One of the most sane persons on this planet! I love his quiet style, and even more the content of his words! Quite brilliant! We need more like A.C. in this world.
You can stop pretending you or him is sane. It's not sane to think we could get all this on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I adore A. C. Grayling. His whole demeanour and countenance is just so calming and positive. Any person who evokes people to think freely without limits is a hero to me.
You mean this clueless being actually thinks? Do show how. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I see a humanist as a person who acknowledges, accepts, and understands the reality that us (humans) is all we have in this life. If we are going to survive this world we need to do all the work.
Wow .... then YOU are God!! Where do we come to love and adore you? You see things and know things in this universe that the rest of us don't!! And ca't even dream of!!! Good on you!! When it comes to it, the rest of us humans, excluding you, of course, don't ACTUALLY KNOW where we came from and where we go to ... and have no proof either way .... Even those with a faith have purely that .... i.e., a faith or belief ... That can itself be a wonderful thing BUT to know the reality you do is cosmic .... Well done!!
Well, I'd tend to agree with you about the priests, Piesho/Fuzzo ... I'm sure, as in all walks of life, there are some who are OK .. perhaps, anyway ... so, as a humanist myself, I wouldn't like to criticise all of them as I don't know them all BUT they are part of the organised churches (Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons etc) and those churches have a real lot of bad stuff to answer for - the inquisition, torturing and killing people, carrying out sexual depravities on vulnerable human beings and so on. In England, through Queen Bloody Mary, they wiped out/executed a huge number of people ... - what does that have to do with Faith?? Nothing at all .... My point, though, is that, sadly, I see nothing different in the 'Humanist religion/movement' put forward by AC Grayling. He seriously attacks not just the churches (if it were that I could understand ...) but good people, who are not part of the churches who have come to have their own faith in God..... I have personally lived in many countries, spent time talking to ordinary and wonderful people about their different beliefs - many of whom form their views without going to churches or listening to priests of the 'major churches' - many of them have been true humanists - AND I have conducted high level lecture tours throughout Europe AND, put simply, I believe they have a right to their own views without being attacked and vilified by Mr Grayling or 'British Humanist Assocation'. The main vides on the BHA site are deplorable, vile and fascist in many respects ... and it's that which has caused me issues .... If I see a disabled person in the street, I don't make fun of him or really attack his beliefs ... as an analogy, Mr Grayling does literally that with ordinary people who have found their own peace and perhaps faith ..... people who have honestly come to their own conclusions after, in many cases, far more research, I'm sure, than Mr Grayling. Mocking others for their beliefs and, in the case of some of the BHA videos, looking to make points which are wholly inaccurate and untrue, is truly shocking. It is also something that can whip up hatred and if is clearly racist. The 'Humanist reigion/movement' represented by Mr Grayling is far from humanist, IMHO. It has stolen a word that if believes can be helpful to its aims and used it. Anyway, I hope you agree that I can have my own views. I have enjoyed discussing with you. Far from anything ever being 'bad news for me', I truly appreciate what you've said and feel that I can always learn more and to do that it's good to take in opinion from all quarters. For me, life is about truth and learning and being open-minded - so I could never take any extra information as being 'bad for me'. BTW, from 50 years of experience with people all over the world and in short, IN MY VERY HUMBLE OPINION: 1) people are entitled to their own opinions where it doesn't harm/hurt others - otherwise we are indeed fascist 2) the churches do not generally represent the Faiths and 'holy books' they say they do ... Mr Grayling, I'm sure know this and uses this fact ... the Anglican church doesn't adhere to the teachings of the Bible on many, many matters, for example ... far from it 3) As a result of 2), it's important to treat Faith and the churches ideas of Faith as two very different things .... IMHO, 'the holy books' have a lot that's of really high value in them ...' My opinion is NOT the same of the churches and the priests I have experienced. Constantine, who Mr Grayling makes reference to, was someone who used his pronunciations on Faith for his own highly material interests ..... AND the churches have done the same. Neither are a good example of people representing Faith 4) would I chastise or ridicule an individual because they have their own Faith ... 'no' .. For example, if Constantine or the Anglican church do/did something brutal or awkward to meet their own ends, would I run around to my neighbour who just happens to have a believe in God and a Faith and abuse him (the neighbour) because of their actions? ... even if he's not a 'member of a church' ..... No, I wouldn't .... I don't know if there's a God or not ... none of us do ... so why would I ridicule an innocent neighbour? 5) it may interest you to know that when I first considered the established/organised churches - the Catholics in my case - and asked a person who had a general faith in God "How can you have a faith in God with all the Catholic church has done and said', that person immediately said to me 'Have you read Revelation in the Bible?'. I hadn't, as I had no real interest in the book ... BUT the Bible said there (paraphrasing) ... "In the fullness of time the organised Church/es will be found to be the great whore/s that have sat on (i.e., corrupted) true Faith" .... What could be more true, IMHO? To follow your point to me, I don't trust the churche/s in general or their priests .... BUT I will search to develop my own knowledge and what I feel is best for the well-being of all around me 6) Humanism, by classical definition, is about behaving respectfully, with truth and compassion and so forth for our fellow human beings. Sadly, i don't think such values are pursued in the 'Humanist' doctrines of the BHA ... making it no different to the churches, in a way .... Further more, inciting hatred with others and riduling them for the colour of their skin, or their culture/race, or their beliefs is not very 'humanist and, in fact, can be the very root of things like 9/11. 7) why should we, in the end, so aggressively pursue atheism? We can't prove there isn't a God, any more than we can prove there is .. or do some people know more than the rest of us? When I read Darwin's Origin Of Species, by the way, Darwin made many references to 'The Creator' and did, also at the end of his life. Personally on that, I can see 'room for both' without issues .. I believe that evolution is a FACT. God or not is about a belief and is not provable or otherwise by the humans I know. Take care, Piesho/Fuzzo. I wish you only well. Kindest regards.
Well Mr Grayling You have made some very broad sweeping statements.I notice you also base these statements on presumptions. Religion/ Christianity has proven to be false. Religion does indeed bring narrow religious structures. Christianity, on the other hand, calls us to choose. In the person of JESUS CHRIST we see the greatest teacher who spoke against religion. The religious leaders of His day were described as 'whitewashed tombs' full of religion and hypocrisy. And here I do agree with you, religion does bring forth rules and regulations. It is suffocating, but here is the rub: Christ tells us to choose.And this must be, since the creator is THE source of all life and is LOVE. LOVE can only be chosen , to be given and taken, otherwise it isn't Love . As for'thinking' we are urged to pray with the spirit and with understanding, using our hearts AND minds Religion is essentially, join a strcture
........join a structure and do what you are told, and give up free will and thus thinking. Well I didn't give up free will or thinking when I became a christian over 30 years ago. Just ask yourself this: what would Christ do in the cases / scenarios you have set forth.NOT what you set forth religious leaders as being guilty of ( and as I have stated ) I strongly agree with you on.Ugh!! Don't want religion EVER!! And yes I have been religious. I close on this.With free will, based on LOVE, you have chosen to not know and love God, and have exercised your free will. But HE knows and Loves you. To quote the words of Christ 'he that comes to ME I will by No means cast out/forsake/ abandon.
Excellent lecture. Lots of debate, blogs and political discourse are so full of invective and vitriol at the moment. It's refreshing to hear a calm, considered and thoughtful appeal to the more productive aspects of our nature
I agree completely. It sometimes feels like the majority of the discussions or debates going on in the internet just end up in either personal attack, conspiracy theorizing, trolling, or outright egotism. This obsession some people have to be the "winner" as if it were a boxing match. The online talks need more humility and modesty like Mr Grayling displays.
While I agree with your impulse to praise AC, I must remind you (and the others perusing these comments) that there are hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of people who could spew drivel for an hour (or more) without effort, so this is clearly no mark of genius. It's a matter of quality, not quantity. Good health to you!
"Oh damn!" says Anthony and he takes up the responsibility of creating The Good Book. Thank goodness he did. I have read it and it is wonderful. The very last page alone is enough to make one weep with gratitude that these ideas exist. That sounds absurd, mere words, mere philosophy, mere ideas bringing emotion, but these ideas are a great comfort. The Grim Reaper has been disabled and made ineffectual. There is no need to fear death. Thank you Professor Grayling.
I am so envious of those people with a bath in their library :) Seriously, this discussion is to use a religious term "enlightened".We should be grateful that we have people like A.C in our world, who are intelligent enough and compassionate enough to nurture healthy constructive thinking about what it means to be human in this world. I particularly like the insight of taking personal responsibility for how we live, as I think this would help develop a more sensitive and meaningful society.
I agree. Taking personal responsibility is at the heart of a good society, I feel. It's often been 'groupings' - churches, organised religions (be it the major churches, fascist orgainisations, or even the British Humanist Assocation, frankly) and so forth which have brought all of the problems. PERSONAL responsibility is key IMHO.
Thanks for mentioning vegetarianism. The "concern for other sentient animals" needs to take a much more central position in Humanist ethics and choices.
I'm a Christian, and I consider myself a philosopher of sorts. Obviously I subscribe to the secular worldviews, but I do think they're at the very least interesting, and there is a lot that can be learned from them.
Thankfully im now even more content bieng a baby humanist after emancipating myself from monotheism . only this evening after reflcetion of a conversation earlier about free will , stumbled across the word humanism , so this video is the first insight into an already stance of antithiesm bolstoring the assurance as i press forward with hunger and excitment of free thinking in this beautifull life , thank you for this lecture that has given me great insight into humanism .
If so, show how this clueless being can account for how we got all this on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The difference between the Creationist museum and the Natural Selection Museum is that children are told what to think and believe by creationists, but in the Natural Selection Museum children are offered evidence and encouraged to look for themselves and decide if the evidence supports creationism or natural selection.
Why does his tiny brain appeal to you? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
+will tay. Hi Will, greetings; why do you see it as a fight? When the vary person you so highly laud ACG sternly, if ACG can do anything sternly, rather perhaps quaintly advocates, "being a good guest at the dinner of life" a rather middle / upper class if not an aristocratic sort of notion, while so many of us starve to death, but we suppose a 'nice' notion nonetheless. Do you then see fighting as acting as a good guest? I'm reluctant to accept that such is a mere metaphor since history teaches us that fighting in all its forms is what humankind does spontaneously and paradoxically best and worst of all and a "good guest " without PROOF that there is no God should hardly commence to fight about it or even be prepared to fight about it should they? Then again you may well have Inadvertently uncovered a serious problem with Humanism, there are no "real" rules as such in relation to real incentive to behave as a good guest, other than to be a good guest, unfortunately that's not incentive enough is it - for example you wish to fight? Christianity for example has hard rules with consequences [that's crucial for humankind] such as love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemy and as Chesterton said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting it's not been tried". Like with so much else the 'dinner' which sums up the speech , nice metaphor as it may well be, is all it is and may be little more than a form of veneer as you have indeed indicated in your response. Meantime . . . . . .
hi I think that you will find that it is religion and the religious who want to fight .I merely used that as a metaphor to suggest that A C is at the forefront of the struggle against petty dogma and by the way the world would be a much nicer place without dogma and the dogmatic
+will tay. Hi Will, salutations, I hope this finds you in good spirits. If your knowledge of religious is such that they have left you with the conviction thy wish to fight, ergo not defend, then I am compelled to quickly reply that you are mixing, or have mixed, or have knowledge of the wrong religious. The true religious certainly in the Christianity context is mandated to love you, should that not be the case then she / he is living, or more perhaps more poignantly exhibiting "their" Christianity profanely. As for Dogma well all that is like seeing the splinter in your brother's eye without seeing the beam that is in your own, for all of us are Dogmatic, most extremely so. I'll bet you are dogmatic about what time your teenage daughter gets in of a night or if your son is attempting to hold down a relationship with an habitual drug addict. I'll bet you are dogmatic concerning so, so much. I'll readily bet that if your bank made a mistake over your account to your disadvantage you would readily roll off chapter and verse in regard to certain dogmas that are incontrovertible in relation to how they should have behaved and how they must behave with your hard earned money in the future etc. etc. I have friends who are so dogmatic over how their favourite football [soccer] team perform they would put any Pope in history to shame. Judges in secular law courts are so vehemently dogmatic over the law they will sentence people to death even though certain "brains" such as Darkins, Harris etc. etc. scream from the pulpits of academia to inform all and sundry we are all meaningless biological accidents, living meaningless inconsequential existences, in a meaningless universe and there is no moral code whatsoever.
The notion that love plays a large part of any religion is laughable . The dogma of the theist is determined by their superiors and the warped logic of scripture ,if you have been converted by that dogma so be it, I wish all people well but anyone who lives their life tied to a rigid MAGICAL code is lost .We live in a real world where real laws matter and real concerns create environs where we can function through the prism of humanity . Reality really is- that is the real certainty to cling to- Furthermore your attempt to suggest that Dawkins etc. are in some way practising a form of religion is totally misguided and shows a lack of understanding of your environment.
+will tay. Hello will, greetings. Two posts up you say, quote, "the world would be a much place without out dogma and the dogmatic", the underlying concept would seem to be that only religion is dogmatic then. I respond with we are all dogmatic in our convictions and usually to a large extent. You now prove that contention within the post above which is essentially pure dogma, I quote, "The notion that love plays a large part of any religion is laughable". Not only is it a form of pure dogma it flies in the face of the facts. You speak as many atheists do as though religion is something distinct of itself, when in fact religion is of and involves humankind and therefore as with humankind it involves what humankind brings with and to anything and humankind can and does bring Love. Not only that, dealing in specifics, Christianity for example is founded on Love, it is what it is primarily about hence it's founder Christ said "And the second commandment is like it, namely this, you shall Love your neighbour as yourself." Further to which Christians are commanded to Love their enemies also, this was and still is some 2,000 years later, absolutely revolutionary stuff. Now what humankind does with these commands is what humankind does with any commandments or rules, namely some will obey, others will pay lip service to them, others will pretend as when it suits, others will ignore them altogether, while others will argue we don't need them and so on and so on. But no matter what Christians are commanded to Love. Read for example "Story of a Soul" by St. Therese of Lisieux, The life of Damien of Molokai, the life of Charles de Foucauld, St Francis of Assisi, Maximillian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom and so on and so on, the list of examples of "selfless" Love is virtually endless. You then finish the post above this by saying, “Furthermore your attempt to suggest that Dawkins etc. are in some way practising a form of religion is totally misguided and shows a lack of understanding of your environment”. That smacks of typical atheistic assumption you don't know me, you don't know my environment, so you assume without any equivocation whatsoever, just as you assume there is no God. It could just be will, that I understand my environment only too well have paying a hefty price in order to do so but that could never fit into your remit could it? Peace.
Slaves of Religion: The idea of "God" implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty and necessarily ends in the enslavement of humankind both in theory and practice. Those who choose to worship "God" must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but should bravely renounce their liberty and humanity.
Not me, I don't want to be as clueless as he is. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block i was talking about the humanist approuch to life and humanist mentality as something to follow, because religion has totaly failed in 2000 years to be a good example. And as for the creation argument, science allready disprouved that. For all the evidence they have, the birth of the universe and the formation of galaxies and planets it did happen naturaĺly. You just need to get out of your stupid religious books and be informed better
@@2fast2block if science would be an argument for jewish religion every human being on earth would know that. you probably think you know something but i think you're clueless as you claim others to be
Just... just wonderful. Make me ever more eager to live in such a free, equal world where the organised havoc of religion no longer has it's claws buried.
Anyway, when looking at the comments as a whole, he's far from adored!! .... In other official "humanist" videos they say they 'only believe in what can be scientifically evidenced' ... and view anything that is not proven as 'supernatural' .... It must transform one's view of the world in a wonderful way when they eventually find that what they once said was supernatural is in fact ... well ... FACT!! !! A JUMBO JET IN THE SKY was once supernatural and therefore 'impossible'. The EARTH BEING ROUND was once supernatural and therefore 'impossible'. DARWIN saying both creation and evolution were possible in his ORIGIN OF SPECIES (a fact, by the way) was doubtless 'supernatural' and therefore impossible. Latter is 'dangerous' probably .... and probably should be met with a "humanist message" of tell people what Darwin said but don't get them to read the book. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT ALL CHURCHES/RELIGIONS DO! Good thing is when the reality that the supernatural is TRUE hits (Jumbo jets flying, the earth being round). Humanists must then be overjoyed. IT'S LIKE A NEW DISCOVERY! Anyway, the thing that has sparked me is that all these videos spark and crate only hatred ..... and are probably designed to do that. AS these comments show, "humanism" in the is purely about hatred - without any clear target on who the hatred is aimed at. It should be against the churches and religions, if anything, that have committed atrocities. It's just wrong when they cross a difficult line is WHEN THEY START CASTIGATING SIMPLE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LOVE AND HAVE FAITH in their religion. That's just FASCIST. What the next step guys? Burn all the religious books? (I can bet on who would want to make the choices on which ones to burn!!) and start hurting those who disagree. In the "humanist" videos, I'VE LEARNED LITTE ABOUT "HUMANISM" .... all the videos seem to simply centre on castigating others and hatred .... It's all a bit like a fart in a worn-out balloon that goes pop .....
@@lenworth11 I don't know if that was the most irrational, logically inconsistent, deranged, twisted and just plain goofy tirade I've ever read, but it's certainly right up there.
Marvelous lecture from a man of eloquent genius. One mislabeling, though. The Creation Museum is in Petersburg, Kentucky, not Oklahoma as Dr. Grayling said.
Sometimes a harmonious society is not possible because of people who want to force their opinions on others. Tolerance is not a virtue when it is tolerating intolerance in others.
I believe it was F.L. Lucas who answered Shaw’s remark, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same", by noting that among the things we want others to do and should therefore do to others is to take our different tastes into account.
I prescribe to this entirely. But what's funny Is that a lot of the foundation comes from not letting others influence the way you think...but I feel influenced by this and I will welcome it as something that governs the way I think from now on. A classic philosophical conundrum.
This was my first comment on youtube ever. I guess I had hopes for the cyber community, but they have been let down by a single person's rambling response. I'm reading his books right now to better understand his ideas, because they weren't entirely clear to me. If you'd like to honestly counter my argument try using less fowl language--it will make you seem more intelligent which seems to be an effect you need. deary.
+Kathleen McCarthey I think that Grayling is trying to show that what we need to learn is how to think, not what to think. It is OK to be influenced in that way. As Christopher Hitchens said, My only regret is that I have not learned nearly enough. Reason, skepticism and the willingness to accept that which is evidently true, whether it is agreeable to us or not, are important tools with which to weed out the woo and find the reality. Keep improving your knowledge and you will certainly find yourself living a happier life. Peace.
Main thing is for us all to go forward with positives and things that work for us .... hopefully with all the good qualities that true humanism suggests - most of all respect and care for our fellow human beings. I do find it sad though ... A close friend of mine died recently and I discovered he was a humanist, so I viewed the BHumanistAssociation (BHA) videos only to discoved a lot of horribly disparaging remarks about those in faith and what they believe in ...... Simply purposeful misrepresentations .... Having discussed faith in so many cultures around the world, I know that what is in those videos is ... well..... completely incorrect, if I am being polite ..... completely offensive to good people, if I am not ..... and I felt incensed for those I know who are good, honest, well-meaning, peaceable people ... It makes me question why atheists would want to disparage others ... what is the gain?? Especially remembering that most faiths say in their holy books that 'the churches can do awful things' (we know that) and can 'sit on true faith'. It's made me think more that there is a God .. otherwise why would atheists want so much to press that there is not? What would they get out of it?? I see no balance in the BHA videos and moreover see things that are purposely aggressive and incorrect .... I guess it is good food for thought ... BUT I don't see it as being very intelligently put together .... I read Darwin's Origin of Species and when I read that it talked very pointedly of 'The Creator' ... When he died, his partner, Lady Hope, said that his views had been pounced on the atheist community and misrepresented in a big way .... Personally, I can see a beauty in Faith, if we have it ... i.e., in trusting although we don't ahve proof ... but it is Faith even if supported by the ideas of Hope for the futrue of others and most of all, love ...... AND I can also see that as human beings we are capable of evolving ... Creation does not preclude evolution ... and vice-versa .... One thing, also, atheists can sell a lot of books!!! At high prices, too!!! Good luck!!
I thought I'd just add that I feel your comment is competely right .... not to allow undue influence .... It's a difficult balance, though .... I've also felt personally that it's good not to close my mind to anything .... it's the way we all learn, after all ... but to be questioning and decide for myself what my conculsions are .....
I would like to argue the most humanist manner to deal with the issues of Religion. Is to simply portray the universal lessons shared amongst many world religions that compliment humanism. And to adapt the following attitude... Despite our differences and separate beliefs, for everyone's best interest, spiritualism in the form of attempting to do good by paying homage to our fealty, whatever you believe that fealty to be(From a benevolent being, Unknown sources, or scientific theory) can be accomplished by attempting to live by 3 moral universalities that are shared amongst many world religions and humanists beliefs. The three moral universalities. Recognize that fear can lead to inaction & improper actions. Pursue happiness for yourself and others, by recognizing your dreams and taking action. Recognize that our differences do not divide us, but makes us stronger as a whole.
Just looking through the comments I see a group of people thoroughly dogmatically indoctrinated. "What a wise man", "so calming and positive", : I can never get enough" , "A wonderful speech! Grayling is a credit to the Humanist movement", "I'm a Humanist and I'm looking to communicate with like-minded individuals...."
A very difficult question with a very simple answer my dear friend. Humanism is not a soapbox to stand on to bash Doctrine. Wrong or right it's not for anyone to judge. To seek wisdom is the hypostasis of true spirituality, the "understanding" of ones self, as you have stated, " know thyself" I give you Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get Wisdom and in all thy getting get Understanding. I believe this is the very Definition of Humanism. Call it what you want, but it is what is🙏✌💜
Humanism tells me that religion is trying to control me by telling me what to do. Then turns around and tells me to be good. LOL! Why should I? Can humanism answer this???
A wonderful speech! Grayling is a credit to the Humanist movement and a hard-if not impossible-act to follow. One bum note though, for me at least. At 31'02" he opines the following. "We're moving back into a more puritanical age. Turn the pages of "The Times" newspaper and what do you see? Page after page after page after page about ageing DJs and what they got up to in the 60s." Puritanical? No. It's simply that we've entered an age when it's possible to expose to the world the horrific misdeeds of child-rapists, both past and present. The internet has many faults but such openness is certainly not among them.
Don't be fooled (commenters) by his calmness. It's the old modernist trick to make you fall asleep while they change the scenery. He might be right but a lecture is singing to the choir - a bully pulpit, as it were. I'm glad that since this video came out, UK Humanists have done the bus poster thing - "There is no good so stop feeling guilty and enjoy life"
I live in Kentucky...where the Creation museum is. Yes, it is a human rights abuse to take school children through. It is a Constitutional violation that we the taxpayers are paying for the incentives the state gave the museum to locate here. I hope the public schools aren't taking the kids to this museum.
My long deceased grandfather was fond of saying "it's nice to be nice". He was a devout Catholic who believed that human beings were all children of God. His frequent exhortation thus flowed naturally from his commitment to Christianity. A simple question to ACG, who seems more concerned with attacking religion than enumerating the precepts of Humanism: Why sir is it nice to be nice?
+Giambattista Vico Because Christian thought is rooted in the transcendent it is possible to say that the Spanish Inquisition and sex abuse scandals were/are unequivocally wrong on objective grounds. In the absence of such transcendence all moral judgments are a matter of opinion. My question to ACG stands. What is it nice to be nice?
+oldschoolsaint unless you're somewhere on the psycopathy scale you need to be nice to others to live a fulfilled life. It's the only one you get. Also, even if you don't gain happiness by being kind it's still generally in your best interest not to be mean.
+oldschoolsaint My individual interpretation of one of the 40,000 religions is objectively the right one. No one else's is correct but mine and I know this just because I do.
+oldschoolsaint There are many philosophical moral theories other than Christian deontology. There's Kant's universal maxim, Aristotle's virtue ethics,and social contract theory. All of the provide a means by which one can criticize the morals of others. Also, even if morality is just an opinion, ethics certainly is not. There are ways for people to act in a society that are beneficial and I beneficial to that society. People seem to get ethics and morality confused a lot these days. Ethics refers societal systems such as laws while morality refers to good and evil.
It is a characteristics of A.C. Grayling is his unfortunate carelessness about facts. The detail matters. Thus for instance, he ignores the debates within the western church epitomised by Thomas Aquinas. Differences not merely between religions but amongst theologians are legion. Likewise telescoping events of history without context is plain wrong,. The classical tradition needs likewise to be given something more sophisticated than endorsement. Grayling writes off Plato's 'fascism' which may be right but Aristotle likewise wrote off more than half of society, slaves and women. Cicero was scarcely a systematic thinker but an essayist. But even here, opposing one tradition with another is less coherent that working one the principles of better and worse and the flawed nature of all human beings. He touches on this but then simplifies in the next paragraph if not the next sentence. He ranges over such a huge range but without careful discrimination. For these reasons he discourages me from following him. His conversation with Tom Holland was an wonderful demonstration of Grayling being caught out again and again.
Humanism doesn't have all the answers, we're just faulty, evolving apes, stuck with each other on this planet. We're subject to our own imperfections and flaws etc... However, we have a capacity for love and to do good to each other, we see the world for what it is and not what we imagine or want it to be. If there is an evil force in the world it is religion. We have to demand more of each other and stop accepting and respecting infantile beliefs. Religion has such incredibly low expectations for humanities potential, it snuffs out what's genuinely joyful inside us and degrades us all.
***** Did you listen or understand one word of what AC Grayling actually said? It seems not!!!! He specifically said that EVERYONE has to think of their own moral code. He said we do not tell you what to think only how to think
What strikes me is that 'the human species is very young in terms of knowledge and understanding'' ... When we look back in 100 years time to what we know now, we'll once again think 'wow, we've moved on a lot' and that 'we didn't understand a fat lot 100 years ago, did we .....? ... ' That's for sure, isn't it .... 350 tonne airplanes floating in the sky would have been deemed supernatural 200 years ago .. and perhaps something we would never have believed in .. as we had no scientific evidence jumbo jet flight was possible. I don't know where we came from and where we'll end up .... main thing IMHO is to live good lives, with good values and to care for all those around us whatever their race, their skin colour, their preferences, or their beliefs - at least, where those around us are not themselves provoking or causing harm to others!! ....
Don't forget that humanism in the organised form of the British Humanist Assocation is itself a religion ... so, I'm not sure that things aren't getting a little indiscriminate and 'circular' here. I think we need to be careful not to castigate all those who hold views about life and faith and their personal beliefs .... otherwise we might go down a track of despising all those who hold any views at all and that, in turn, is precisely the kind of thing that leads to 9/11 and so on.
Humanism is incoherent, I think. For the humanist, such as Grayling above, clearly thinks there are reasons to behave in some ways and not others. Yet reasons to do things are biddings of Reason. That is, to have a reason to do something is to be being bid do it by Reason. However, only a person - a mind - can bid anyone do anything. And thus Reason is a mind. And that mind will qualify as a god (God, in fact).
To these clueless beings, this all came about on its own, no God needed. Too bad that they have NO evidence for their silly side. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
These clueless beings flatter their empty selves thinking they follow science and no God is needed. Too bad they can only pretend to follow science because they sure don't. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
There's no real connection. Renaissance humanism was a scholarly movement. Humanism is understood today to refer to a non-religious way of seeing the world and approaching moral questions.
@@HumanistsUK - Actually, that's not accurate. What is commonly known as humanism today is in reality "secular humanism." There is such a thing as "Christian Humanism" so it is presumptuous for the secularists to steal the term just for themselves.
@@MGBetts1 I suppose one could define "humanism" in such a way so that "Christian Humanism" would not be a contradiction, but I, for one, would not recognize such a definition. Humanism, as explained in this lecture, is inherently non-religious.
My son seems to have become indoctrinated into Conservative Christianity in US Army boot camp when he was 19 just in time to fall in with President Regan’s spiel.
Well then show how smart you are and show your son how the creation of the universe happened all on its own. See, it is YOU that is indoctrinated. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
As a person who also loves truth, i am quick to see a lie. when the Lecturer said that religion teaches one what to think, I say that he is only partially correct. True Christianity doesn't teach what to think But like a true philosopher, it teaches one to seek the TRUTH. JESUS said "Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given. knock and it will be open" So this principle is an attitude of a perpetual researcher. I stand on this principle because this attitude is what emptied me of religion and into agnosticism and eventually into the hands of Jesus himself. And if anyone thinks that this is only my opinion and not the truth and await humbly for someone to show me how my truth is not the TRUTH.
The stuff you said about do unto others reminded me of the Water Babies, the good and bad sister characters. Of course Charles Kingsley was a racist as well as religious. I worked in a sector where equal ops interviews are the trend, this was part of a neo-liberal agenda and had little to do with equality itself. I noticed that, at first, the answer to the specific question on equal ops required listing the categories who shouldn't be discriminated against (where a simple answer was no-one). But a bit later the same question required the additional answer that differences have to be acknowledged, someone out there must have listened to your philosophy. A few years ago I began to think Mary Whitehouse had a point cos all we see on film is violent sex. Even some Me Too women would consider it liberating to watch women instigate a sexual act that saw her thrown on to a table top or sink (the trend at the moment). One thing seems to lead to another. We fought the car, or some of us did in the 1960s early 1970s but the car won and as for plastic we are not satisfied with local and seasonal stuff need packaging. The new environmentalists, namely extinction rebellion never mention getting rid of cars only replacing them with electric ones. An idea that's not sustainable unless they are powered by nuclear. It'll just lead to the creation of more hot cells. I heat one room to 15 degrees by the way and have been aware of our impact on the climate for 50 years. I write this because all these new movements are popularist and encouraged by the monopolists, thus I don't trust them. During the incarceration this year (2020) almost all astrologers are advocating your or Carl Jung's ideas. But as much as I agree with most of what you say, these views are creating a supremacist stance and a craving for dominance, so I've began to view the new movement as neo-fascist movements, with a redefined meaning of fascism. Not that I've ever been able to define it really. People are doing less thinking daily in my view and it must be much harder being a philosopher these days because you'd be slaughtered if you countered the views of the new movements publicly. Up until 10 years ago I agreed with you on religion but I like the way people live in Arab countries, particularly Syria and Lebanon, where I spend time, so have come to appreciate religion a bit more. I'm still an unbeliever to the core, my mother was brought up a Christian who thought they were all hypocrites, so I had good grounding. I believe its the worship of money on one hand and fear of losing their cultural identity on the other that makes people do bad things. No wonder as certain powerful people own most of the wealth and impose their value systems on others.
I consider myself a humanist, and agree with a lot of what Grayling says. He presents amazingly well. However, there seems to be a common contradiction among humanists like Grayling and Dawkins, in that they advocate for freedom of thought, unless you think religiously. They argue even against social pressure, but seem to want to create social pressure against religion. I have a hard time reconciling this contradiction with my own humanist values.
He's no thinker. Yeah, his hair is nice, much better than mine, but under his hair is still a tiny brain that actually thinks we got all this on its own. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I'm a Humanist and I'm looking to communicate with like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, it's not very easy for me to find any. I do believe the Humanist worldview will ultimately prevail as people continue to educate themselves on the natural world and human history.
It's said that there's going to be a second level of human civilization (I believe that. Of course if we don't destroy means that make earth habitable for us, humans before that level happens). There and than we'll be humanists in practice beyond only exchanging notions. Takes lots of personal and social suffer and experience to master humanity, especially when we think about we're not even okay with our own selves yet (beyond artificially overgrown egos), let alone pursuing social harmony. I'm not very active on google+. but if you'd add me, you'll have a humanist friend my dear.
Tulay Besli In my opinion, religion offers no hope for the problem of human suffering. People still use the label of 'evil' which offers us no hope of understanding the true nature of our actions. At least neuroscience is starting to unravel the science behind 'evil', or what people traditionally label as evil. That in turn provides a real sense of hope that we can soon understand and correct the problem, which will truly improve the human experience. Yes, improving the human experience also includes preserving the environment and biodiversity on this planet. When we learn how to do deal with tragedy appropriately, without fantasizing about make-believe afterlives, dubbed the 'better places', only then will we be able to truly honor life the way it should be honored. Okay, I added you.
:) If you took my mention of second level of human civilization as something related to religion, I sure made my statement unclear. No, it's fully a scientific statement. And yes, I do agree with you, religion can't be a solution. It couldn't be so far, history clearly shows, on the contrary created even more evil. I can't agree more on your statement about evil. If we don't accept duality of nature, including in our own duality, we can't solve nothing. Everyone offers haven on earth, but no one succeeds, cause there's no model of haven includes angels and devils together, which we're both in nature. Glad you added me. I can tell, we can have good conversations. Welcome friend. :)
Tulay Besli Likewise. I actually interpreted your second level statement to be more scientific, not religious. I'm afraid people like us are going to have to be more active in society. Right now the dangerous effects of religious thinking are hidden by the positive effects religious activist groups have on society. Whenever there is a natural disaster it is the religious organizations that are on the scene helping. They also provide much charity to the poor and homeless populations. Humanists need to be engaged much more in these activities to drown out their contributions, so people can start focusing on all the negative effects religion has on societies, which in my opinion are far more dangerous than people realize.
well, when you think about all the sources they have they better do some charity in order to look good. yup, to look good. and religious organizations being on disaster sites directly related to most of the organizations being started under religious structures. there was no other structure but government and church. we pretty much carry on what's once started. of course free standing (non-governmental and non-religious) bodies a recent happening and it will take time for them to be effective in social arena. we have to understand how hard for them to thrive when those dinosaurs still alive and consume what's out there. :) I personally admire MSF more than any other.
What is the meaning of life according to the Lecturer? It what you make of it he answers. That is as subjective an answer as anyone who just assumes that there is a God without investigating his assumption.
I admire Mr. Grayling intellectual gift but I wonder if he ever had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I am guessing that he has not. For me to totally appreciate his teaching, is almost like expecting a bird that has never swim under water telling a fish what water is like. Religion is another form of living made up of philosophical views and regulations but that is not what makes believers. What makes believers is having a especial experience with our Lord Jesus Christ. Only those who experience this life transformation are the one qualified to tell about it. This transformation is eternal and is not made up of rules, legalism, social construct or other acts. I agreed with Mr. Grayling when he said that if one tries to change a Christian's mind they will never succeed. This is not because we are not close minded but because of the internal experience that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ that has killed the old sinful self and has replace it with a new spiritual life. This new spiritual life not only impacts our spirit but everything else in our lives. Jesus said let those who have eyes, see and those who have ears hear. In other words only those who have a personal experience with Christ can see and hear spiritual truth. I strongly encourage Mr. Grayling to experience what we experience in Christ. It is then that he will be qualified to speak about our faith. I am not being sarcastic or disrespectful. I am only being honest.
Would you consider those who have a personal relationship with Allah or Vishnu or Zeus are right when they say the same thing as you? I am sure they feel they have a special relationship with their imaginary friends as well. I assume you were born into a christian nation and by the luck of the draw, you have found the one 'true' faith.
he's just making stuff up on the one hand he cites apologetics and the next moment he is claiming that in the same time period he is claiming that christianity was the only religion - and in between stating that somehow in the high middle ages everyone was burned for heresy if they were a heretic - which is simply not true
If you quote Stalin, as dictator I supose, than why not mention what UK as dictatorship has done to people in colonies? Just thinking about what is fair, you know, and what kind of messages are shared.
One of the most sane persons on this planet! I love his quiet style, and even more the content of his words! Quite brilliant! We need more like A.C. in this world.
You can stop pretending you or him is sane. It's not sane to think we could get all this on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I adore A. C. Grayling. His whole demeanour and countenance is just so calming and positive. Any person who evokes people to think freely without limits is a hero to me.
You mean this clueless being actually thinks? Do show how.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
it's always a pleasure to hear such a great lecturer. Humansitically yours !
a calm and reasoned thesis a brilliant speaker and a valuable asset to humanism
Not merely a smart man, but a deeply wise man. One of my intellectual heroes.
I see a humanist as a person who acknowledges, accepts, and understands the reality that us (humans) is all we have in this life. If we are going to survive this world we need to do all the work.
Wow .... then YOU are God!! Where do we come to love and adore you? You see things and know things in this universe that the rest of us don't!! And ca't even dream of!!! Good on you!! When it comes to it, the rest of us humans, excluding you, of course, don't ACTUALLY KNOW where we came from and where we go to ... and have no proof either way .... Even those with a faith have purely that .... i.e., a faith or belief ... That can itself be a wonderful thing BUT to know the reality you do is cosmic .... Well done!!
Well, I'd tend to agree with you about the priests, Piesho/Fuzzo ... I'm sure, as in all walks of life, there are some who are OK .. perhaps, anyway ... so, as a humanist myself, I wouldn't like to criticise all of them as I don't know them all BUT they are part of the organised churches (Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons etc) and those churches have a real lot of bad stuff to answer for - the inquisition, torturing and killing people, carrying out sexual depravities on vulnerable human beings and so on. In England, through Queen Bloody Mary, they wiped out/executed a huge number of people ... - what does that have to do with Faith?? Nothing at all .... My point, though, is that, sadly, I see nothing different in the 'Humanist religion/movement' put forward by AC Grayling. He seriously attacks not just the churches (if it were that I could understand ...) but good people, who are not part of the churches who have come to have their own faith in God..... I have personally lived in many countries, spent time talking to ordinary and wonderful people about their different beliefs - many of whom form their views without going to churches or listening to priests of the 'major churches' - many of them have been true humanists - AND I have conducted high level lecture tours throughout Europe AND, put simply, I believe they have a right to their own views without being attacked and vilified by Mr Grayling or 'British Humanist Assocation'. The main vides on the BHA site are deplorable, vile and fascist in many respects ... and it's that which has caused me issues .... If I see a disabled person in the street, I don't make fun of him or really attack his beliefs ... as an analogy, Mr Grayling does literally that with ordinary people who have found their own peace and perhaps faith ..... people who have honestly come to their own conclusions after, in many cases, far more research, I'm sure, than Mr Grayling. Mocking others for their beliefs and, in the case of some of the BHA videos, looking to make points which are wholly inaccurate and untrue, is truly shocking. It is also something that can whip up hatred and if is clearly racist. The 'Humanist reigion/movement' represented by Mr Grayling is far from humanist, IMHO. It has stolen a word that if believes can be helpful to its aims and used it.
Anyway, I hope you agree that I can have my own views. I have enjoyed discussing with you. Far from anything ever being 'bad news for me', I truly appreciate what you've said and feel that I can always learn more and to do that it's good to take in opinion from all quarters. For me, life is about truth and learning and being open-minded - so I could never take any extra information as being 'bad for me'. BTW, from 50 years of experience with people all over the world and in short, IN MY VERY HUMBLE OPINION:
1) people are entitled to their own opinions where it doesn't harm/hurt others - otherwise we are indeed fascist
2) the churches do not generally represent the Faiths and 'holy books' they say they do ... Mr Grayling, I'm sure know this and uses this fact ... the Anglican church doesn't adhere to the teachings of the Bible on many, many matters, for example ... far from it
3) As a result of 2), it's important to treat Faith and the churches ideas of Faith as two very different things .... IMHO, 'the holy books' have a lot that's of really high value in them ...' My opinion is NOT the same of the churches and the priests I have experienced. Constantine, who Mr Grayling makes reference to, was someone who used his pronunciations on Faith for his own highly material interests ..... AND the churches have done the same. Neither are a good example of people representing Faith
4) would I chastise or ridicule an individual because they have their own Faith ... 'no' .. For example, if Constantine or the Anglican church do/did something brutal or awkward to meet their own ends, would I run around to my neighbour who just happens to have a believe in God and a Faith and abuse him (the neighbour) because of their actions? ... even if he's not a 'member of a church' ..... No, I wouldn't .... I don't know if there's a God or not ... none of us do ... so why would I ridicule an innocent neighbour?
5) it may interest you to know that when I first considered the established/organised churches - the Catholics in my case - and asked a person who had a general faith in God "How can you have a faith in God with all the Catholic church has done and said', that person immediately said to me 'Have you read Revelation in the Bible?'. I hadn't, as I had no real interest in the book ... BUT the Bible said there (paraphrasing) ... "In the fullness of time the organised Church/es will be found to be the great whore/s that have sat on (i.e., corrupted) true Faith" .... What could be more true, IMHO? To follow your point to me, I don't trust the churche/s in general or their priests .... BUT I will search to develop my own knowledge and what I feel is best for the well-being of all around me
6) Humanism, by classical definition, is about behaving respectfully, with truth and compassion and so forth for our fellow human beings. Sadly, i don't think such values are pursued in the 'Humanist' doctrines of the BHA ... making it no different to the churches, in a way .... Further more, inciting hatred with others and riduling them for the colour of their skin, or their culture/race, or their beliefs is not very 'humanist and, in fact, can be the very root of things like 9/11.
7) why should we, in the end, so aggressively pursue atheism? We can't prove there isn't a God, any more than we can prove there is .. or do some people know more than the rest of us? When I read Darwin's Origin Of Species, by the way, Darwin made many references to 'The Creator' and did, also at the end of his life. Personally on that, I can see 'room for both' without issues .. I believe that evolution is a FACT. God or not is about a belief and is not provable or otherwise by the humans I know.
Take care, Piesho/Fuzzo. I wish you only well. Kindest regards.
Today I learned the meaning of the word "fuzzo". Thanks for that.
Well Mr Grayling
You have made some very broad sweeping statements.I notice you also base these statements on presumptions.
Religion/ Christianity
has proven to be false.
Religion does indeed bring narrow religious structures.
Christianity, on the other hand, calls us to choose.
In the person of JESUS CHRIST we see the greatest teacher who spoke against religion.
The religious leaders of His day were described as 'whitewashed tombs'
full of religion and hypocrisy. And here I do agree with you, religion does bring forth rules and regulations. It is suffocating, but here is the rub: Christ tells us to choose.And this must be, since the creator is THE source of all life and is LOVE. LOVE can only be
chosen , to be given and taken, otherwise it isn't Love . As for'thinking' we are urged to pray with the spirit and with understanding, using our hearts AND minds Religion is essentially, join a strcture
........join a structure and do what you are told, and give up free will and thus thinking. Well I didn't give up free will or thinking when I became a christian over 30 years ago. Just ask yourself this: what would Christ do in the cases / scenarios you have set forth.NOT what you set forth religious leaders as being guilty of ( and as I have stated ) I strongly agree with you on.Ugh!!
Don't want religion EVER!!
And yes I have been religious.
I close on this.With free will, based on LOVE, you have chosen to not know and love God, and have exercised your free will.
But HE knows and Loves you. To quote the words of Christ 'he that comes to ME I will by No means cast out/forsake/ abandon.
What a wonderful and wise man! One of the best teachings I ever listened to.
Thank you very much for uploading this! I can never get enough of AC Grayling.
What a brilliant speech, a natural orator!
The first time i am listening to this man. I am glad I stumbled across this video.
Excellent lecture. Lots of debate, blogs and political discourse are so full of invective and vitriol at the moment. It's refreshing to hear a calm, considered and thoughtful appeal to the more productive aspects of our nature
I agree completely. It sometimes feels like the majority of the discussions or debates going on in the internet just end up in either personal attack, conspiracy theorizing, trolling, or outright egotism. This obsession some people have to be the "winner" as if it were a boxing match.
The online talks need more humility and modesty like Mr Grayling displays.
To be able to talk for almost an hour is the mark of a genius.
While I agree with your impulse to praise AC, I must remind you (and the others perusing these comments) that there are hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of people who could spew drivel for an hour (or more) without effort, so this is clearly no mark of genius.
It's a matter of quality, not quantity.
Good health to you!
He gives me hope in humanity.
He made me lose it.
This was just brilliant - I could listen to this man read out the phone directory.
"Oh damn!" says Anthony and he takes up the responsibility of creating The Good Book. Thank goodness he did. I have read it and it is wonderful. The very last page alone is enough to make one weep with gratitude that these ideas exist. That sounds absurd, mere words, mere philosophy, mere ideas bringing emotion, but these ideas are a great comfort. The Grim Reaper has been disabled and made ineffectual. There is no need to fear death. Thank you Professor Grayling.
Amazing mind.Can listen to him for an hour and gather great insight from his lifetime of study.
What a wonderfully wise man
I am ... have we met?
I love him. He is so articulate.
I am so envious of those people with a bath in their library :)
Seriously, this discussion is to use a religious term "enlightened".We should be grateful that we have people like A.C in our world, who are intelligent enough and compassionate enough to nurture healthy constructive thinking about what it means to be human in this world. I particularly like the insight of taking personal responsibility for how we live, as I think this would help develop a more sensitive and meaningful society.
I agree. Taking personal responsibility is at the heart of a good society, I feel. It's often been 'groupings' - churches, organised religions (be it the major churches, fascist orgainisations, or even the British Humanist Assocation, frankly) and so forth which have brought all of the problems. PERSONAL responsibility is key IMHO.
Thanks for mentioning vegetarianism. The "concern for other sentient animals" needs to take a much more central position in Humanist ethics and choices.
I'm a Christian, and I consider myself a philosopher of sorts. Obviously I subscribe to the secular worldviews, but I do think they're at the very least interesting, and there is a lot that can be learned from them.
Such a beautiful mind! Thank you Professor Grayling 🙂
I didn't know I was a humanist. This man reminded me.
Inspiring speech. Great watch and thought provoking. Thanks for the upload (even though I am 'late to the scene')
Thankfully im now even more content bieng a baby humanist after emancipating myself from monotheism . only this evening after reflcetion of a conversation earlier about free will , stumbled across the word humanism , so this video is the first insight into an already stance of antithiesm bolstoring the assurance as i press forward with hunger and excitment of free thinking in this beautifull life , thank you for this lecture that has given me great insight into humanism .
This was outstanding. Thank you!
If so, show how this clueless being can account for how we got all this on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I felt like he was talking about my life experience. This is amazing. Awesome lecture.
This is like six different kinds of wonderful. Thanks for posting.
I agree!!! This was fantastic!
Very clear and thorough. I enjoyed all 56:44.
The difference between the Creationist museum and the Natural Selection Museum is that children are told what to think and believe by creationists, but in the Natural Selection Museum children are offered evidence and encouraged to look for themselves and decide if the evidence supports creationism or natural selection.
Very grateful for this being available
Why does his tiny brain appeal to you?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Humanism and reason personified. Inspiring and breathtakingly eloquent.
ac is one of the best speakers on this subject and such a valuable part of the fight against theism
+will tay. Hi Will, greetings; why do you see it as a fight? When the vary person you so highly laud ACG sternly, if ACG can do anything sternly, rather perhaps quaintly advocates, "being a good guest at the dinner of life" a rather middle / upper class if not an aristocratic sort of notion, while so many of us starve to death, but we suppose a 'nice' notion nonetheless. Do you then see fighting as acting as a good guest? I'm reluctant to accept that such is a mere metaphor since history teaches us that fighting in all its forms is what humankind does spontaneously and paradoxically best and worst of all and a "good guest " without PROOF that there is no God should hardly commence to fight about it or even be prepared to fight about it should they? Then again you may well have Inadvertently uncovered a serious problem with Humanism, there are no "real" rules as such in relation to real incentive to behave as a good guest, other than to be a good guest, unfortunately that's not incentive enough is it - for example you wish to fight? Christianity for example has hard rules with consequences [that's crucial for humankind] such as love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemy and as Chesterton said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting it's not been tried". Like with so much else the 'dinner' which sums up the speech , nice metaphor as it may well be, is all it is and may be little more than a form of veneer as you have indeed indicated in your response. Meantime . . . . . .
hi I think that you will find that it is religion and the religious who want to fight .I merely used that as a metaphor to suggest that A C is at the forefront of the struggle against petty dogma and by the way the world would be a much nicer place without dogma and the dogmatic
+will tay. Hi Will, salutations, I hope this finds you in good spirits. If your knowledge of religious is such that they have left you with the conviction thy wish to fight, ergo not defend, then I am compelled to quickly reply that you are mixing, or have mixed, or have knowledge of the wrong religious. The true religious certainly in the Christianity context is mandated to love you, should that not be the case then she / he is living, or more perhaps more poignantly exhibiting "their" Christianity profanely. As for Dogma well all that is like seeing the splinter in your brother's eye without seeing the beam that is in your own, for all of us are Dogmatic, most extremely so. I'll bet you are dogmatic about what time your teenage daughter gets in of a night or if your son is attempting to hold down a relationship with an habitual drug addict. I'll bet you are dogmatic concerning so, so much. I'll readily bet that if your bank made a mistake over your account to your disadvantage you would readily roll off chapter and verse in regard to certain dogmas that are incontrovertible in relation to how they should have behaved and how they must behave with your hard earned money in the future etc. etc. I have friends who are so dogmatic over how their favourite football [soccer] team perform they would put any Pope in history to shame. Judges in secular law courts are so vehemently dogmatic over the law they will sentence people to death even though certain "brains" such as Darkins, Harris etc. etc. scream from the pulpits of academia to inform all and sundry we are all meaningless biological accidents, living meaningless inconsequential existences, in a meaningless universe and there is no moral code whatsoever.
The notion that love plays a large part of any religion is laughable . The dogma of the theist is determined by their superiors and the warped logic of scripture ,if you have been converted by that dogma so be it, I wish all people well but anyone who lives their life tied to a rigid MAGICAL code is lost .We live in a real world where real laws matter and real concerns create environs where we can function through the prism of humanity . Reality really is- that is the real certainty to cling to- Furthermore your attempt to suggest that Dawkins etc. are in some way practising a form of religion is totally misguided and shows a lack of understanding of your environment.
+will tay. Hello will, greetings. Two posts up you say, quote, "the world would be a much place without out dogma and the dogmatic", the underlying concept would seem to be that only religion is dogmatic then. I respond with we are all dogmatic in our convictions and usually to a large extent. You now prove that contention within the post above which is essentially pure dogma, I quote, "The notion that love plays a large part of any religion is laughable". Not only is it a form of pure dogma it flies in the face of the facts. You speak as many atheists do as though religion is something distinct of itself, when in fact religion is of and involves humankind and therefore as with humankind it involves what humankind brings with and to anything and humankind can and does bring Love. Not only that, dealing in specifics, Christianity for example is founded on Love, it is what it is primarily about hence it's founder Christ said "And the second commandment is like it, namely this, you shall Love your neighbour as yourself." Further to which Christians are commanded to Love their enemies also, this was and still is some 2,000 years later, absolutely revolutionary stuff. Now what humankind does with these commands is what humankind does with any commandments or rules, namely some will obey, others will pay lip service to them, others will pretend as when it suits, others will ignore them altogether, while others will argue we don't need them and so on and so on. But no matter what Christians are commanded to Love. Read for example "Story of a Soul" by St. Therese of Lisieux, The life of Damien of Molokai, the life of Charles de Foucauld, St Francis of Assisi, Maximillian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom and so on and so on, the list of examples of "selfless" Love is virtually endless.
You then finish the post above this by saying, “Furthermore your attempt to suggest that Dawkins etc. are in some way practising a form of religion is totally misguided and shows a lack of understanding of your environment”. That smacks of typical atheistic assumption you don't know me, you don't know my environment, so you assume without any equivocation whatsoever, just as you assume there is no God. It could just be will, that I understand my environment only too well have paying a hefty price in order to do so but that could never fit into your remit could it? Peace.
Slaves of Religion: The idea of "God" implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty and necessarily ends in the enslavement of humankind both in theory and practice. Those who choose to worship "God" must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but should bravely renounce their liberty and humanity.
If the power of example should be something to follow, we follow AC Grayling
Not me, I don't want to be as clueless as he is.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block i was talking about the humanist approuch to life and humanist mentality as something to follow, because religion has totaly failed in 2000 years to be a good example. And as for the creation argument, science allready disprouved that. For all the evidence they have, the birth of the universe and the formation of galaxies and planets it did happen naturaĺly. You just need to get out of your stupid religious books and be informed better
@@2fast2block i see your christian cross in your image. i wonder if jesus would have been impaled what would you have done?
@@dragosflorentin2427 first off, you can't see, and second, you run from basic science. What other blah blah do you have to fill in space?
@@2fast2block if science would be an argument for jewish religion every human being on earth would know that. you probably think you know something but i think you're clueless as you claim others to be
Just... just wonderful. Make me ever more eager to live in such a free, equal world where the organised havoc of religion no longer has it's claws buried.
Almost.... almost happened but managed to keep the cave firmly shut for now. He's definitely worth a poop though.
Anyway, when looking at the comments as a whole, he's far from adored!! .... In other official "humanist" videos they say they 'only believe in what can be scientifically evidenced' ... and view anything that is not proven as 'supernatural' .... It must transform one's view of the world in a wonderful way when they eventually find that what they once said was supernatural is in fact ... well ... FACT!! !! A JUMBO JET IN THE SKY was once supernatural and therefore 'impossible'. The EARTH BEING ROUND was once supernatural and therefore 'impossible'. DARWIN saying both creation and evolution were possible in his ORIGIN OF SPECIES (a fact, by the way) was doubtless 'supernatural' and therefore impossible. Latter is 'dangerous' probably .... and probably should be met with a "humanist message" of tell people what Darwin said but don't get them to read the book. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT ALL CHURCHES/RELIGIONS DO! Good thing is when the reality that the supernatural is TRUE hits (Jumbo jets flying, the earth being round). Humanists must then be overjoyed. IT'S LIKE A NEW DISCOVERY! Anyway, the thing that has sparked me is that all these videos spark and crate only hatred ..... and are probably designed to do that. AS these comments show, "humanism" in the is purely about hatred - without any clear target on who the hatred is aimed at. It should be against the churches and religions, if anything, that have committed atrocities. It's just wrong when they cross a difficult line is WHEN THEY START CASTIGATING SIMPLE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LOVE AND HAVE FAITH in their religion. That's just FASCIST. What the next step guys? Burn all the religious books? (I can bet on who would want to make the choices on which ones to burn!!) and start hurting those who disagree. In the "humanist" videos, I'VE LEARNED LITTE ABOUT "HUMANISM" .... all the videos seem to simply centre on castigating others and hatred .... It's all a bit like a fart in a worn-out balloon that goes pop .....
@@lenworth11 I don't know if that was the most irrational, logically inconsistent, deranged, twisted and just plain goofy tirade I've ever read, but it's certainly right up there.
Marvelous lecture from a man of eloquent genius. One mislabeling, though. The Creation Museum is in Petersburg, Kentucky, not Oklahoma as Dr. Grayling said.
do no harm...recognize individuality..a path to harmonious society?
Sometimes a harmonious society is not possible because of people who want to force their opinions on others. Tolerance is not a virtue when it is tolerating intolerance in others.
I believe it was F.L. Lucas who answered Shaw’s remark, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same", by noting that among the things we want others to do and should therefore do to others is to take our different tastes into account.
A very good talk, a very good clear explanation of Humanism.
I prescribe to this entirely. But what's funny Is that a lot of the foundation comes from not letting others influence the way you think...but I feel influenced by this and I will welcome it as something that governs the way I think from now on. A classic philosophical conundrum.
This was my first comment on youtube ever. I guess I had hopes for the cyber community, but they have been let down by a single person's rambling response. I'm reading his books right now to better understand his ideas, because they weren't entirely clear to me. If you'd like to honestly counter my argument try using less fowl language--it will make you seem more intelligent which seems to be an effect you need. deary.
+Kathleen McCarthey I think that Grayling is trying to show that what we need to learn is how to think, not what to think. It is OK to be influenced in that way. As Christopher Hitchens said, My only regret is that I have not learned nearly enough. Reason, skepticism and the willingness to accept that which is evidently true, whether it is agreeable to us or not, are important tools with which to weed out the woo and find the reality. Keep improving your knowledge and you will certainly find yourself living a happier life. Peace.
Main thing is for us all to go forward with positives and things that work for us .... hopefully with all the good qualities that true humanism suggests - most of all respect and care for our fellow human beings. I do find it sad though ... A close friend of mine died recently and I discovered he was a humanist, so I viewed the BHumanistAssociation (BHA) videos only to discoved a lot of horribly disparaging remarks about those in faith and what they believe in ...... Simply purposeful misrepresentations .... Having discussed faith in so many cultures around the world, I know that what is in those videos is ... well..... completely incorrect, if I am being polite ..... completely offensive to good people, if I am not ..... and I felt incensed for those I know who are good, honest, well-meaning, peaceable people ... It makes me question why atheists would want to disparage others ... what is the gain?? Especially remembering that most faiths say in their holy books that 'the churches can do awful things' (we know that) and can 'sit on true faith'. It's made me think more that there is a God .. otherwise why would atheists want so much to press that there is not? What would they get out of it?? I see no balance in the BHA videos and moreover see things that are purposely aggressive and incorrect .... I guess it is good food for thought ... BUT I don't see it as being very intelligently put together .... I read Darwin's Origin of Species and when I read that it talked very pointedly of 'The Creator' ... When he died, his partner, Lady Hope, said that his views had been pounced on the atheist community and misrepresented in a big way .... Personally, I can see a beauty in Faith, if we have it ... i.e., in trusting although we don't ahve proof ... but it is Faith even if supported by the ideas of Hope for the futrue of others and most of all, love ...... AND I can also see that as human beings we are capable of evolving ... Creation does not preclude evolution ... and vice-versa .... One thing, also, atheists can sell a lot of books!!! At high prices, too!!! Good luck!!
I thought I'd just add that I feel your comment is competely right .... not to allow undue influence .... It's a difficult balance, though .... I've also felt personally that it's good not to close my mind to anything .... it's the way we all learn, after all ... but to be questioning and decide for myself what my conculsions are .....
I would like to argue the most humanist manner to deal with the issues of Religion. Is to simply portray the universal lessons shared amongst many world religions that compliment humanism. And to adapt the following attitude...
Despite our differences and separate beliefs, for everyone's best interest, spiritualism in the form of attempting to do good by paying homage to our fealty, whatever you believe that fealty to be(From a benevolent being, Unknown sources, or scientific theory) can be accomplished by attempting to live by 3 moral universalities that are shared amongst many world religions and humanists beliefs. The three moral universalities. Recognize that fear can lead to inaction & improper actions. Pursue happiness for yourself and others, by recognizing your dreams and taking action. Recognize that our differences do not divide us, but makes us stronger as a whole.
Just looking through the comments I see a group of people thoroughly dogmatically indoctrinated. "What a wise man", "so calming and positive", : I can never get enough" , "A wonderful speech! Grayling is a credit to the Humanist movement", "I'm a Humanist and I'm looking to communicate with like-minded individuals...."
A very difficult question with a very simple answer my dear friend.
Humanism is not a soapbox to stand on to bash Doctrine. Wrong or right it's not for anyone to judge.
To seek wisdom is the hypostasis of true spirituality, the "understanding" of ones self, as you have stated, " know thyself"
I give you Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get Wisdom and in all thy getting get Understanding.
I believe this is the very Definition of Humanism. Call it what you want, but it is what is🙏✌💜
It is for us to judge. Doctrine can be harmful to society. It is our responsibility to judge it.
Humanism tells me that religion is trying to control me by telling me what to do.
Then turns around and tells me to be good. LOL!
Why should I? Can humanism answer this???
Remarkable. Perhaps my favourite human is Mr Grayling
I'm a vegetarian, too. And I also contradict myself in some ways. We all do.
The important thing is to be aware and of and recognize it.
A wonderful speech! Grayling is a credit to the Humanist movement and a hard-if not impossible-act to follow.
One bum note though, for me at least. At 31'02" he opines the following.
"We're moving back into a more puritanical age. Turn the pages of "The Times" newspaper and what do you see? Page after page after page after page about ageing DJs and what they got up to in the 60s."
Puritanical? No. It's simply that we've entered an age when it's possible to expose to the world the horrific misdeeds of child-rapists, both past and present. The internet has many faults but such openness is certainly not among them.
I love this guy
I am so pleased,about humanists are fighting for equality .
Inspiring speech
Creation Museum is in Kentucky, not Oklahoma....though the attitudes are the same. :)
Subscribed and liked!
Lovely talk.
Don't be fooled (commenters) by his calmness. It's the old modernist trick to make you fall asleep while they change the scenery. He might be right but a lecture is singing to the choir - a bully pulpit, as it were. I'm glad that since this video came out, UK Humanists have done the bus poster thing - "There is no good so stop feeling guilty and enjoy life"
Thank you 🌸
I live in Kentucky...where the Creation museum is. Yes, it is a human rights abuse to take school children through. It is a Constitutional violation that we the taxpayers are paying for the incentives the state gave the museum to locate here. I hope the public schools aren't taking the kids to this museum.
Christianity and Islam are not new Religions but the completion of Judaism.
I want to ask Mr grayling whether he really thought about or considered becoming anything else than a philosopher and a writer and a teacher
My long deceased grandfather was fond of saying "it's nice to be nice". He was a devout Catholic who believed that human beings were all children of God. His frequent exhortation thus flowed naturally from his commitment to Christianity.
A simple question to ACG, who seems more concerned with attacking religion than enumerating the precepts of Humanism: Why sir is it nice to be nice?
+Giambattista Vico
Because Christian thought is rooted in the transcendent it is possible to say that the Spanish Inquisition and sex abuse scandals were/are unequivocally wrong on objective grounds. In the absence of such transcendence all moral judgments are a matter of opinion. My question to ACG stands. What is it nice to be nice?
+oldschoolsaint because we human beings evolved to be like that.
+oldschoolsaint unless you're somewhere on the psycopathy scale you need to be nice to others to live a fulfilled life. It's the only one you get. Also, even if you don't gain happiness by being kind it's still generally in your best interest not to be mean.
+oldschoolsaint My individual interpretation of one of the 40,000 religions is objectively the right one. No one else's is correct but mine and I know this just because I do.
+oldschoolsaint There are many philosophical moral theories other than Christian deontology. There's Kant's universal maxim, Aristotle's virtue ethics,and social contract theory. All of the provide a means by which one can criticize the morals of others. Also, even if morality is just an opinion, ethics certainly is not. There are ways for people to act in a society that are beneficial and I beneficial to that society. People seem to get ethics and morality confused a lot these days. Ethics refers societal systems such as laws while morality refers to good and evil.
Magnificent! ❤
It is a characteristics of A.C. Grayling is his unfortunate carelessness about facts. The detail matters. Thus for instance, he ignores the debates within the western church epitomised by Thomas Aquinas. Differences not merely between religions but amongst theologians are legion. Likewise telescoping events of history without context is plain wrong,. The classical tradition needs likewise to be given something more sophisticated than endorsement. Grayling writes off Plato's 'fascism' which may be right but Aristotle likewise wrote off more than half of society, slaves and women. Cicero was scarcely a systematic thinker but an essayist. But even here, opposing one tradition with another is less coherent that working one the principles of better and worse and the flawed nature of all human beings. He touches on this but then simplifies in the next paragraph if not the next sentence. He ranges over such a huge range but without careful discrimination. For these reasons he discourages me from following him. His conversation with Tom Holland was an wonderful demonstration of Grayling being caught out again and again.
Liked his books, challenging, nice to hear and see him talk. Excellent point he makes: you can't change the religious ones, but those who doubt... :-)
Man I can't get through the first 5 minutes listening to all the untruths casually spoken as though it were a unanimously agreed upon fact.
Humanism doesn't have all the answers, we're just faulty, evolving apes, stuck with each other on this planet. We're subject to our own imperfections and flaws etc... However, we have a capacity for love and to do good to each other, we see the world for what it is and not what we imagine or want it to be. If there is an evil force in the world it is religion. We have to demand more of each other and stop accepting and respecting infantile beliefs. Religion has such incredibly low expectations for humanities potential, it snuffs out what's genuinely joyful inside us and degrades us all.
***** Did you listen or understand one word of what AC Grayling actually said? It seems not!!!! He specifically said that EVERYONE has to think of their own moral code. He said we do not tell you what to think only how to think
well put
What strikes me is that 'the human species is very young in terms of knowledge and understanding'' ... When we look back in 100 years time to what we know now, we'll once again think 'wow, we've moved on a lot' and that 'we didn't understand a fat lot 100 years ago, did we .....? ... ' That's for sure, isn't it .... 350 tonne airplanes floating in the sky would have been deemed supernatural 200 years ago .. and perhaps something we would never have believed in .. as we had no scientific evidence jumbo jet flight was possible.
I don't know where we came from and where we'll end up .... main thing IMHO is to live good lives, with good values and to care for all those around us whatever their race, their skin colour, their preferences, or their beliefs - at least, where those around us are not themselves provoking or causing harm to others!! ....
Don't forget that humanism in the organised form of the British Humanist Assocation is itself a religion ... so, I'm not sure that things aren't getting a little indiscriminate and 'circular' here. I think we need to be careful not to castigate all those who hold views about life and faith and their personal beliefs .... otherwise we might go down a track of despising all those who hold any views at all and that, in turn, is precisely the kind of thing that leads to 9/11 and so on.
lenworth11 Don't say things just because you think they sound 'clever' mate.
Humanism is incoherent, I think. For the humanist, such as Grayling above, clearly thinks there are reasons to behave in some ways and not others. Yet reasons to do things are biddings of Reason. That is, to have a reason to do something is to be being bid do it by Reason. However, only a person - a mind - can bid anyone do anything. And thus Reason is a mind. And that mind will qualify as a god (God, in fact).
To these clueless beings, this all came about on its own, no God needed. Too bad that they have NO evidence for their silly side.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
"every explanation is afterall a hypothesis" Wittgenstein
Where does second hand smoke fall within the Harm Principle?
Rape, incest and pedophiliac are hate crimes. Remove the statute of limitations to report, indict and prosecute these hate crimes.
The hands whih help need person in a right way is more power ful then praying handa
🎯Indeed! WAY more powerful!
A fantastic and erudite talk.
6 views? is there still hope for humanity?
12 views and 12 likes now, so maybe, just maybe.. a small hope.
Counter isn't in real-time; it takes a while to update.
Does inventing a new word for something that has always existed, make it a new idea.
When it comes to labels, can a humanist believe in God? And if so, what about a secular humanist; can he believe in God too?
These clueless beings flatter their empty selves thinking they follow science and no God is needed. Too bad they can only pretend to follow science because they sure don't.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
What is the difference between Resonance Humanism and modern humanism ?
There's no real connection. Renaissance humanism was a scholarly movement. Humanism is understood today to refer to a non-religious way of seeing the world and approaching moral questions.
@@HumanistsUK - Actually, that's not accurate. What is commonly known as humanism today is in reality "secular humanism." There is such a thing as "Christian Humanism" so it is presumptuous for the secularists to steal the term just for themselves.
@@MGBetts1 I suppose one could define "humanism" in such a way so that "Christian Humanism" would not be a contradiction, but I, for one, would not recognize such a definition. Humanism, as explained in this lecture, is inherently non-religious.
My son seems to have become indoctrinated into Conservative Christianity in US Army boot camp when he was 19 just in time to fall in with President Regan’s spiel.
Well then show how smart you are and show your son how the creation of the universe happened all on its own. See, it is YOU that is indoctrinated.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
As a person who also loves truth, i am quick to see a lie. when the Lecturer said that religion teaches one what to think, I say that he is only partially correct.
True Christianity doesn't teach what to think But like a true philosopher, it teaches one to seek the TRUTH.
JESUS said "Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given. knock and it will be open"
So this principle is an attitude of a perpetual researcher.
I stand on this principle because this attitude is what emptied me of religion and into agnosticism and eventually into the hands of Jesus himself.
And if anyone thinks that this is only my opinion and not the truth and await humbly for someone to show me how my truth is not the TRUTH.
Robin Williams LIVES!
The stuff you said about do unto others reminded me of the Water Babies, the good and bad sister characters. Of course Charles Kingsley was a racist as well as religious.
I worked in a sector where equal ops interviews are the trend, this was part of a neo-liberal agenda and had little to do with equality itself. I noticed that, at first, the answer to the specific question on equal ops required listing the categories who shouldn't be discriminated against (where a simple answer was no-one). But a bit later the same question required the additional answer that differences have to be acknowledged, someone out there must have listened to your philosophy.
A few years ago I began to think Mary Whitehouse had a point cos all we see on film is violent sex. Even some Me Too women would consider it liberating to watch women instigate a sexual act that saw her thrown on to a table top or sink (the trend at the moment). One thing seems to lead to another.
We fought the car, or some of us did in the 1960s early 1970s but the car won and as for plastic we are not satisfied with local and seasonal stuff need packaging. The new environmentalists, namely extinction rebellion never mention getting rid of cars only replacing them with electric ones. An idea that's not sustainable unless they are powered by nuclear. It'll just lead to the creation of more hot cells. I heat one room to 15 degrees by the way and have been aware of our impact on the climate for 50 years.
I write this because all these new movements are popularist and encouraged by the monopolists, thus I don't trust them.
During the incarceration this year (2020) almost all astrologers are advocating your or Carl Jung's ideas. But as much as I agree with most of what you say, these views are creating a supremacist stance and a craving for dominance, so I've began to view the new movement as neo-fascist movements, with a redefined meaning of fascism. Not that I've ever been able to define it really.
People are doing less thinking daily in my view and it must be much harder being a philosopher these days because you'd be slaughtered if you countered the views of the new movements publicly.
Up until 10 years ago I agreed with you on religion but I like the way people live in Arab countries, particularly Syria and Lebanon, where I spend time, so have come to appreciate religion a bit more. I'm still an unbeliever to the core, my mother was brought up a Christian who thought they were all hypocrites, so I had good grounding.
I believe its the worship of money on one hand and fear of losing their cultural identity on the other that makes people do bad things. No wonder as certain powerful people own most of the wealth and impose their value systems on others.
I consider myself a humanist, and agree with a lot of what Grayling says. He presents amazingly well. However, there seems to be a common contradiction among humanists like Grayling and Dawkins, in that they advocate for freedom of thought, unless you think religiously. They argue even against social pressure, but seem to want to create social pressure against religion. I have a hard time reconciling this contradiction with my own humanist values.
No humanist argues against a religious person's freedom to believe things humanists think are wrong. There is no contradiction!
🎯Well said.
This dude just reffered to a biblical verse to discribe his belief. That alone reveals how false the idea of huminism really is.
What a great thinker. Having said that, if I had hair like that, I'd be famous, too.
He's no thinker. Yeah, his hair is nice, much better than mine, but under his hair is still a tiny brain that actually thinks we got all this on its own.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block Too proud to believe in god?
@@5stepsOrg and what made your tiny brain ask that question? Take what I gave and tie it into your reason for your question.
I'm a Humanist and I'm looking to communicate with like-minded individuals. Unfortunately, it's not very easy for me to find any. I do believe the Humanist worldview will ultimately prevail as people continue to educate themselves on the natural world and human history.
It's said that there's going to be a second level of human civilization (I believe that. Of course if we don't destroy means that make earth habitable for us, humans before that level happens). There and than we'll be humanists in practice beyond only exchanging notions. Takes lots of personal and social suffer and experience to master humanity, especially when we think about we're not even okay with our own selves yet (beyond artificially overgrown egos), let alone pursuing social harmony. I'm not very active on google+. but if you'd add me, you'll have a humanist friend my dear.
Tulay Besli In my opinion, religion offers no hope for the problem of human suffering. People still use the label of 'evil' which offers us no hope of understanding the true nature of our actions. At least neuroscience is starting to unravel the science behind 'evil', or what people traditionally label as evil. That in turn provides a real sense of hope that we can soon understand and correct the problem, which will truly improve the human experience. Yes, improving the human experience also includes preserving the environment and biodiversity on this planet.
When we learn how to do deal with tragedy appropriately, without fantasizing about make-believe afterlives, dubbed the 'better places', only then will we be able to truly honor life the way it should be honored. Okay, I added you.
:) If you took my mention of second level of human civilization as something related to religion, I sure made my statement unclear. No, it's fully a scientific statement. And yes, I do agree with you, religion can't be a solution. It couldn't be so far, history clearly shows, on the contrary created even more evil. I can't agree more on your statement about evil. If we don't accept duality of nature, including in our own duality, we can't solve nothing. Everyone offers haven on earth, but no one succeeds, cause there's no model of haven includes angels and devils together, which we're both in nature. Glad you added me. I can tell, we can have good conversations. Welcome friend. :)
Tulay Besli Likewise. I actually interpreted your second level statement to be more scientific, not religious. I'm afraid people like us are going to have to be more active in society. Right now the dangerous effects of religious thinking are hidden by the positive effects religious activist groups have on society. Whenever there is a natural disaster it is the religious organizations that are on the scene helping. They also provide much charity to the poor and homeless populations. Humanists need to be engaged much more in these activities to drown out their contributions, so people can start focusing on all the negative effects religion has on societies, which in my opinion are far more dangerous than people realize.
well, when you think about all the sources they have they better do some charity in order to look good. yup, to look good. and religious organizations being on disaster sites directly related to most of the organizations being started under religious structures. there was no other structure but government and church. we pretty much carry on what's once started. of course free standing (non-governmental and non-religious) bodies a recent happening and it will take time for them to be effective in social arena. we have to understand how hard for them to thrive when those dinosaurs still alive and consume what's out there. :) I personally admire MSF more than any other.
Does breeding as much as possible at any cost offend against the Harm Principle?
You should care about survival first and foremost, not some bs pseudointellectual principle.
Our answer is empathy. Wait no not empathy like that.
What is the meaning of life according to the Lecturer? It what you make of it he answers.
That is as subjective an answer as anyone who just assumes that there is a God without investigating his assumption.
Note for Chris z READ YOUR BIBLE, TRY LEVITICUS 34VERDES 10 TO 17
There are many many more
why is your argument vs theism
can humanism called as a philosophy?
I admire Mr. Grayling intellectual gift but I wonder if he ever had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I am guessing that he has not. For me to totally appreciate his teaching, is almost like expecting a bird that has never swim under water telling a fish what water is like. Religion is another form of living made up of philosophical views and regulations but that is not what makes believers. What makes believers is having a especial experience with our Lord Jesus Christ. Only those who experience this life transformation are the one qualified to tell about it. This transformation is eternal and is not made up of rules, legalism, social construct or other acts. I agreed with Mr. Grayling when he said that if one tries to change a Christian's mind they will never succeed. This is not because we are not close minded but because of the internal experience that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ that has killed the old sinful self and has replace it with a new spiritual life. This new spiritual life not only impacts our spirit but everything else in our lives. Jesus said let those who have eyes, see and those who have ears hear. In other words only those who have a personal experience with Christ can see and hear spiritual truth. I strongly encourage Mr. Grayling to experience what we experience in Christ. It is then that he will be qualified to speak about our faith. I am not being sarcastic or disrespectful. I am only being honest.
Jesus Christ is a figment of one's imagination.
Believe me, living in a society where Christianity is ubiquitous and assumed as the default (US), I know enough to know it’s a harmful fraud.
That’s a very sanctimonious, arrogant viewpoint. You’ve removed yourself from any honest discourse.
Would you consider those who have a personal relationship with Allah or Vishnu or Zeus are right when they say the same thing as you? I am sure they feel they have a special relationship with their imaginary friends as well. I assume you were born into a christian nation and by the luck of the draw, you have found the one 'true' faith.
I ad dat Bertrand Russell in the backada cab de uvver day, Bertie I says, woss de meanin a life? know what? bugger couldn't tell me!
j.krishnamurti work is still going
I just thought that morality was something did not need to think about.
That’s assuming that morality is inherent. If it was, all humans would have the same moral compass and we would have societal harmony.
he's just making stuff up
on the one hand he cites apologetics and the next moment he is claiming that in the same time period he is claiming that christianity was the only religion - and in between stating that somehow in the high middle ages everyone was burned for heresy if they were a heretic - which is simply not true
nice tlk
If you quote Stalin, as dictator I supose, than why not mention what UK as dictatorship has done to people in colonies? Just thinking about what is fair, you know, and what kind of messages are shared.
Used to enjoy reading AC at uni…lost all respect for him when he got slaughtered on the unbelievable show 😂
Isn't this Confucianism?
Philosophistry
If his words is food for thoughts l would be anorexic !
39:05 lolz
19:15