divinities, either (as is evidenced by her focus on the experiential). In fact, on the whole it is a myth to equate the God of mediaeval theology with what is popularly called 'The God of the philosophers'. That tag fits much better far more modern conceptions of God if it really fits any at all. Theo
@@theophilus749My earlier notes refer to medieval canonical Christianity NEVER teaching that natural reason can attain to a "special revelation". Unaided natural reason cannot know Jesus, but it can know the impersonal truth about Jesus (general revelation).
She seems to be projecting. He doesn't seek to "be in control". That's what he would be doing if he believed as he desired. Instead, he surrenders control to the reality.
Your comment is a reasonable push back, but I think, along with Coakley, that you cannot separate our desires from our pursuit of the truth. The striving toward conforming our thinking to reality is driven by a desire - a desire to know what is true, to not be duped. We are at our core first-person subjects, and if God, as I believe, is personal (even the fountain of personhood), then the critical encounter with God is deeply subjective and bound up with our whole being. When she asked Robert what it would take for him to believe, he responds, "I don't know." Fair enough, though perhaps God knows that Kuhn is not prepared to receive Him because he doesn't want to let go of some hampering sense of autonomy that would allow him to make his judgment apart from life-changing considerations. God wants our heart and perhaps He cares little to reveal Himself to us unless we are prepared to give it to Him. God doesn't want spectators; He wants participants.
Reality would be reality whether I existed or I did not? Incorrect. That depends on weather or not you do in fact exist. Your Faith (or perspective) is what CONNECTS not blocks you from God. You're misidentifying the connection and as a result think the connection is impurity. No, it's this thinking that's impurity
“…as a theologian and a priest.” Is she serious? “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” -1st Timothy 2:11-15 KJV ✝️🤍🕊️⛪️
I think the point she is making is when you die your self, your identity, your ego everything you think you are is gone. So you need to be aware of that in life by in her case a god beyond her mundane self. If you meditate you realise the self is an illusion and thinking about death should make you keenly aware not to waste life on meaningless arguments and distractions.
Can tell by his face that he isn't convinced by her arguments in the slightest. She does a good job of going for the emotional jugular though especially at the end, hard to argue with someone when they bring up the one moment in life most people dread.
It seems to me that she is not making any arguments, but is emphasizing how our desires and longings can possibly provide an illuminating context for arguments and experience. If God is fundamentally a person with intentions, then an encounter with God will be deeply personal and influenced by subjective/first person considerations.
He states all cultures agree about physical reality, opposite of religion, which is obviously false. Even in our western civilization in the current year, there are innumerable differences of interpretation in how physical reality really "is".
I don' think he's scared. It's just an enormous topic such that a human mind can only be bewildered. If a god or God exists, the human mind couldn't possibly reduce it to a set of finite beliefs/definitions. He's on his own path. That should be respected.
+Henry Smith Sarah is practicing the art of sophism which Wikipedia defines, "In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments." I prefer the thoughts of Valerie Tarico who wrote the book,"Trusting doubt, A former evangelical looks at old beliefs in a new light" Robert M. Price, Dan Barker and John W. Loftus have many brilliant ideas about religion. Scriptures mostly describe a god figure who has failed in too many ways to merit any sort of worship or acceptance. Such notions were generated from a tribal outlook which sought to justify their wars against neighbouring tribes and to give courage to their own warriors. It is possible that some people have been put off committing atrocities out of fear of the threat of hell but others have been driven mad by paranoid fears about those mind games. It seems clear to me that any loving cosmic being would not have allowed a hell to come into existence and if it had would have erased it as if it had never happened. A god who created a hell would be the most worthy of being in it and would probably fall in. The idea of hell has been a useful lever for priests for the extraction of peoples money. "Stand and deliver, your money or your life" Its hard to make a living. I think there probably is no supernatural realm but if there was then humans would either go to a happily ever after or cease to exist, so their is no problem. As regards some of the main versions of Christianity, many people fall in line because they feel safer seeing themselves as part of the crowd. They signed up for life assurance even though no where in the Bible gives such a black and white guarantee but much more of a "It depends on your performance and my mood". However compare to the ancient Egyptian papyrus of Ani, The book of the dead with its ideas about the weighing of the heart and you soon see the roots of these superstitious myths which have spiralled down the centuries
+zytigon The only way to make the claim that she is engaging in Sophism, would be to actually break down each of her points that she is making and show how they are false and fallacious. How they are just empty words and she's not really making any point. Since you didn't do that, it seems to me what you are really doing is engaging in a personal incredulity fallacy. Otherwise you would have to take her words and show how she doesn't have a point at all, and be able to break it down.
+Samuel Saenz I like the Golden Rule ( which was around long before Judaism or Christianity ) however it is found in Matt 7v12, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you". So I ask you,"Would you send yourself to an everlasting concentration camp ?" My answer to this question is no. Next question,"What percentage of the human population would you be willing to send to eternal suffering if you were to comply with the Golden Rule ?" My answer is zero percent. It would be a nightmare to think that for 95% of the humans who ever lived, this world was just the start of far worse sufferings. I think there is no evidence to support the idea that it is, I don't want to believe it is the case nor do I want to think that there is a cosmic being who would choose that. If you thought that Matt 7v12 was generated by an ultimate cosmic being then how could that being comply with the Golden Rule and still pack most people off to a hell? Not possible. Well a common Christian line is that their god doesn't want it but it is fate or it is each individuals fault/choice. A being who would allow a hell is not worthy of the title of god, unless god means despotic ruler. By the way the Bible scholar Hector Avalos has shown that the idea of "Love your neighbour" & the Golden Rule can be picked apart and possibly in olden times didn't have the meaning often ascribed to them in modern times. { But I still like them all the same, the way I hold them to be ]
zytigon You know that you completely ignored what Samuel Saenz said, right? And you also know that everything that you said has absolutely nothing to do with anything said in the video, right?
Coakley is impressive. I'm a Jew, and I can tell this guy interviewing her is a jewish atheist not by his jewish sounding name but more by the manner of his stiff necked denial. I think part of the problem of this conversation being really genuine - how her penetrating questions are able to be parried so easily - is because of the whole setup and context. This man has his own show and indulges himself him the adventure of playing a seeker, with cameras and lights in the background and chairs set up just-so for the right angles of framing, with musical intros and outros. (He's curated the safety and security of a laboratory for himself and for us, with experimental trials with more or less predictable outcomes.) It is a contrived act of self-absorption. Do you see the way he has the establishing shots? Of him walking - striding - around gardens, churches and universities? I can only hope that Coakley agreed to this interview with a knowing sigh and the awareness that she is ultimately not speaking to him. I'm truly struggling with whether to feel grateful or frustrated with him.
It's a lot easier for some people to spend their entire lives searching for scientific facts rather than a supernatural being. The latter requires faith. Some would call faith blind, but there are reasons for that faith.
I think her entire argument was something like this: "Accept my unsubstantiated claim." "Why?" "Because one day you will die, and you'll be forced to surrender your mental faculties. You may as well surrender them now." "But isn't that a false analogy? 'Surrendering' when you're alive is qualitatively differently than 'surrendering' when you're dead, right?" (crickets) And by the way, I really, really enjoyed the conversation, and she seems like a very smart woman. However, the argument she gave for the existence of god was really infantile. I'd still like to hear more from her, and even talk to her. She seems like a woman who has spent a lot of time thinking about these topics.
What argument for God's existence did she give? She didn't! She merely argued that to resist or ignore the subjectivity in our search for God might actually be a hinderance in finding God if God exists.
I might agree with that, but that would have nothing to do with god and everything to do with human bias, etc. I agree that good science should be as objective as possible, even though we are (subjective) human beings. This video should have been called, "Why believe in objectivity?" as opposed to, "Why believe in god?" Edit: It's actually even worse. Because if there is a god, why did he make us subject to human cognitive biases in the first place?
I don't think she was trying to make an argument for the existence of God. She seemed to be exploring the deeper issue of humanity's quest for the answers.
@@danielt.4330 the point she was trying to make was more like: "The views you have right now were not formed in a vacuum, so it's unrealistic to expect yourself to be able to apply a special standard to the question of God's existence and attempt to explore it without any kind of motivation because that's a recipe for inertia, irrespective of whether God is real or not." The logicality of any argument she could give will only be seen by someone who was at least willing to accept the answer if it's true, and that was important to discuss because from the start he was basically saying he would just be hyper skeptical of anything because of his own motivations, which doesn't sound like somebody actually willing to change if the evidence indicates he should.
Relax Brian, the day you finally close your. Eyes forever for the last time if it's only darkness for eternity , well you won't even know it. But hey keep looking for a loop hole buddy
then you stop caring for life, and look forward to death, you stop living, not the other side. so what are you seeking? a lie to fall in love with? a waiting for some lie to be true? aim a reallety not lies. only stopid people talk of all the things they does not know about as a life after death ;)
There is no evidence either way--just things that sway you one way or the other. If you don't want to believe, there is nothing that could be presented to you that would make you believe.
