Coming to Faith through Dawkins Part 1: Has New Atheism Failed? | Alister McGrath & Alex O'Connor
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- 🌟 Unbelievable? 🌟
Prepare for a captivating journey through history as Unbelievable? delves deep into the question: "Did New Atheism Fail?" Two intellectual titans, Alister McGrath, one of the world's foremost theologians, and Alex O’Connor, the Oxford-educated philosopher and celebrated UA-camr, engage in a thought-provoking debate that transcends time.
📚 Exploring "Coming to Faith Through Dawkins" 📚
This discussion is ignited by the release of the groundbreaking book "Coming to Faith Through Dawkins," edited by Denis Alexander and Alister McGrath, hitting shelves on August 29, 2023. In its pages, the world's sharpest minds from Australia, South Africa, Egypt, the USA, and the UK come together to share a remarkable commonality: Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists played a pivotal role in their conversion to Christianity.
🌎 A Global Perspective on Faith and Reason 🌍
Despite diverse backgrounds and cultural influences, these individuals once ardently championed the ideas of the New Atheists, only to become disillusioned by Dawkins' arguments and conclusions. Their journeys led them to scrutinise religious faith with newfound objectivity, revealing that the fallacies Dawkins warned of simply do not exist.
🧠 Meet the Debaters: 🧠
Alister McGrath: A former atheist turned theologian, McGrath's journey to Christianity began during his studies in the natural sciences at Oxford University. With a storied career that includes roles such as Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford and President of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, McGrath is renowned for his intellectual prowess. His internationally acclaimed textbook, "Christian Theology: An Introduction," translated into twenty languages, is just one testament to his impact. Stay tuned for his upcoming release, "Christian Apologetics: An Introduction."
Alex O’Connor: As a UA-camr and host of the Within Reason Podcast, O’Connor's mission is to make philosophy accessible to all. A graduate of philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University, he has fearlessly defended his philosophical convictions against experts worldwide. His online content has garnered over seventy million views, and he's a sought-after international public speaker and debater.
🔔 Join the Conversation! 🔔
Don't miss this intellectual clash of the titans as they reexamine the legacy of New Atheism and its impact on faith and reason. Hit that "Subscribe" button, ring the notification bell, and let your voice be heard in the comments below!
#UnbelievableDebate #NewAtheism #FaithVsReason #SubscribeNow #faith #jesus 🗣️🤯🔥
Alex O'Connor: / alexjoconnor
Alister McGrath: alistermcgrath....
Buy the book "Coming to Faith through Dawkins": www.amazon.co....
"This is a novel book: real-life stories of people who have actually come to faith, not in spite of but through Richard Dawkins. It must be his own worst nightmare!" - William Lane Craig
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/26714...
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
Alex: The God of the old testament is the same God as the new right?
Allister: yes
Alex: And in the old testament it says that it was ok to own other people?
Allister: yes
Alex: So at least at one point in the past you have to accept that your God said slavery was morally permissible?
Allister: no.
It's like that meme with Patrick Star/ Man Ray and the wallet.
The old testament accepts it as a universal human institution, which, while a necessary evil for the time being, still needs to be regulated. You're pretending like there was never any slavery until God 'sanctioned' it.
Yes, but when adults talks to children, he does so in progressive way.
When we talk to 2 yrs old and to college student would have different talks.
.
Specific to slavery. Slavery was okay to all ancient cultures (atheist and theist alike).
Most of the slaves usually sell themselves (so with their own permission). Similar to us sell our labor for money.
Not the 1800s American slavery.
Man changed, God did not.
@@Jocky8807 and the part that is not the most? you are making up excuse's
the bible is a crappy book.
Enormous respect for Alex O'Connor
I would not agree with all his conclusions but it is great to see a young man like him having these respectful engagements ...long may he live!
I didnt know that he's no longer a vegan. That is pretty respectable the way he did that. Especially cuz he was so vigorously vegan.
The most intelligent person on the panel is usually the atheist.
@@Amazing_Markand the dumbest tends to be a conservative
@Amazing_Mark This comes as no surprise. The Bible (1 Corinthians) specifically states that God calls the humble, and those who seem to lack in glory, power, or wisdom. God resists the proud (in James), which the very intelligent very much tend to be. It should come as no surprise that the smartest people on the planet place faith in themselves, and see no need in their lives for a higher power in which to trust.
Shalom from Germany. Thank you Unbelievable Team for this amazing conversation. Maranata🙌
Free Palestine.
@@jamescarr4662isReal > Fakestine
Shalom from Scotland 🏴 Grace to you all… 😊
Ironically but not surprisingly there are many Christians out there that love Alex. We're praying for you. We admire your intelligence and your humility.
Prayer and $5.00 will buy a Starbucks coffee. All the prayers I've said haven't prevented the bullets from murdering innocent children in their schools.
One can't hate a god that doesn't exist, but one can hate the ignorance of people who hold deleterious ideas that don't help humanity...of which evangelicals are the worst. Those folks seeming to think "giving their heart to jebus", then telling others about it, solves any world problems. Bah humbug. It is so tiring to have folks come up and say "Hey ! Here is a ridiculous idea that makes me happy and so can you !!"
When a person of faith says "we're praying for you" - that means you don't have an intellectual point, so patronisation is your only friend. It would be like a person in a cult saying "we're having a smoke dance in your honour".
Please give respect and praise, but save the "we're praying for you" babble.
@pnmz2394 Listen, we can all have good intentions for others. Specifically when people of faith day this, it's a show of religiosity, whether intentional or otherwise. It can be antagonistic towards people who have escaped the shackles of religious ideology.
@@Kastled5 one cannot love those that one doesn't know. Christians are commanded to love those they know or come in contact with. Same with enemies. Nothing ironic about that.
Praying for what? That he'll one day come to his right mind & start believing in talking snakes & eternal hellfire?
41:45 through 43:00 was just a jaw-dropping moment for me. My man wrote an entire book supposedly refuting Dawkins' arguments, and while "refuting" his claims about slavery in the bible, references a chapter in Leviticus, claiming that it prohibits slavery. When Alex points out that it definitively does not prohibit slavery, and in fact outlines the rules by which slavery is actually okay, his response is "I'll look into that"? Are you kidding me??
You were the one who referenced that chapter in a book you wrote and published. Are you claiming you didn't read it? Or were you just blatantly lying? Either way, you are simply not a serious person.
This comment right here sums up McGrath
He was blatantly lying and obviously dodging.
The bible does not prohibit slavery out right because the proposal to do so would not even be conceivable in an archaic culture. The bible was not some magical wand that can just change humans and cultures overnight. It provides blueprints and pathways for humans to understand a more moral way and move towards it. For example all Mesopotamic cultures performed some sorts of human sacrifices; the Hebrew tradition moves this from humans to animals and then with christ overcame the practice entirely. That is the method the bible uses for changing evil human practices. the Bible provides all kinds of blueprints that people can use to come to the conclusion that slavery is evil; even the biblical commandments about correct practices for slave/master relationships tells the master that they are not to treat their slaves unnecessarily harsh but as fair as you would a member of your own family; why would the bible say that if the God that inspired the words thought there was nothing wrong with slavery? Why did the abolitionist use the bible to shift the Western cultures to see the practice as unholy?
I think in the end; the bible does not strictly forbid the practice because God is not overly concerned with your title on earth. God would view slave and master as equally valuable spiritually (whatever that means) and would care more about how you conducted yourself in relationship to him and other people regardless of what your title was. God was more concerned with the content of ones moral character and not so much with the physical circumstances they found themselves in. A cosmic being that was outside time, space and the laws of nature would be more worried about the things that lasted beyond the physical. I believe this is the same reason the Christ character was not concerned about Rome or Roman oppressions. Christ was focused on a much larger battle that would last far beyond the Roman Empire.
I think the only criticism you can honestly give the Bible on the topic of slavery is that it was not clear enough and left too much wiggle room for man to interpret the meaning other ways which lead to slavery going on longer than it probably should have gone. There was no functional way to end slavery in the archaic past. That would be like removing automobiles from everyone right now. It was simply not truly possible; and God (whatever the limits of his powers) clearly does not do things that are logically impossible.
Yeah as a Christian I was saddened by that part. Especially because he so emphasized throughout the podcast listening to others and having charitable dialogue. But I guess we all fall short of our ideals.
It's a while since I've read the book, but it was disappointingly light, and this kind of thing makes hearing McGrath accusing Hitchens and Dawkins of "cherry picking" a little hard to take.
His answer here the first time is sophistry; the second time, entirely incredible that he is unsure of the context of the quote. When I read the book I couldn't avoid imputing bad faith; sadly this seems to confirm that.
I think the difference is that the internet has given us a wider community and ability to find other atheists we can talk to. I grew up always worried, not about the general Christian around me, but those holier than thou who "cancel" discenting belief and opinion. I have many Christian friends I can have reasonable discussions about, and state my case, and we stay friends. On the other hand, I was having one such conversation on the way into work the other day, and had to ask him to stop when we got inside. Why? Becuase I am still worried about that one type of person that is going to make it an issue and threaten my livelihood. I have the same issues dating. as a conservative leaning atheist, I have to worry about opinions against my stance from both sides of the political and theological spectrum.
New atheism is in my opinion more about the first struggles with the confidence to speak out and recognize there is a support network that we do not see in our daily lives. In a large part because people are afraid to be out, or happier just avoiding the discussion at all.
Sadly that seems to be the case.
It really boggles the mind as a German that religion is such an issue in other countries. Here nobody is interested. Nobody cares if you're a Christian or not. It mostly never even comes up in normal conversation. Still we are one of the countries with the most religious holidays 😂. And it's not like the church doesn't try to influence politics but it's far less extreme than the US debates especially.
@MrSeedi76 I read once that the difference in US is because there is not a single prevalent denomination. If you don't like one church or attitude you can shop around town and find the one that suits you. If every church in your community is doing the same thing it gets boring, which seems more the case in Europe.
@@MrSeedi76 Not many other countries, mostly those without the proper legislation about it ( USA, Middle East theocracies and some LATAM places).
1:18:51 - it is far better to have conversations like this. I observe that this channel is a favourite of mine and I’m an atheist.
When I was a child, Atheism was almost a dirty word, so much so that I had to read about it in an encyclopedia. Was New Atheism flawed in some ways? Perhaps, but to disregard its influence is ludicrous.
McGrath thinks that owning people as property for life and bequeathing them to your children as family inheritance is a "prohibition" on slavery... and he seriously wants people like Dawkins to respond to such assertions in a friendly tone.
Not a correct reading of the New Testament.
@@SirHargreeves Leviticus is in the Old Testament, not the New Testament.
@@onionbelly_ ...and is called *old* testament for a reason.
Edit: But yeah I am a christian and was a bit worried about how he avoided that answer. For me old testament was a start on humans way back towards God's real intention for humans. So the first step was to get them to understand to not take slaves within the country (all other countries also had slaves, so God had to start somewhere). When the next step was implemented, it was for all to realise that there should be no slaves at all (That was God's intention from the start).
@@JamesAsp I understand that "is called old testament for a reason" is a common response from Christians whenever biblical atrocities are brought up, but it's irrelevant to the point I made in reference to the discussion in this video.
The practice of slavery itself was never condemned in the Bible (both in the OT and the NT), and the Bible only talks about emancipation of Hebrew slaves, not gentile slaves. Therefore, I don't understand how you can claim to know or conclude that total abolition of slavery was God's real intention. Also, this two-step program doesn't make any sense. If your intention was to make people not commit murder, would you ever instruct anyone to only murder people outside your country, or temporarily allow people to murder their fellow countrymen? If someone said, "well, all other countries also had murder, so God had to start somewhere", how would you even respond to that kind of reasoning?
@@onionbelly_ You wrote: "The practice of slavery itself was never condemned in the Bible (both in the OT and the NT)"
Answer: Oh really... I think you need to read more then. There are many places that talks against slavery but here are three for you.
*[Romans 13:8-10]* Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” *Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.*
*[James 2:8]* If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
*[1 John 4:7-8]* Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does
not know God, because God is love.
So glad the conversation was much better and rational than some of the comments im reading.
In effect, I really thought that, in effect, I really liked this conversation (in effect)
In effect, I thought I liked this conversation too ! Ha Ha !!
Although all are taking a position it seems Alex is much more open to being convinced to change his mind than either Alister or the host.
Reminds me of:
Moderator: "What would change your mind?"
Ken Ham: "Nothing"
Bill Nye: "Evidence"
It's spot on that saying New Atheism didn't offer constructive criticism. It was always more of an expression of disgust.
Atheism comes with justifiable disgust. Marroni, Thetans, Mohammed, Vishnu, circumcision, vicarious atonement are all lunatic ideas. Immunization, sterilization, anesthetics, industrialization, computers (the transistor), just to name a few things, made humanity better. False hope so that people can die for a cause or so people can get over morning may be the only thing good about religion.
The one Baptist church I visited had the pastor embezzle $800K and the other church "down the street" had $600k stashed in a wall. This is not mentioning all the sexual abuse either.
Pour some contempt on top of that disgust with religion.
...it's a fundamentalist @religious cult...I call it "HAThEism"
@@onedaya_martian1238 What you are doing is called 'cherry picking'. You can find legitimate criticisms of religion but don't overstate your case. Do you also begrudge the emergence of schools and hospitals because they stem from Christian traditions? I hope not.
@@onedaya_martian1238All those examples you stated can be found amongst atheists and every group religious and non in the world
It's not the job of any atheist to offer constructive criticism for theists. Why on earth would they do that? Theists can give other theists feedback that offers specific and actionable advice to help them improve on their apologetics, but don't expect that from the opposition lol. That's insane.
All religions are social constructs ,all subject to change over time ,thinking one is the only true one becomes dangerous
What is new atheism and how does it differ from atheism? Also, is there a new theism?
New atheism was just the rise in atheism, particularly anti-theism that had quite the impact on society in the early 2000s. Plenty of new theisms, all sorts of weird and wonderful sects out there. Though I guess real new theism could be said to be the latest "progressive" forms of theism
I doubt it. The foundational texts are at least 2000 years old . I don't think god has bothered to speak to us since...
@jonathanrussell1140 you doubt what? Atheism has existed for as long as gods have existed. If there's a new atheism, then there must be a new theism. Perhaps if you explained what you mean by new atheism, it'll make more sense. The foundations texts of one religion doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Please make the connection.
I think new atheism can just be considered the popular movement of openly criticizing religion. Atheism on its own is just more of a personal position rather than an open challenge to religion. There is no difference in position between the two rather just a difference in expression.
There is kind of new theism in that in response to the criticisms of atheism some religious people went hard into things like Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design or they pushed the apologetics narrative. Neither were new ideas but they became a lot more popular after new atheism came on the scene. Because before that religious beliefs weren't ever really challenged so most religious people never felt the need to justify or explain their religious beliefs.
@@sa9245 What makes this a new movement? The fact that more people are willing to do it because they're no longer afraid of being murdered because of it?
Yes, atheism is a position on the claim that some god exists. Nothing new about that.
So you're saying that new atheism is what you call it notion of speaking your mind about religion? The upitty athests who speak out are in a movement called new athems? Then the upitty theists who speak out against atheism are new theists?
This entire "New" thing is ridiculous. Theism is belief in a god. Atheism is not believing in any gods. Whether you're outspoken about either doesn't need a new label.
Nobody:
Alister McGrath: *in effect*
McGrath just would not answer that very straightforward question about the moral status of slavery during the "old covenant".
Wasn't slavery within the jewish ancient world more about working off debts, rather than subjugation?
@@damienroberts934 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
I think the issue with conversations about Biblical slavery, is that Christians very often tend to back away to the New Covenant( like Alister does here), as if that removes the fact that they also acknowledge that the Old Testament God is the same being as the Jesus Christ they worship. This means that the being they worship and hold as the arbiter of morality once supported several of the most abhorrent practices in the entire history of humanity. This cannot be dodged by relying on the New Testament saying of Jesus, because even Jesus himself reinforced the laws and rules of the Old Testament.
I know it is difficult, but dodging the plain facts written the Bible on the matter just makes the Christian seem dishonest. What should be done is to admit it and delve into the meaning and implications of that for the foundation of the belief system and ultimate morality it claims to own.
edit. Wrote this comment while watching, and Alex excellently points out and pursues exactly this issue. Sadly, Alister just backs away while avoiding properly answering the challenge.
In a sense, this happened with me. New atheism (which I still thinks many cogent points about organised religion and the religious form), lead me to adopt physicalist meta-physics. But then the holes in that philosophy started to niggle, and after that, I discovered idealism, which I find to be more more rational, coherent, and frankly beautiful. That, in turn, led to a feeling of connection to a naturalistic God, which is expressed and found in science and the beauty of logic itself, rather than sat on a throne above nature commanding it.
You and I share a very similar journey. Have you encountered Steven Nemes yet? He's the author of 'Theology of the Manifest: Christianity without metaphysics' as well as 'Theological Authority in the Church: Reconsidering Traditionalism and Hierarchy'. He's obviously a heretic in the eyes of many, but he's a great resource for people who lean more naturalistic.
First of all that's not what 99% of the world means by God. They mean personal God that has commandments about what we do when we're naked. And living by rigid outdated ancient moral codes that are totally ridiculous to the modern world.
Second of all idealism makes no sense because we know there is objective truth that is true regardless of what you personally believe or what is personally going on in your mind. Therefore obviously idealism is not accurate
If you don't eat food and drink water and breathe oxygen you will quickly die. This is an objective fact. Idealism is just human fantasy. Or ignorance of basic science and an attempt to escape into wishful thinking
Anyway man it's obvious that for a thousands and thousands of years people didn't understand the world and they just made stuff up and we are naturally very superstitious and that all became organized religion.
And we know better now. There are scientific principles that govern the world and we can learn about those and science is cool because it changes as the evidence change
Anyway you can always twist words to try to give yourself some personal comfort but come on and get with science and get with being someone who follows the evidence that's what the world needs
@@geoffschnoogs6888I agree, it sounds like an AI wrote that in a drunken weekend.
But isn't it nice that you can retroactively find a buzzword for every one of your previous feelings? Without having to specify what the "holes in that philosophy" are.
Alister seemed noticeably uncomfortable when the topic of immoral commands in the OT was brought up. I know that wasn’t the main topic of discussion, but I would’ve liked to see him engage with that a bit more.
Not a word about millennia of brutal religious persecution, but now they are whining about atheists giving them the mildest taste of their own medicine.
Christians: Lets go and invade these countries in the name of God!
Atheists: That was wrong.
Christians: How dare you! Stop persecuting us!
@JeffBedrick Have you actually read any non-New Atheist historiography? David Bentley Hart in "The Atheist Delusion" shows how atheists have distorted and misrepresented religious history and even lied, even while belittling or denying atheist persecutions of believers. The first chapter of "Coming to Faith Through Dawkins" also touches on this. (I have only just got the book and so I haven't yet read it all.) Sy Garte even refers to non-Christian historians who give a more balanced account of history than the "Four Horsemen", if you are worried that the books I refer you to might be tainted.
Justin Brierley, who has chaired well-respected debates between atheists and believers, gives examples of atheists who are unhappy with and even embarrassed by the poor scholarship, esp. in theology and history, shown by the New Atheists. This can be found in his recent book "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God". Brierley is not making any theological claims at all, but simply pointing out some of the problems that atheists had/have with the "New Atheism" that has led to the fracturing of the original consensus. If atheists want to point out the sins of the Church (often quite rightly, when limited to actual events) then they surely should be willing to face their own record in this regard.
(By the way, I would hardly call the behaviour of some atheists "mild". Of course it does not match the brutality of the past, but some of the rhetoric of the Four Horsemen about how they wish to forbid religious people from teaching their children and Dawkins' advocacy of euthanasia and eugenics esp. towards the disabled do not bode well for an atheist future. I am disabled and do not consider my life either useless or lacking in "quality of life" - whatever that is.
That advocacy also makes mockery of Dawkins' avowed horror at the violence of the Bible. Or perhaps you were not aware of or chose to ignore the contradiction between "religion is evil because of violence" [the Four Horsemen] and "the Church is the enemy because it refuses to permit waterboarding and torture [Sam Harris]?)
Alex confessing to being wrong about something is a confronting lesson for apologists because dishonesty is essential to their marketing.
I am here because someone loaned me the book, and I treated this video as a book review.
The text is small and has loads of padding, and I suspect it will reflect McGrath's desire to increase the word count to compensate for substance.
Almost like the Terminator - I might be back.
I wonder if Mr. McGrath actually checked about the slavery passage...was surprised he did not have an answer to Alex's question
He knew Alex was right and was dodging.
I thoroughly enjoy your programming !
God bless !
Great conversation, thank you!
It almost seemed like this discussion was off the rails before the camera started rolling. It seems like there was something about it that McGrath neither appreciated nor expected. As he spoke briefly a few more times it was apparent, given what he wanted to say about narrative, why he was insistent upon not entering the polemical, point-scoring argument that Alex had come for.
The only polemic I didn't wish he handwaived away was the OT slavery. His answers or rather say non answers didn't bring anything to the bible apology of slavery.
As a person who’s gone from atheist to Christian, my love and respect for Alex and his measured approach has continued to grow, I can’t say the same for many of the atheist influencers I used to listen to who’s rhetoric and approach have become increasingly deranged.
What ultimately convinced you?
I, too, would like to know which _evidentiary facts_ convinced you that the Christian god is a reality?
Being raised Christian and then living as an atheist and then moving toward agnosticism due to more and more evidence provided in the sciences (embryology, biology, archaeology, cosmology, DNA, and historical research) I began to be more open to the Bible as God’s revelation to man rather then other sacred texts because none of them have the same evidences backing it. I became a Christian @ 23 yrs old due to God answering me when I sought Him with my whole heart while being high on drugs at a church retreat and God showed me that He is the Most High who brings deliverance, healing, peace, joy, restoration and redemption.
@@Theo_Skeptomai God you sound so cringe and sophomoric hahaha
@@Theo_Skeptomai I recommend getting a master's in physics like me and then reading the works of nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder. a post on a social media discussion board will never be a sufficient place to get clear 'evidentiary facts' on the topic and you know it. Which means the question was asked in bad faith, and I think you know that as well. I was atheist for many years but the works of Hawking and Hoyle (steady state theory) and other secular scientists showing an extreme level of bias started making me more skeptical of how 'honest' the secular approach actually was. Atheists' heavy reliance on fallacies and mockery (such as delivered by Hitchens) I found off putting and demonstrating only an anti-Christian bigotry.
Then as I was completing my masters and was becoming less and less able to not see clear direction in the principals of physics, I came across the writing of Schroeder, first book I read was "Genesis and the Big Bang" and in my opinion Schroeder makes a very compelling case for harmony between the biblical genesis and the standard model of the big bang. That harmony in interpretation I would say lead me to move from being a reluctant atheist to a reluctant agnostic theist.
One fact you can research that I found compelling at the atomic level is the nature of Muons (formerly called Mu-meson). Which when you take the muon, which is the produced by the energy of cosmic rays slamming against the nucleus and have a greater mass then electrons which would actually be enough to prevent the election charge from binding. Electromagnetism is a great force but is greatly diminished given distance from the nucleus. This mass and energy of the muons would be more than enough to destabilize every atom in the universe. But there are few unexplained conveniences that take place to prevent this. 1 being quarks (which conveniently pop in and out of existence as needed to keep nuclear stability) and the non-radioactive decay of the muon itself. Which decay at exactly the rate they need to. This is similar to the nature of the function of cells. They behave exactly as they need to. I found it harder and harder to not look at these things and say it clearly looks designed by intent. If anything had any kind of intent in any part of this, the word God is sufficient to describe whatever it is that had the intent. A thing cannot have intent without a will; and as far as we know it takes the ability to think (to have a mind) to have will.
As far as why the Christian God of the bible; I would say I don't know on that. My loose thought on it is that humans cannot actually know God (he is too far removed at a cosmic and physical level) so all we can do is get as close as we can to understanding or knowing whatever It is. Schroeder, the Hebrew, makes a convincing case that the Biblical God is the one that seems most aligned with what we know of science "exists beyond time space and the laws of nature and has the ability to create a universe" (that was Hawking's attempt to use forces of gravity to dismiss God and all Hawking did was suppliant the word "God" for the word "gravity" , Schroeder points this out in his criticism of Hawking's work)
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"
- Psalm 27
34:26
Idk why people dont make the point that when the pharasies and sadjuscies asked jesus why moses allowed divorce jesus said
"Because in your heart of hearts you where hard hearted"
In simple terms
You would do it anyway so i might as well regulate and make it less evil
34:00+ Then how are morals objective if they have changed? I thought objective morals were absolute and do not change.
Question for Dr. McGrath. Is it true that Christianity causes, triggers, or encourages EVERYONE to learn as much as possible about every topic? Or, would you say that Christianity answers the Ultimate question, and by consequence discourages asking mundane questions?
Bravo. Nice question. (storing for future reference)
@@onedaya_martian1238 are you an atheist?
@@goodquestion7915 The reply was not obvious ?
@onedaya_martian1238 it was short, so it could be sarcastic or could be real. I prefer to avoid assumptions. That fact betrays that I'm an atheist. Theists like to guess, assume, and misunderstand.
@@goodquestion7915 Here's an unambiguous "Bravo!"
Great point. I never thought about the Golden Rule in reverse. That does explain a more accurate grounds for moral assessments.
Please keep posting!! Peace.
Alex is much more reasonable in this podcast I'm encouraged by the current state of skeptics
I’ve never seen Alex being unreasonable.
What is the current state of Christians?
I think christian apologists are far more reasonable and less likely to use unnecessary verbal and emotional manipulation in arguments and debates which I think Alex is a more reasonable atheistic candidate then alternative proponents of naturalism which is what I was referring to. I could be wrong about that but that's how I see it lately taking place
@@Tree0330I feel like this is just gonna come down to bias. As an atheist I've found most of the respected apologists to be blatantly dishonest and unreasonable so we're probably just both wrong. Though there are undoubtedly a few that can be seen as reasonable from both sides. Alex being one
@@rorybessell8280 I would say pinecreek is an example of a reasonable atheist and aron ra as a unreasonable one. What apologists would you point to?
I'm doing my dissertation at SWBTS on answering New Atheist arguments against Christianity from the Torah's slave codes. Looking forward to this one!
I presume you know that Peter Williams of Tyndale House has done a youtube talk on slavery and the Bible?
No, I will look into it, I don't usually use UA-cam as a source. Thanks.
And what are some interesting insights you’ve learned?
Quite a bit in the years of research, more than can be argued in a comments board. The first would be that most arguments on this topic contain a great deal of ignorance, I have had to rewrite the arguments of the New Atheists somewhat just to make them prima facie, and I wrote a stronger argument for their position along the way. The second would be the logic of Plantinga's freewill defense is usually misunderstood by people who conflate it with the freewill theodicy, third and most surprisingly from my days in NT work, the idea that doulos should always be translated "slave" is probably false, the LXX uses it in places where slavery is not the reference, and the parables appear to use it in the same manner.
Beyond that, quite a bit, but as I said more than can be handled in comments.
I'm impressed about the proposed aim to honestly and open-mindedly communicate - and my overall impression that this was amazingly well role modelled - thumbs up, excellent - - - personally, my belief in God was strengthened by historical research including research that has officially a bad press, apparently purposefully bashing it to discourage it, i.e. research into so labelled conspiracy theories - I am happy to explain more as to what I have come to see - if you are interested you can equally listen into playlists of videos I found interesting that I collect in my playlists, e.g. "Some Picks in a Sequence" also "Untold History of the Bible"
No evidence.
#1 If you were brainwashed would you know it?
#2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it?
#3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you be giving it 100% effort to answer those questions?
All criminals are caught red handed of murder 100% guilty and show no remorse. The judges always apply the perfect amount of punishment. All things being equal and for arguments sake.
Now I will give an example. There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them.
#4 Which judge is the most/maximally just?
#5 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving?
#6 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#7 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#8 Is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
Succeed or failed is relative to your theory being true, otherwise you've deceived yourself.
The New atheist was a reaction to the intelligent design proponents. It was a concerted effort to silence, stifle, deflect, misrepresent it. That's how I saw it in real time. They were militant and wanted to be more focused, structured and organised.
19:10 I am surprised at McGrath's response to Alex's criticism of the book Dawkins Delusions. McGrath says he mimics the style of Dawkins and that it was lightweight in terms of evidence presented. Excuse me? How can you blame others for the mistakes you made in your book? If Dawkins' style is bad, why mimic him? It looks like McGrath is not willing to own his mistakes.
Dawkins is a 𝕯𝖎𝖈𝒌-𝖊𝖓𝖘
Ridicule is a powerful weapon ...HAThEistas have no compunction for welding it mercilessly...but meek and mild Christians, should sheath, their terrible rhetorical Rapiers, against such raging blasphemes?...
I think not...that sort of mental and emotional pacifism as beneath manhood...
so No..rather for me..Its:
Atheist!... "Au Guarde" ✝⚔@...
😂
I thought it quite shocking that he responded to Alex pointing out the Old Testament permits slavery by saying "I'll check it out" Surely he should have done that before claiming it prohibits slavery.
@@gileshumphry Looks like he needs to get more Ph.D's
animosity towards religion is justified
This is a bizarre conversation topic. What was it trying to succeed at doing exactly?
Eradicating (or at least significantly reducing) religion, replacing it with more rational & scientific thinking, surely?
@@Birdieupon ...except...Postmodern Woke Broke..
Academic and Scientific "Rationalism"💥🔨☭✊🏿🏳🌈⚧...
...and ever the silly secularist, now Dick Dawkins sez he desperately hopes
Euro-"Christen✝ ⇿"Dumb"❓will revive, long enough to ward off the coming threat of ☪Islam...
as apparently even Dick's come to the conclusion, that his brand of HAThEism... isn't particularly effective..
🙄"𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖈𝒌-𝖊𝖓𝖘" ‼...
It was about HAThEism, is now hollowed out..
It was about how a dictated Darwinist, deity denier, of decades past... Dick Dawkins= "𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖈𝒌-𝖊𝖓𝖘"...
...was denied his de-religious🚫🛐 ...anti-Christ campaign.🚫✝..
@@BirdieuponI don't think it really has a goal. I never get/got the sense it genuinely was focused on that.
I feel like it was focused on increasing critical thinking surrounding Theism, tearning down the ability Theism has to defend itself because people might be offended and picking holes in a lot of issues regarding Religion.
If it had led to a disbelief in God I'm sure that would be ok but all of them have/do say Religion has its place, is helpful for some people and not necessarily evil by itself.
It was the belief in a Personal God that was the issue and It is/was very successful at the above.
As Alex mentions I don't think he brought around a new area in Atheism but did make it more acceptable
I am a millenial currently 31 years old. I came from Islamic religious and strict rules and regulation and lot of opression, supression. During my college year from 2012-2016 I was heavily taken by the new atheist movement and constantly mocked other's belief's in God saying why do they think they are so special, accusing them of narcissm and all that but deep down I always had the personal held belief at my core since I was a child was that there is a creator who created us all. I had lot of negative views on religious so did not see much positive utility in it. Since then after growing older and adapting more responsibility for myself and my spouse I began to question my life, God and all that and it was like I was done with my rebelious phase and starting to embrace tradition again. The tradition of religiou, asking what is it means to live a moral life. I have come back to God again and it feels like I am home but this time on my own term instead of someone trying to force it down my throat. Let's just say the more I grew up and as I learned more I only came to the conclusion that everything I knew is wrong. Things that I doubted before are real and true. Let's just say I became more humble and stopped questioning God so much and embrace the fact that as a human I wil never have enough knowledge to be able to understand God so it is a fool's person errand. Let's just say I became less arrogant and more humble. Not to judge religious people and think of them as stupid and they do not know anything. Try to pay respect to both side. As Jesus said, whoever has never done a sin cast the first stone.
It is easy to abstract that there is something greater than ourselves as we have the ability to conceptualize things like "tomorrow" or "spirits". Plus we can look at symbols, such as these characters and not just perceive bent lines but IDEAS. Humans are at a point where they can reason but most seem to be subliminally aware of this going on in their minds. Perhaps the explaination for the garden of eden story being popular is that at some point, humans were able to communicate that they had choices they could mentally make based on their ability to empathize and recall events. They also realized that making choices could be a burden. Early humans were unable to understand this burden/feeling, and socializing while gathered during evenings for security, they were able to formulate stories to try to explain their environment. In this way, questions could have an answer.
Today, we can appreciate the origin of these stories but we certainly do not have to believe they are the word of some "being". They are simply the amalgam of legends and proscriptions for primitive cultures and societies to be cohesive and thus survive.
It is good to respect those who study these ancient books, but to respect them for science and morality is detrimental to the growth of civilization.
@@onedaya_martian1238 I would not respect them for science per say since theologian are not particulalrly scientist but more so philospher. You get your moral from philosphy not science. You have presented one theory. Another theory is our previous ancestor accurately documented what happened and it is up to us to figure it out. Civilization gets lost, information gets lost. It is up to us to rediscover it again.
Just a technical point. Most scholars think Jesus did not actually say that. It seems a later interpolation.
Gotta get that book!
Wobbly table?
Scientists most certainly speculate and form hypotheses and they may have hunches about reality are but they don't demand that those things are true or proselytize them. They test them to find out what can be considered factual and others challenge them again. So I find Mr McGrath's faith analogy about quantum physics etc to be specious.
The New Atheists caricatured theism.
To say that new atheism failed would imply that it had some sort of mission. What world that even be? Making disciples, perhaps? I don't really much care.
When did Justin get an American accent?
Morality is socialization. It isn't objective, it's negotiated over time and it's basically the flip side of the golden rule. If you don't want something done to you then don't do it to others and let's set rules and consequences to ensure our common interest. So, rape is not as arbitrary as 5 fingers because rape by definition is universally unwanted by everyone. 5 fingers are simply the way we are.
McGrath certainly makes a strong argument for the discarding of the doctorate as some sort of intellectual performance metric. After collecting four Ph.Ds, the man is really quite thick as a brick, as they say.
Too right. McGrath sullies the value of Ph.Ds down to the level of collecting bottle tops or picture cards. A veritable bumbling buffoon, no less
What were the other options to slavery in the Old Covenant? And what did God teach about slavery in general. You could buy slaves, or you could make slaves, or you could fall into slavery through poverty. If someone came and tried to destroy you, what did you do with the prisoners of war? Did you execute them all, or did you let them go so they could attack you again or did you keep them alive but as slaves? Also since Moses the Israelites were commanded to have empathy for others, through remembering what it was like to be slaves themselves under Pharaoh in Egypt - they were even told to express sorrow over the Egyptian soldiers who were drown in the red sea.
So you have also to consider what might ahve been the differences in the treatment of slaves under the Israelites who were reminded to consider that they themselves suffered as slaves, and the conditions under the other people around that they might have bought slaves from .
Even with Queen Victoria - people are trying to cancel and smear her because she had a slave but the life of that slave was very different than what people think of when they think of slavery in America or British oversees plantations before the abolition of slavery. Certainly different from the treatment of black Africans under the Muslim Arab Slave Trade as we see from the relatively low proportion of them who even survived as far as the slave markets.
As far as New covenant and later Christians, don't forget that when Christians and others were struggling to get slavery banned, it was the so called scientists and atheists who were arguing that black people were inferior and that Europeans were doing the the black peoples a favour by organising their lives for them.
Id love to see a critical review of the god delusion where Alex goes into depth of some of the main things Dawkins has missed out on
It’s good to have respectful conversations like this. But I don’t think all christians necessarily understand the perspective of ex-christians that are now atheists. We are often incredibly frustrated and angry because of the lies (as we view it) that we have been fed growing up and how harmful these lies are.
When having this emotional response to an intellectual realization, it’s very difficult to stay calm. But if we don’t then we’ll be labeled as “angry atheists”. But why wouldn’t we be angry?
Just a perspective I wanted to provide.
I can certainly relate to this as an ex-christian. When hearing their anthropocentrism and their evidence-less assumptions of the universe and nature (often delivered with patronising assertion), I certainly can find it testing at times.
I find with these sorts of debates, the atheist often ends up in situations where they become a teacher, trying to teach the nature of logic and understanding to a student who is completely convinced they already know - a difficult, even impossible situation. Some atheists (like Alex) try to give them examples of hypocrisy or illogic in their belief, temporarily using their framework of understanding in order to show them the irrational nature of their belief, but it rarely seems to work unfortunately.
If we are born with God's moral law written in our hearts, we would have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil. David Hume already took skepticism to its logical conclusion by proving that from a purely materialist view of the world, one cannot derive a Ought from an Is.
Yes, that is accurate. And has no bearing on the truth of the God proposition.
It’s an argument from consequence.
The law written on my heart has always indicated that the god depicted in the bible is pretty evil. What gives?
@@aosidh Or is it the people that were evil? God just slowly had to mould their hearts of stone...
@@JamesAsp By drowning babies? I guess God can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
I do think it is a perfectly fine mythological narrative. But I don't think that a god who only speaks through violence can be said to be the source of goodness!
@@aosidh Now that is a big claim, that God "only speaks through violence". Have you never encountered anything good in your life? Food, being alive, the warmth and day of the sun, laughter etc? If God created the universe, He has created everything you can count as good....
The best part about my jewish religion for me, is the connection it gives me to my ancestors. I know all the stories they told about themselves, and can cratique them from afar, making it easier for me to understand the present moment, in term of larger history, even if you remove god it is still very useful for a culture to remember all the stories our ancestors used, to build the world we live in today. The founding fathers of America were readers of ancient Hebrew. In America we are so aragent to only read recent English books, how will you understand the constitution of united states if you don't know the knowledge those writers used to build our civilization. Now in the current time we want yo throw away all knowledge of the previous generations because those people were not exactly living by the principles they aspoused. But how will you know your own blindspots in the current moment if you don't study those past writings seriously
Alex pushing back against Alister's view on the old covenant vs. the new covenant at around 36:00 asking if those abhorrent things performed in the OT were 'right' at the time. I think Alister's response was unsatisfactory. I think a more questionable, but more satisfying and reasonable, hermeneutic of humans 'mishearing' the word of God to them at that time due to an emerging episteme of God's voice to Man is better than suggesting God's covenant allowed for abhorrent and immoral actions between peoples in ancient times that was clearly mandated by God.
How exactly can anyone say it is a mishearing? unless they think of themselves as godlike
Yes exactly!!! This is one of the most crucial points ever in the bible. There we have an all loving all mighty all wise god of Israel and entire world who just lets slavery slide for his special people. I think that passage in Leviticus is prime example of hebrews writing their own laws however they see fit to live in the ancient world and passing it on as if their almighty god has given them permissions for slavery...
Mishearing of God's Holy Word ? So, like, Moses having 3000 people slaughtered in the desert who left with him but rebelled was a mishearing of "god" ? After carving out the words "Thou shalt not kill" ? (I'm leaving this chat with fewer brain cells, sadly)
@@onedaya_martian1238 I am not sure what you are suggesting. I am certain however that Moses was NOT God and he got it wrong sometimes. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes. However, I do believe God was with him always in spite of his failings. The world at the time was very brutal and to think that this did not have something to do with how humans responded to the voice of God is naive. Is it possible that God changed their minds and hearts in that moment to offer objective sober words? Sure. But it is also possible and far more likely that we should read scripture as if God was working through these figures in the OT, and the NT, rather than perfect embodiments of the Logos in those moments.
@@mountbrocken Sure. God is telling me at this moment that the conversation with people who think any book written by men is "His" word is a failed endeavor. Especially since, as has been pointed out, "everyone gets it wrong."
Somewhere in the universe there is intelligent life. Certainly ain't on this planet...just enough abstract thinking in us for some to realize how primitive we all are; most (blissfully) oblivious to their lack of understanding..and all of us, entertaining ourselves before dying.
Best regards.
Despite the their exalted intellectual status, McGrath, WLC and others resort to avoiding reasonable objections in quite an immature and disingenuous way, which becomes exasperating when engaging with genuine seekers after truth, such as Alex
Genuine seeker of truth?! Alex made his mind up long ago and has no inclination to believe in anything other than his own intelligence.
If you are not persuaded by biblical authority or have not experienced a specific Christian revelation, is it not sensible to remain as a non resistant non believer, in view of the multitude of religious paths on offer. I am 64 years old and despite attending a Christian school and reading the bible several times, I remain a non believer. I still have not made up my mind. But I remain open minded, as I suspect does Alex.
Did I miss Alister's explanation of his Leviticus claim?
It's implicit in what he says about hermeneutics and progressive revelation over the course of the period of composition of scripture. In particular, as Jesus culminates and fulfils the Law and the Prophets (that's what he says he has come to do, specifically not to overturn the Law), he generalised the applicability of the Jubilee decrees in Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 as blessings for "the poor", regardless of their beliefs or ancestry. In his preaching and practise about the kingdom of God on earth (on earth in general, not just Judea) what you see him starting is an implementation of Jubilee as a spontaneous, from-the-ground-up process of redistribution of wealth and liberation that can spread peacefully and exponentially despite Jesus lacking the state power to legally enforce Jubilee which that part of the Law of Moses required, because he was living under Roman colonialism. That being the case, the exception written in Leviticus for non-Jewish slaves no longer applies, because the mandatory emancipation decreed in Leviticus 25 has been universalised, if it wasn't already in the first place. Setting a strict time limit on using people as slaves, whether through debt obligations or purchase from heathen slave traders, no more than 7 years in the case of Deuteronomy 15, before they must be emancipated is a commandment to liberate, not a commandment to enslave.
No he actually said that he will go back and check it out.
Listening is a skill.
@@patrickholt2270 Thanks, that's a much better explanation. I think you're doing logical backbends to erase a few jots and tittles, but at least you recognize the immorality of the old covenant!
@@jacetheshepard1917 Easy there, cowboy! I see that you're right. I would have expected him to spend more time on what seems to be a blatant misstatement, but I do understand that Christians generally don't see a problem with old testament atrocities.
That's a sweeping generalisation that isn't borne out my most of what's in the Old Testament. There is also a forgiving and loving God there, as with Ruth and Jonah, for example. God is anti-Slavery in Exodus, so much so that he liberates the Israelites from Egypt solely because they are poor and enslaved, with the liberation being promised in the text on that basis chapters prior to the rite of circumcision being given which would make them Jews. One of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity is backwards compatible with the Jewish scripture, where the Koran is written to be a replacement and rejection of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. As I hope I made clear in my own comment on the video, the emphasis is continuity not cleavage between the old and new covenants. The idea that the Jewish God is evil and that's why you should be a Christian instead was one of the early heresies during the Roman Empire, Marcionism, which forced the church to make a firm decision about which books should and shouldn't be included in the canon of scripture, leading to the conception of the New Testament as such, rather than churchmen reading from all over scripture without noting a difference. @@aosidh
McGrath misses (or avoids) the essential point that whether we are discussing the Old or the New Testament - it is THE SAME GOD who is apparently okay with slavery in the OT yet seems to be less gung-ho with it in the New.
Saying “oh we have a new covenant now” doesn’t get Yahweh off the hook.
Also VERY FUNNY that McGrath is demanding respect for religious beliefs from atheists - given the centuries of religious intolerance of alternative beliefs!!!
McGrath says people find stridency off putting… and how true that is of Christian apologists and preachers!!!
I think new atheism was an answer to and used the same kind of arrogance and style of language as the evangelical movement in America. Christian evangelicals are for more destructive and dangerous then atheism. The rise of “new”-atheism is not the least thanks to the evangelical movement and in so many cases puts shame on Christianity. Of course one problem that comes in the wake of new-atheism is emptiness or a void it leaves behind. And of course doesn’t answer anything.
The Pirahã didn't suffer from any void though. Daniel Everett has documented the reality of that. Atheism isnt necessarily directly associated with feeling of "a void" for every one of us. Far from it. Generally, you won't even hear from a number of atheists who just live quietly as best they can in societies everywhere. But its not being advertised or talked about. And besides, any void there would be in our societies today, can just as easily be attributed to other issues, in our modern-day stressful ways of existing. And in regard to new atheist, many atheists have long been steeped in religion itself, within groups they've all been caught up within and socialized with throughout their life, or even within a highly religious society what's long been steeped in religion too, for generations. Either way, when the people would begin to drift away from this religious scene itself, after claiming themselves to be atheist, meantime they'll "still take" their black and white ways of thinking, and being, along with them. They'll still remain inclined toward the black and white way of thinking and judging and seeing things. Still most likely continue to tend to react unsocially with people who'll have different opinions than their own opinion, as well too. As by then its also a habit they'll already have had for some time. Such habits as these don't often disappear overnight. For some its likely been "a lifelong habit" they''ll have had, as they'll have been born into religion as babies through family relationships and so forth. New atheism was like "a rupture" of a great septic boil what had been festering in silence for many generations until people had finally had enough of living in silence with it any longer. the reaction possibly relates to intergeneration trauma, and c-ptsd, which is known to cause people to react unsocially in volatile ways. The anger outbursts are also a valuable important part of the healing process too.
@@slimdusty6328looking at this from a historical perspective there have been people who did try to fill the void (and not really a void in a personal sense).
The most famous example would be Nietzsche who lost his faith after reading David Friedrich Strauß "The life of Jesus" (fascinating and rather modern book as I'm reading it right now). One could argue that "Also sprach Zarathustra" was the try to fill the void left by the death of God. Zarathustra could be interpreted as a new prophet for a secular religion that has to come to grips with the "eternal repeating of the same" (ewige Wiederkehr des gleichen). The person who accepted and transcended this state of affairs is the "Übermensch" (a concept that was completely distorted and perverted later on as we all know).
Today there is much less need to fill any voids since the death of God isn't seen as this great catastrophe that Nietzsche saw it as.
@@MrSeedi76 very interesting MrSeedi. I suspect that Christianity very likely created a void for large numbers of people. Specially for 1st nation people across the globe. Their families still continue to face the outcome of intergenerational trauma today, all these generations later on. Same thing too for loads of other peoples families who've been entangled within Christendom, often since their birth, plenty of their families are still facing family divisions and strife along with the associated problems with intergenerational trauma and so forth as well too. A large part of the reason for this level of fear relates to way how Christendom had long enjoyed being able to silence people who'd question. This was also why they'd deemed the unfearful atheists as "new" atheists. The people had finally decided to maintain their right to be openly questioning Christendom. Started sharing info widely online as well too. It's started to destroy the "cult side" of Christendom too, what had served to maintain ignorance, being as there's now plenty of good information freely available online for all people to see.
Paul Vanderklay is a reformed Church of America minister in California and a youtuber is a leader in movement called Estuary that provides guidelines to forming groups that discuss finding meaning in life for Christians and atheists alike to participate in.
A point that is being missed here is the fundamentally Christian character of new atheism and the entire debate around it. This was abundantly clear during Alex and Alistair's exchange on the morality of "Old Testament" laws on slavery; this sort of thing so often seems to come down to "Old Testament bad, explain" vs "Yes Old Testament bad, however, NEW Testament".
It completely ignores the entire distinct Jewish tradition of interpretation of these texts, and indeed the idea that "Old Testament = bad" is itself a deeply Christian idea that has been around as long as Christianity itself, as a way both to justify the necessity of such a "new" covenant in the first place as well as to justify persecution of Jews.
True. Also - it often seems both sides argue from the concept of literal inerrancy and the claim that every single text in the Bible is the literally inspired word of God and needs to apply equally through eternity. Which is basically a modern concept neither applied in ancient Judaism nor Christianity.
Because of this, people think when you can attack one part of the Bible, you have somehow "debunked" everything - Judaism and Christianity alike.
Of course the construct of "bad" OT and "good" NT makes no sense when looking at it for more than 2 seconds, since almost every important teaching of Jesus is taken from the OT and all the apostles considered the OT as the only holy book since they themselves were completely unaware of writing "holy scripture" themselves, unless for one remark in 2nd Peter which many think isn't authentic.
The New Atheists were generally arguing with Christians but not sorely. Hitchens, Harris etc. had debates with Rabbis also.
Steven Weinberg said “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
But I would like to complete that by saying "yes that's absolutely true but, also, for bad people to do good- that also takes religion"
Don’t really get your point
An interesting back and forth!
I would say in response to Alex about the old testament is that in critiques as with many post modern critiques of great literature we are usually projecting our present day understanding onto writings of the distant past like much critisism of Shakespeare, in effect ignoring the context and presuming a modern moral supremacy.
Shakespeare was written as entertainment. The Bible or Quran are instructions that are supposedly relevant today.
This puts any clash with our modern values in a completely different light.
@@bdnnijs192Not really. It would be like taking todays encyclopaedia and then one from a few centuries ago and criticising today’s encyclopaedia on the basis that yesteryear’s encyclopaedia seems to hold different meanings for similar words and that older encyclopaedia was an ascendant of todays and thus todays must be wrong. That was a bit convoluted but I stand by it, I think that is what Brendon is trying to convey. Anyway it is an analogy, not meant to be a perfect simulation of this example but it conveys meaning regardless.
For me te biggest problem with OT slavery was that it was agreed by God. The same god that put so many moral prohibitions on Jewish people somehow was ok with slavery. And the argument that those were different times for me holds no congruity, bcs slavery is immoral now as it was back then - because I would say 99.9% of people on Earth don't wan't to experience it. So a god approving of slavery is just no moral god in that regard, hence that god is not almighty and alwise which is enough to dethrone him.
The book of Exodus is a huge inspiration for most anti slavery movements and the Christian belief that human beings have intrinsic value was the motivation for British lawmakers to abolish slavery, the time that ever happened in human history and yet all that seems to be ignored.
No one is disupting that. The problem is that the same book just a chapter later was used as a moral law to enslave and subordinate africanamerican in deep south in USA in 18th century. You know what a real good almighty and allpowerfull god would say in his commandments? 11th commandment: DONT KEEP SLAVES LIKE EVER!!!!
@@brendonlake1522
Alex as always is fantastic!
People who complain about ‘tone’ are always those on the losing side of an argument.
Oh really? I thought it was the ones who start insulting first, in which case Atheists always lose.
What tone is that ? Nonintelligence as a credible default position is totally tone deaf !
@@davidjanbaz7728 No idea what you mean.
@@davethebrahman9870
Ah, didn't recognize you're trolling in my response to You: you're nonintelligent answer makes perfect sense now !
@@davidjanbaz7728 I hope you feel better soon.
Can anyone please explain the difference between 'atheism' and 'new atheism', if in fact there is a difference?
Completely different dogmas 😂😂
Atheist: I am not convinced of the existence of the god that you claim with all that you claim to know about "him"
New Atheïst: I am STILL not convinced...
There is no difference. Christians invented the term to describe the proliferation of atheism in online spaces. It could be applied to the brand of atheism that became popularized in the early online spaces which was unapologetically aggressive towards religious institutions. The truth is, It did not “fail”, it was highly effective. I think the evolution of online atheism is actually based on looking at research on how to effectively communicate across ideological differences, aggression and demonization just is way less effective then first establishing yourself as a “partner/friend” and then get around to the the reeducation/ deprogramming religious dogma. Alex’s calm, patient, overly complementary tactics are a Trojan horse to disarm religious audiences so to slowly insert arguments past their mental defenses.
@@Lj-ok9ok Thanks for your enlightening and well stated reply.
I love the humbleness of Vince Vitale..
God bless you😇
Great job Alex! I don't understand how "new Atheism" is pertinent. Who cares if Atheism is popular or not. You do your own research and determine your own thoughts and beliefs. UGH!
I'm an atheist. And I keep it to myself unless laws are being considered that cut against the idea of the separation of region ns state.
Thanks for the discussion,
I love how Alex calmly destroys the very foundation of the argument from "personal conviction"...lol 😅
Atheism is not a worldview. It is just not believing god just as not believing in astrology.
Failed at what? I think a lot of theists think that it is the desire of all atheists to convince theists that they are wrong. I personally don’t care what they believe. As long as it doesn’t lead them to antisocial or violent behavior. I would prefer that they not yell in my face that I’m going to hell, and I have no morals, though.
So, long story short, you do care. I'm not suggesting that it's wrong of you to care or not care but it is clear that you cared enough to click on the video and leave a comment saying that you don't care as long as certain conditions are met.
do they say you have no morals or do they say you are of course a moral person but atheism cannot account for or ground properly your staus as a moral person?
@@briansanchez6699 nice try
@@ephs145 the former rather than the latter. Most have not been that sophisticated or interested in philosophical self abuse.
@@ephs145Of course it’s the latter, but I have found these people have not looked into the works of scientists like Frans de Waal and his colleagues that have extensively studied the ethical and moral behaviors of other, non-human, great apes. While human moral systems are, for obvious reasons, much more extensive, the proto-morality is there. Why would a god instill this in beings without a “soul”?
Alex demonstrating humility and intelligence. McGrath demonstrating arrogance and hypocrisy.
Alex is against slavery but he just owned Alister. If we are all born with no belief, Atheism is a lack belief, factory setting not corrupted.
No, that's agnosticism. An indifference to God. But even if the claim that no child is born a believer in God is true, a claim the Bible itself may support, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of either claim for or against the existence of God. Children aren't born with any real understanding of anything anyway.
@@ryanprosper88a-theism. Not a theist. A-symmetrical. Any shape that is not symmetrical. Lack of belief is included in any position that is not believing in a god.
Agnostic is not a belief position. Gnostic means knowledge not belief. Category mistake. A person can be an agnostic theist. As well as a gnostic atheist. Or any combination.
@@ryanprosper88 To have an understanding of God you would need dialog with them, agnosticism is the lack of knowledge something that it is impossible to acquire. A book is just hearsay.
I have to say, even though I’m not in Alex’s camp he definitely is a better communicator. He seems to treat things fairly and was even somewhat gracious.
If we are born with God's moral law written in our hearts, we would have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil. David Hume already took skepticism to its logical conclusion by proving that from a purely materialist view of the world, one cannot derive a Ought from an Is.
As polite as Alex was, and as user friendly as the host was to McGraths side of the discussion, I do think there was a weakness exposed in McGrath's position here. And also a number of inconsistency's being applied by McGrath in his efforts to maintain his position.
44:39
“Faith shaming” implies faith is a very very fragile thing
and ppl don’t need to talk about their faith like they don’t need to talk about their fetishes
My faith is robust and rooted in science and history.
Do you have any education in any relevant topic?
@@20july1944 since religious faith justifies anything and everything I don’t see any value in it other than to get offended
Thusly you demonstrated my point.
So instead of whining about me not answering your question, why don’t you address my OP instead and stop embarrassing yourself
@@mindymildYour OP is subjective and I prefer objective things like science and history.
I'm choosing to discuss the evidence for theism and Christianity specifically.
@@20july1944 well, then why did you reply if you’re not interested? Is it because you took this as an opportunity to pleasure yourself publicly?
@@20july1944
Are you so disconnected from reality that you don’t see how well you were played? The affection you have for your faith isn’t at all unique. It’s because you think your faith is freaking special that you weren’t able to see this unbelievably obvious trap
😂😂😂😂
Oh the arrogant sure are entertaining
Thank you for being so delightfully full of yourself ❤
You claimed that Leviticus 25 forbids slavery, but that is clearly not the case.
The point I was making...I'll go back and check.
Yep, excellent, I'm glad we're able to interact back and forth and challenge what is said so strongly by atheists that people think it can't be challenged. I'm encouraged by this.
Atheism wouldn't be atheism if it promoted a new ideology of philosophy. It may be part of another ideology. But atheism by itself is not.
It sounds like you're talking about agnosticism, which is an indifference to God. Because Atheism is very much a belief that God doesn't exist.
@@ryanprosper88No. Even if you define atheism in that way, it carries no other ideology. You can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife (some Buddhists), ghosts, fairies, deny evolution, Big Bang, etc., etc.
The ONLY thing that binds all atheists is answering “no” to the question “Do you believe in a god/gods?” That’s it, that’s all.
@@ryanprosper88 "indifference to God" pre-supposes there is a god to be indifferent to. That's not true for either atheism or agnosticism. It is another category.
@@ryanprosper88Gnostic Atheism is the fact that we can say for certain that God doesn't exist, Agnostic Atheism is the belief that their isn't enough evidence but it could be true.
Most Atheists say they don't believe in a God because they are so certain but admit they can't rule it out.
If we call Atheists agnostic we have to say that Theists are as well. They basically believe 100% but will admit that you can never be totally certain.
Agnostic as a blanket definition doesn't really help
Th key benefit of religious belief is community spirit and person to person obligations that can be realised locally. Lack of religious belief just atomises us and turns us into people that tries to achieve a far more limited - ‘don’t hurt anyone’.
The obstacles are many but a key one are the very old texts that are mostly filled with lessons that we don’t agree with. Our society is now also mixed with lots of incompatible religions,so everything is now ‘my truth’.
Failed at what? Is this entire debate a strawman?
They've *got* an atheist in the show, so... No.
Also it's not a debate, it's a discussion.
@@Draezeth Do you know what a strawman is?
One thing that jumped out to me early on while watching this video. I really hate young earth creationists and religious people that deny the evidence of evolution because they (correctly) point out that the theory has gaps and unknowns. Basically what they are doing is saying "this part or that part is wrong or incomplete and therefor we can dismiss the entire theory" despite all the other evidence that is confirmed or conclusive; this is a fallacy of division. I noticed that Alex when going over Dawkins criticism of the moral character of the old testament is making this same mistake. They are basically saying "this part or that part of the bible is wrong or immoral and therefor we can dismiss this idea of a moral God entirely" despite all the evidence of the moral good that the practice has lead to (including the eventual abolishment of slavery which is the very thing Dawkins was criticizing in the bible).
So often I find the fundamental Christians' criticisms to be frightfully similar logic to the criticisms of anti-theist atheists (or 'new atheists' as they are described in this context). That tells me very much that this is not a 'science vs religion' debate. Or even a 'reason vs faith' debate. It is simply just 2 different belief systems arguing against each other. This is no different than a debate between Islam and Christianity as far as I can tell.
For the most part I think the 2 in this debate recognize that which is why the remain cordial and reasonable. It is cases in which one or the other party in such debates think they have some moral or intellectual superiority BECAUSE of their belief alone. the religious side is guilty of this often but so is the atheist side; which often have this smug "i am smarter than this person because I don't believe in this silly god business' attitude even though the amount of research they have done is minimal or their logic is extremely flawed. For example I recently watched a debate between Professor Dave and Dr. Tour. Tour was discussing specifics of chemistry and using those specifics to call out specific parts of the research papers that in his expert opinion did not meet the abstraction or hypothesis. Dave on the other hand was simply saying "the research exists" would read the title of the research papers or the abstraction and fail to actually address any details that Tour was trying to point out. One was clearly learned on the subject and the other was trying desperately to rely on the learning and research of others without actually having enough knowledge to delve into the data. oh also Dave does a remarkable great job of attacking Tour's credibility and personal attacks in his opening statements (dismissing the fact that Tour is an extremely accomplished chemist). He called him a fraud and a liar in his opening statements. And Dave probably believes what he said to be true. The issue is, Dave is a freaking moron that thinks he is super intelligent only because he doesn't believe in God. that type of fallacious reasoning and smug arrogance is one major thing that makes the debates between Theists and atheists unnecessarily hostile in many cases.
Slavery still exists, it's pervasive, and we call it "the bond market ". Treasury bonds are issued when governments borrow against the productivity of the people. They OWN your productivity, and they trade in your bondage. Bond is the root of the word bondage, and bondage is the definition of slavery. Most people don't realize that governments and corporations buy, sell, and trade people under free trade agreements. It's really no different than it ever has been, except there are anticompetitive laws to prevent small timers from participating in the slave trade, to protect the monopoly of governments and corporations. It's immoral with the Christian world view, which is why governments and corporations propagandize against Christianity.
And advertising continuously indoctrinates false values. Don't forget that slavery is also compulsory unpaid work, and is a workplace condition, a relationship to the means of production, as Marx puts it. It exists in the US prison system, and is the real reason for the massive expansion of the US prison system over the last 50 years, it is implied in forcing people into low pay jobs especially low paid jobs that include random amounts of mandatory unpaid overtime, also especially through laws that compel people to work in exchange for their welfare benefits which they are supposed to get anyway, so that employers are getting their labour for free. It is the direct consequence and meaning of wage theft, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually when employers short change or fail to pay their workers because they can get away it with due to lack of enforcement and the inability of workers, especially migrant workers, to sue them. Debt bondage, which applies to personal credit but not indirectly through the national debt, is just one means of the oppression of poor and working class people from whom unpaid labour is extracted.
Very wise points, Alex, from about 1:07 to 1:14. And agree with Alister that belief and non-belief, and just the mystery of existence itself (which many believers seem to feel is 'solved' by their belief) is not simple
Great debate!!
Since I became an atheist about 14 years ago, I understand now why atheists compare God to Santa claus. It's extremely easy to not believe. You just give up your irrational fears.
@@paulatiredofthisshitLike what? Have you examined your new belief with similar effort as Christianity? Have you new evidence to suggest the risen Christ is still entombed? Or, as you’ve said, have you merely chosen to not believe?
@@dovonovich Sigh... "new belief" ??? Seriously ??? It sounded like @paulatiredofthisshit is no longer believing in some abstraction based on the christian bible. It is not possible to believe in not believing...I can't "choose" to believe I won't believe in bigfoot.
What is so hard to understand ?
@onedaya_martian1238
I don't think any religion is correct 100 per cent but even scientist have beliefs, and even creationists belief like simulation theory or planet seeding by a higher species. But my point is maby our species require the tension between religious like imagination and scientific testing in order to think past our current understanding
It's always fascinating to heae Alex admit that arguments in favor of atheism are limited to the problem of evil and the silence of God, yet hold that then theism is not true.
I did not know he admits that -- interesting!
Theism isnt true means little unless we're specific about which gods are not true. The fact is none known to humans and popularised in religions are
@@slyzwkowzkiklobarlov1867 How do you know that, Stosh?
@@slyzwkowzkiklobarlov1867created gods are not true. Obviously.
How much do we have left if we exclude gods that are not older than the universe?
@@20july1944 None of their holy preachments (books) comports with reality
Why, Alex, do we need to replace religious beliefs with something else? Isn’t it good enough to remove beliefs in the supernatural?
New atheism was just atheism. There was quite an increase in popularity for a while. It certainly succeeded in the sense that it influenced many people to become atheists. Atheism has continued to grow, in the west at least.
It’s the “old covenant” but I love the 10 commandments.
Alex O'Connor will be our next Christopher Hitchens.
No, I'm confident that won't happen for a couple reasons:
1. Although I don't like Alex, he's clearly more self-reflective than Hitchens was.
2. He's careful to keep his claims limited and his options open.
@@20july1944 Absolutely, Christopher Hitchens 2.0.
Hitchens was dumb n Alex is smart. Very different ppl he even criticised hitchens n called it hitchens sophistry
@@billyoga807 Yes, Hitchens was an ignorant asshole. I don't like Alex as I said before, but he's far more rational than Hitchy-boy.
McGrath comes across a lot like Ann Widdecombe to me in the beginning when they talk about the book. He seems to think his view is superior even though he doesn't really justify his comparisons between faith and science and only uses ideas like string theory that are hardly mainstream science as "proof" for this. As soon as he is pressed - because he is clearly wrong - he just says he will check and doesn't respond further. It gets better when they talk generally about finding ways to talk.
From my viewpoint (in Sweden) the "New Atheists" were very pertinent as a response to the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the United States after 9/11. I don't know how effective it was because evangelicals have gotten worse but perhaps it did strengthen the countering voices.
As Hitch mentioned, religious folks will always want to play with their toys, which is fine as long as they leave the rest of us alone.
Great video, for someone who was born and raised Atheist in a largely Athiest society, I still don't think we have reached a consensus over which religion and which specific denomination is true and how you can reliably tell?? How would one even become religious without just picking any religion at complete random with the possibility of picking the wrong one? Could all faiths all come together to discuss which faiths are true and which are not, or perhaps God could clear it all up immediately and make it abundantly clear to everyone at once to dispel any confusion.
The moderator talked more than both guests together
No; to fail one must first aim at success or even succeed (in whole or part). The 'New Atheism' was/ is not about succeeding (in delivering a specifically 'new' form of thought about not believing in God, 'God', < God >, < g(s) > et al); if it had a general purpose at all that was to appeal to the emotions .. that is to motivate/ remotivate popular disbelief in belief in < G > = what Christians (i.e. what Catholics used to) call 'God'. Stirring up a reaction is not really measurable - nor is it intended to be - as both negative and positive reactions count as discernible passion, so too does apathy or even bathos; rather Saul Alinsky's methodologies and their implementation or adaptation were (and perhaps still are) the only measurable feature; e.g. to target a supposed or actual 'victim' group (or to invent one, and attract adherents) and then to show them a 'way out' of their 'victimhood' by showing the effects of victimological perspectives.
Some so-called - new - atheists have indeed successfully implemented the Alinksy or Alinsky-eques methods .. if only by inventing flying spaghetti monsters or re-presenting some very old sticks to beat at them; but one can only play a victim card for so long .. before some smart cookies start to realise that any precious offering to a higher power, or consecrating oneself as such a gift, is not at all what 'victimology' wants one to accept (or believe). The advertisement - and the product put on view by the ads' salesmen - perhaps only slowly .. reveals itself to be .. misleading.
Notwithstanding, the New Atheism effort is (or was) useful in and of itself - regardless of its headliner Ad Men antics; so far as I can see, and have encountered (for what little that is worth), New Atheism sought to deal with some of Old Atheism's genuine failings .. like bondage to pessimism (rather than the promised liberty to think), sniffily superior egoism (decaying into mere me-ism), non-authoritative dogmatism (without a decently engaging emotion to call its own), and so on; briefly, at heart (if not in effect), New Atheism has sought to teach its proponents how to think clearly .. rather than what to think, when, and how (to fit the ever-shifting In-Crowd mentality) .. and that is a benefit to all mankind.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
There’s nothing exceptional about questioning things…(it’s expected) except when questioning religious beliefs and political parties
It "should not" be exceptional, but the fact of the matter is that it is exceptional because, people are always religious, it doesn't matter if they believe in God or not, if the object of Worship is not God then something else will always take its place, be it an ideology, a political party, a desire, the self, money...etc. and people get defensive when they are questioned about their "religion". So, it is exceptional to have an open conversation without hostility when it comes to "beliefs" even if it should not be exceptional.
@@alenezi989a3
Special pleading for ones “religious beliefs“ is definitely not exceptional
...and there is nothing exceptional about a secularist or sectarian interpreting and mis-interpreting the facts or scripture..aassuming their particular skewed understanding of the facts...and those facts... are virtually the very same thing...
You claim,...:There’s nothing exceptional about questioning things…(it’s expected)..."
🤨..really..Is it ok, then... to question Darwinism...or "Woke"...in the University, or Academy?..🙄
‘new atheism’ appears to have burnt out because we organised, we debated, we figured it out, it’s boring now.
The rules of the game are simple - drink everytime Alister says "very interesting" - actually dont, you will regret it tomorrow
Has atheism failed AT WHAT? Atheism is a statement of disbelief, not an agenda.
Alex keep fighting your corner. Alistair is a giant in Christian apologetics.
Alistair seems rather incompetent. Totally incapable of presenting a single scrap of credible evidence of the god he childishly claims.
Why is that?
I think you left our where new atheism has been referred to as 'militant' atheism. The sheer forcefulness of some of the new atheist arguments often belied the cherry picking ( I think referred to in this video ) of commentors such as Christopher Hitchens....and as a Christian I often felt that what he was attacking was not actually what I believed. So it would not surprise me that a sense that new atheists were attacking a straw man could lead to people finding religion as a result !
I have had many experiences overwhelming love etc..that i thought were spiritual, its all just feeling's and self delusion
About Leviticus 25:44-45 - My answer to McGrath’s non answer
Why did God allow Israelites to buy slaves from foreign nations?
In short, for a time slavery was God’s judgment through Israel upon evil nations, and showed the right judgment of God. Israel was then God’s agent of judgment, but the church is not.
God allowed the Jews to kill attacking enemies and enslave them, because the Israelites were for a time God’s agents of judgment, clearly revealing to the world God’s judgment upon the vile enemies of God and his ways. This judgement was right to do at the time for God was showing his holiness and judgment through Israel.
Even Babylon became a vehicle of judgment against Israel when Israel had fallen deeply into sinful ways. That does not mean God is expressing that the Babylonian invaders killing and pillaging of Jerusalem was righteous behavior. They were just the ones whom God was using to enact his judgment (See Habakkuk). From these stories we can understand the spiritual reality of what happens if you reject God and do evil.
The Old Testament was our illustration or “schoolmaster” to lead the Jews to a greater spiritual reality and a much greater covenant. The Old Testament is a physical picture of the spiritual in the Kingdom of God in our New Testament era. The Passover sacrifice in Exodus is symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God. The passing through the sea was representational of baptism and the long journey to the promise land was similar to the Christian pilgrimage before we are ultimately in the new promised Kingdom (Heaven/New Earth) for eternity. We learn from the Old Testament that God wants to free everyone from slavery and all people can become free if they accept Jesus, the Messiah as their savior.
While the exodus of the Israelites out from Egyptian slavery is obviously a picture of the New Testament salvation and Christian living, Old Testament slavery is representative of being a slave to Satan within his kingdom. In the New Testament being a “slave” entails being captured by worldly lusts and habits, which are ultimately degrading of life and lead to the destruction of the soul. It is working for Satan for meager or worse benefits. The goal of Christians is too free all people from this slavery.
Atheism is ridiculous, ludicrous, and absolutely foolish, but understandable in a fallen world that hates the true God.
If I could have .01 of Alex’s chill