Agree. Not usually a fan of Alex. But in this setting he's a lot more open. I can only hope he's just not being appeasing but will in the future be as open in discussions. His theology as is his interpretation of scripture is diabolical.
@@citytrees1752 This is a trait of pdfi file atheist religion, atheists are the best of people. Islame says the same about muslims btw. And the two religions are more or less the same on any doctrine you can come up with too.
I find him a bit of a grifter and a young boy who has always been complimented about his verbal skills, but never had any real, life destroying, adversity to face. I'm a Christian also and pray that O'Connor would find Christ Jesus and be saved.
Christian here. What Alex O'Conner says about political Christianity as a reaction to what the 1st world experience in immigration etc. is absolutely true. Christians should not blindly rejoice in this "turn". If it is a purely secular reaction to raise the flag of "Christian Culture" opposed to radical change, it could have terrible ramifications if it is only populist reaction to change.
Christianty has a political element. The bible uses example of Kings amd Judges and what happens when they ae good or bad. When they beleve in god or when they dont. The bible says he split all pepole into nations. Those nations that follow his good teachings will prosper. It is not just about the indivdual. Also lots of countrys have a national religion and the religion reinforces morals and values in law. Islam explicty says Law, Religion and Nation are one. Christianity has room for the leaders to be pagans but expects christians to become kings, Judges and Priests in turn and rule the nation. Modern pepole have forgotton this about christianity and think not having lots of christian rulers is normal. We are not the USA with its hard seperation of church and state.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point. I think it’s a real concern if people are blindly endorsing a sort of cultural Christianity that is pro right and populist in character. It could take us I’m a similar direction to the States and many European countries.
Sage words for sure. The ploy of the devil is not not just to lie but to deceive even if he has to push you so far into YOUR understanding of what is True that you swing past the plumbline of truth (Jesus Christ) and into the opposite side of the same old coin that represents deception in all of its forms. Our eyes must not be on the coin but on the treasure of knowing and following Christ
@@boberKurwa23 The mass spiritual awakening to Jesus is real. I was an atheist for 20 years and like dozens of my atheist friends lately, we have been touched by the hand of God. The people finally want the spiritual truth, not the empty and false belief system of atheism that you espouse. Not the religion that says you are worm food and there is absolutely no objective meaning to you and everything you do in your life - this is obviously a false belief and even a small child knows that. This is why millions are leaving neo-atheism today and flocking to Christ. You’ll laugh, mock, and use the same recycled lines over and over, and you have no power anymore because the people have awakened. You cannot comprehend what Christians have because you have not been touched by the hand of God.
You could easily make these chats 3hours or thereabouts. You do a wonderful job of them and there's a real appetite for it now. People are ready, willing and able to listen to what others have to say about these kinds of complex and fascinating topics. Thank you Freddie and the Unherd team. You are doing really wonderful work, especially of late, I think.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan
His book "The Demon Haunted World" if I'm not mistaken. Read it in the 90's and still think about of it on occasion durning discussions of the concepts covered in this presentation. It also reminds of Voltaire who says that those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
I don't find this discussion encouraging at all. The message I got from this is that when people are fearful of the future and untrusting of human authorities, they will turn to magical thinking and superstition instead of doing the work to find real solutions to the problems we face.
Real solutions? So many problems have no "real solutions" without the imposition of one set of values over the other, in such cases the "real solution" is not reasoned, it will come down to who tells the best story, and in the current state of things there's a lack of any spiritual, sentimental, romantic, metaphysical or whatever you want to call it. So often you can't reason about society, because it's about value judgement that come down to taste, western liberal democracies try this whole "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone", that's contrary to taste, however, and flies in the face of finding a common aspiration that will give a "real solution", so religion has the upper hand, it's already established, nationalism is becoming more popular, too. Gotta tell good stories and make people feel good about life, somehow.
'turn to magical thinking and superstition', yes there is that at play and always has been, but there has always also been 'the need of the part to have a connection to the whole' that is evidenced in a range of spiritual outlooks Pagan (Nature), Buddhist (Nirvana), Christian (God). That isn't about magic and superstition it's about altered consciousness, seeing past the object/subject division of reality towards the underlying oneness, connection to which is often experienced as 'spiritual love'
Classic athiest. Belief in nothing is a belief. Agnosticism is the true rational position. An agnostic clearly says the truth: I do not know either way, I may find out, I may not. It's not a position that there can be nothing that exists beyond the 5 senses.
I find it annoying really, I mean there's absolutely a time for doing that, but when you're in a discourse like this one, being too emotional actually makes the other people less likely to open up as they might say something that makes the person even more emotional.
That's because for her religion, and Christianity specifically, is all about feelings and emotions. There is no appeal to reason in her argument. The moderator was right to say that she was making a case for a "retreat of rationality" because that is actually what she was doing. But man did you see how offended she got when he said that?
Situation A: a person is receiving comfort directly from the Holy Spirit. Situation B: a person has convinced themselves that they are receiving comfort from the Holy Spirit, but they actually aren’t. How could we tell these two situation apart?
There are ways, but all of them are as subjective as the prompt. The Bible says, “You shall know them by their fruits”. That’s just about the only objective way to see if someone is actually a Christian.
@@Jerome616 So if someone says the Holy Spirit told me to do X, if they’re generally a good person who is Christian, you just believe them no matter what? Doesn’t seem like a good method. Take care, friend 👋
@@oftenincorrecthe did not say generally good- you did. Obviously you can’t tell amongst the generally good. The only objective marker is self sacrifice in a manner that conflicts with natural human instincts in a person who is otherwise sane and functional. Most Humans have instincts towards following social norms, self sacrificing for children and kin, gaining social approval, preserving their own life etc. so if someone is self sacrificing in a manner that opposes those instincts and self interests in a situation where there is nothing for them to gain- that is an objective marker that they are being guided by something beyond themselves.
@@oftenincorrect it depends on if what they did was consistent with what is doctrine. I would never say I assume they have it, but that’s life right? We usually don’t have absolute certainty about many things. We look at the evidence and act in accordance with what we have to work with.
@@SL-es5kb "for no greater love is their than this, to give up ones life for a friend." "...but I tell you, Love your enemies!" Yes, we are called to more then just self interested good acts. If you see that kind of radical love, it truly speaks to the hearts of those around that person.
I'm Christian. I respected Alex so much more here than the lady who was spouting "coffee shop Christianity". There is a saying "Biblical Christianity is not popular, and popular Christianity is not biblical." There is a lot of truth in that.
I just thought she was speaking more on an emotional, personal level. I think that approach is just really inappropriate for conversations like these. I mean tbh, I would be the same way in a debate like this, because I have a really personal reason for my atheist beliefs. But all that does is win over sympathy from people who agree with you, and alienate people who don't. IMO
@@raemir I think what the commenter meant by coffee shop christianity is when you “choose to believe” as they talked about in the video or when you see the teachings of the religion you adhere to as something less valuable than the form of belief you find yourself in. This is unbiblical as you can see in First Corintians 15:14 “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” As you can see bible is not supportive of choosing to believe but demands a faith grounded in truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it is a more general wide problem that many peoples’ arguments and reasons for their belief in a religion doesn’t always match the reasons presented within their religion.
I’ve been a church going, homeschooling, homemaker over the last 15 years. And I definitely notice a difference in the way people respond to me. They are much more positive and open minded. I used to get eyeballs people would instantly lose interest in talking to me, and there was even the occasional mocking or critical questions. Now I find people cheering me on, or asking me questions in an open-minded way. Where I used to be called unemployed. Now I’ve been giving the title of Trad-wife. Definitely an upgrade lol
Forest meet tree. Sounds like a political movement. Honestly very similar to the trans stuff with young girls. Tying yourself to a movement gets you dragged behind the wagon.
Amazing what surrounding yourself with those that blindly agree with absolutely everything you think instead of having to deal with any of that pesky legitimate criticism, contradictory evidence or facing your own moral hypocrisy, amiright? "I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned” - Richard Feynman “The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism.” - Wole Soyinka
She (and the apologist) see morality and connection to something greater than oneself (spirituality) as a choice between following Christianity OR rationally derived values (which they erroneously call secular humanism). To their own limitation, they aren't considering the evolutionary moral fabric that we are made from and the myriad ways we are able to connect to something greater than ourselves without evoking the supernatural.
She was definitely preachy, but I think her point was made that the vast majority of human decision making is done from an emotional perspective from experiences. People rarely cram books about apologetics or struggle with epistemology and come to a conclusion about how they want to derive value in their lives or how they want spirituality (or lack thereof) to play out in their lives
@@eggn00dle36 yes, I do think that's a valid point but it's not a great argument for convincing any non-christian of the truth of Christianity. Personal anecdote is fine but the moment you try to convince others with that , that's where the problem lies imo
'her whole argument is to sacrifice your rationality', I don't think that's what's she's saying, she mentions Iain McGilchrist who focuses on Left-Right brain thinking, and says that we're living in a 'left brain world' which is another way of saying 'very narrowly propositional thinking in a very divided picture of the world that sees things as very separate objects and subjects', so her call is to an 'extended rationality' that includes all the connections and deeper patterns within and without, that are more fully experienced, not just boxed up into neat propositions that you simple agree or disagree with like 'does God exist, yes or no?'. My personal experience is that the best way to move in this direction is to forget the God question and practice mindfulness meditation. That forces you to experience the interconnected constantly changing reality we really live in, where you begin to see the dependant nature of the personal self, and realise you own limited being, and thus open to a wider deeper sense of being in a world of 'underlying oneness' and 'inter-being'
G. K. Chesterton - "On five occasions in history the Church has gone to the dogs, but on each occasion, it was the dogs that died." Maybe we are looking at the 6th dog not looking well?
Exactly. The point about technology and social media leading to feelings of isolation was only briefly discussed. I think it was on the moderator to pull on that thread more and ask a follow-up question: "Is a Christian revival the best solution to satisfy the desire for community that many are craving." I certainly don't think it is in its current form.
You can but secular people have been really bad at setting this up outside of organized religious structures. If I want to go to a weekly meeting of fellow utilitarian vegans where I don't need to explain myself or my ethics, there aren't a ton of ways for me to join a community like that and trying to set something up myself leads to people flaking or not committing. I don't know why it's so hard to get something like this off the ground in the secular world but it is.
True, but I don’t think a single out trans person is the world has could make that point. Which is of course a huge reason why the “revival” is happening
@MusiKo14 but you just need to find your people. I play magic the gathering every Saturday and there is a big group of people doing it as well. It's not that we are bad at it it just needs to be done.
A good discussion, Alex was good, as usual. But a heck of a lot of terms that in fact have very distinct and clear meanings were being conflated by panel and audience alike (Alex withstanding). Secular, humanist, woke and liberal. Early on in the Four Horseman discussion at Hitch’s apartment (how long ago does that seem now?! And was it the first long form UA-cam video of its kind? Maybe), they made clear definitions of terms and distinctions as they went along, even when each of them were not diametrically opposed in views, they had each their nuances. I remember the numinous, transcendent and paranormal being a key one (celestial as Hitch would have said). I know this was really just a lively, vivacious dinner table chat over a glass of wine, but Liz and Justin particularly got away with a lot here. I would like more rigour for the next one, and I think Alex would too, from Freddie, as moderator, though each did their best given the circumstances and tone of the ‘debate’.
This chat really needs a Christian (born/bred/intellectually inclined) that is no longer a Christian. The cultural swing back towards appreciation for Christian ideals (which is great) needs a nuanced insider look at Christianity’s many landmines/ issues of limiting free thinking and dogmatism that block others out more than provide an open source spiritual pilgrimage /space for humanity explore and grow in.
@@matheussalim5652 yes there are certain ideals that can support free thinking within scripture/Christian belief. My experience is (and I’ve heard many others as well) that most Christian community members do not feel necessarily “free” to consider other beliefs and openly share their exploration. It is taboo (unless in some intellectual forum such as this) to regularly express one’s exploration of other ideas that would counter Christian beliefs/propositions about the main doctrines. I do see a limited space provided to express an initial level of “doubt,” but the assumption seems to one will return from that “confusion”, per se, back to “belief.” Overt and consistent uncertainty in the main Christian doctrines/openness to other ideas maintained as a landing place is not really normalized or “allowed” (“allowed” not used literally but in the context of more subconscious group-think) in most Christian communities. I notice a lot of push back when one desires to glean only spiritual lessons & wisdom from Christianity sans the doctrines. If you come from a particularly open setting that does allow for this, my commentary might not make sense to you. But the majority of Christian settings foster a sense of keeping this to yourself, at least if you’re exploring the big ticket items as not being true anymore (Jesus’ role as savior, resurrection, belief in God).
@@matheussalim5652 "The whole concept of freedom to think stems from the Christian worldview". Actually, if we accept that western civilization is based in some way on christian values, then it is christianity by the way of 10 commandments that introduces the whole concept of NOT being free to think - 10th commandment is one of the earliest (if not actually the earliest) examples of law against a thought crime, telling someone they're guilty if they just think the wrong thing.
One hugely important takeaway for me is that morality is far more important than metaphysics. Heaven on earth, not heaven up there. Heaven for everyone, not heaven for just us.
I'm 24, I was raised an atheist but have converted to Christianity recently. The atheist world view felt empty and didn't do justice to the full breadth of human experience. I have found myself far happier as a result of conversion. God bless you all. EDIT: Coming back to this comment after a week, it strikes me how the atheists respond - with much bitterness. I think that speaks volumes.
He is a theology graduate.. from Oxbridge no less, has wrestled with belief himself many times - he knows and has studied it more than 99% of professed believers. He’s incredibly interested in theology, why religion manifests, perhaps why it’s a biological urge also.. he just doesn’t believe it’s claims, after all those many layers of searching for evidence, faith and deduction. Makes him a formidable debater on the topic.
@@Alex-mj5dvThat's pretty bold to claim that any 20 something year old young man who has dedicated their entire adult life to promoting atheist arguments "knows" Christianity better than 99% of those who believe Jesus to be Lord. He's very intelligent, but I have little doubt he could use that intelligence to work through his own objections himself.
@@harlowcj he was a Christian not so long ago. Possibly what we’d call a ‘cultural Christian’ as stated here, but I think he’s alluded to in his teen years he did believe some parts of the suspension of disbelief. He obviously lost his faith as he aged and enquired more. I think he wrestles with it still. But he knows his theology, very well. Check out his videos specifically on such.. and, yes, he’s young but he’s done more rigour on this than most - and it’s personal rigour, nothing more. Belief is belief, it’s wholly personal. He is finally interviewing Jordan Peterson so let’s see if he can get any direct sense on the matter from JP, who obfuscates more than usual when it comes to religion, and belief in the divine/otherworldly specifically. Hitch said he was once asked by a Christian ‘do you ever question your atheism?’ And he replied, ‘yes, of course, daily.. and I am happy to do so. Do you question your Christian beliefs also?’ Atheism is merely a lack of belief in something claimed, as informed by the evidence available in what we can empirically observe. That’s it. It’s not character defining, I am also an atheist but don’t introduce myself as one, the same way I don’t shake hands for the first time and say ‘Hi, I’m Alex and I’m straight, and I don’t believe in the tooth fairy or Santa, Zeus and Thor’. It’s just a non sequitur in that regard.
I think many people without exposure to the bible don’t realize it is story after story of people who struggle with doubt, conflict, disbelief, war, sexuality, violence, sin, meaning of life, loss, political strife, and death. Most people in the bible spend much of their time struggling in between various stages of their journey.
That is because the Christians that are supposed to tell these story's are arrogant "I know best" people...look here in the comments and one can see that clearly!
It is good to think about the Bible this way, probably the best way. But the sad reality is that it's a contradictory mess cobbled together by flesh and blood humans in the third century and it now means whatever the priests want it to mean. Also the struggle to believe is a thread that runs through all abrahamic religions. You can be a struggler, a fanatic or an apostate. That's it.
@@sebastianb.1926 I think you'd find that that if you searched a little harder you'd find that the last thing the Bible is, is a "contradictory mess cobbled together by flesh and blood humans in the third century". True "the struggle to believe is a thread that runs through all Abrahamic religions" but I believe that "trust" would be more accurate than believe.
@@shak535 It sounds like you're looking for affirmation that staying atheist is the right thing. This feels like a position I was in (occasionally am in).
Yes. Affirming Christianity because you need to be part of something bigger than you and feel loved is not any bible reason to be Christian. She doesn’t seem to know that being a Christian means giving your whole life to the cause of Christ. Money, time, effort, beliefs. And I don’t see any of these new belief people doing that.
I left Christianity 47 years ago and have been an atheist ever since. The life of atheism and secular humanism is rich and meaningful. Belief without evidence will destroy humanity.
@@johndroycroft People just can’t live as if morality were merely subjective and the only way it can be elevated to the objective (which everyone that objects to any behavior being objectively wrong) is for God to exist. Take a fairly famous quote from Dawkins, In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Despite him stating there is no good and no evil, he lives as if lots of things aren’t good. And we all do the same.
The concept of "evidence" belongs in the scientific paradigm. Science is concerned with understanding the behaviour of nature. Religion is not concerned with that. Religion is concerned with the essential nature of reality. There is no "evidence" for or against god, you know the nature of reality directly, experientially. Divinity is something you either acknowledge, or you don't. // Religions do get lost in moralising and dogma, and that's good to reject but the issue of god's existence is separate from those problems religions have.
I am not trying to troll anyone, but, the Tom Holland thesis, in addition to the problems Alex pointed out, is simply narrow and culturally chauvinistic .No Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, indigenous shaman, Daoist, or any of the many varieties of Hindus, Greek pagans had any notion of the good. I have a deep respect for the good Christians have brought and bring into the world, but, it is not wholly unique.
But Christianity IS the primary worldview which shaped the West. Not Judaism, Buddhism etc. No one is disputing moral standard in those belief systems. Its about which belief system shaped our past and past culture.
@majose7787 but this must not be accepted. We must uphold pluralism in order to keep Christianity away from our lives. To be free to do whatever we want.
Actually, this kind of proves my point. Reread the post more carefully and consider what it would mean for a tradition to be “right”. Right about what exactly.
'Right' as in it is the best way to live. Empirically proven that Christianity has the most potential to improve lives of ordinary people. Christian countries (especially if the Protestant persuasion) have better economies, better morals. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and atheists are moving to Christian countries. Christians aren't moving the other way.
All I hear from the believers is: If we believe we’re all part of God’s plan, that we’re special and life has meaning, then we don’t feel meaningless, unimportant and unremarkable in the universe. If you open yourself to believe in miracles, you will believe in miracles. If you believe that people can die and resurrect, you’ll believe Jesus did rise from death. Have we forgotten what circular reasoning is? The penultimate person in the audience started to believe in Christianity again because of “the lies about masks, vaccines and climate change”. Ok…
I think I was moving in the direction Alex describes in the 'inappropriate questions' section, now I have to wonder what that means about me for a little bit. Excellent video, really enjoyable.
I think Alex was very judicious in his responses and did a great job. There were a lot of things that I'm sure he bit his tongue on. But that particular part was a great great response from him. I agree with the other poster, I wish there were some responses from the other panelists.
Hey, I’ve been atheist since I was 9. Y’all wanna have purpose & community without doing the heavy lifting. I’m saying this to atheists and Christians. Go help the poor, go clean up some beaches, go work a job that serves the public. Literally do anything that actually is useful and worthwhile to society and I promise you, you’ll be fine. If you’re on the phone all day then what do you expect?
The part that most confounds me is why people need to choose one particular team in their search for understanding and meaning. That seems to me to be the great problem. The creative force of existence likely wouldn't be so interested in a my way or the highway sort of relationship because everything is it and it is everything.
Even as a practicing Christian, this is the correct answer. People like Thomas Merton and G.K. Chesterton are where I find I fit in the most - not the clearly self-interested ethnonationalist Christianity that is being peddled by many on the new Right.
I think a challenge I’ve come to understand recently is that many spiritual pursuits prioritise the deconstruction of ego and self, all of our problems stem from our self identity and the defence and survival of it. In picking and choosing, you aren’t dying to that self, you’re keeping yourself in that Godly position, deciding who and what is right. The ego continues to win out. At some point, we must pick and love one path, and devote our self to it and surrender
@@jackiedelvalle Leviticus 24:44-46 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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'm with Alex here in the sense that I'd love to believe in a personal God who loves us all but I am just 'not able to choose to believe' in anything supernatural with no evidence, because my reasoning faculties will not allow me blind faith. Why would God give us the faculty of reasoning and then expect us to suspend our disbelief in order to believe in the impossible?
That is very simplistic. A mother who sees her first new born feels love for the child, so this relationship between mother and child is a reflection of the Divine reality of our existence. The mother never stops to think if her love for her newborn child is reasonable.
Numerous people have "reasoned" themselves INTO faith in Christ. They've found the historical testimony, evidence for the Resurrection, order, harmony and beauty in the Universe, universal objective morality and other reasons to be so compelling that they put their trust in God. So your idea that God asks us to suspend rationality to believe in Him is quite frankly, nonsense. Faith is belief based on evidence, not faith without it.
@@vanc4297 Reason is good but we need some belief about facts that is beyond measurement. This opens and broadens our sensorium, to I would hope, the ultimate good. A mother loving her child learns what she is made of. We get to know ourselves through the other. And sure the mother will have many experiences along the way that will challenge notions she might have about her own capabilities. There isn't a point, where one could say they have everything sown up and have arrived.
@@outoforbit00 I honestly don’t see how you are responding to my response. In your analogy the first thing that happens is the “mother feels the love.” In your analogy experience comes first,
@@meme-gd2pk Alex is smarter than Sam Harris. I wish Alex continued in his studies though. He's still young and graduate school would give him exposure to new ideas outside of his comfort zone, mentorship, and very smart individuals to challenge his intellect. Not sure if he has those things now.
This is the NPR-ification, goal shifting of the Christian faith to meet the modern moment sparked by the death of radio and 15 min regurgitated sermons and rise of 2hr podcasts and compassionate acceptance of all walks of life. Here we see the religion evolving to survive in its natural habitat. The same as it has done, and the same as it will ever do.
Asking the question "is there any atheist anywhere who does not bone kids" is the same as asking "Can men menstruate and give birth" In both cases the answer is no.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the jew, and also to the Greek - Romans 1:16
@@pkingpumpkin Discretion is indicative of dignity and decorum, not of shame. There's a distinction between propriety (respecting others) and shame (hating yourself), something that doesn't go through the average cowboy's thick skull.
Such a lovely conversation. Enjoyed every contribution. Alex never disappoints, Elizabeth was passionate and eloquent, Justin was excellent and lovely, the moderator was great, questions were exciting. Lovely.
Elizabeth Oldfield is talking about being a dimensional, whole, human. Very important. The West has become overly fixated on the scientific and rational, as if that’s all there is.
@@jackistooloud Science observes the material, necessarily. But what about the immaterial? For example, a person who falls in love wouldn’t attempt to describe the person they love by gushing about the sequence of their cell DNA, etc. They love the whole person, the EXPERIENCE of the person. And those things cannot be put under a microscope. That’s just one example.
@@jackistooloud Like for example... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth, while noiwhere in history has this been true, it's a blatant lie. And they claim too that this is backed by "science". Atheist religion, which sparked into existence around 2009 with chris hitchens and richard dorkins, is a true cult, exactly like islame is.
It's a reaction to the breakdown of classically liberal socio-political structures. A search for cultural groundedness. It is being driven by a disenchantment with enlightenment liberalism, a reaction to a rise of socialism, and an identification (false in my view) of classical liberal social structures with traditional Christianity. In the same way as renaissance thinkers reached back to Greece and Rome, the thinking class now are reaching back to Christendom. But not faith per say. Also - technology has led to a measurable rise in narcissism - and this style of religion is very much narcissistic about "finding myself", and "finding meaning". It's a rise in 'luxury' Christianity. It is similar to when the printing press was invented in many ways.
I see this too. And a general belief that there is so much evil in modern society only God can save Western civilization. Unfortunately the churches are not providing this, they are as said woke, and preach "nice" over the word of God, where as I see young people seeking more "fire and brimstone." Perhaps new faiths will emerge.
Gladly it's a very small portion of the thinking class that virtue signals their Christendom allegiance. It's mostly the people that aren't able to critical think that reach back to christiendom. And the people that are not willing to do due dilligence and try to get factional.
"We need collective formation. We need to immerse ourselves in communities of moral formation." I identify as non-theist, certainly an atheist in respect to the fundamentalist Christianity I was brought up in but not atheist to many other modes of expressing what God is. That being said, this quote here is what drives me to continue interacting with Christians. It's the one thing as an atheist that I cannot find anywhere remotely close in proximity to my community. Perhaps that is the calling for me to create the space, but certainly, given that the current infrastructure for non Christian moral centered communities is lackluster and filled with woo and draws most of its wisdom from the very traditions they reject only they've frankensteined something new together out of them, I just can't help but to wish for Christianity to become what it has always claimed to be. I have found meaning outside of Christianity's context, but not community and I envy that most. Like Alex, I have tried to return to the faith, but I see it as Kierkegaard saw it, Christendom being full of these "political Christian" types, only I believe myself to have more to stand my ground with outside of the tradition then Kierkegaard had at his disposal and in my culture I was able to become something different than he. As with Alex, although I do believe Christian faith is beautiful and good and cares about virtue and love above all else, I certainly don't view Christianity as being absolved of its own sins. It's bound to its own framing and I'm not convinced by any of the apologetics arguments or by Tom Holland's arguments in the slightest that our culture's moral progress is solely a product of Christian ethics. I think that much of its ethics are deeply flawed and I'm not capable of just accepting it all as good because the Bible is good because it's the word of God and God is good. I am afraid that Christianity's growth today is mostly political. Certainly not all of it, I attend a Latin mass with my Catholic friend every so often and he tells me how there's always people coming to dip their toes in the more traditional expressions of worship and devotion, but for every teen or young adult going to a Latin mass there are 100 others putting on their cross necklace for the first time to complement their MAGA merchandise. Christianity is beautiful, but it is also ugly and I'm not sure whether that ugliness is merely a product of Christians themselves being uninspired or that the Scriptures and traditions are simply fundamentally lacking the necessary psycho-social tools to keep people and to keep itself from turning into the monsters it swore it would protect us from. Personally, I've played with the idea of joining Zen communities to try and find what I'm looking for as they aren't bound to the same propositional tyranny of dogmatism that Christianity is, but even they are a part of the larger Buddhist traditions and much of it has succumbed in the same manner as Christianity to the confirmation biases of the cultures that the religions evolve through. There's no academy of Plato, no congregations of druids wandering the plains and forests to question and ponder, the majority of the university's are cash cow corporations facilitating woke tyrannies and the majority of the eco chambers of churches cannot see beyond their walled perceptions of heresy. I yearn for communities of moral formation, but I yearn more so to not succumb to false truths. It's not as simple as Pascal makes it out to be. With the age of technology, Christianity is fully exposed for all to see. I have to follow my heart, but it does not lead me back to the church. So I wander, trying my best to maintain that not all those who wander are lost, making peace with uncertainty through humility and love. Perhaps it is the will of God that I remain outside of the faith and perhaps my efforts and interactions will produce the kinds of Christians that I think the world really needs. I think Alex's work accomplishes this.
Saying that some of those alternative ideologies draw wisdom from the very traditions they reject is missing the point. There are underlying truths that Christianity draws from. Zen draws from those underlying truths as well. The key is to focus on those underlying truths that help us derive meaning and purpose and a feeling of safety and well-being.
Here's a ChatGPT summary: - The discussion took place in a fully sold-out room at the Unheard Club, focusing on the possibility of a Christian revival. - The speaker noted a shift in the political and cultural conversation over the past five years, with a more visible Christian component. - Intellectual and opinion-former Christians like Matthew Crawford, Paul King's North, Ian Ciali, Nick Cave, and Russell Brand have had notable conversions. - Justin Briarly, author of "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God," observed a shift in the atmosphere and noted a decline in new atheism's influence. - Despite statistics showing a decline in church attendance and religiosity, Briarly feels there is a turning of the tide towards spirituality, especially among young people. - Liz Oldfield noted a significant shift in the spiritual landscape, with more social permission to explore spirituality and metaphysical yearnings. - Oldfield highlighted the rise in psychedelics and climate anxiety as factors driving spiritual openness. - Alex O'Connor, an atheist, argued that the struggle for meaning is not new and suggested that technological advancements like the iPhone have contributed to modern nihilism. - O'Connor also noted that figures like Douglas Murray and Tom Holland, who are sympathetic to Christianity, do not explicitly believe in God. - The panel discussed the potential for a Christian revival, with varying views on whether it would be a political or spiritual revival. - The discussion touched on the role of Christianity in addressing modern existential crises and the need for collective moral formation. - The panelists debated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, with Justin Briarly suggesting that suspending materialist assumptions could make the resurrection more plausible. - The conversation also explored the impact of Christianity on modern values like social justice and the abolition of slavery, with differing views on its historical role. - The panelists agreed that Christianity should not be co-opted for political agendas and emphasized the importance of genuine spiritual transformation. - Main message: The discussion highlighted a perceived shift towards spiritual openness and the potential for a Christian revival, driven by both cultural and existential factors, but emphasized the need for genuine spiritual transformation rather than political co-option.
@@RNCM_Philosophy on github, user mbrochh, repo py-erudite is the tool I built to make these. The prompt is: Create a bullet point summary of the text that will follow after the heading `TEXT:`. Do not just list the general topic, but the actual facts that were shared. For example, if a speaker claims that "a dosage of X increases Y", do not just write "the speaker disusses the effects of X", instead write "a dosage of X increases Y". Use '- ' for bullet points: After you have made all bullet points, add one last bullet point that summarizes the main message of the content, like so: - Main message: [MAIN MESSAGE HERE] --- TEXT TITLE: {title} TEXT: {chunk} """
[what does wisdom look like?] "Chuang-tzu tells a lovely tale about a sage who was wandering along the bank of a river near an enormous cataract. Suddenly, way up at the top of it, he saw an old man roll off the bank into the water, and he thought, 'This man must be old and ill and is putting an end to himself.' But a few minutes later, way down below the cataract, the old man jumped out of the stream and started running along the bank. So the sage and his disciples hurried, scooting after him and, having caught up with him told him that what he'd done had been the most amazing thing they'd ever seen. 'How did you survive?' they asked. 'Well,' he answered, 'there is no special trick. I just went in with a swirl and came out with a whirl. I made myself like the water, so that there was no conflict between me and the water.' " -- Alan Watts.
I spoke to a clergyman recently who said he is quite surprised to see significant numbers of, especially men, in their 20s and 30s coming into church to talk about God, faith etc. Something is changing. I think all 3 panellists are correct in one way or another. Friends of mine (I'm in the above category) are also asking questions.
It's quite fascinating that I came across this so randomly after just two hours from having a conversation with a friend about the same observation. TOTAL Synchronicity
@@Being_Bohemian haha, my point was that I have also observed this trend of spiritual awaking and more youngsters talking about christ, rather than the fact that I came across the video.
The measure of a Christian is not how well they love their neighbour or how moral they are but how well they know God and who and what He is and so apply what they know to themselves. Our salvation is not how well we do but how well God has done.
You're talking about the old Christianity, which believes in the God of the Bible and all the silly miracles. New Christianity is about getting yourself to accept the concept of God and deciding who you'd like Him to be.
As an unsure atheist I can tell you that with cool headed discussions like these there is massive potential for the christians to get people more interested. Already now I think there are many "agnostic" people who favour christianity.
@@magicker8052which is precisely what it was. It desperately lacked in scholarly depth. Wasn’t serious or profound, extremely reductionist lacking in nuance and intellectual humility. Was pretty embarrassing for atheism tbh. Bunch of opportunistic crusaders. Hardly the best in class when it comes to a critique of religion.
@@Thomo707 For many it was important and significant and if you wish to have an adult conversation about religion you cant go calling it "nonsense". For many people held hostage by religion it allowed them to see that was another way. That the stories fed to them as children were only that and that there was life after religion. The vast majority of religion fed to child is just what you describe "desperately lacked in scholarly depth. Wasn’t serious or profound, extremely reductionist lacking in nuance and intellectual humility" So ANYTHING that helps them escape this is useful.
57:11 What?! Justin says that all Gnostics come a couple of centuries after the first Gospels? Wow. This is totally false. Gnostic Christian sects started before even the first Gospels were written. Paul was aware of the Gnostics, and his letters predate the Gospels.
The world wide web has been the best thing to happen to Christianity. 30 years ago, we would never have had access to this sort of discussion. Thoughtful people seeking answers in front of thoughtful audience available in everyone's personal phone. Incredible.
@@peace4policy The way she described her convictions in the conversion was basing her views on feeling rather than rationality. She was unable to get the religion to make sense rationally but liked the feelings of comfort, raised self worth ("becoming the person she wants to be"), and sense of meaning she got from it. Purely rational people are generally good at describing the world but this view leaves out meaning. The secular humanists discussed often dont want to admit this and say they can have their cake and eat it too by having an objective secular morality where one fails to exist. The only meaning to be had their is a personal one that has no objective basis to apply it to the world. Liz and many others do the opposite. She said herself she failed to find meaning or religion using rationality, but felt that religion made her and the world a better person. This sense of "better" is a feeling. She and many others like to try to have their cake and eat it too by claiming that they are rational at the same time, that their feelings should be considered a different kind of rational when they are not the same thing. Likewise to the individuality of meaning of the secular person, the conviction Liz feels for her religion is just a feeling that cannot be made into an objective rational explanation of the world. I think Liz and those of similar views should do what some moral skeptics have done on the rational side: admit they cant have their cake and eat it too. For example, many postmodernists or nihilists accept a rational view of the world and readily admit there is Admit that these feelings are not rational.
The zinger that Alex had at 35:52 with "God-willing" was really good. He tied that in well in his closing remarks about divine hiddenness. Alex clearly seems open to Christianity. It makes sense that he's bewildered he hasn't experienced something that pushes him to Christianity.
At the 48 minute mark, Elizabeth makes a comment implying that only religion can save us from our worst selves, only religion can save us from consumerism. She says we need to immerse ourselves in communities of moral formation. My question is, "Why necessarily must these communities involve belief in supernatural claims, when, in fact, belief in supernatural claims has caused considerable suffering, misery and death in human history?"
I would firstly say that, whilst supernatural beliefs have caused suffering and pain - they have caused far greater goodness. There is a misplaced belief that religion causes wars (according to the Encyclopedia of Warfare, less than 7% of wars were primarily caused by religion) and atheist states are free of this (look to communist nations to see atheists are just as capable of producing pain). Christianity is responsible (look at St Basil) for hospitals and orphanages, Christians throught-out history have gone above and beyond in exposing themselves to fatal infection in treating those who are diseased. It is silly to look at Christianity, and dismiss it as a negative agent. With that said, if you want the honest answer of why you need supernatural beliefs - look to humanist churches. They were set up for exactly what you're talking about. They sang songs together, met regularly, had uplifting and encouraging talks. But. They fell apart due to internal spats and disagreements. There was no glue to hold them together. It just doesn't work, it'd perhaps be nice, but it just doesn't work.
@@Pedanta I don't think we have a big enough sample size of atheist states yet to compare to religious ones. But in any case, look at Phil Zuckerman's research showing that the modern secular states (the ones that don't force atheism on you, as compared to Soviet Russia) are the happiest countries in the world. Japan, Finland, et cetera. And remember most of us are asking for secular states, not necessarily atheist ones. As for your point about humanist churches falling apart, I have never heard that. Sources, please. Sounds dubious and anecdotal. I do not think you have listed a good reason yet for why the glue of a community has to be a supernatural belief system.
Being an atheist is a living hell. Relativism worked out to a place of total meaninglessness....or just pretension and intellectual.dishonesty. No moral no right wrong no meaning no purpose just energy and matter resulting in nothing....
Not a word about the most radical commandment of Christ: "Turn the other cheek." Christ negates the Old Testament and the "eye for an eye" philosophy of the two other Abrahamic religions, which are currently at war. "When Christ calls a man," wrote Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "he bids him come and die." To the world. The Christian dies to the world to live for Christ and the life TO COME, which is superior in every imaginable regard.
🤦🏾♂️ As if Chr*stians along with the Chews are not responsible for utterly destroying the Planet and causing misery and unprecedented oppression, injustice and creulty to the Non-Western World on a 24/7/365 basis for the past 500 years
I am a former christian and it saddens me to see as the Elizabeth discussed a need for a god so they have meaning. It was hard for me at first too, but I find so much more fulfillment for myself when I realized that I made the meaning in my life. It was my responsibility, not a god's.
Belief in a god … and realising that you are responsible for your own life; not god … are not mutually exclusive. That is to say, you can do both. Personally, I spent 70 years as a resolute atheist … Then, in 2020, every head of state, in every county, in perfect unison, in 200 different languages read exactly the same script, and rolled out the exactly same procedures, in lock-step, in real-time. Don’t hug grandma, don’t leave your home, don’t go to church, don’t go to the mosque, don’t celebrate Easter, Eid, Diwali, Christmas … A level of evil beyond human capability. The majesty of it was terrifying and overwhelming. And so I came to believe in god because such meta-human evil must be aimed at something. Shortly after that my fledgling, untested belief was confirmed when it was declared we must vaccinate children to save adults. Once you’ve seen the devil it’s nice to believe in god; although I don’t think he can save us !
‘Woke’ and liberal are different things entirely, woke people who describe themselves as ‘progressive’ are usually intolerant of debate and don’t scrutinise ideas within their political base. It’s also obvious that there’s a religiously dogmatic aspect to it. Woke, (they think they’re ‘progressive’), seems to have replaced both religion and liberalism and it’s worse than either, hence you have people who are closer to the centre defending what’s being attacked and lost, and quickly realising Christianity has some unique goodness. Liberal principles are inherently founded on post-Enlightenment western Christian culture and to defend liberalism you have to defend its cultural history. On top of that there’s a lot of immigration in the west coupled with anti-western narratives on the far left woke who will vilify what they perceive as ‘white culture’ and glorify everything non-white. There are very few people who’d defend western culture let alone say it’s better than other competing cultures and ideologies around the world, and that is setting off alarm bells for a lot of young people. Also rather than seek consistency as liberals might, woke people engage in identity politics and have to employ moral relativism to avoid acknowledging their obvious hypocrisy, as the most important thing for them is not upholding values but righting wrongs of the past as they see them, which they believe is western colonialism. This is how you get woke people ignoring Islamic extremism and making excuses for blasphemy laws while thinking the Westboro church is comparable to millions of jihadis globally. By 2012 ‘woke’ had become a husk of some loose collection of liberal ideas, now divorced from its foundation for over a decade it’s just a flagrant anti-western dogma that’s got more influence from marxism and post-modernism, as unlikely as it is that those things should merge if anyone were actually thinking anything through.
It's fundamentally a psychological response, the post modern attempt to question everything, including common knowledge, common law and the self evident has left these young ones depressed and groping in the dark. The thing about the depressed person is they would rather be anywhere else other than where they are. I know, I'm a mental health worker.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I would agree with you that Islam is something that's poorly understood, I've invested a significant amount of time in understanding it as a liberal duty so as to be fair and know who might be an ally and who is not. What people call 'moderate Islam' is conservative compared to modern western conservatism and even that is not the majority, the majority is fundamentalist conservatives who believe in theocracy which entails draconian corporal and capital punishments. I agree with the essence of what you're saying insofar that liberal and ex-Muslims are allies that should be protected, but they're a small and often under threat minority. In a lot of Islamic countries in MENA you do find modernists who're sick and tired of fanatics, they're often educated aristocrats who're at odds with the clerical status quo. Fundamentally Islam is a return to a literalist interpretation of Old Testament values, so unless people opt out of taking it literally or find some Sufistic room to loosen interpretation it's not really compatible with liberalism.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn Yes but conservatism in Islam is extreme. Morocco has a majority of conservatives who believe the Sharia is divine and that entails a belief in the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy in all mainstream schools of jurisprudence. It's not to say everyone does, but a majority do and that is both extreme and incompatible with western liberal society. That's not the law because every state that tries to implement the Sharia turns into a dystopia and educated conservative people often have a dualistic approach to believing that is both preferable but too austere.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn What do you define as a fundamentalist versus a conservative in the Islamic context? Conservatism demands a level of fundamentalism in Islam because the Quran is supposed to be the literal word of God, whereas it's easier to seperate in Christianity.
Tbh I still think Alex’s points are the most pragmatic. The issue with her view is that in order to fulfil the life that Christianity espouses you just fully believe. However, that means believing in all the dogmatic baggage as well, and as we know from history that is a very very slippery slope into authoritarian anti enlightenment thinking
@@Llooktook wouldn’t disagree I just think her perspective, and voice were fresh in this continued cultural conversation. Alex had excellent and important points
@@Llooktook anti-'enlightenment' thinking is not a negative.....but Oldfield's view is embarrassingly emotional. So many better names that could have taken her place on this panel.
This so called God has never revealed himself, if he does exist he doesn't care about the destruction of both the planet or human life and yet he wants to be acknowledged, worshipped and praised whilst being helpless in the face of evil and suffering...what a very strange God indeed....
@@marklacy8789 I personally would say there's no evidence, to the extent that it excludes other religions and worldviews. If you have a low epistemic bar or generally low standards for what constitutes evidence, then there's plenty of evidence. If you try to justify Christian belief ad-hoc, everything becomes evidence for God.
Thanks for bringing these guys together. I pray this is a revival. I’ve recently noticed it amongst my work colleagues. They’ve been watching my Christian content and enjoying it.
@@DaughterOfChrist1997 Leviticus 24:44-46 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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.
Thank you for highlighting this bit. Christians taking credit for social or political progress that took like 1800 years of Christendom to come into effect is becoming a huge peeve of mine.
Methodological naturalism doesn't say "There is nothing beyond what we can find using science." It says "In order to find out how the world works we must constrain ourselves to observable features of the world." What we (or rather, many of us) find is that methodological naturalism does indeed allow us to find out enough about the world that it looks like a god isn't necessary. I.e. that the world looks the same as if there was no god (beyond some kind of abstract unmoved mover).
Elizabeths heart is in the right place but you cannot legislate love of neighbor because that only creates resentment. Her emotions cloud the reasoning that God gave her. If she wants to host an immigrant family, she can do so but she cannot demand that society does the same. A host country has the right to accept any amount of immigrants and set the terms, period. Medieval Christendom had every right to fight off any attempts of Islamic conquer. We sent monks to spread the gospel IN THEIR LAND, in situ.
What an absolute doll Elizabeth is, inside and out. All involved in this conversation showed that class, real authentic class is not dead at least. Bravo! 👏👏👏 👏
Very interesting and lively discussion. I am a Christian and I was really surprised that life eternal/heaven was not brought up; to me, life after death, the resurrection and the virgin birth are the fundamental differences between Christian and atheist beliefs.
I applaud Alex's interest in the alternative early Christianities. It's a shame the Christians on the panel recoil so quickly from it. The problem with the label Gnostic is that includes a variety of different groups and positions, not all of which see the physical world as evil..In the Gospel of Thomas, on the contrary, Jesus is in the wood and under the stone. Finally, there is no reason both cannot be true i.e. the actual physical resurrection of Jesus can make possible the spiritual transformation of human beings whilst in this body, since the Divine is within us and we are within thw Divine.
Because if he read the letters of Paul, he would know that the very first apostles claimed Jesus' resurrection and that without a resurrection their faith is in vain.
I'm a 26 year old English man. Ive recently started attending church regularly for the first time in my life, after being an atheist, a buddhist and a pagan over the years. It is completely transforming me for the better. I almost broke down in tears on Sunday when singing of the glory of God's greatness.
Amazing what being a part of group can do for you. I'm happy you have found joy and belonging. Beware the grift tho. An all powerful god doesn't need your money.
@@TheTruthKiwi What is untrue about the glory of God's greatness? The church has simply given me a space to appreciate that with a community of people, something no other religion or philosophy has provided me before. There is also great truth in the transformational power of Christ's teachings and I say that as someone who actively rejected it most of my life.
@@petereames3041 You just tried two Religions and weren't satisfied with it so you culturally moved to Christianity (there are about 10,000 Religions in the World) and now you're just mentioning your experience with singing in a community. That's doesn't prove Christianity to be True. And what part of the Accusation about God became man and emptied himself out of All Knowledge turned himself to not knowing much,sits well with you??? Isn't God all knowing all the Time?? Or God became his own creation to kill himself(though God is immortal so the sacrifice isn't even true),to save the rest of his own creation from His own Wrath ,make sense to you???
@@petereames3041 "What is untrue about the glory of god's greatness?" Well, no gods have ever actually been shown or proven to exist whatsoever so that's a good start. How exactly do you know that any supernatural claims made in the bible are true?
Great conversation with some thoughtful people. I would counter the view that there is movement towards revival with my own anecdotal experience that a huge percentage of my friends, family, colleagues are deconstructing and leaving formal Christianity behind. That, in my world, at least is the real trend at the moment.
5 місяців тому
What a superb debate, on an enviable level. Congratulations to everyone involved. As a disciple of Jesus I have enjoyed every bit of it, including the skeptics' concerns and critiques.
I don’t see the problem with adopting christianity as a socio-cultural identity i.e, aesthetics,tradition-ritual, allegorical exegesis. You don’t need to buy into all of it’s truth claims to get real communal benefits from it. Beyond that most people are disconnected and utterly insensitive to the value religion brings to the downtrodden of society.
Religion brings nothing but hate and wars in the name of it. I guess if you pray hard enough then all your problems or societies problems will go away just like magic? So why don't you open churches up to the homeless for shelter at night? Why are they kept locked and not open? You know the downtrodden in society?
The whole point is that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life. There’s an ocean of books that address philosophical and historical arguments for Christianity and a good number of academics and scientists do believe. If people want to have fellowship and community without God they’re welcome to do so. When I see a person who assumes it’s made up nonsense I wonder how deeply they’ve considered the question.
The absurdities forced on us during "the pandemic" have exposed the flaws in empiricism. The uncertainties therefore have led people to look for the truth again. At least this was the case for myself.
@@stephnewman1357 I'm happy you gave me a reply. The answer was not a "sky fairy" unfortunately. That would have been very easy! The answer for me came by reviewing all I had learnt about economics at university and my 'A' level Biology courses. Actually quite a lot of research but then we all had a lot of free time
With an elite and their scientists ignoring empirical evidence and foisting near superstitious belief on a fearful pliable population? A charade that was enjoyed by those with power, profitable for the already wealthy and ripped money and trust from the rest of us.
The Jordan Peterson effect, ironically he is not religious in the conventional sense but his exploration of religious themes and encouraging people to have faith and to believe religious stories has had a huge impact. Not to mention that the development of AI is bringing up the topic of Consciousness and Simulation.
Knowing you could be condemned to eternal fire if you don’t commit yourself to a moral framework is not a comforting blanket, bearing your cross is difficult
Elizabeth Oldfield has articulated more of what I’ve been thinking and living in my faith in this interview than anyone else in years! What an insightful choice for your panel. Thank you!
When I look on this stage, I can’t believe only one of them does not literally believe that a snake talked. Humans can be so intelligent and so superstitious all at the same time.
There are plenty of other overtly mythological/supernatural stuff too. Pillars of fire, splitting the Red Sea, the plagues on Egypt, water turned into wine, etc.
Literary critic Harold Bloom put the question succinctly: where shall wisdom be found? Our aging atheistic parents and leaders don’t seem to have much to spare. Why not seek out the wisdom of the ages? Well, we are.
Christian here. Alex is listening and trying to be fair. Not easy. It's appreciated.
Agree. Not usually a fan of Alex. But in this setting he's a lot more open. I can only hope he's just not being appeasing but will in the future be as open in discussions. His theology as is his interpretation of scripture is diabolical.
He believes himself to be superior.
@@citytrees1752 Disgraceful comment. How exactly would you know that ?
@citytrees1752 Most people do. Christians tell me all the time that they are the only ones who will not be tortured for eternity.
@@citytrees1752 This is a trait of pdfi file atheist religion, atheists are the best of people. Islame says the same about muslims btw. And the two religions are more or less the same on any doctrine you can come up with too.
I'm a Christian, but Alex O'Connor is such a brilliant speaker/thinker. I love him.
I deeply respect his sincerity.
@@Jerome616 I don't. He's a fenian +++t
I think he's way overrated. His inability to see how Christianity shaped western civilization is embarrassingly bad.
@@NuanceOverDogma ok, scholar, publish a paper to criticise his views then, we are waiting to read it after it's peer reviewed
I find him a bit of a grifter and a young boy who has always been complimented about his verbal skills, but never had any real, life destroying, adversity to face. I'm a Christian also and pray that O'Connor would find Christ Jesus and be saved.
THIS is what I love about UA-cam, to be able to "sit in" on conversations like this.
It’s almost enough to help me forgive its nasty biases…
What a time to be alive!
@@samgravell3180and watch christians make “fools “of themselves (even more so with muslims,now that is twisted)
Blu dress gal definitely needs some sociological help,she is wacko
Which is more likely-the foolish muslin “allah or the cowardly christian goD-
Christian here. What Alex O'Conner says about political Christianity as a reaction to what the 1st world experience in immigration etc. is absolutely true. Christians should not blindly rejoice in this "turn". If it is a purely secular reaction to raise the flag of "Christian Culture" opposed to radical change, it could have terrible ramifications if it is only populist reaction to change.
Christianty has a political element. The bible uses example of Kings amd Judges and what happens when they ae good or bad. When they beleve in god or when they dont. The bible says he split all pepole into nations. Those nations that follow his good teachings will prosper. It is not just about the indivdual. Also lots of countrys have a national religion and the religion reinforces morals and values in law. Islam explicty says Law, Religion and Nation are one. Christianity has room for the leaders to be pagans but expects christians to become kings, Judges and Priests in turn and rule the nation. Modern pepole have forgotton this about christianity and think not having lots of christian rulers is normal. We are not the USA with its hard seperation of church and state.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point. I think it’s a real concern if people are blindly endorsing a sort of cultural Christianity that is pro right and populist in character. It could take us I’m a similar direction to the States and many European countries.
Weaponizing Christianity against Islam is probably the smart thing to do.
Agree.
Sage words for sure. The ploy of the devil is not not just to lie but to deceive even if he has to push you so far into YOUR understanding of what is True that you swing past the plumbline of truth (Jesus Christ) and into the opposite side of the same old coin that represents deception in all of its forms. Our eyes must not be on the coin but on the treasure of knowing and following Christ
Alex is correct - the revival is mostly political.
Western religions are terrific tools for control so it makes sense people are using them politically
@@boberKurwa23 The mass spiritual awakening to Jesus is real. I was an atheist for 20 years and like dozens of my atheist friends lately, we have been touched by the hand of God. The people finally want the spiritual truth, not the empty and false belief system of atheism that you espouse. Not the religion that says you are worm food and there is absolutely no objective meaning to you and everything you do in your life - this is obviously a false belief and even a small child knows that. This is why millions are leaving neo-atheism today and flocking to Christ. You’ll laugh, mock, and use the same recycled lines over and over, and you have no power anymore because the people have awakened. You cannot comprehend what Christians have because you have not been touched by the hand of God.
Eh. Idk about that. I think in general materialism and nihilism has run its natural course.
It seems to me that you found living in reality difficult and started to believe for comfort,rather than rational reasons
@@nialloloughlin8378 So insightful. 🙄 I remember when I was in 10th grade and that was the best explanation as to why someone would be religious.
You could easily make these chats 3hours or thereabouts. You do a wonderful job of them and there's a real appetite for it now. People are ready, willing and able to listen to what others have to say about these kinds of complex and fascinating topics.
Thank you Freddie and the Unherd team. You are doing really wonderful work, especially of late, I think.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan
His book "The Demon Haunted World" if I'm not mistaken. Read it in the 90's and still think about of it on occasion durning discussions of the concepts covered in this presentation. It also reminds of Voltaire who says that those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
I don't find this discussion encouraging at all. The message I got from this is that when people are fearful of the future and untrusting of human authorities, they will turn to magical thinking and superstition instead of doing the work to find real solutions to the problems we face.
Great comment. I was thinking the same thing. Troubling.
Untrusting of human authorities? Ever been a part of an organized religious group? Lots of authority figures.
Real solutions?
So many problems have no "real solutions" without the imposition of one set of values over the other, in such cases the "real solution" is not reasoned, it will come down to who tells the best story, and in the current state of things there's a lack of any spiritual, sentimental, romantic, metaphysical or whatever you want to call it.
So often you can't reason about society, because it's about value judgement that come down to taste, western liberal democracies try this whole "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone", that's contrary to taste, however, and flies in the face of finding a common aspiration that will give a "real solution", so religion has the upper hand, it's already established, nationalism is becoming more popular, too.
Gotta tell good stories and make people feel good about life, somehow.
'turn to magical thinking and superstition', yes there is that at play and always has been, but there has always also been 'the need of the part to have a connection to the whole' that is evidenced in a range of spiritual outlooks Pagan (Nature), Buddhist (Nirvana), Christian (God). That isn't about magic and superstition it's about altered consciousness, seeing past the object/subject division of reality towards the underlying oneness, connection to which is often experienced as 'spiritual love'
Classic athiest. Belief in nothing is a belief. Agnosticism is the true rational position. An agnostic clearly says the truth: I do not know either way, I may find out, I may not. It's not a position that there can be nothing that exists beyond the 5 senses.
Every single time that lady talks she sounds like she's about to cry
she's just so passionate
I think she was stressed
That's true 😂😂😂
I find it annoying really, I mean there's absolutely a time for doing that, but when you're in a discourse like this one, being too emotional actually makes the other people less likely to open up as they might say something that makes the person even more emotional.
That's because for her religion, and Christianity specifically, is all about feelings and emotions. There is no appeal to reason in her argument. The moderator was right to say that she was making a case for a "retreat of rationality" because that is actually what she was doing. But man did you see how offended she got when he said that?
I feel like they are not at the same level as Alex, their arguments become so weak next to alexe's arguments
That is basically any debate that Alex partakes in since 3-4 years or so...dude really maxed out INT.
Situation A: a person is receiving comfort directly from the Holy Spirit.
Situation B: a person has convinced themselves that they are receiving comfort from the Holy Spirit, but they actually aren’t.
How could we tell these two situation apart?
There are ways, but all of them are as subjective as the prompt. The Bible says, “You shall know them by their fruits”. That’s just about the only objective way to see if someone is actually a Christian.
@@Jerome616 So if someone says the Holy Spirit told me to do X, if they’re generally a good person who is Christian, you just believe them no matter what?
Doesn’t seem like a good method.
Take care, friend 👋
@@oftenincorrecthe did not say generally good- you did. Obviously you can’t tell amongst the generally good. The only objective marker is self sacrifice in a manner that conflicts with natural human instincts in a person who is otherwise sane and functional. Most Humans have instincts towards following social norms, self sacrificing for children and kin, gaining social approval, preserving their own life etc. so if someone is self sacrificing in a manner that opposes those instincts and self interests in a situation where there is nothing for them to gain- that is an objective marker that they are being guided by something beyond themselves.
@@oftenincorrect it depends on if what they did was consistent with what is doctrine. I would never say I assume they have it, but that’s life right? We usually don’t have absolute certainty about many things. We look at the evidence and act in accordance with what we have to work with.
@@SL-es5kb "for no greater love is their than this, to give up ones life for a friend."
"...but I tell you, Love your enemies!"
Yes, we are called to more then just self interested good acts. If you see that kind of radical love, it truly speaks to the hearts of those around that person.
I'm Christian. I respected Alex so much more here than the lady who was spouting "coffee shop Christianity". There is a saying "Biblical Christianity is not popular, and popular Christianity is not biblical." There is a lot of truth in that.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "coffee shop Christianity" and your thoughts on this woman? I'm interested.
I just thought she was speaking more on an emotional, personal level. I think that approach is just really inappropriate for conversations like these.
I mean tbh, I would be the same way in a debate like this, because I have a really personal reason for my atheist beliefs. But all that does is win over sympathy from people who agree with you, and alienate people who don't.
IMO
@@YAMMAS Yeah I don't think Alex's inner autism appreciated her antiques very much.
@@raemir I think what the commenter meant by coffee shop christianity is when you “choose to believe” as they talked about in the video or when you see the teachings of the religion you adhere to as something less valuable than the form of belief you find yourself in. This is unbiblical as you can see in First Corintians 15:14 “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” As you can see bible is not supportive of choosing to believe but demands a faith grounded in truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it is a more general wide problem that many peoples’ arguments and reasons for their belief in a religion doesn’t always match the reasons presented within their religion.
@@ismailtaskran9740 Ah I hear you brother, what are your thoughts on this? Are you Christian yourself?
I like Alex more and more as I observe his very patient and impartial demeanour.
Alex was killing it here. So proud of his growth over time. I’ve been watching him for years 👏
I’ve been a church going, homeschooling, homemaker over the last 15 years. And I definitely notice a difference in the way people respond to me. They are much more positive and open minded. I used to get eyeballs people would instantly lose interest in talking to me, and there was even the occasional mocking or critical questions. Now I find people cheering me on, or asking me questions in an open-minded way. Where I used to be called unemployed. Now I’ve been giving the title of Trad-wife. Definitely an upgrade lol
Keeping your children away from public education indoctrination with lgbtqwertyP (p stands for pdfilia) seems very sensible to me.
Forest meet tree. Sounds like a political movement. Honestly very similar to the trans stuff with young girls. Tying yourself to a movement gets you dragged behind the wagon.
Amazing what surrounding yourself with those that blindly agree with absolutely everything you think instead of having to deal with any of that pesky legitimate criticism, contradictory evidence or facing your own moral hypocrisy, amiright?
"I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned”
- Richard Feynman
“The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism.”
- Wole Soyinka
Maybe it's just me but Ms. Oldfield sounds rather preachy and her whole argument is to sacrifice your rationality and try it
She (and the apologist) see morality and connection to something greater than oneself (spirituality) as a choice between following Christianity OR rationally derived values (which they erroneously call secular humanism). To their own limitation, they aren't considering the evolutionary moral fabric that we are made from and the myriad ways we are able to connect to something greater than ourselves without evoking the supernatural.
She was definitely preachy, but I think her point was made that the vast majority of human decision making is done from an emotional perspective from experiences. People rarely cram books about apologetics or struggle with epistemology and come to a conclusion about how they want to derive value in their lives or how they want spirituality (or lack thereof) to play out in their lives
@@eggn00dle36 yes, I do think that's a valid point but it's not a great argument for convincing any non-christian of the truth of Christianity. Personal anecdote is fine but the moment you try to convince others with that , that's where the problem lies imo
'her whole argument is to sacrifice your rationality', I don't think that's what's she's saying, she mentions Iain McGilchrist who focuses on Left-Right brain thinking, and says that we're living in a 'left brain world' which is another way of saying 'very narrowly propositional thinking in a very divided picture of the world that sees things as very separate objects and subjects', so her call is to an 'extended rationality' that includes all the connections and deeper patterns within and without, that are more fully experienced, not just boxed up into neat propositions that you simple agree or disagree with like 'does God exist, yes or no?'. My personal experience is that the best way to move in this direction is to forget the God question and practice mindfulness meditation. That forces you to experience the interconnected constantly changing reality we really live in, where you begin to see the dependant nature of the personal self, and realise you own limited being, and thus open to a wider deeper sense of being in a world of 'underlying oneness' and 'inter-being'
G. K. Chesterton - "On five occasions in history the Church has gone to the dogs, but on each occasion, it was the dogs that died." Maybe we are looking at the 6th dog not looking well?
That's a good one! Chester always comes up with such brilliance.
Haha GKC is a ledge.
😂😂😂
Eff them. End all tyrannies and lies. The "elite" are not elite. Your bible is not the word of God. End the bs.
Nice
All I'm hearing is that people want community. You can have that with out religion.
Exactly. The point about technology and social media leading to feelings of isolation was only briefly discussed. I think it was on the moderator to pull on that thread more and ask a follow-up question: "Is a Christian revival the best solution to satisfy the desire for community that many are craving." I certainly don't think it is in its current form.
You can but secular people have been really bad at setting this up outside of organized religious structures. If I want to go to a weekly meeting of fellow utilitarian vegans where I don't need to explain myself or my ethics, there aren't a ton of ways for me to join a community like that and trying to set something up myself leads to people flaking or not committing. I don't know why it's so hard to get something like this off the ground in the secular world but it is.
True, but I don’t think a single out trans person is the world has could make that point. Which is of course a huge reason why the “revival” is happening
@MusiKo14 but you just need to find your people. I play magic the gathering every Saturday and there is a big group of people doing it as well. It's not that we are bad at it it just needs to be done.
@@JestersPrivillege with all due respect, a card game group isn’t really comparable to meeting over mutual respect based on shared values.
Proud Macedonian-British Christian Orthodox . Loving Unheard. ✝️
piperki, chevapi, pleskavici, graf, sarmi, kjoftina i burek
Macedonian?
@athanasiostsagkadouras383 hey man. Yes, I'm Macedonian. What are you?
@@vasilymartin4051 You're not though. Slavs have nothin to do with Macedonia.
@@cartesian_doubt6230 stop being boring and piss off. I know what your arguments and they're retarded
A good discussion, Alex was good, as usual. But a heck of a lot of terms that in fact have very distinct and clear meanings were being conflated by panel and audience alike (Alex withstanding). Secular, humanist, woke and liberal. Early on in the Four Horseman discussion at Hitch’s apartment (how long ago does that seem now?! And was it the first long form UA-cam video of its kind? Maybe), they made clear definitions of terms and distinctions as they went along, even when each of them were not diametrically opposed in views, they had each their nuances. I remember the numinous, transcendent and paranormal being a key one (celestial as Hitch would have said).
I know this was really just a lively, vivacious dinner table chat over a glass of wine, but Liz and Justin particularly got away with a lot here. I would like more rigour for the next one, and I think Alex would too, from Freddie, as moderator, though each did their best given the circumstances and tone of the ‘debate’.
Good points and, yes, the four horseman vid seems an era ago, a time when I'd also watch the early potholer and thunderfoot vids.
This chat really needs a Christian (born/bred/intellectually inclined) that is no longer a Christian. The cultural swing back towards appreciation for Christian ideals (which is great) needs a nuanced insider look at Christianity’s many landmines/ issues of limiting free thinking and dogmatism that block others out more than provide an open source spiritual pilgrimage /space for humanity explore and grow in.
"Limiting free thinking"? Provide your basis of that claim. The whole concept of freedom to think stems from the Christian worldview
@@matheussalim5652 yes there are certain ideals that can support free thinking within scripture/Christian belief. My experience is (and I’ve heard many others as well) that most Christian community members do not feel necessarily “free” to consider other beliefs and openly share their exploration. It is taboo (unless in some intellectual forum such as this) to regularly express one’s exploration of other ideas that would counter Christian beliefs/propositions about the main doctrines. I do see a limited space provided to express an initial level of “doubt,” but the assumption seems to one will return from that “confusion”, per se, back to “belief.” Overt and consistent uncertainty in the main Christian doctrines/openness to other ideas maintained as a landing place is not really normalized or “allowed” (“allowed” not used literally but in the context of more subconscious group-think) in most Christian communities. I notice a lot of push back when one desires to glean only spiritual lessons & wisdom from Christianity sans the doctrines. If you come from a particularly open setting that does allow for this, my commentary might not make sense to you. But the majority of Christian settings foster a sense of keeping this to yourself, at least if you’re exploring the big ticket items as not being true anymore (Jesus’ role as savior, resurrection, belief in God).
@@matheussalim5652I'm curious. What is the basis for YOUR claim?
@@matheussalim5652So people didn’t have any freedom to think before/without Christianity?
@@matheussalim5652 "The whole concept of freedom to think stems from the Christian worldview". Actually, if we accept that western civilization is based in some way on christian values, then it is christianity by the way of 10 commandments that introduces the whole concept of NOT being free to think - 10th commandment is one of the earliest (if not actually the earliest) examples of law against a thought crime, telling someone they're guilty if they just think the wrong thing.
One hugely important takeaway for me is that morality is far more important than metaphysics. Heaven on earth, not heaven up there. Heaven for everyone, not heaven for just us.
I don't believe in the hereafter; I'm after it here.
I'm 24, I was raised an atheist but have converted to Christianity recently. The atheist world view felt empty and didn't do justice to the full breadth of human experience. I have found myself far happier as a result of conversion. God bless you all.
EDIT: Coming back to this comment after a week, it strikes me how the atheists respond - with much bitterness. I think that speaks volumes.
Loser. lol
What do you mean "raised atheist"?
You weren’t “raised atheist” that makes no sense. You mean you weren’t raised in indoctrination?
Your happiness has no bearing on what’s true
@@tbass94and what is truth?
I've always appreciated Alex's ability to listen intently to Christians and withhold judgement. I really hope he keeps reading into our tradition.
He is a theology graduate.. from Oxbridge no less, has wrestled with belief himself many times - he knows and has studied it more than 99% of professed believers. He’s incredibly interested in theology, why religion manifests, perhaps why it’s a biological urge also.. he just doesn’t believe it’s claims, after all those many layers of searching for evidence, faith and deduction. Makes him a formidable debater on the topic.
He is not withholding judgement. He is very, very judgemental and considers himself a superior intellect.
@@citytrees1752I’ve seen you comment this twice. Maybe one would be more inclined to Christianity if Christian’s behaved as Jesus suggested.
@@Alex-mj5dvThat's pretty bold to claim that any 20 something year old young man who has dedicated their entire adult life to promoting atheist arguments "knows" Christianity better than 99% of those who believe Jesus to be Lord. He's very intelligent, but I have little doubt he could use that intelligence to work through his own objections himself.
@@harlowcj he was a Christian not so long ago. Possibly what we’d call a ‘cultural Christian’ as stated here, but I think he’s alluded to in his teen years he did believe some parts of the suspension of disbelief.
He obviously lost his faith as he aged and enquired more. I think he wrestles with it still. But he knows his theology, very well. Check out his videos specifically on such.. and, yes, he’s young but he’s done more rigour on this than most - and it’s personal rigour, nothing more. Belief is belief, it’s wholly personal.
He is finally interviewing Jordan Peterson so let’s see if he can get any direct sense on the matter from JP, who obfuscates more than usual when it comes to religion, and belief in the divine/otherworldly specifically.
Hitch said he was once asked by a Christian ‘do you ever question your atheism?’ And he replied, ‘yes, of course, daily.. and I am happy to do so. Do you question your Christian beliefs also?’ Atheism is merely a lack of belief in something claimed, as informed by the evidence available in what we can empirically observe. That’s it. It’s not character defining, I am also an atheist but don’t introduce myself as one, the same way I don’t shake hands for the first time and say ‘Hi, I’m Alex and I’m straight, and I don’t believe in the tooth fairy or Santa, Zeus and Thor’. It’s just a non sequitur in that regard.
I think many people without exposure to the bible don’t realize it is story after story of people who struggle with doubt, conflict, disbelief, war, sexuality, violence, sin, meaning of life, loss, political strife, and death. Most people in the bible spend much of their time struggling in between various stages of their journey.
That is because the Christians that are supposed to tell these story's are arrogant "I know best" people...look here in the comments and one can see that clearly!
And yet so many religious people are narcissistic...
But most of them ultimately make the decision in favor of God which is kind of the whole point.
It is good to think about the Bible this way, probably the best way. But the sad reality is that it's a contradictory mess cobbled together by flesh and blood humans in the third century and it now means whatever the priests want it to mean. Also the struggle to believe is a thread that runs through all abrahamic religions. You can be a struggler, a fanatic or an apostate. That's it.
@@sebastianb.1926 I think you'd find that that if you searched a little harder you'd find that the last thing the Bible is, is a "contradictory mess cobbled together by flesh and blood humans in the third century". True "the struggle to believe is a thread that runs through all Abrahamic religions" but I believe that "trust" would be more accurate than believe.
The girl in the blue is the type of person that helps me stay atheist .
"Helps me stay"...
🤔
@@festivetosho7376 yes, stay .
@@shak535 It sounds like you're looking for affirmation that staying atheist is the right thing. This feels like a position I was in (occasionally am in).
No he isn't looking for affirmaation to chritsian on the contray the arguments by chritsian is helping hkm stay atheist @@festivetosho7376
Yes. Affirming Christianity because you need to be part of something bigger than you and feel loved is not any bible reason to be Christian. She doesn’t seem to know that being a Christian means giving your whole life to the cause of Christ. Money, time, effort, beliefs. And I don’t see any of these new belief people doing that.
I left Christianity 47 years ago and have been an atheist ever since. The life of atheism and secular humanism is rich and meaningful. Belief without evidence will destroy humanity.
But it can’t be lived without cognitive dissonance.
@@samdg1234
Yes, it can. Even mystical experiences can be atheistic (like it is in Buddhism for example)
@@samdg1234 Please provide an example
@@johndroycroft
People just can’t live as if morality were merely subjective and the only way it can be elevated to the objective (which everyone that objects to any behavior being objectively wrong) is for God to exist.
Take a fairly famous quote from Dawkins,
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Despite him stating there is no good and no evil, he lives as if lots of things aren’t good. And we all do the same.
The concept of "evidence" belongs in the scientific paradigm. Science is concerned with understanding the behaviour of nature.
Religion is not concerned with that. Religion is concerned with the essential nature of reality. There is no "evidence" for or against god, you know the nature of reality directly, experientially. Divinity is something you either acknowledge, or you don't.
//
Religions do get lost in moralising and dogma, and that's good to reject but the issue of god's existence is separate from those problems religions have.
Phenomenal and very moving conversation. Thank you to all the speakers in this dialogue!
GREAT video and I LOVE the fact that many now are asking questions and now more open to spirituality. Brilliant discussion, thank you
I am not trying to troll anyone, but, the Tom Holland thesis, in addition to the problems Alex pointed out, is simply narrow and culturally chauvinistic .No Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, indigenous shaman, Daoist, or any of the many varieties of Hindus, Greek pagans had any notion of the good. I have a deep respect for the good Christians have brought and bring into the world, but, it is not wholly unique.
But Christianity IS the primary worldview which shaped the West. Not Judaism, Buddhism etc. No one is disputing moral standard in those belief systems. Its about which belief system shaped our past and past culture.
@majose7787 but this must not be accepted. We must uphold pluralism in order to keep Christianity away from our lives. To be free to do whatever we want.
Is there an argument here or you just don't like Christianity being right?
Actually, this kind of proves my point. Reread the post more carefully and consider what it would mean for a tradition to be “right”. Right about what exactly.
'Right' as in it is the best way to live.
Empirically proven that Christianity has the most potential to improve lives of ordinary people. Christian countries (especially if the Protestant persuasion) have better economies, better morals.
Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and atheists are moving to Christian countries. Christians aren't moving the other way.
All I hear from the believers is:
If we believe we’re all part of God’s plan, that we’re special and life has meaning, then we don’t feel meaningless, unimportant and unremarkable in the universe.
If you open yourself to believe in miracles, you will believe in miracles.
If you believe that people can die and resurrect, you’ll believe Jesus did rise from death.
Have we forgotten what circular reasoning is?
The penultimate person in the audience started to believe in Christianity again because of “the lies about masks, vaccines and climate change”.
Ok…
I think I was moving in the direction Alex describes in the 'inappropriate questions' section, now I have to wonder what that means about me for a little bit. Excellent video, really enjoyable.
43:24 Alex: “Hold my beer…” 😂
Yes finally
He must've gotten a bit iffy about the host's 'now if there is an ACTUAL atheist in the audience' comment 😂😂😂
I think Alex was very judicious in his responses and did a great job. There were a lot of things that I'm sure he bit his tongue on. But that particular part was a great great response from him. I agree with the other poster, I wish there were some responses from the other panelists.
Hey, I’ve been atheist since I was 9. Y’all wanna have purpose & community without doing the heavy lifting. I’m saying this to atheists and Christians. Go help the poor, go clean up some beaches, go work a job that serves the public. Literally do anything that actually is useful and worthwhile to society and I promise you, you’ll be fine. If you’re on the phone all day then what do you expect?
The part that most confounds me is why people need to choose one particular team in their search for understanding and meaning. That seems to me to be the great problem. The creative force of existence likely wouldn't be so interested in a my way or the highway sort of relationship because everything is it and it is everything.
Even as a practicing Christian, this is the correct answer. People like Thomas Merton and G.K. Chesterton are where I find I fit in the most - not the clearly self-interested ethnonationalist Christianity that is being peddled by many on the new Right.
I think a challenge I’ve come to understand recently is that many spiritual pursuits prioritise the deconstruction of ego and self, all of our problems stem from our self identity and the defence and survival of it. In picking and choosing, you aren’t dying to that self, you’re keeping yourself in that Godly position, deciding who and what is right. The ego continues to win out. At some point, we must pick and love one path, and devote our self to it and surrender
He’s the most likable atheist I’ve ever seen.
I would be willing to bet that in 20ys he won't be an atheist anymore.
@@jackiedelvalleagreed. Once he’s had more life experience.
@@jackiedelvalle you act like you are in a cult? Can't you think for yourselves?
@@jackiedelvalle
Leviticus 24:44-46
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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.
@@jackiedelvalle I'll take that bet /remind me in 20ys
I'm with Alex here in the sense that I'd love to believe in a personal God who loves us all but I am just 'not able to choose to believe' in anything supernatural with no evidence, because my reasoning faculties will not allow me blind faith. Why would God give us the faculty of reasoning and then expect us to suspend our disbelief in order to believe in the impossible?
That is very simplistic. A mother who sees her first new born feels love for the child, so this relationship between mother and child is a reflection of the Divine reality of our existence.
The mother never stops to think if her love for her newborn child is reasonable.
@@outoforbit00yeah but in your analogy the experience comes first. But can you will an experience?
Numerous people have "reasoned" themselves INTO faith in Christ. They've found the historical testimony, evidence for the Resurrection, order, harmony and beauty in the Universe, universal objective morality and other reasons to be so compelling that they put their trust in God. So your idea that God asks us to suspend rationality to believe in Him is quite frankly, nonsense. Faith is belief based on evidence, not faith without it.
@@vanc4297 Reason is good but we need some belief about facts that is beyond measurement. This opens and broadens our sensorium, to I would hope, the ultimate good. A mother loving her child learns what she is made of. We get to know ourselves through the other. And sure the mother will have many experiences along the way that will challenge notions she might have about her own capabilities. There isn't a point, where one could say they have everything sown up and have arrived.
@@outoforbit00 I honestly don’t see how you are responding to my response. In your analogy the first thing that happens is the “mother feels the love.” In your analogy experience comes first,
Alex is literally the best. It's dumb but I kinda want to just look into the future and see what he ends up believing and pick that
it is dumb lol. dont idolize ppl. guaranteed he will become Catholic, save this son.
haha yeah I do wonder what he will end up saying he believes when he's 90 years old, and how different or similar it will be to what he says now
That kinda defeats his message if you just follow him into his beliefs instead of forming your own.
He's Sam Harris. Look at what Sam believes now and that's where he'll be in 30 years.
@@meme-gd2pk Alex is smarter than Sam Harris. I wish Alex continued in his studies though. He's still young and graduate school would give him exposure to new ideas outside of his comfort zone, mentorship, and very smart individuals to challenge his intellect. Not sure if he has those things now.
Thank You all for finally talking some sense in the public sector
So nice to see a conversation of such depth.
Didn't feel like it got anywhere deep tbh.
This is the NPR-ification, goal shifting of the Christian faith to meet the modern moment sparked by the death of radio and 15 min regurgitated sermons and rise of 2hr podcasts and compassionate acceptance of all walks of life. Here we see the religion evolving to survive in its natural habitat. The same as it has done, and the same as it will ever do.
‘A hole shaped god’ is such an underrated put down
Asking the question "is there any atheist anywhere who does not bone kids" is the same as asking "Can men menstruate and give birth"
In both cases the answer is no.
It's also nonsensical
@@samuelboucher1454 According to atheist religion,
- Why is incest not wrong?
- Why is necrophilia not wrong?
- Why is cannibalism not wrong?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable I am referring to the OP. That 'put down' was utter nonsense.
It's glib and stupid.
Map versus territory stuff too - mistaking the symbol for the thing it points to
whatever choice - atheist or religious, I always hope it's the European discreet version, and not the American boastful and militant one.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the jew, and also to the Greek - Romans 1:16
As an American, I agree.
@@pkingpumpkin Discretion is indicative of dignity and decorum, not of shame. There's a distinction between propriety (respecting others) and shame (hating yourself), something that doesn't go through the average cowboy's thick skull.
Such a lovely conversation. Enjoyed every contribution. Alex never disappoints, Elizabeth was passionate and eloquent, Justin was excellent and lovely, the moderator was great, questions were exciting. Lovely.
Thank you.
Very inspiring conversation.
🙏🙏🙏
The woman here just seems extremely emotional and susceptible to things. Not really making a great case for what Christianity has to offer
Elizabeth Oldfield is talking about being a dimensional, whole, human. Very important. The West has become overly fixated on the scientific and rational, as if that’s all there is.
Coundnt agree more
When you find the other stuff, let us all know. Look forward to your thesis
@@jackistooloud Science observes the material, necessarily. But what about the immaterial? For example, a person who falls in love wouldn’t attempt to describe the person they love by gushing about the sequence of their cell DNA, etc. They love the whole person, the EXPERIENCE of the person. And those things cannot be put under a microscope. That’s just one example.
@@jackistooloud Like for example... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth, while noiwhere in history has this been true, it's a blatant lie. And they claim too that this is backed by "science".
Atheist religion, which sparked into existence around 2009 with chris hitchens and richard dorkins, is a true cult, exactly like islame is.
@@jackistooloud Materialism is a religion requiring faith. When presented with a complex object it’s not unreasonable to infer there is a Designer.
It's a reaction to the breakdown of classically liberal socio-political structures. A search for cultural groundedness.
It is being driven by a disenchantment with enlightenment liberalism, a reaction to a rise of socialism, and an identification (false in my view) of classical liberal social structures with traditional Christianity. In the same way as renaissance thinkers reached back to Greece and Rome, the thinking class now are reaching back to Christendom. But not faith per say.
Also - technology has led to a measurable rise in narcissism - and this style of religion is very much narcissistic about "finding myself", and "finding meaning". It's a rise in 'luxury' Christianity. It is similar to when the printing press was invented in many ways.
You’ve nailed it
I see this too. And a general belief that there is so much evil in modern society only God can save Western civilization. Unfortunately the churches are not providing this, they are as said woke, and preach "nice" over the word of God, where as I see young people seeking more "fire and brimstone." Perhaps new faiths will emerge.
You put "finding meaning" in quotation marks so it must be bad lol. Why shouldn't people search for meaning? 🤔
@@SydneyCarton2085 nah, not a bad thing, just hard to define what people actually mean by it.
Gladly it's a very small portion of the thinking class that virtue signals their Christendom allegiance. It's mostly the people that aren't able to critical think that reach back to christiendom. And the people that are not willing to do due dilligence and try to get factional.
enjoyed the civil discussion! we need more of this!
Freddie, why must you always finish on time? 🙃
haha
"We need collective formation. We need to immerse ourselves in communities of moral formation."
I identify as non-theist, certainly an atheist in respect to the fundamentalist Christianity I was brought up in but not atheist to many other modes of expressing what God is. That being said, this quote here is what drives me to continue interacting with Christians. It's the one thing as an atheist that I cannot find anywhere remotely close in proximity to my community. Perhaps that is the calling for me to create the space, but certainly, given that the current infrastructure for non Christian moral centered communities is lackluster and filled with woo and draws most of its wisdom from the very traditions they reject only they've frankensteined something new together out of them, I just can't help but to wish for Christianity to become what it has always claimed to be. I have found meaning outside of Christianity's context, but not community and I envy that most.
Like Alex, I have tried to return to the faith, but I see it as Kierkegaard saw it, Christendom being full of these "political Christian" types, only I believe myself to have more to stand my ground with outside of the tradition then Kierkegaard had at his disposal and in my culture I was able to become something different than he. As with Alex, although I do believe Christian faith is beautiful and good and cares about virtue and love above all else, I certainly don't view Christianity as being absolved of its own sins. It's bound to its own framing and I'm not convinced by any of the apologetics arguments or by Tom Holland's arguments in the slightest that our culture's moral progress is solely a product of Christian ethics. I think that much of its ethics are deeply flawed and I'm not capable of just accepting it all as good because the Bible is good because it's the word of God and God is good.
I am afraid that Christianity's growth today is mostly political. Certainly not all of it, I attend a Latin mass with my Catholic friend every so often and he tells me how there's always people coming to dip their toes in the more traditional expressions of worship and devotion, but for every teen or young adult going to a Latin mass there are 100 others putting on their cross necklace for the first time to complement their MAGA merchandise. Christianity is beautiful, but it is also ugly and I'm not sure whether that ugliness is merely a product of Christians themselves being uninspired or that the Scriptures and traditions are simply fundamentally lacking the necessary psycho-social tools to keep people and to keep itself from turning into the monsters it swore it would protect us from.
Personally, I've played with the idea of joining Zen communities to try and find what I'm looking for as they aren't bound to the same propositional tyranny of dogmatism that Christianity is, but even they are a part of the larger Buddhist traditions and much of it has succumbed in the same manner as Christianity to the confirmation biases of the cultures that the religions evolve through. There's no academy of Plato, no congregations of druids wandering the plains and forests to question and ponder, the majority of the university's are cash cow corporations facilitating woke tyrannies and the majority of the eco chambers of churches cannot see beyond their walled perceptions of heresy. I yearn for communities of moral formation, but I yearn more so to not succumb to false truths.
It's not as simple as Pascal makes it out to be. With the age of technology, Christianity is fully exposed for all to see. I have to follow my heart, but it does not lead me back to the church. So I wander, trying my best to maintain that not all those who wander are lost, making peace with uncertainty through humility and love. Perhaps it is the will of God that I remain outside of the faith and perhaps my efforts and interactions will produce the kinds of Christians that I think the world really needs. I think Alex's work accomplishes this.
Saying that some of those alternative ideologies draw wisdom from the very traditions they reject is missing the point. There are underlying truths that Christianity draws from. Zen draws from those underlying truths as well. The key is to focus on those underlying truths that help us derive meaning and purpose and a feeling of safety and well-being.
💜
Here's a ChatGPT summary:
- The discussion took place in a fully sold-out room at the Unheard Club, focusing on the possibility of a Christian revival.
- The speaker noted a shift in the political and cultural conversation over the past five years, with a more visible Christian component.
- Intellectual and opinion-former Christians like Matthew Crawford, Paul King's North, Ian Ciali, Nick Cave, and Russell Brand have had notable conversions.
- Justin Briarly, author of "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God," observed a shift in the atmosphere and noted a decline in new atheism's influence.
- Despite statistics showing a decline in church attendance and religiosity, Briarly feels there is a turning of the tide towards spirituality, especially among young people.
- Liz Oldfield noted a significant shift in the spiritual landscape, with more social permission to explore spirituality and metaphysical yearnings.
- Oldfield highlighted the rise in psychedelics and climate anxiety as factors driving spiritual openness.
- Alex O'Connor, an atheist, argued that the struggle for meaning is not new and suggested that technological advancements like the iPhone have contributed to modern nihilism.
- O'Connor also noted that figures like Douglas Murray and Tom Holland, who are sympathetic to Christianity, do not explicitly believe in God.
- The panel discussed the potential for a Christian revival, with varying views on whether it would be a political or spiritual revival.
- The discussion touched on the role of Christianity in addressing modern existential crises and the need for collective moral formation.
- The panelists debated the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, with Justin Briarly suggesting that suspending materialist assumptions could make the resurrection more plausible.
- The conversation also explored the impact of Christianity on modern values like social justice and the abolition of slavery, with differing views on its historical role.
- The panelists agreed that Christianity should not be co-opted for political agendas and emphasized the importance of genuine spiritual transformation.
- Main message: The discussion highlighted a perceived shift towards spiritual openness and the potential for a Christian revival, driven by both cultural and existential factors, but emphasized the need for genuine spiritual transformation rather than political co-option.
What was your prompt?
@@RNCM_Philosophy on github, user mbrochh, repo py-erudite is the tool I built to make these. The prompt is:
Create a bullet point summary of the text that will follow after the heading `TEXT:`.
Do not just list the general topic, but the actual facts that were shared.
For example, if a speaker claims that "a dosage of X increases Y", do not
just write "the speaker disusses the effects of X", instead write "a dosage
of X increases Y".
Use '- ' for bullet points:
After you have made all bullet points, add one last bullet point that
summarizes the main message of the content, like so:
- Main message: [MAIN MESSAGE HERE]
---
TEXT TITLE: {title}
TEXT:
{chunk}
"""
51:18 “the most incredible piece of fiction” isn’t the deepest possible criticism but the highest possible praise.
[what does wisdom look like?]
"Chuang-tzu tells a lovely tale about a sage who was wandering along the bank of a river near an enormous cataract. Suddenly, way up at the top of it, he saw an old man roll off the bank into the water, and he thought, 'This man must be old and ill and is putting an end to himself.' But a few minutes later, way down below the cataract, the old man jumped out of the stream and started running along the bank. So the sage and his disciples hurried, scooting after him and, having caught up with him told him that what he'd done had been the most amazing thing they'd ever seen. 'How did you survive?' they asked. 'Well,' he answered, 'there is no special trick. I just went in with a swirl and came out with a whirl. I made myself like the water, so that there was no conflict between me and the water.' "
-- Alan Watts.
I spoke to a clergyman recently who said he is quite surprised to see significant numbers of, especially men, in their 20s and 30s coming into church to talk about God, faith etc. Something is changing. I think all 3 panellists are correct in one way or another. Friends of mine (I'm in the above category) are also asking questions.
It's quite fascinating that I came across this so randomly after just two hours from having a conversation with a friend about the same observation. TOTAL Synchronicity
Not if your mobile phone was on nearby, during your conversation!
@@Being_Bohemian haha, my point was that I have also observed this trend of spiritual awaking and more youngsters talking about christ, rather than the fact that I came across the video.
God at work 😉
Zeitgeist
Divine Providence
The measure of a Christian is not how well they love their neighbour or how moral they are but how well they know God and who and what He is and so apply what they know to themselves. Our salvation is not how well we do but how well God has done.
But 'salvation' is a contrived fantasy.
And that is why this ghastly religion will die.
You're talking about the old Christianity, which believes in the God of the Bible and all the silly miracles. New Christianity is about getting yourself to accept the concept of God and deciding who you'd like Him to be.
@@meme-gd2pk 'Old' and 'New' - they're both the same.
Satan knows God well.”Faith without works” springs to mind.
As an unsure atheist I can tell you that with cool headed discussions like these there is massive potential for the christians to get people more interested.
Already now I think there are many "agnostic" people who favour christianity.
She literally called new atheisism "nonsense "
@@magicker8052which is precisely what it was. It desperately lacked in scholarly depth. Wasn’t serious or profound, extremely reductionist lacking in nuance and intellectual humility. Was pretty embarrassing for atheism tbh. Bunch of opportunistic crusaders. Hardly the best in class when it comes to a critique of religion.
@@Thomo707 For many it was important and significant and if you wish to have an adult conversation about religion you cant go calling it "nonsense". For many people held hostage by religion it allowed them to see that was another way. That the stories fed to them as children were only that and that there was life after religion. The vast majority of religion fed to child is just what you describe "desperately lacked in scholarly depth. Wasn’t serious or profound, extremely reductionist lacking in nuance and intellectual humility" So ANYTHING that helps them escape this is useful.
Love Alex. Such a sharp clever inquiring mind. I loved this whole discussion it was brilliant. Thank you Freddy!
57:11 What?! Justin says that all Gnostics come a couple of centuries after the first Gospels? Wow. This is totally false. Gnostic Christian sects started before even the first Gospels were written. Paul was aware of the Gnostics, and his letters predate the Gospels.
Leave it to christians to lie for their faith
Elizabeth Oldfield is great! First time hearing of her but she was ace to listen to.
I couldn't stand her.
"New atheist nonsense." who the hell does she think she is?
She’s all idealism and feel-ism. I strongly feel things so they must be true.
The world wide web has been the best thing to happen to Christianity. 30 years ago, we would never have had access to this sort of discussion. Thoughtful people seeking answers in front of thoughtful audience available in everyone's personal phone. Incredible.
Really? I would say it's the number #1 reason for its rapid decline...
Woman on the panel perfectly embodies the 'retreat from rationality'.
did you listen to a word of what she said?
100
you haven't understood a word she said ...how about keeping your narrow judgements to yourself and inflict them on the rest of us
@@peace4policy yeah, we did
@@peace4policy The way she described her convictions in the conversion was basing her views on feeling rather than rationality. She was unable to get the religion to make sense rationally but liked the feelings of comfort, raised self worth ("becoming the person she wants to be"), and sense of meaning she got from it.
Purely rational people are generally good at describing the world but this view leaves out meaning. The secular humanists discussed often dont want to admit this and say they can have their cake and eat it too by having an objective secular morality where one fails to exist. The only meaning to be had their is a personal one that has no objective basis to apply it to the world.
Liz and many others do the opposite. She said herself she failed to find meaning or religion using rationality, but felt that religion made her and the world a better person. This sense of "better" is a feeling. She and many others like to try to have their cake and eat it too by claiming that they are rational at the same time, that their feelings should be considered a different kind of rational when they are not the same thing. Likewise to the individuality of meaning of the secular person, the conviction Liz feels for her religion is just a feeling that cannot be made into an objective rational explanation of the world.
I think Liz and those of similar views should do what some moral skeptics have done on the rational side: admit they cant have their cake and eat it too. For example, many postmodernists or nihilists accept a rational view of the world and readily admit there is Admit that these feelings are not rational.
The zinger that Alex had at 35:52 with "God-willing" was really good. He tied that in well in his closing remarks about divine hiddenness. Alex clearly seems open to Christianity. It makes sense that he's bewildered he hasn't experienced something that pushes him to Christianity.
Alex is just wonderful to listen to. His depth and pace of thinking should be an inspiration to us all.
At the 48 minute mark, Elizabeth makes a comment implying that only religion can save us from our worst selves, only religion can save us from consumerism. She says we need to immerse ourselves in communities of moral formation. My question is, "Why necessarily must these communities involve belief in supernatural claims, when, in fact, belief in supernatural claims has caused considerable suffering, misery and death in human history?"
I would firstly say that, whilst supernatural beliefs have caused suffering and pain - they have caused far greater goodness. There is a misplaced belief that religion causes wars (according to the Encyclopedia of Warfare, less than 7% of wars were primarily caused by religion) and atheist states are free of this (look to communist nations to see atheists are just as capable of producing pain). Christianity is responsible (look at St Basil) for hospitals and orphanages, Christians throught-out history have gone above and beyond in exposing themselves to fatal infection in treating those who are diseased. It is silly to look at Christianity, and dismiss it as a negative agent.
With that said, if you want the honest answer of why you need supernatural beliefs - look to humanist churches. They were set up for exactly what you're talking about. They sang songs together, met regularly, had uplifting and encouraging talks. But. They fell apart due to internal spats and disagreements. There was no glue to hold them together. It just doesn't work, it'd perhaps be nice, but it just doesn't work.
@@Pedanta I don't think we have a big enough sample size of atheist states yet to compare to religious ones. But in any case, look at Phil Zuckerman's research showing that the modern secular states (the ones that don't force atheism on you, as compared to Soviet Russia) are the happiest countries in the world. Japan, Finland, et cetera. And remember most of us are asking for secular states, not necessarily atheist ones.
As for your point about humanist churches falling apart, I have never heard that. Sources, please. Sounds dubious and anecdotal.
I do not think you have listed a good reason yet for why the glue of a community has to be a supernatural belief system.
Go Alex. Happy to be a atheist. Can`t stomach hell and the supernatural
Being an atheist is a living hell. Relativism worked out to a place of total meaninglessness....or just pretension and intellectual.dishonesty. No moral no right wrong no meaning no purpose just energy and matter resulting in nothing....
Praying for you. If you can’t stomach hell, you may want to keep searching.
@@TracyGravell Cheers matey. Went from christianity to atheism because it doesn`t stack up
@@TracyGravell I can`t stomach the idea of heaven
Imagine being trapped in heaven with ghastly Christians
Not a word about the most radical commandment of Christ: "Turn the other cheek." Christ negates the Old Testament and the "eye for an eye" philosophy of the two other Abrahamic religions, which are currently at war. "When Christ calls a man," wrote Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "he bids him come and die." To the world. The Christian dies to the world to live for Christ and the life TO COME, which is superior in every imaginable regard.
Have you ever heard the phrase "after Saturday comes Sunday"?
Proving this is fantasy and not reality.
@@gregorytaylor9104 if its raining in November, christmas will be in December.
(dutch saying)
@@peterk.6930 The after Saturday comes Sunday is a Muslim threat that after they kill the Jews they will come for the Christians.
🤦🏾♂️ As if Chr*stians along with the Chews are not responsible for utterly destroying the Planet and causing misery and unprecedented oppression, injustice and creulty to the Non-Western World on a 24/7/365 basis for the past 500 years
A delightful exchange between people of differing views.
Something valuable to take away from each of them.
Well done Freddie for making it happen.
I am a former christian and it saddens me to see as the Elizabeth discussed a need for a god so they have meaning. It was hard for me at first too, but I find so much more fulfillment for myself when I realized that I made the meaning in my life. It was my responsibility, not a god's.
Belief in a god … and realising that you are responsible for your own life; not god … are not mutually exclusive. That is to say, you can do both.
Personally, I spent 70 years as a resolute atheist … Then, in 2020, every head of state, in every county, in perfect unison, in 200 different languages read exactly the same script, and rolled out the exactly same procedures, in lock-step, in real-time. Don’t hug grandma, don’t leave your home, don’t go to church, don’t go to the mosque, don’t celebrate Easter, Eid, Diwali, Christmas … A level of evil beyond human capability. The majesty of it was terrifying and overwhelming. And so I came to believe in god because such meta-human evil must be aimed at something.
Shortly after that my fledgling, untested belief was confirmed when it was declared we must vaccinate children to save adults.
Once you’ve seen the devil it’s nice to believe in god; although I don’t think he can save us !
@@Hickalum Yeah that sounds made up.
‘Woke’ and liberal are different things entirely, woke people who describe themselves as ‘progressive’ are usually intolerant of debate and don’t scrutinise ideas within their political base. It’s also obvious that there’s a religiously dogmatic aspect to it. Woke, (they think they’re ‘progressive’), seems to have replaced both religion and liberalism and it’s worse than either, hence you have people who are closer to the centre defending what’s being attacked and lost, and quickly realising Christianity has some unique goodness. Liberal principles are inherently founded on post-Enlightenment western Christian culture and to defend liberalism you have to defend its cultural history. On top of that there’s a lot of immigration in the west coupled with anti-western narratives on the far left woke who will vilify what they perceive as ‘white culture’ and glorify everything non-white. There are very few people who’d defend western culture let alone say it’s better than other competing cultures and ideologies around the world, and that is setting off alarm bells for a lot of young people. Also rather than seek consistency as liberals might, woke people engage in identity politics and have to employ moral relativism to avoid acknowledging their obvious hypocrisy, as the most important thing for them is not upholding values but righting wrongs of the past as they see them, which they believe is western colonialism. This is how you get woke people ignoring Islamic extremism and making excuses for blasphemy laws while thinking the Westboro church is comparable to millions of jihadis globally. By 2012 ‘woke’ had become a husk of some loose collection of liberal ideas, now divorced from its foundation for over a decade it’s just a flagrant anti-western dogma that’s got more influence from marxism and post-modernism, as unlikely as it is that those things should merge if anyone were actually thinking anything through.
It's fundamentally a psychological response, the post modern attempt to question everything, including common knowledge, common law and the self evident has left these young ones depressed and groping in the dark. The thing about the depressed person is they would rather be anywhere else other than where they are.
I know, I'm a mental health worker.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I would agree with you that Islam is something that's poorly understood, I've invested a significant amount of time in understanding it as a liberal duty so as to be fair and know who might be an ally and who is not. What people call 'moderate Islam' is conservative compared to modern western conservatism and even that is not the majority, the majority is fundamentalist conservatives who believe in theocracy which entails draconian corporal and capital punishments. I agree with the essence of what you're saying insofar that liberal and ex-Muslims are allies that should be protected, but they're a small and often under threat minority. In a lot of Islamic countries in MENA you do find modernists who're sick and tired of fanatics, they're often educated aristocrats who're at odds with the clerical status quo. Fundamentally Islam is a return to a literalist interpretation of Old Testament values, so unless people opt out of taking it literally or find some Sufistic room to loosen interpretation it's not really compatible with liberalism.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn Yes but conservatism in Islam is extreme. Morocco has a majority of conservatives who believe the Sharia is divine and that entails a belief in the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy in all mainstream schools of jurisprudence. It's not to say everyone does, but a majority do and that is both extreme and incompatible with western liberal society. That's not the law because every state that tries to implement the Sharia turns into a dystopia and educated conservative people often have a dualistic approach to believing that is both preferable but too austere.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn What do you define as a fundamentalist versus a conservative in the Islamic context? Conservatism demands a level of fundamentalism in Islam because the Quran is supposed to be the literal word of God, whereas it's easier to seperate in Christianity.
Progressivism is the intevitable end result of 90s liberalism, you just despise the world you created.
Elizabeth Oldfield kicked ass on this panel, shined beautifully : )
Tbh I still think Alex’s points are the most pragmatic. The issue with her view is that in order to fulfil the life that Christianity espouses you just fully believe. However, that means believing in all the dogmatic baggage as well, and as we know from history that is a very very slippery slope into authoritarian anti enlightenment thinking
@@Llooktook wouldn’t disagree I just think her perspective, and voice were fresh in this continued cultural conversation.
Alex had excellent and important points
I didn`t see any arse kicking mate but she seems to like psychedelics
@@Llooktook anti-'enlightenment' thinking is not a negative.....but Oldfield's view is embarrassingly emotional. So many better names that could have taken her place on this panel.
I hadn’t heard Liz speak before. I really like what she has to say and how she presents herself. What a beautiful Christian she is ❤
This so called God has never revealed himself, if he does exist he doesn't care about the destruction of both the planet or human life and yet he wants to be acknowledged, worshipped and praised whilst being helpless in the face of evil and suffering...what a very strange God indeed....
Are you blind? No evidence???
@@marklacy8789 yes that's right, no compelling evidence for God ...
@@Starchaser63Is that conclusion for you or for all?
@@marklacy8789 I personally would say there's no evidence, to the extent that it excludes other religions and worldviews.
If you have a low epistemic bar or generally low standards for what constitutes evidence, then there's plenty of evidence. If you try to justify Christian belief ad-hoc, everything becomes evidence for God.
@@tomgreene1843 It is for anyone who applies the same standard across the board.
She is woke. Her thoughts are completely tainted by that, and you don’t have a serious challenger to her.
Thanks for bringing these guys together. I pray this is a revival. I’ve recently noticed it amongst my work colleagues. They’ve been watching my Christian content and enjoying it.
43:09
Alex’s response to this 👏
God is NOT anti-slavery
I disagree, and I wish Justin had brought his apologetics a-game. Christians agree that the God’s Word is anti-slavery.
@@DaughterOfChrist1997 Leviticus 24:44-46
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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.
Thank you for highlighting this bit.
Christians taking credit for social or political progress that took like 1800 years of Christendom to come into effect is becoming a huge peeve of mine.
Methodological naturalism doesn't say "There is nothing beyond what we can find using science." It says "In order to find out how the world works we must constrain ourselves to observable features of the world."
What we (or rather, many of us) find is that methodological naturalism does indeed allow us to find out enough about the world that it looks like a god isn't necessary. I.e. that the world looks the same as if there was no god (beyond some kind of abstract unmoved mover).
Elizabeths heart is in the right place but you cannot legislate love of neighbor because that only creates resentment. Her emotions cloud the reasoning that God gave her. If she wants to host an immigrant family, she can do so but she cannot demand that society does the same. A host country has the right to accept any amount of immigrants and set the terms, period. Medieval Christendom had every right to fight off any attempts of Islamic conquer. We sent monks to spread the gospel IN THEIR LAND, in situ.
Yes, she needs to bslsnce welcoming strangers with loving her neighbour
You made a false dichotomy at the end there. The question is about immigration, not military conquest.
I really enjoyed Elizabeth. First time hearing her. And it’s great seeing Justin here.
What a great conversation! Thank you all!
What an absolute doll Elizabeth is, inside and out.
All involved in this conversation showed that class, real authentic class is not dead at least. Bravo!
👏👏👏 👏
She literally stayed "New atheist nonsense " nasty woman
This is the first time i've seen Elizabeth Oldfield. A very powerful speaker. Thanks for giving her a platform.
watch the last interview of her with John Vervaeke, it's outstanding
She's an emotional whack job.
The femininity power of Elizabeth Oldfield is POWERFUL..............
The only person in the panel to actively attack a segment of society.. I think I have seen enough of her for one lifetime
Excellent discussion - thank you! 😊
Very interesting and lively discussion.
I am a Christian and I was really surprised that life eternal/heaven was not brought up; to me, life after death, the resurrection and the virgin birth are the fundamental differences between Christian and atheist beliefs.
Elizabeth - force your self to believe and that will be good for society…… afraid not lady
Lady not afraid
I applaud Alex's interest in the alternative early Christianities. It's a shame the Christians on the panel recoil so quickly from it. The problem with the label Gnostic is that includes a variety of different groups and positions, not all of which see the physical world as evil..In the Gospel of Thomas, on the contrary, Jesus is in the wood and under the stone. Finally, there is no reason both cannot be true i.e. the actual physical resurrection of Jesus can make possible the spiritual transformation of human beings whilst in this body, since the Divine is within us and we are within thw Divine.
Because if he read the letters of Paul, he would know that the very first apostles claimed Jesus' resurrection and that without a resurrection their faith is in vain.
I'm a 26 year old English man. Ive recently started attending church regularly for the first time in my life, after being an atheist, a buddhist and a pagan over the years. It is completely transforming me for the better. I almost broke down in tears on Sunday when singing of the glory of God's greatness.
Do you care about what is actually true or do you just do things that make you feel good?
Amazing what being a part of group can do for you. I'm happy you have found joy and belonging. Beware the grift tho. An all powerful god doesn't need your money.
@@TheTruthKiwi
What is untrue about the glory of God's greatness? The church has simply given me a space to appreciate that with a community of people, something no other religion or philosophy has provided me before. There is also great truth in the transformational power of Christ's teachings and I say that as someone who actively rejected it most of my life.
@@petereames3041
You just tried two Religions and weren't satisfied with it so you culturally moved to Christianity (there are about 10,000 Religions in the World) and now you're just mentioning your experience with singing in a community.
That's doesn't prove Christianity to be True.
And what part of the Accusation about God became man and emptied himself out of All Knowledge turned himself to not knowing much,sits well with you???
Isn't God all knowing all the Time??
Or God became his own creation to kill himself(though God is immortal so the sacrifice isn't even true),to save the rest of his own creation from His own Wrath ,make sense to you???
@@petereames3041 "What is untrue about the glory of god's greatness?" Well, no gods have ever actually been shown or proven to exist whatsoever so that's a good start. How exactly do you know that any supernatural claims made in the bible are true?
Great conversation with some thoughtful people. I would counter the view that there is movement towards revival with my own anecdotal experience that a huge percentage of my friends, family, colleagues are deconstructing and leaving formal Christianity behind. That, in my world, at least is the real trend at the moment.
What a superb debate, on an enviable level. Congratulations to everyone involved. As a disciple of Jesus I have enjoyed every bit of it, including the skeptics' concerns and critiques.
I don’t see the problem with adopting christianity as a socio-cultural identity i.e, aesthetics,tradition-ritual, allegorical exegesis. You don’t need to buy into all of it’s truth claims to get real communal benefits from it. Beyond that most people are disconnected and utterly insensitive to the value religion brings to the downtrodden of society.
Religion brings nothing but hate and wars in the name of it.
I guess if you pray hard enough then all your problems or societies problems will go away just like magic?
So why don't you open churches up to the homeless for shelter at night? Why are they kept locked and not open? You know the downtrodden in society?
That seems to be a very dishonest way of participating in a religion.
The whole point is that Jesus is the way, the Truth and the life. There’s an ocean of books that address philosophical and historical arguments for Christianity and a good number of academics and scientists do believe. If people want to have fellowship and community without God they’re welcome to do so. When I see a person who assumes it’s made up nonsense I wonder how deeply they’ve considered the question.
@@kristenross2902amen
That is to miss the point of the gospel, it’s empty
The absurdities forced on us during "the pandemic" have exposed the flaws in empiricism. The uncertainties therefore have led people to look for the truth again. At least this was the case for myself.
And an imaginary sky fairy did that for you?
@@stephnewman1357 I'm happy you gave me a reply. The answer was not a "sky fairy" unfortunately. That would have been very easy! The answer for me came by reviewing all I had learnt about economics at university and my 'A' level Biology courses. Actually quite a lot of research but then we all had a lot of free time
It was just not empiricism but fake science that was responsible for the desaster.
With an elite and their scientists ignoring empirical evidence and foisting near superstitious belief on a fearful pliable population?
A charade that was enjoyed by those with power, profitable for the already wealthy and ripped money and trust from the rest of us.
What are the flaws in empiricism that were exposed?
13:20 I just learned from Jonathan Haidt that religious families do better with their mental health in a technology-social media era.
The Jordan Peterson effect, ironically he is not religious in the conventional sense but his exploration of religious themes and encouraging people to have faith and to believe religious stories has had a huge impact. Not to mention that the development of AI is bringing up the topic of Consciousness and Simulation.
Big fan of all 3 of the guests. Great work
Religion survives because it works like a comforting blanket for people who find it difficult to grow up.
Knowing you could be condemned to eternal fire if you don’t commit yourself to a moral framework is not a comforting blanket, bearing your cross is difficult
No we believe it because it’s true not because it’s comfy Actually it is MORE difficult to follow Christ in this culture
Elizabeth Oldfield has articulated more of what I’ve been thinking and living in my faith in this interview than anyone else in years! What an insightful choice for your panel. Thank you!
When I look on this stage, I can’t believe only one of them does not literally believe that a snake talked. Humans can be so intelligent and so superstitious all at the same time.
There are plenty of other overtly mythological/supernatural stuff too. Pillars of fire, splitting the Red Sea, the plagues on Egypt, water turned into wine, etc.
Elizabeth is the reason that Christianity, until contemporary Gnostic feminism, did not permit women to be religious officiants.
Literary critic Harold Bloom put the question succinctly: where shall wisdom be found? Our aging atheistic parents and leaders don’t seem to have much to spare. Why not seek out the wisdom of the ages? Well, we are.