I'm a South African athiest. It's interesting to listen to Justin talk about how religion/christianity is growing outside western culture. To some extent I think he's right. For a long time in SA there's been a stalemate between christianity and African spirituality, but over the last ten years or so, christianity has been growing and overpowering traditional African spirituality and beliefs. I don't know the statistics but if someone told me that christianity is the fastest growing religion in SA, I wouldn't be surprised. Christian churches are popping up like zits on a teenager's face in my community. However, if I were Justin I wouldn't be jumping for joy just yet,beacuse if I took Justin to the church my parents are attending and gave him a platform to preach his version of Christianity, they would lump him in with me!! . The christianity that is growing outside of western culture is not this new, philosophical, diluted version of Christianity that we see in the west, it's a fundamentalist religion that still asserts that Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden, that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, that women should be subservient to their husbands and so forth. I also believe that the rise of Justin's new and philosophcal christianity is fueling the rise of fundamentalism outside the west. Preachers in my town point to someone like Justin and say to their congregation, "don't be like this guy. Look at how his faith has fallen. This is not what a Christian looks like. This is not how a Christian speaks". If you accused an African Christian of being anti-science, they would take it as a bedge of honor. Accuse Justin of the same and he gets offended. So Justin, before you start celebrating the rise of religion/christianity beyond the west, it would do you a great deal of good to first realise and acknowledge that it's not your version of Christianity.
You obviously don't know Justin's beliefs and he isn't the progressive Christian you think he is : having nonfundamental interpretations doesn't mean you can't believe Adam and Eve weren't authentic people or the YEC is the only right interpretation and you're H.sexually is still not acceptable in nonfundamental Evangelical circles : only the most progressive and liberal churches accept H.sexuals. Ham and Hovind R the ignorant fundamentals that many intelligent and Christian University trained Christians would reject : You obviously have read people like Dr.Michael S.Heiser PhD in O.T languages. Dr Hugh Ross astrophysicist. Dr Joel Duff . Dr. David Faik Egyptologist Dr. William Lane Craig.
You're so right. Most western Christians have no idea how this new fundamentalism is affecting communities outside the west, especially in Africa. Every week i hear the saddest stories of people caught up in literal cults, burned to death and exploited and the missionaries responsible have no care for the people whose lives they've ruined after they fuck off back to the west.
This is such an important point. The Christianity that's growing, even in the USA, is a fire and brimstone fundamentalism untethered from philosophy or historical perspective. Even the Catholic Church is being overrun by evangelicalism. Its marriage to authoritarian government is a necessary element for it's survival, not an accidental mistake as most Christians want to believe.
Alex! I just gotta say, your production quality is immaculate. The audio is well balanced and crisp. Thanks for the effort you put in behind the scenes!
Alex man your channel and interviews are just the best. The vibes in this interview and even in the comments section is so drastically different than almost anywhere else on the internet (and even off the internet these days). To get to watch a calm interview between two people with such different opinions, form my own thoughts/opinions/questions throughout, then to scroll down and read others' well thought out responses to Justin's or your words it so fun. It's very inspiring, definitely helps me feel good on bad days and makes me want to dig into these kinds of topics forever :)
@15:25 "It's like saying that the people inventing weightlifting weren't jacked.. Well off course they weren't, they hadn't invented weightlifting yet!" -That made me laugh out loud and must be one of the more quote worthy things Alex has said in a little while. Thoroughly enjoyed this nuanced and civilized conversation ❤
@@NinjaJay_Arashikage I hope you realize this was a tongue in cheek example and not something intended to have teeth to exemplify his point. Odd you took this personally enough to make a jab at Alex's physique as if he was taking an antagonistic position against weightlighting. In fact, I find the accusation Alex is "wrong" amusing and possibly ironic since it seems to me you don't understand what he would even be wrong about [in original context]. Anyhoot, back to my superior weighted calisthenics routine ;)
Considering that comment and the relationship between Christianity and science, I don't think you can say so dismissably that science didn't exist yet to refute the religious thinking to cut the two apart. The relationship is closer than that. Before Christianity religion was preoccupied with the creation of victims to appease the gods, the rituals of sacrifice, both animal and human, existed everywhere in all societies and cultures but it is within the Christian world view that we all of a sudden gained the ability to distinguish an innocent victim which we now refer to as a scapegoat. Before Christianity there was no such thing and the concept opened our minds to forms of frivolous blaming and violence which were ultimately recognised as ineffectual and revealed something very ugly about our behaviour towards our fellow community. It is in this context that it can be said that we did not stop burning witches because of science, we invented science because we stopped burning witches, which is a huge achievement on the part of society which was operating within the moral landscape of the Christian faith.
@@chadh9457 Yep, plus Christianity instilled the value of truth seeking, and freedom of speech (and therefore thought). The idea that all humans are created in the image of God meant they wouldn't be executed for the wrong beliefs, unlike in the Roman Empire. And scientists saw studying the universe as a way to worship the creator of it. It's not safe to assume that any pagan culture or any different religious culture would have figured out the scientific method. We can look to the Islamic world and compare the fruits there, for example. By the way, I'm sensing some Rene Girard influence in your comment. I loved his reflections too lol.
but do you think Alex missed the point that science in the main wasn't birthed in non christian cultures. It was the christian worldview, that reality is constant and the universe had a beginning and is moving to an end rather than say the cyclical worldview of buddhism or hinduism that rendered reality amenable to the scientific method.
It's only because they've both studied each others subjects properly Previously, the new atheists simply shot their mouth off despite not knowing the first thing about religious belief and religious arguments and religious scholars which never lead to good discussions, only rhetoric. I think time has shown that it was primarily a reaction to 9/11 rather than any intellectual rigour. Christopher Hitchens was the prime example of this. People loved watching him but never learned anything from his shows. Alex o conner has studied and has a degree in theology. I think every so called atheist should have atleast studied religion to that level before you should be allowed to comment or engage in a public debate with it.
@@pierzing.glint1sh76Sorry my friend, but if you think I need a degree before I'm allowed to disagree with you, I also require a degree to be converted by you. I will stop being an openly uneducated anti-theist when it is only doctoral Christians who can preach and they can only preach to those with doctorates.
@@avisian8063 a degree in what ? Atheism ??? Hahaha don't joke about Anyway that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ur opinion on a subject is worthless (to somebody whos from that field) unless u actually know what your talking about Eg U can give ur opinion on a soccer team to me I'll take it, but whatever u say will be worthless to that soccer teams manager, bcoz they actually know something about the subject.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Brierly here. On one hand sure, we could say that the conversation has shifted more into the social utility of religion, but it certainly hasn't changed anything about the problems religious practices have with their magical foundations. I'd also point out that we're only a couple of years out of a pandemic, and in the midst of that kind of full-scale psychological disruption it's pretty reasonable to see folks picking their rosaries back up for a while. No, I don't think the "new atheism" is dead at all; I just think that atheism offers little to wrap "community commonality" around. I also think Brierly is rather transparent in his soft-selling of Christianity; you know, that kind of "well, ignore all those problematic bits and just pick what feels good." I think there's a bit of a blind spot there about the fundamentals of actual Christian teaching, and I think you did a good job gently sussing that out.
agree and disagree. I would actually separate "new atheism" and just "atheism" as two different things. I think the former speaks more to a culture that made atheism sexy, mainstream and edgy. I do think that has now past and "new atheism" is pretty much dead but that's not to say atheism has diminished, its just not being touted with the same glory and cultural influence it once had. In these past few years there has been a strong rise in right wing cultural sentiments which comes hand in hand with religious belief, and guys like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate or Daily Wire are flying the religious flag with that same edginess and glory that New atheism once had, making it more culturally attractive. To me though its all just a reactionary movement against modern ideals, western cultural shifts and identity, rather than the actual teachings, rituals and practices somehow demonstrating new merit, which is why it will eventually die down. That's just my perception anyway.
@@sum8601 agreed. I think we need to distinguish between 'new atheism', which was a specific movement in the mid to late noughties (though some have rejected the categorisation) with just a general lack of belief. In regard to that specific movement, I think Brierly has some decent points.
Thank you for your insightful and well made comments. I'm an atheist also a Humanist. Humanism provides community, being good without god is true altruism. Religions thrive in adversity. The goal of eternal life in return for dogmatically controlled behaviour, replaces empathy with obedience. Religion is clearly the early (worst) efforts of humanity to create community, Humanism is a better.
So why didn't people turn to the good news of atheism in the pandemic - why did they 'pick-up the rosaries' as you say? Why not pick up the hope, peace and truth that atheism brings??
Fantastic interview Alex. I'm a 67 yr old Male in US. I was born and raised a Christian and deconverted approx 20 yrs ago. It's funny but I see things in just the opposite way as Justin. To me, yes there is more constructive conversation about God these days than in the past. However, I see more people deconstructing and leaving Christianity rather than atheists starting to be interested in or actually becoming Christians. Love your you tube videos. Carry on. Mark in Michigan
I'm a 69 yr. old Christian believer in Florida ( tomorrow's my birthday, I turn 70 ! ) Anyhow I appreciate your comments. I don't feel qualified to respond to the observation that Christianity is growing. That's because I've been kind of a "Christian hermit" the last 16 years for heath reasons. Anyhow... it's still important to ponder things such as the existence of God and the ultimate meaning to life. Respectfully.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Why do you think its important to ponder about that which cannot be proven or even indicated to exist? Do you also ponder frequently on vampires and ghosts? I mean, most people in life ponder about death itself, which I equate to a more fair similarity than whichever god. As people who fear death are more likely to fill in those gaps and become religious in the first place.
Alex's channel is one of the few places on the internet, where people of opposing worldviews can be friendly and respectful. Even though I believe in Christ, I watch some content from atheists, to challenge my views, and most often going into a video I feel a lot of fear. Fear of being ridiculed, or labeled nasty things, or misrepresented. I'm never afraid to watch Alex's channel, because I know that all his discussions are on top of a firm layer of care and love for all living beings. Thank you, Alex, for constantly reminding me, that when I feel attacked or alone, people like you are out there in the world. I hope you reap great rewards and fruitful discussions for your hard work.
I mirror your sentiment from the opposite perspective. I’m an atheist who thoroughly enjoys Alex’s channel for the same reasons. He never seems interested in scoring points or appearing the victor, more so getting to the real meat of the issue in a civilised manner.
the big mistake in Justin’s arguments for Christianity and the majority of arguments I see from others defending Christianity is that they for some reason believe that “good values” or the “values of the west” belong to Christianity. It’s as if they think that being a “good person” never entered the mind of a human being until Christianity came onto the scene which is obviously and utterly ridiculous. Morality has been in development long before the birth of Christianity…
I doubt very much if our morality would be the same today if it werent for Christian tradition. Even today, non christian nations have very different morals from christian ones. And countries that used to be christian but pandering to the woke ideology is very very different from christian countries like the Philippines, Hungary etc.
@@AthanaSus I am not saying Christianity has not had an influence on the way we live our lives today. All the religions/ideologies of the past have influenced the way we think and live our lives today. I am simply stating Christianity is not solely responsible for “good morals”’ There are many other factors and forces at work influencing our morality, yet when I here Christians defend Christianity it’s as if they can’t imagine how a human being can arrive at the conclusion of living a “morally decent” life without “Judea Christian values”. I think this is a very shallow and narrow minded view of the matter at hand.
Religions definitely had their uses, especially in the past. I'm sure they were quite good for promulgating these ideas in an age before very much print. But to give them credit for creating our founding our morality in any way is laughable.
Great conversation. As a Christian I would love to press him on where these ideas of equality come from and what the overlap is between that and post enlightenment ideology. To me, that was his weakest point. If we value equality then why stop at just some equality? It seems there is a disjunct there between his faith and his values that he hasn't thought all the way through yet. I find this is true for probably most Christians. Ironically, they have internalized post enlightenment values just as thoroughly as they say the new atheists have internalized Christian values. And to me, it's just as big of a blind spot that demands its own reckoning.
There is no equality under god; bible nor quran. All state that the female is inferior to men. Any religious nut that claims otherwise is cherry picking from his own supposed "holy book".
As an atheist, I suspect he might point to where Jesus talks about the greatest, and second greatest commandments. I think Justin is very good at finding a reason to think what he wants to think. He could teach courses on post hoc rationalisation.
100% agree , Christianity does teach compassion and charity , but I'm pressed to find anything in scripture promoting equality ,freedom, or self determination if anything the opposite
@@faustzxc Generally, the benefits of organized religion is compliance and control. Free thinking and self determination could lead to atheisms or at least questioning doctrine.
Im really glad that you challenged the Tom Holland rhetoric. As an atheist, I have no quarrel with admitting that a lot of our culture's understanding of morality was pioneered by Christianity, but to say that all of it was conceptualized by Christianity is a blatant ignorance of several other traditions and lineages of information. I think it's true that Christianity itself attempts to describe reality, including the very real realities of the human experiences of virtue and morality. However, I don't think that effectively describing virtue and morality makes those experiences in any way contingent upon Christianity itself. I also don't see any reason as to why they can't be reflected back on Christianity to support the atheist case. The internal contradictions of the Bible's moral theories were one of the reasons I deconstructed my faith to begin with. I could never bring myself to imagine that Jesus Christ himself would command us to stone, conquer, or enslave anyone and that Christ-like virtue was the very crack in the foundation that I needed to free myself through deconstruction. I don't think that Christians realize that deconstruction isn't centered on Christianity, but rather our entire conceptualization of identities. Christianity is merely one of the most influential identities in a diverse list of sociocultural relations that people have and for most atheists, once the religion falls, so too do the rest of the dominos (political, national, ego, etc) that were entrenched in that Christian foundation. Learning our sociocultural history, the various influences of different ideas and how they've interacted with each other such that we could emerge as we are today is one of the most important things we can do to reconstruct ourselves in the wake of our atheism. Outside of the chains of dogma, we can be free to use different perspectives as they effectively apply and one of the reasons that we are so caught up in the Christian perspective on values is that we are often trying to demonstrate that very same internal moral inconsistency that severed our ties to begin with. We are trying to engage with you by speaking your own language. At the end of the day, we are very aware that we use the same selfless love that you find in Jesus to challenge the hate and the violence and the bigotry that most of the rest of the religious frame is chained to, and if that weren't the case, we probably wouldn't have had a reason to deconvert to begin with. There's also a case to be made about pre-existing cultures in general. Would Christianity not then owe its values to Zoroastrianism, Greek and Egyptian polytheism, even Canaanite polytheism, or other pagan religious traditions and philosophies? It's not like Jesus or Moses were the inventors of selflessness, but surely Christians don't then argue that their understanding wasn't also afforded to them by their predecessors. The potential for love isn't just Christian, it's human.
These people are misinformed. They have this ahistorical view that Christianity just fell from the sky. Christianity was influenced by its surroundings. You find all the same morals in ancient Near Eastern Wisdom texts.
@@_____case it's words like "borrows" or "steals from" that I am objecting to. It implies that there is an ability to own/monopolize facts about reality
And even *if* there was a case to be made for this argument, the facts themselves are that "christian" scientists were usually christian either because (like Alex said) there wasn't a reasonable alternative yet, or they were christians because otherwise they would be lynched by the church. Most things Christians credit to Christianity were things they made all manner of efforts to eliminate before pretending to have championed all along (e.g. gay marriage). It's historical revisionism at its most insidious.
The surprising thing about "rebirth of belief in God" is it is ironically explained by the way it is stated. *BIRTH RATES* Simply put, you see religious families having religious children. The birth rate among the non-religious is much lower and thus the propagating of lack of religion isn't happening. Religion hasn't become any more convincing with better arguments. Religious people know they can teach their kids religion at a young age and make it a core part of their worldview. From then on, it's more likely they'll remain religious.
From the most recent polls I've seen, religious adherence has shifted downward significantly in the past decade alone. I can understand contemporary atheists examining Christian theology as a humanistic anthropological reality of life on Earth... but I'm not sure that translates to "Rebirth" as he argues. There's also no guarantee that children raised in a religious household will remain religious in adulthood.
@@rabd3721It’s actually not only the Christian birth rate. It’s also the Muslim birth rate. While being born to a religious family doesn’t mean you’ll be religious, it does vastly increase the probability and is the most associated aspect of someone you could know the predict their religion.
@@rabd3721 Take a look at the countries with the highest birthrates and look at the religion relationship: Somalia is a Muslim state and prohibits conversion. Angola is described as "overwhelming Christian" Now let's look at the countries with the lowest birthrates and the relationship with religion. Hong Kong has over 50% with no religion and 10% total Muslim/Christian South Korea has over 60% with no religion
@@rabd3721 The increase in percentage of religious individuals is directly connected to birthrates of countries where religion is central to that country. Religion hasn't become any more convincing. Many people in the modern world have decided to focus on their own lives and not procreating. However, religious individuals differ in that they still see the need to procreate since many religions teach to do this. This is literally how religions have survived. Think of a religion like a nation. If the nation doesn't have a high enough birthrate, it goes away. Religions literally work the same way. The biggest way to get people in the religion is to raise someone in the religion.
@@malirk I understand, you're talking about non-Western countries. My focus is on nations who have prospered/progressed enough to achieve the highest benchmarks of human rights and privileges. When human beings have the liberty to be themselves, you end up with dwindling religious faith. Many "religious" countries who mandate religious belief are authoritarian and fascist. I'm not particularly impressed with religious adherence in these countries, because it appears to be under threat of criminal liability.
My goodness! Justin's defense of the obvious contradictions between modern secular morality and "Biblical" morality are mental gymnastics amazing to behold!
My West African ancestors would turn in their grave if they were told that before the white man landed on their shores with the Bible, they knew nothing about human dignity and compassion.
@@srrysdrthu6716 Hermes. Messenger of the gods and the patron of thieves but truth be told I've always loved the demi-gods more. Achilles is my all time favorite.
Wouldn’t they turn in their graves to know what Africans did to Africans. Africans are the worst in this they always blame whites for slavery even though it was started by Africans and banned by whites.
Wow, a great discussion here which does help make the case of Justin's book and current thesis. This is more like a nice open-ended conversation between friends than the 'knock 'em down' type of confrontations that happened at the height of the New Atheist 'movement' and I'm so grateful for it! The path towards genuine understanding of each other in our polarized society surely looks like this.
I'm confused by the way "New Atheism" is cast in this conversation. Yes, it was relatively novel that a group of guys suddenly started making money being publicly atheist in the English-speaking world, but it's not like they were advancing revolutionary philosophical concepts. You can only sell so many books refuting the same old arguments for theism before anyone who's interested in buying them notices that they've heard all this before and/or otherwise loses interest In public figures being aggressively opposed to theism. But it seems to me the way they're talking about it is meant to suggest that the loss of interest in this particular moment signals a loss of interest in atheism or, perhaps, even a renewed interest in theism? Seems a bit nonsequitur to me.
I think the openness with which religion was being debunked by these people is amazing in itself because in many parts of the world it is illegal or majorly socially shunned to have these kinds of conversations.
Hold my beer. "New-neo Catholic" and "Post-Sputtering Protestant". No clue what either means, but I am ready to label any and all cherry picking christian strangers I meet with these newfound terms. 😂
Actually, I think it's that none of those writers are respected as philosophers by anybody outside of a particular brand of atheist. Dennet left religious polemic and went back to his actual field, nobody I know--religious or secular--takes Dawkins seriously as a philosopher. Hitchens was only ever the hero of angry teenage / early 20s atheists and even Alex has made videos subject Hitchens' logic to scrutiny and finding it wanting (as did serious philosophers back when Hitch was making the arguments). That doesn't take away that Hitch was wildly entertaining, though, and was better with his social/political commentary (the fields where he made his actual reputation). And finally, Harris has fallen into irrelevance as his brand of atheist has led him into Islamophobic, even genocidal tirades. One can even detect outright misanthropy in Harris's tones, and Chomsky really put a dent in any view of Harris as a particularly informed or enlightened commentator. About me: DPhil in Philosophy from Oxford.
As an athiest who was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, I find these conversations cathartic. I wanted Christianity to be true for many years, but I find its core claims and apologetic explanations wanting. I can't force myself to believe in a god, but loyalty to my family keeps me chasing the tail of comparative theology. This channel helps me feel less alone.
No offence, but why would you want it to be true. Even without the risk of eternal damnation everlasting life sounds like a monkey's paw wish that is bound to backfire.
@@bdnnijs192 When everyone you love has made it their their entire identity and purpose in life, not being on the same page creates a painful rift. That's really the crux of why I wanted it to be true in my young adult years.
If you were talking about some other youtuber's opinion, then you could say, "Well, I think..." But we are talking about the ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe. Who says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to give us over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until a about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. And what is your authority? Why should we believe you? You say things like, "Why didn't God do this or that. And, I FEEL like He should have done it this way, or that way." Look, if I decided someone should die and then carried that out, I would be a murderer fit for jail or execution. BUT, if God decides a person has come to the end of his days, He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to HIs only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.
@Mike-qt7jp I've spent decades searching out the kinds of claims you are making here, and I there always end up being too many holes, paradoxes, and logical fallacies to the claims. You can assert the claims with as much confidence as you want, but that doesn't make them true. There are too many conflicting ideas within the canonical books for them to be inspired by a perfect god. No matter what interpretational methodology you choose, you will always end up with a puzzle missing pieces and extra pieces that don't fit.
The idea that something like compassion is rooted specifically in Christianity is wild. And attributing things to Christianity because they were developed by Christians in a time and place where everybody was Christian (at least publicly) is also wild. We don't know how the world would look now had Christianity not become the official religion of the Roman Empire, but it would take a brave person to insist that we wouldn't have arrived at a lot of the same social liberal values without it.
I like to think we arrived at what liberal social value we have (or the few still left in some cases like the US), despite Christianity trying to hold us back, not because of it!
It's not "Christian" values and "Christian" morality. It's Enkightenment values and morality. And the Enlightenment was a reaction TOWARDS secular thinking/values and AGAINST religious thinking and morality, not a development of them.
Another thought: I wonder whether Justin - or any of Alex's Christian conversation partners over the years - is as genuinely open to changing their mind, as Alex is to changing his
A committed Christian can never be open to changing their mind. They can only, as Justin says, find some passages challenging, whilst still believing them as the word of God
@@paulwellings-longmore1012the word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. That claim in itself is fundamentalist. And I only see these types of strawman debates honestly.
the problem with religists is they have god listening to every conversation they have and they are petrified of hell, whether they admit it or not, if you believed in hell you'd be wetting your pants at the thought of annoying god, so, they can't be trusted, they would lie, cheat, steal, sacrifice a family member rather than annoy god - never trust a christian. it wasn't catholics stopped the inquisition.
@@MrSeedi76"The word of God is Jesus not the bible." How do you know this is true? You're making a claim with no evidence to back it up. At best you have a person who may have been a loose representation of Jesus with possibly a different name who did exist and get crucified. The evidence for that isn't very good. But let's assume this person did exist. We still have no good evidence to believe he performed supernatural acts and was what the bible claims. That's a huge leap to make.
Former atheist here, saved by a stupendous intervention from what I now know to be God - it's all grace. I love Alex as the most honest atheist and Justin as a most honest Christian. Very good conversation.
@@cachinnation448 No we do not know what you mean. We know some typicalochristian made claims. But that is what you belief. What you believe in does not transcribe to knowledge. It means we know what you claim to believe but not what you really mean as we do not experience your belief on our own terms.
I am 70 years old. I believed in Christianity all my life. I no longer believe in the God of the Bible or that Jesus was the son of God, but I am not an atheist. I believe in a intelligence in what we see and observe. I lean heavily toward the NDE testamonies.
Justin is nice, yet delusional with optimism of a belief itself for which he actually concedes is second to its truthfulness. And for every “surprising conversion” he refers to, I could match him with 3-4 deconversions.
Here in the US, Religion isn't having a resurgance, and Atheism and agnosticism, is still growing. But one thing that IS going on is that religion is working to consolidate power. They've succeeded in working their way into our government, stacked the deck in elections to favor their wins, and are going after soft targets that the general public tend not to notice or bother to vote in, such as local government, and especially school boards. They've identified a weakness in how people vote in our country and they're exploiting it to grab as much power as they can. Voter turnout for presidential elections are huge. But turnout for mid-term elections and for local elections is usually very low, and that gives them an edge in those elections. A huge problem is that the general public just doesn't seem to understand how government works and that those elections other than the presidential one are the most important ones to vote in. So there's a definite religious conservative power grab and power consolidation underway here.
I have so much respect for Alex for having these conversations. I've been watching his videos for about 7 years, and I've seen him grow so much in that time. The only way we can grow as people is to be able to have civil respectful discussions with those holding beliefs different than our own, and Alex does an amazing job of that. We could ALL stand to follow his example
I think he does a reasonably good job of formulating counter-arguments through questions. Remember, they're interviews, not debates. I would also argue that most people here are already more than familiar/in sync with Alex's arguments and views, and have the tools to dismantle those absurd claims by ourselves. The only thing to be gained from it actually happening on camera would be a sort of dialectic bloodthirst, what's the point?
@@CosmicTeapot There';s a nice middle ground between being completely passive and engaging in some bloodthirsty debate. I'm just saying Alex could push back more, especially against the on the face of it flat-out ridiculous claims that his Christian guests often make.
@@gerhitchmanI'm more concerned with the lack of pushback he showed against some of the more right wing guests he had recently. Religion is on the decline. Nationalism, racism, homophobia is on the rise. That's where the true battle waits. Of course when dealing with Christian nationalism you can battle both at the same time. But they don't necessarily go hand in hand.
I must confess that I have previously allowed myself to get a bit (sometimes more than a bit) reactionary to the content of yours which I've seen, Alex. I'm about 25 minutes into this interview, and I recognize that I was ignorant/wrong to have the rather presumptuous perception that you were primarily intent upon mocking and making a fool of Christians and Christianity. You are a wonderful discussion partner. This is very refreshing to watch.
I have visited Nigeria for business purposes working with hospitals there, and unfortunately I have to say that the Christianity I saw there has grown to become rather toxic. It has been heavily influenced by the Pentacostal form of Christianity in the U.S. The rights of LGBT people are non-existent. Grifters and fake faith healers are far too common. The "prosperity" gospel has also taken hold so imagine the worst TV evangelists from the US, but in Nigerian form. There is a tendency to treat mental illness with a religious rather than medical approach. I could go on and on about the cultural impact of Christianity there, but little of it was good from my perspective.
As a Christian I agree with this assessment. I have had a lot of contact with Nigerians in the past and since I’m married to a Ghanaian and visited her country multiple times. The Christian culture in those countries is not straightforward. First of all, a lot of the culture can be explained by their past traditional spirituality. Many Christians there believe in both or at least act like it. They are very superstitious. Personally I think it’s a great contrast between a sophisticated and systematic religion vs a more simple and random religion. This is also why these countries lean more to Pentecostalism. As this is one of the least systematic Biblical interpretations, leans heavily on personal experiences and compliments most with their traditional thinking about spirituality. And even though they take their faith very seriously. Most people I’ve talked to have not thought through their arguments of why they believe what they believe. There is one big problem in Pentecostalism. Is their view on doubt. I think doubting is a great part of faith. And has been so in most of western Christianity. While ironically Pentecostalism and some other streams which frown on doubt had a western origin.
This was very thought provoking. I'm a recovering Catholic (largely in Alex's camp) and I really enjoyed this conversation with Justin. I'm tempted to link this video to my dad who thinks I'm totally irreligious. The world has changed since the era of the new atheists.
Well, at 68yo, I can say I'm a fully recovered Catholic. The only time I'm in church is for hatches, matches and dispatches, and the next will be my own! I just think worrying about god(s) is pointless. If he/she/it/they were that keen on dealing with us, they'd find a sure-fire way of letting us know! Meanwhile, I save money by not supporting clergy, even better! ;)
Listening to Justin, You'd think Christian values are birthed from thin air whereas Christianity also borrowed from the culture before it.. Even if Christianity shaped the morality of today it does not mean that we cannot rebuke it and move away from it to a better moral standard.. What even is the point of mentioning that?
It is by pure arrogance to assume another persons good graces to be your own. As if envy is a merit, or lacking as a quality. Religion is a cruel joke played upon children.
I'd argue, as a Christian who studied theology, that so-called moral Christian values were never a "moral consensus" anywhere in the world. And certainly not in any European country. Influences came from basically everywhere. Greek philosophy, Islam, the enlightenment. Heck, just today I talked with my wife about how Marquis de Sade had an influence on criminal law with his theory that murder because of lust, rage, etc should be treated differently from cold blooded murder. And that's exactly what we see in criminal law. And it's based on de Sade of all people. He also made a very good argument for the relativity of all moral values.
I am a Christian apologist From England Nottingham, Atheism is growing in Britain, and Christianity is falling and people claiming too be Christian, Becouse we live in a Society where wrong means right and right means wrong, we are Becoming More and More love for self as a British society and the benefits of Christianity is falling in Britain.
I consider myself a little-a "atheist" when it comes to God, a big-A "Atheist" when it comes to the Christian God. I appreciate that this point was touched on here, but in general i wish more discussions wouldn't automatically conflate the two
Neither Islam or Christianity has a coherent argument that would exclude one from the other. Hell, they cant reasonably exclude any form of monotheism from their own nonsense without any cherry picking.
@@rp-ot6ov Good question! I think that it's possible that we humans, with our tiny material bodies and brains, can't have a handle on the everything that's in/around/outside the cosmos. It's not likely (which is the atheist in the little-a atheist) that a god or something that is remotely like a god exists, but it is likely that there's more to the cosmos than we can ever know. Also, what is God? A human like God with a form and a will? Haha nope! But expanding the definition includes concepts like matter-from-consciousness, Brahman, etc. So no, such a "god" isn't gonna come down and say anything 😆
@@rp-ot6ov pretty simple. There might be a being out there that is responsible for our creation and that we would label as a "god" but no one knows what its actual deal is so all these religious interpretations are man-made nonsense. Not something I personally believe but it feels perfectly plausible.
@@ZangelinBigfoot and aliens are plausible. More so than "that one exact christian god". Other than that we can float around in the realms of deism or agnosticism, or simply accept that there is no evidence for a god, by which no differentiation would be necessary.
If I were to summarise Justin's input in this entire discussion I would say that his capacity for compartmentalisation is impressive, to the point where his claims are almost "Quantum" in nature ! Statistics show a decline in numbers of believers, but with a little excusagist massaging and touch of whispy fluff, we can completely flip that state of affairs !
Christianity's influence on society weakened to the degree that most prominent atheists are now concentrating on other issues! it must mean that christianity is winning!!!!!!!
It seems to me that the 'rebirth' is a new tack for Christians in the age of social media. I see so many formulaic comments along the lines of 'I can't believe I used to think Christopher Hitchens (other Atheist thinker) was right, but now I've grown up I realise Jesus is the guy for me". Strikes me as an attempted reboot.
The response to the atheists attacks on Christianity has grown and had to improve on our defense of Christianity. Also with the liberal consensus of secular Biblical Scholarship by atheists and exChristians in their attack specifically on the Bible and their attempted redaction of many interpretations has a large influence on secular society from liberal Religious studies programs on trying to debunk the Bible as only a man-made literature without any Divine authority.
I just call it "Talking ill about the dead", which is most definitely a religious hobby. At least pick a guy who is still alive to rebute your idiotic nonsense. All it shows me is that even something as rigid as religion, can still degenerate into moral bankrupcy.
So we in the West decry murder and rape and sexual slavery and the abuse of children by virtue of inheriting Judeo-Christian values and using those values as a moral compass? Is this to suggest that those from a Buddhist or Hindu or pagan culture would be basically okay with those depredations, having been denied a Judeo-Christian culture? Christian apologia is all well and fine, and I wish this gentlemen well with his book tour and an honest reception from all people of open minds. But I must admit, this argument is deeply specious to me.
True, there is a limit to the number of times you can push the atheist message again and again. Richard Dawkins is still doing this by repeating old video clips and some new ones, and full videos, because he feels very passionately about it! Justin Brierley saying that atheists don't seem to care anymore, and his talking of a rebirth of a belief in God is utter rubbish. I haven't heard any famous atheists saying they have seen the light and are bowing down to god or a religion, or anything like that because it won't happen. they are too intelligent. Here is Richard Dawkins' latest short video clip! ua-cam.com/users/shorts8W7I3_ss9V0?feature=shared
Christianity has so many holes in it that arguments for me it are a non-starter. I think it's basically infinitely easier to argue that religion is wrong than it is that it's correct because of that. It's a huge uphill battle for apologists if you're trying to use reason. You basically have to throw away all of science to argue Christianity is true. The same goes for the others. I am definitely tired of apologists who use tired arguments, as if they haven't heard any of the counterarguments of the last half-century. I think these people are better off to argue that they believe a god exists but that the religious doctrine is extremely faulty, inconsistent, and proven false in some cases. Basically arguing that "we still don't understand how the universe came to be". You lose a lot of baggage when cutting out religious doctrine.
@@daniel-panek That's not the whole picture, IMHO. I was and remained a Christian for the first 30 years of my life because until then I had never encountered serious objections to my faith. I have listened to many of the various Dawkins, Hitches, Onfray... I've always found the vast majority of their claims very weak and easily demolishable, if not false, especially when they deal with the Bible or with Ethics. It was only when I learned enough about behavioural biology, neuroscience, ethology and astrophysics, only then my faith was dismantled. But I had to dig an awful lot, and I reached that results only because of my incredible curiosity and love for the Truth. My biology professor in high school taught me nothing interesting about science, so I'm actually more angry with him than with the priests that sustained my faith during my adolescence. All these best-sellers Atheist often cause more damages to the Atheist cause than the religion apologists. For example if you look at the thesis of Bart Ehrman, he seems to demolish some New Testament truths, until you realise the embarrassing quantity of cherry picking and omissions in his dissertations. Is he giving a good service to the anti-religious cause?
A beautiful, highly interesting and honest conversation - could not take my eyes and ears off it. Well done, Alex - full respect to you for a great interview. Impressed also by Justin’s insights and fluency.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 That is exactly the kind of graceless and ignorant remark that atheists have become well-known for, particularly since they mistakenly styled themselves as “new”.
@@superman00001 I don't appreciate word games and I don't like to beat around the bush. If that's something you have a problem with, I don't care. He constantly reiterates how Christianity is allegedly responsible for the moral character of so called "Western civilization."
Eventually, when you end up emotionally broken and Surrender your logic and integrity - then you're ready to become a Christian. That's the "Leap of faith" they are talking about. "Works" with any other magic solution, but the problem still remains. It gets worse.😅😉
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think you might be utterly missing the point that I'm making here John. I'm not giving any advices here to you personally or anyone else. I'm just giving an example of how one could be lead to take the wrong path out of sheer despair. Respectfully.
I agree with the second part of your remark, but not so sure about the first: there's a limit to the amount of smarm one can endure - and giving a platform to gun-toting, misogynistic US evangelicals with no mention of their extremism is odd behaviour for supposed decency.
That was one of the most lovely conversations I've ever listened to on your channel or anyone else's! Very interesting topics and both you and Justin are so kind and polite to each other. I hope people follow in your general trend in having these polite and intellectually honest conversations in the realm of religion and other topics. As for the section about modern ethics being based on Christianity, it certainly does not feel quite right to say that our general social values are based on Christianity and especially the life of Jesus. It is clear to me that the rise of Christianity was a big turning point in ethics, but I hesitate to so quickly say "yeah all of my inclinations of compassion, equality, and social justice come directly from, and only from, Christianity." Surely there's a bit more nuance than that, even if Christianity was a large driving force. Christianity itself doesn't come from nowhere, and it makes sense to me that Jesus and his teachings would have been influenced from his cultural context -- being a Jewish man from Galilee at the time of Roman rule over the Levant. Still, I think its good to acknowledge the history that leads us to the values we have today -- it being largely Christian in origin. But I also think that we can drop what we don't like from Christianity (LGBTQ+ issues, treatment of women, animals) and keep what we do like going forward (compassion, equality, social justice) as our ideas change and grow.
"Gods teachings" + cherry picking + being permanently blindfolded to what interpretations wreak upon the world. Good luck with turning the most dogmatic, rigid, conservatist and archaic doctrine into semi progressive fluidity. As I think that is paradoxical unto itself. Religion is the rare instance it is better to throw out the baby along with the bathwater.
Justin's main blindspot is that he's analyzing these issues from too religious a lens. He credits all western moral development to Christianity because it's based on compassion, and surely compassion was invented by Christianity. He looks at the obsession with wokeism as a religious impulse, instead of a outflowing of manufactured political outrage bait. People are becoming more interested in Catholicism because they're finding legitimate truth value in it all of a sudden, nevermind that all the people "realigning" on this happen to be right wing political pundits hyping "return to tradition" aesthetics and political messaging.
Concise and on point analysis. I wonder what you have to say on semi-religious "spiritual" people becoming almost brainwashed by old conspiracy theories, since Alex and other atheists seem to completely ignore this.
The thing is, Justin isn't doing this on his own - there are countless non-religious historians and sociologists who are making the same point. Quite strongly, in fact.
For someone that asks for nuance Brierly has a breathtakingly ignorant view of non-Christian religious morality, and very rose colored glasses when seeing the influence of Christianity on modern social values, in the west or otherwise.
Alex, I would love to talk to you about this conversation. It appears that you're just talking past each other. I will also say it was one of the best conversations I've heard in years about the topic. I did have an epiphany as I was listening to you and Justin. We do have to transition to a new way of thinking when we talk about the morphing of religion into philosophy and ethics. We get so hung up about the labels, judeo Christian, atheist, Christian, God, and must start to look at it on a different level.
I don’t understand this link between Christianity and equality (for women, for races/ethnicities, whatever) when it took said Christian nations almost 2,000 years to get there and we’re still working on it. If it had been 200 years, maybe, but 2,000? I don’t see how there can even be a correlation, let alone causation.
Sure it is a subtle thing, but we may say that the whole cultural and intellectual environment that Christianity created during the centuries posed the bases (or some of the bases) for our modern conception of social and moral issues like equality etc., the core of that being the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This remains valid even if Jesus was not God and did not resurrected: his moral message was truly remarkable. You say "the least 200 years"... well, one of the problems in the Middle Ages was that girls of noble families were often forced to get married at a very young age for the political purposes of their families. Who opposed that, saying the a girl should get married at least only when she can express a conscious consent? Some bishops. Feminists ante litteram? Who knows... History is a complex thing, the influences of the current culture can be traced back in the centuries, but at the same time, every époque has its own problems, issues and quirks: equality was never an issue (not as we define it nowadays) before 200 years ago, so how do you expect the Church to fight for it?
It's really not difficult to bring christians and not christians together: leave me alone, you can ask once but never insist, don't ask for humongous tax exemptions, don't force your ideas into public schools, don't ask for funds for denominational schools and don't try to legislate, again imposing things you believe in. There you have it; I don't see any problem and yet.....
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings about the various things said by each of you in this discussion. There were moments where each of you were impressively thoughtful and reasonable. There were moments where Justin gets away with some gaslighting nonsense and you (Alex) are supportive of it. There were moments where you brilliantly negate some bit of nonsense he was trying to get away with. But at least it was overall thought provoking and has potential to forward the discussions for others.
@@jursamaj what do you mean? Yeah I wonder about apologist but he has always seemed somewhat focused on fostering conversation and asking probing questions, les so on direct apologetics.
@@JesseTateJustin is dishonest, fallacious and arrogant. At least in this conversation. 1: he knows atheism is not a collective or group 2: then strawmans that concept by dividing that which cannot be a collective into "new" and "old" based on 9/11 of all things. Does he think Europe and Asia somehow still care about 9/11? 3: And then assumes humanity to be incapable of empathy and morality without his particular religion from which he cherry picks and is unable to defend in relation to other monotheisms. The guy is a clown.
It is amazing to see how it seems easy to argue that everything that would be considered as progress on values (good) gets attached to Judeo-Christian values. It would be equally easy to attach Democracy, Law practice, Government structure and other as Greco_Roman Values
Let's extend this guy's argument (Christianity was necessary to bring about the overthrow of bad Christianity and bad people behavior, because all there was was Christianity (accept it wasn't - it was Judaism)". Here's the extended argument: "The general movement against slavery comes from a background of slavery. We can extol slavery and slave culture because it produced this anti-slavery movement that we all accept as good." Jesus Christ. How about we come to the conclusion that kindness and justice towards people is a human trait that competes with other traits that people have, such as enslavement and cruelty and injustice. Religions were the first second and third crack at both cruelty and kindness. And now I think this guy agrees that kindness and justice should win out. Alex and I agree. What's left out of this discussion is the rationality of believing a God exists in the first place. Whether religion is useful in some situations for people trying to further their agenda is completely separate from whether the God exists. I think the way to move forward is to try to figure out what's true. And if you have to redefine "true" to make a set of religious beliefs true, your effort already wanders. One more thought... And this guy seems to think that the goodness of Christianity came from the New Testament and all of the awfulness came from the Old Testament. He completely ignores the awfulness brought in specifically by the New Testament. The idea of needing to be saved from an awfulness that God created in the first place. The tableau of loved ones who were saved having to live with the idea that a big chunk of the loved ones they really care about were not saved. The idea of living for eternity in the presence of the God that came up with these ideas in the first place. It's Not even an original idea. It's just the imperfection and torment of life extended to forever.
This guy... I'm sorry, but the claim that all compassion stems from Christian morals is so utterly ridiculous and Alex' attempts of gently communicating the lack of coherence Justin's claims have are frustratingly patient. At some point you have to just snap. He critisizes that atheists are "chery picking" evidence to show that religion has caused religion-specific evil, but when he is shown that Christian scripture dictates homocidal homophobia as a virtue, that needs to be looked over because the bible still teaches the "impetus to do good". Ridiculous. Also: So human dignity and compassion stem from Christian morals? So every human civilisation before Christianity had no shred of morals? Who is going to believe this nonsense? What about compassion just actually being a mechanism in our fucking DNA that is based on reciprocity, a survival strategy that is btw obvservable in certain species of primate's behvaiour. Seems more reasonable to me than to weirdly choose a specific religion that you happen to believe in by chance, because you happen to have been born in this century, and because you're british. This man very obviously is desperately clinging onto his world view with sheer dishonesty towards himself.
15:25 What is Alex talking about here? Christianity was neither ubiquitous in the world at the time he is describing, and also it hasn't been a permanent historic institution. You have to eliminate Greek/ Roman paganism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu religions, folk religions, etc. to make his claim that "science didn't exist to challenge the claims of Christianity." The second fold in all of this is that not every institution was owned by the church or monks or priests, but the scientific revolution was founded by overwhelmingly these people. Third, surely Alex is smart enough to recognize that as our society has become increasingly secular, it has become less scientific. We recently had a Supreme Court justice claim she couldn't "define a woman" because "she's not a biologist." Even the most dead-brained Reagan Young Earth Creationists have a higher level of scientific understanding than that.
@@uninspired3583 Yea. He's a perfect example of a person who will always believe, because he just wants to. Arguments don't matter and the books are just a cash printers for him, not actual attempts to fight for his believes.
he doesn't care as long as he can feel superior, if i;m "new atheist" he's "new christian" - subs, likes, books sales, patrons, ZERO interest in what jesus was about. brierly is LOATHSOME.
That's a lot of religious apologists: virtually all have arguments that have been debunked or strongly counter-argued. Some of them have been crushed literally decades ago.
This isn't a debate, and he does have good arguments, in a conversational level atleast, and this video isn't titled "Justin's argument for belief in God" is it?
Good convo. My eyes are wore out from all the eyerolling. Christianity and religion has been basically tore down over the years, and he considers it a win that atheist thinkers have moved on to being "anti woke". Big W there.
I am having a really big problem with the careless way in which religious belief, organized religion, and secularism are being treated here as all the same thing. A small portion of the population, which is not growing too fast, is the firebrand atheists which models itself quite a bit on New Atheism. It has not died out and it will not grow quickly in the near future. Another is now called the "nones", and is growing like wildfire. This is the one group that is depleting the ranks of organized religion, and it is a lot more related to secularism than to either strong atheism or organized religion. You can claim that there is a huge rebirth of belief in God because most of the nones might answer "yes" to the question of "does a god or gods exist?" but they are not rebooting religion, they are mostly organizing their lives without abiding by or thinking much about organized religions. The people who are going to reduce every organized religion to its bones are not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, or strong atheists in general, they are the ones who say "Jesus is love, I like love, I like to believe that some higher being exists, and for everything else just don't bother me with religion".
Can you do me a solid and define these words for me, and describe in what way you set them apart from one another? "New Atheism" "Strong Atheism" "Weak Atheism" "Firebrand Atheism" "Non religious" "Nones" Because to me, it seems like a very fanfic type of pokemon naming from a religious perspective, to be honest. You gave sort of a definition of "nones", but are they not already defined as simply cherry pickers? Weird and confusing, to say the least.
@@MrYelly The differences between the above are crucial, and are marking big issues in the changing religious landscape. Nones are not cherry pickers, they are people who have left the organized religions and may or may not be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. Non-religious are exactly that: people who don't have a place for religion in their life. They usually believe that no god or gods exist, but will not study the subject or engage in discussions with anyone on the subject. Weak atheists, also called generically agnostics by some, usually take a stand saying that they believe no gods exist, but consider the matter unprovable or unknowable. All of the categories above are similar in the position of mostly not engaging with or against any religious organization or claim. On the other hand, firebrand atheists, strong atheists, new atheists, anti-theists, and atheists+, to name a few, are actively engaging against all of the organized religions, and against all religious claims. They will protest, they will actively make the case that religious people are wrong, and some will make the case that religion is intimately linked with many kinds of evil. The group that you did not mention and is arguably the most important is the secularists, or people working for the separation of church and state. You might be right in saying that some of the above are almost identical, but it would be a historical mistake to put them all in the same bag.
@@MrYelly PS. There are cherry pickers in every religion and every religious organization and every atheist group. There are Jews who eat pork, and Catholics that believe that a sacramental wafer is just bread, and strong atheists that believe in ghosts. There are even Bible literalists who believe that Noah's Ark did not literally exist. Thank God, or the Cosmos, all of us human beings are cherry pickers.
@@MrYellyno, he’s right. Much of the people who say they have no religion, if you ask further, might tell you they are “spiritual.” This is very vague, so there’s no set definition. But often this means the person doesn’t adhere to organized religion but still believes in a creator or deity. We often conflate the two but more and more people are seeing them as separate.
All the moral values attributed to the Judeo Christian religion were recognized throughout the world thousands of years before any word of them were written in any form, Biblical or otherwise, and were adopted by many thousands of religions and attributed to many thousands of gods adopted before and since the invention of Jesus. All those thousands of gods are equally real, as human subjective creations, and none has ever required objective evidence as a prerequisite for their creators to believe in them. The subjective reality of gods is not in question, it is their objective reality that has never been demonstrated.
I feel I've been drawn to spirituality, but it's basically just resigning to the fact of "I really don't know, and I'm at peace with it". I was more "decidedly" atheist when I was younger but now I am as agnostic as you can be. Maybe it's sentimentality/delusion of old age but it seems as if there's something connecting all far beyond our human consciousness. I suppose the bigger point is...how the hell could we ever know? It's all a mystery, my eyes are wide open. So for that reason I've become an "extreme agnostic" in the last few years. I've also stopped worrying about it for that very reason though.
You're asking how could we ever know about a phenomenon that you just created by way of a feeling or a perception you have. If that's the premise by which you shift towards spiritual belief then its a match made in heaven.
@@sum8601 Something beyond this life is entirely possible, that's all I'm saying. It would be ignorant to conclusively say that this plane of consciousness is all there is. All I'm saying is I can't conclusively state either way, and that embracing that there are mysteries beyond that the human collective will never comprehend is an entirely rational thought
"Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?" It depends how you manipulate the numbers! E.g. Some christians say that RC's are 'not real christians' and then in the same debate that christianity is the largest religion! But w/o the 'RC group ' they are NOT the largest religion..
Ever noticed how apologists like to say that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God, but then go galloping on as if that is just a given, without ever actually presenting any evidence?
(26:35) "[Because Christianity came first in history as proponent of human rights, therefore human rights can only come from Christianity and intrinsically so.]" What a load of crap. It's exactly like saying, "the plane was created in the west under a Christian society, therefore planes are an inventions of Christianity and therefore would never have happened." Values may be present in Christianity, but none of them are exclusive to Christianity.
You guys were not affected at all by the intellectual arrogance and nievete of Dawkins. BTW Dawkins was the laughing stock of the academic world. It was only the popularist idea added to peoples general desire to blame God for their problems that gave him a platform - especially when God doesnt exist? How dare anyone be weak and nice like Julian - it doesnt fit into our dog eat dog NO MORALITY worldview. Pah
As long as people don't want to die and believe they can "live for ever" through paradise, they will keep on justifing fairy tales and myths. This is what religion is all about.
But if you REALLY think about it, who wants to live forever? Living forever would be bad enough (aka BORING ) but living forever worshipping god? Sounds like HELL!
@@robertx8020we are dealing with the crowd that believes a very fast process of macroevolution took place after a global flood where some of the descendants of a single couple of some generic bears evolved the guts of a carnivorous polar bear while others evolved the guts of a bamboo eating panda in less than 6000 years, but can't grasp the idea of evolution taking place over *billions* of years. You can't expect logic or understanding of time from people who believe their god existed nowhere before time and space existed.
@@robertx8020When I was younger what kept me up at night actually wasn't the idea of hell it was the idea of living forever. I figured that eventually like you said It would get boring, existentially boring. However, one time when I was dreading this fate a rather settling and peaceful thought came to mind that being if heaven truly was heaven there would be no existential threat. I figured either boredom to that degree wouldn't be capable of experiencing, or that heaven would be so infinitely blissful in uniqueness that it would never be horribly boring. This is only useful though if you buy the idea of God, heaven, and hell which judging by your comment you don't.
Morality comes from the obvious perception of the uniqueness and specialness of life. Religion takes this perception and invents god as the foundation of morality The ancient world is full of big mistakes, the earth is flat, the sun goes around the earth, disease comes from evil spirits etc. Religion is just another one of those big mistakes.
I know it's uncomfortable for me as someone who has spent only a bit over a month total in China to challenge an actual Chinese person on Chinese philosophy, but I would quite like to know how many Chinese people agree with claim that their traditional culture would simply be unable to articulate any argument against brutal tyranny.
Alex is calm and allowed productive engagement, i don't believe in his religion of etheism, however i listening to his reason, thanks to Justine i love your show and looking forward to that book🙏
I must confess (pun intended)… My initial comment was made before I was even close to finishing this video. As I continued to watch, it was comical to see that no matter what positive development Alex mentioned has taken place in modern society, Justin always assumes this positive development is only possible because of Christianity. Imagine a person who every time you tell them something good has happened in the world they say, “that is because of me”. Justin is doing the same thing only projecting it onto Christianity which just so happens to be his world view. I don’t know Justin personally. He may be a good person. But his ideas are stupid…On a tots side note, I have noticed that many people seem to think that being “smart” and being a “good person” go hand and hand. Having a “Big brain” does not mean one has a “good heart” and vice versa. There are many wonderful people out there in the world who are not “book smart”, who have not taken the time or perhaps have not had the time to formulate their ideas on these “deeper” subjects. And that is okay. Not everyone needs to be a “philosopher”….
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎙️ Justin Briley hosted the "Unbelievable" show for 17 and a half years, focusing on Christian-atheist debates and discussions. 01:24 📚 Justin Briley is now working on a new book titled "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God," exploring the resurgence of interest in Christianity. 03:15 🇬🇧 Religious belief has been on the decline in the UK, with over half of people claiming no religion, but this doesn't necessarily disprove God's existence. 07:24 📢 New atheism emerged in response to religious extremism, especially after 9/11, aiming to challenge religious beliefs and promote atheism. 09:27 🤔 There's debate about the definition of atheism, whether it's a lack of belief in God or the belief that there is no God. 11:33 🧪 The new atheists argued that science contradicts religion, but this claim is based on selective, often outdated arguments. 15:20 🌎 The new atheists often portrayed religion as inherently bad, but there are counterexamples showing the value of religious contributions to culture. 20:06 📖 The new atheists criticized the Bible based on Christian values, revealing a cultural blind spot in their perspective. 20:47 🤔 Atheism's perspective can be shaped by cultural backgrounds, influencing how individuals view religious texts and morality. 23:20 📜 The critique of Old Testament morality can vary based on cultural context, with Judeo-Christian values forming a foundation for criticism. 26:32 💭 Judeo-Christian values have played a significant role in shaping Western moral frameworks, leading to ideas of equality, dignity, and human rights. 33:22 🏛️ A shift towards secularism in Western societies hasn't erased the influence of Christian ideals but has led to divergent interpretations and applications. 40:25 🙏 The decline of traditional religion has given rise to quasi-religious beliefs, such as those surrounding social justice, in contemporary culture. 42:31 🤔 People are searching for stories to make sense of their lives, but many contradict each other. 43:55 📚 The New Atheism movement has shifted its focus away from critiquing religion to other ideological concerns. 45:34 📜 Academics like Peter Boghossian have critiqued politically correct narratives in academia and their impact on academic freedom. 48:25 💡 The conversation about God and religion is changing, and some prominent atheists are recognizing the value of religion. 56:54 🙏 People like Douglas Murray and Tom Holland may not fully embrace Christianity, but they are exploring its merits and historical influence. 59:14 🧐 The shift towards recognizing the value of religion may lead to a more nuanced middle ground rather than outright conversions. 01:03:22 🤔 Jordan Peterson's idea: Jesus as the ultimate fictional character, approximating the ultimate myth. 01:04:01 🧐 The Christian myth as a foundational myth - subject to interpretation. 01:05:10 🙏 Jordan Peterson's focus on living life as if God exists, reflecting inner beliefs through actions. 01:06:36 💭 The role of surrender in faith, laying down intellectual questions in favor of belief. 01:07:31 🌟 Personal conviction and settled belief play a significant role in most Christian journeys. 01:09:51 🤝 Intellectual arguments alone may not lead to religious conversion. 01:13:44 🤔 Thought-provoking conversations and open-mindedness are contributing to the ongoing dialogue on belief in God. Made with HARPA AI
Briarly seems to think that popular non-believer UA-camrs turning away from "new atheism" in their content is a sign that people are turning back toward Christianity. These people's incomes depend on their content. The content of New atheism isn't selling primarily because people are getting tired. Of course they're going to turn to something that generates more content consumption (often pseudo-libertarianism, anti-LGBTQ+, conspiracy theories and MAGA politics). Clearly Dawkins has done this and so have Douglas Murray and Boghossian. Have their views changed? I don't think we can tell.
It's rather frustrating this touting of Judeo-christian values as if it is special, reliable, correct, righteous... Judeo-christian values have been brought to their 1950s modernity against the will of church leadershipand traditionalists kicking and screaming against every inch of social and civil progress. Judeo-christian values are the cart to the horse of Western progress.
Justin appears a nice 'happy clappy ' Christian type lad, though misses the point that the decline in religious belief has been ongoing over the last 100 years post WW1.
I am a Christian. I am excited about the increasing number of truly 'safe spaces' where open and respectful dialogue is happening. I believe that we can 'agree to disagree.' 'Safe spaces' are becoming in our culture, places where the only way to be 'safe' is to agree even if we do not agree, and if one does not agree then it seems the only conclusion to be made in our culture is that one must hate the other person. And this is not just in terms of religion. Thank you Alex for modelling respect for other world views because we all have one and they are complex. It's not about bashing, belittling, or dismissing. In the Bible God says, 'Come let us reason together.' I appreciate that you do not assume that to be a Christian, one has left reason at the door. I am not interested in trying to argue someone out of their world view or even worse, to shut down a conversation. Debates can be respectful and wonderful friendships can be had in spaces like you create. Thank you
To me it is amazing that Justin can on the one hand say, Christianity is the reason to promote equality and on the other hand admit that it's not in the Bible lol
I don’t believe in Christianity either, but you are straw-manning it in the extreme by saying equality is not [explicitly] in the Bible. While you are correct in a very, very narrow sense, you ignore the reference to the golden rule and the claim that all of humanity is made in the image of God. Those Christian claims underpin the West’s sense of individuality and equality.
I am always troubled by the argument that we need religion as a necessary scaffold for proper moral behavior. Our religious texts are wide open for interpretation and abuse… and it’s the ‘other guy’ that has the wrong interpretation. There is no central authority for interpreting these texts - what is being preached in a Southern Baptist congregation is different than what a charismatic congregation in a liberal college town. And every Christian must realize at some level that if he was born on the Arabian Peninsula, they would be a Muslim. So where does that leave us? We will never unite under a common religion, on the contrary, religion will continue to be one of the most divisive forces ever invented. There are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone. The religious argument also flies in the face of evolutionary factors. We are an ape, yes we are - the evidence says so. As a species, we have existed in our current form for approximately 300,000 years. Higher primates have been around for Millions of years (Lucy). That’s millions of years before Moses, Jesus, and Mohamad. Yet… somehow… without any input from a major organized religion… we made it. We survived millions of years in conditions that were FAR worse than we can hardly imagine today. This is clear evidence we developed a basic moral framework that allowed humans to co-exist in groups. We are not solitary creatures; we rely on others to survive. I also find it incredulous, and a bit insulting, that we “need us some Jesus” to know it’s bad to beat a child, rape, murder, cheat (especially when one sits down and actually studies the good-book - chocked full of immoral notions). But really, is this what Christians are saying? Are you telling us that if Jesus was proven false tomorrow every Christian would immediately descend into madness? And look at all the problems religion causes. The current conflict in the Middle East is rooted in stories in old books. All the death we are witnessing… all the violence, the poor children being buried under rubble… this hatred can be traced back to some promise a god supposedly made in an old book. In the United States, look at the KKK or the recent U.S. Capitol attack on Jan 6… these were driven by Christian Nationalist ideas. Please, I think we do better, I don't think we have a choice - we just need to think better.
*Only for the **_lucky few_** ;* In a world full of people pushing false religious beliefs, _at least as far as Christians are concerned,_ it's sad to see them assert that every one else is just making it up except for them. Well at least for their _specific version/denomination_ of Christianity.
Only that's not true. Unless you only engage in debates with fundamentalists. Even the Apostle Paul claimed that pagans are a law unto themselves when following what their conscience tells them.
@@MrSeedi76 What's "specifically not true" about my comment ? *A law onto themselves?* As Christianity has a long history of being the single moral authority for many countries & cultures, and enforcing laws based on their religious beliefs, I see no reason to exclude them from your assertion.
@@mevan883 meh, I don't know the statistics well enough but it seems that the vast majority of churchgoers in the last few decades have been the much older population, rather than younger people, despite the fact that the US has plenty of young people who could be going to church. This seems to suggest that the church will die out assuming the younger generations dont start going to church again
It’s progress to see people of differing worldviews come together and have a civil open minded conversation. I hope we move away, in a broader sense, from the debate structure of I’m 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect. I don’t think we’re supposed to agree with anyone 100%. There are parts you can agree with, and parts you don’t. We’re all on a journey for knowledge, and valuable pieces of information/understanding can come from people who have a different perspective to you. It would be nice to see you have a conversation with Iain McGilchrist.
For any given, specific claim, there is an answer. If one side claims there is a creator of the universe, that is either 100% correct, or 100% incorrect. If they start adding other claims alongside that, sure, the collection of claims isn't a binary of correct or incorrect... but for any of those claims individually, it would again be binary. Either a creator of the universe exists or they don't, either leprechauns exist or they don't, if leprechauns existed, they either control rainbows [in some manner] or not. If a creator of the universe exists, they either care about humans or they don't. They either care about whether you eat pigs, or mutilate the genitals of males [circumcision], or females for that matter [Though that one's a crime], or they don't. Given the size of the universe, not just in space (Over 90 Billion light years in distance) but also in time (13.8 Billion years, at least since the big bang. Possibly/probably more before that) it's ludicrous to imagine a being responsible for creating that, who designed it with intent, and cares about the affairs of humans. One species, of billions, on one planet, of billions, in one galaxy, of billions. Not to mention if they can create "a" universe, nothing's stopping them from creating "more" universes. Improving on the design, and abandoning this failure. Maybe the next universe had more success in the old "finely tuning for life" department.
I'm a South African athiest. It's interesting to listen to Justin talk about how religion/christianity is growing outside western culture. To some extent I think he's right. For a long time in SA there's been a stalemate between christianity and African spirituality, but over the last ten years or so, christianity has been growing and overpowering traditional African spirituality and beliefs. I don't know the statistics but if someone told me that christianity is the fastest growing religion in SA, I wouldn't be surprised. Christian churches are popping up like zits on a teenager's face in my community. However, if I were Justin I wouldn't be jumping for joy just yet,beacuse if I took Justin to the church my parents are attending and gave him a platform to preach his version of Christianity, they would lump him in with me!! . The christianity that is growing outside of western culture is not this new, philosophical, diluted version of Christianity that we see in the west, it's a fundamentalist religion that still asserts that Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden, that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, that women should be subservient to their husbands and so forth. I also believe that the rise of Justin's new and philosophcal christianity is fueling the rise of fundamentalism outside the west. Preachers in my town point to someone like Justin and say to their congregation, "don't be like this guy. Look at how his faith has fallen. This is not what a Christian looks like. This is not how a Christian speaks". If you accused an African Christian of being anti-science, they would take it as a bedge of honor. Accuse Justin of the same and he gets offended. So Justin, before you start celebrating the rise of religion/christianity beyond the west, it would do you a great deal of good to first realise and acknowledge that it's not your version of Christianity.
You obviously don't know Justin's beliefs and he isn't the progressive Christian you think he is : having nonfundamental interpretations doesn't mean you can't believe Adam and Eve weren't authentic people or the YEC is the only right interpretation and you're H.sexually is still not acceptable in nonfundamental Evangelical circles : only the most progressive and liberal churches accept H.sexuals.
Ham and Hovind R the ignorant fundamentals that many intelligent and Christian University trained Christians would reject :
You obviously have read people like Dr.Michael S.Heiser PhD in O.T languages.
Dr Hugh Ross astrophysicist.
Dr Joel Duff .
Dr. David Faik Egyptologist
Dr. William Lane Craig.
You're so right. Most western Christians have no idea how this new fundamentalism is affecting communities outside the west, especially in Africa. Every week i hear the saddest stories of people caught up in literal cults, burned to death and exploited and the missionaries responsible have no care for the people whose lives they've ruined after they fuck off back to the west.
Be careful, to them you are a heretic and fair game 🥺
This comment it based and nuance pulled, bump
This is such an important point. The Christianity that's growing, even in the USA, is a fire and brimstone fundamentalism untethered from philosophy or historical perspective. Even the Catholic Church is being overrun by evangelicalism. Its marriage to authoritarian government is a necessary element for it's survival, not an accidental mistake as most Christians want to believe.
Alex! I just gotta say, your production quality is immaculate. The audio is well balanced and crisp. Thanks for the effort you put in behind the scenes!
Alex man your channel and interviews are just the best. The vibes in this interview and even in the comments section is so drastically different than almost anywhere else on the internet (and even off the internet these days). To get to watch a calm interview between two people with such different opinions, form my own thoughts/opinions/questions throughout, then to scroll down and read others' well thought out responses to Justin's or your words it so fun. It's very inspiring, definitely helps me feel good on bad days and makes me want to dig into these kinds of topics forever :)
@15:25 "It's like saying that the people inventing weightlifting weren't jacked.. Well off course they weren't, they hadn't invented weightlifting yet!" -That made me laugh out loud and must be one of the more quote worthy things Alex has said in a little while. Thoroughly enjoyed this nuanced and civilized conversation ❤
@@NinjaJay_Arashikage I hope you realize this was a tongue in cheek example and not something intended to have teeth to exemplify his point. Odd you took this personally enough to make a jab at Alex's physique as if he was taking an antagonistic position against weightlighting. In fact, I find the accusation Alex is "wrong" amusing and possibly ironic since it seems to me you don't understand what he would even be wrong about [in original context]. Anyhoot, back to my superior weighted calisthenics routine ;)
@@zacharyshort384 ml
Considering that comment and the relationship between Christianity and science, I don't think you can say so dismissably that science didn't exist yet to refute the religious thinking to cut the two apart. The relationship is closer than that. Before Christianity religion was preoccupied with the creation of victims to appease the gods, the rituals of sacrifice, both animal and human, existed everywhere in all societies and cultures but it is within the Christian world view that we all of a sudden gained the ability to distinguish an innocent victim which we now refer to as a scapegoat. Before Christianity there was no such thing and the concept opened our minds to forms of frivolous blaming and violence which were ultimately recognised as ineffectual and revealed something very ugly about our behaviour towards our fellow community. It is in this context that it can be said that we did not stop burning witches because of science, we invented science because we stopped burning witches, which is a huge achievement on the part of society which was operating within the moral landscape of the Christian faith.
@@chadh9457 Yep, plus Christianity instilled the value of truth seeking, and freedom of speech (and therefore thought). The idea that all humans are created in the image of God meant they wouldn't be executed for the wrong beliefs, unlike in the Roman Empire.
And scientists saw studying the universe as a way to worship the creator of it.
It's not safe to assume that any pagan culture or any different religious culture would have figured out the scientific method. We can look to the Islamic world and compare the fruits there, for example.
By the way, I'm sensing some Rene Girard influence in your comment. I loved his reflections too lol.
but do you think Alex missed the point that science in the main wasn't birthed in non christian cultures. It was the christian worldview, that reality is constant and the universe had a beginning and is moving to an end rather than say the cyclical worldview of buddhism or hinduism that rendered reality amenable to the scientific method.
This is such a beautiful example of 2 people of drastically different beliefs coming together in good faith.
It's only because they've both studied each others subjects properly
Previously, the new atheists simply shot their mouth off despite not knowing the first thing about religious belief and religious arguments and religious scholars which never lead to good discussions, only rhetoric. I think time has shown that it was primarily a reaction to 9/11 rather than any intellectual rigour.
Christopher Hitchens was the prime example of this. People loved watching him but never learned anything from his shows.
Alex o conner has studied and has a degree in theology. I think every so called atheist should have atleast studied religion to that level before you should be allowed to comment or engage in a public debate with it.
@@pierzing.glint1sh76Sorry my friend, but if you think I need a degree before I'm allowed to disagree with you, I also require a degree to be converted by you.
I will stop being an openly uneducated anti-theist when it is only doctoral Christians who can preach and they can only preach to those with doctorates.
@@avisian8063 a degree in what ?
Atheism ???
Hahaha don't joke about
Anyway that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ur opinion on a subject is worthless (to somebody whos from that field)
unless u actually know what your talking about
Eg
U can give ur opinion on a soccer team to me I'll take it, but whatever u say will be worthless to that soccer teams manager, bcoz they actually know something about the subject.
@@pierzing.glint1sh76 Everyone is welcomed to the fight against religion
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Brierly here. On one hand sure, we could say that the conversation has shifted more into the social utility of religion, but it certainly hasn't changed anything about the problems religious practices have with their magical foundations. I'd also point out that we're only a couple of years out of a pandemic, and in the midst of that kind of full-scale psychological disruption it's pretty reasonable to see folks picking their rosaries back up for a while. No, I don't think the "new atheism" is dead at all; I just think that atheism offers little to wrap "community commonality" around. I also think Brierly is rather transparent in his soft-selling of Christianity; you know, that kind of "well, ignore all those problematic bits and just pick what feels good." I think there's a bit of a blind spot there about the fundamentals of actual Christian teaching, and I think you did a good job gently sussing that out.
Well said.
agree and disagree. I would actually separate "new atheism" and just "atheism" as two different things. I think the former speaks more to a culture that made atheism sexy, mainstream and edgy. I do think that has now past and "new atheism" is pretty much dead but that's not to say atheism has diminished, its just not being touted with the same glory and cultural influence it once had.
In these past few years there has been a strong rise in right wing cultural sentiments which comes hand in hand with religious belief, and guys like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate or Daily Wire are flying the religious flag with that same edginess and glory that New atheism once had, making it more culturally attractive.
To me though its all just a reactionary movement against modern ideals, western cultural shifts and identity, rather than the actual teachings, rituals and practices somehow demonstrating new merit, which is why it will eventually die down. That's just my perception anyway.
@@sum8601 agreed. I think we need to distinguish between 'new atheism', which was a specific movement in the mid to late noughties (though some have rejected the categorisation) with just a general lack of belief. In regard to that specific movement, I think Brierly has some decent points.
Thank you for your insightful and well made comments. I'm an atheist also a Humanist. Humanism provides community, being good without god is true altruism. Religions thrive in adversity. The goal of eternal life in return for dogmatically controlled behaviour, replaces empathy with obedience. Religion is clearly the early (worst) efforts of humanity to create community, Humanism is a better.
So why didn't people turn to the good news of atheism in the pandemic - why did they 'pick-up the rosaries' as you say? Why not pick up the hope, peace and truth that atheism brings??
Fantastic interview Alex. I'm a 67 yr old Male in US. I was born and raised a Christian and deconverted approx 20 yrs ago. It's funny but I see things in just the opposite way as Justin. To me, yes there is more constructive conversation about God these days than in the past. However, I see more people deconstructing and leaving Christianity rather than atheists starting to be interested in or actually becoming Christians. Love your you tube videos.
Carry on.
Mark in Michigan
I'm a 69 yr. old Christian believer in Florida ( tomorrow's my birthday, I turn 70 ! )
Anyhow I appreciate your comments. I don't feel qualified to respond to the observation that Christianity is growing. That's because I've been kind of a "Christian hermit" the last 16 years for heath reasons.
Anyhow... it's still important to ponder things such as the existence of God and the ultimate meaning to life.
Respectfully.
@@johnbrzykcy3076
The problem with religion is the innate control, abuse and violence. And that it makes good people do bad things.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 There is no meaning to life. It is the result of natural processes. The wind blows sand into dunes. There is no meaning to dunes.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 What a wholesome interaction
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Why do you think its important to ponder about that which cannot be proven or even indicated to exist? Do you also ponder frequently on vampires and ghosts?
I mean, most people in life ponder about death itself, which I equate to a more fair similarity than whichever god. As people who fear death are more likely to fill in those gaps and become religious in the first place.
Alex's channel is one of the few places on the internet, where people of opposing worldviews can be friendly and respectful. Even though I believe in Christ, I watch some content from atheists, to challenge my views, and most often going into a video I feel a lot of fear. Fear of being ridiculed, or labeled nasty things, or misrepresented. I'm never afraid to watch Alex's channel, because I know that all his discussions are on top of a firm layer of care and love for all living beings. Thank you, Alex, for constantly reminding me, that when I feel attacked or alone, people like you are out there in the world. I hope you reap great rewards and fruitful discussions for your hard work.
I mirror your sentiment from the opposite perspective. I’m an atheist who thoroughly enjoys Alex’s channel for the same reasons. He never seems interested in scoring points or appearing the victor, more so getting to the real meat of the issue in a civilised manner.
@@Sic-Semper-Tyranniss I'm glad we get to enjoy it together without loading debate ammo immediately. Cheers!
the big mistake in Justin’s arguments for Christianity and the majority of arguments I see from others defending Christianity is that they for some reason believe that “good values” or the “values of the west” belong to Christianity. It’s as if they think that being a “good person” never entered the mind of a human being until Christianity came onto the scene which is obviously and utterly ridiculous. Morality has been in development long before the birth of Christianity…
I doubt very much if our morality would be the same today if it werent for Christian tradition. Even today, non christian nations have very different morals from christian ones. And countries that used to be christian but pandering to the woke ideology is very very different from christian countries like the Philippines, Hungary etc.
@@AthanaSus The age of reason was far more impactful than Christianity.
@@AthanaSus I am not saying Christianity has not had an influence on the way we live our lives today. All the religions/ideologies of the past have influenced the way we think and live our lives today. I am simply stating Christianity is not solely responsible for “good morals”’ There are many other factors and forces at work influencing our morality, yet when I here Christians defend Christianity it’s as if they can’t imagine how a human being can arrive at the conclusion of living a “morally decent” life without “Judea Christian values”. I think this is a very shallow and narrow minded view of the matter at hand.
I think it has more to do with the level of "good"
Religions definitely had their uses, especially in the past. I'm sure they were quite good for promulgating these ideas in an age before very much print. But to give them credit for creating our founding our morality in any way is laughable.
Great conversation. As a Christian I would love to press him on where these ideas of equality come from and what the overlap is between that and post enlightenment ideology. To me, that was his weakest point. If we value equality then why stop at just some equality? It seems there is a disjunct there between his faith and his values that he hasn't thought all the way through yet. I find this is true for probably most Christians. Ironically, they have internalized post enlightenment values just as thoroughly as they say the new atheists have internalized Christian values. And to me, it's just as big of a blind spot that demands its own reckoning.
There is no equality under god; bible nor quran. All state that the female is inferior to men.
Any religious nut that claims otherwise is cherry picking from his own supposed "holy book".
As an atheist, I suspect he might point to where Jesus talks about the greatest, and second greatest commandments. I think Justin is very good at finding a reason to think what he wants to think. He could teach courses on post hoc rationalisation.
100% agree , Christianity does teach compassion and charity , but I'm pressed to find anything in scripture promoting equality ,freedom, or self determination if anything the opposite
Read Historian Tom Holland's work in dominion. He clearly portrays Christian influence in values of the west being thoughly Christian in origin
@@faustzxc Generally, the benefits of organized religion is compliance and control. Free thinking and self determination could lead to atheisms or at least questioning doctrine.
Im really glad that you challenged the Tom Holland rhetoric. As an atheist, I have no quarrel with admitting that a lot of our culture's understanding of morality was pioneered by Christianity, but to say that all of it was conceptualized by Christianity is a blatant ignorance of several other traditions and lineages of information. I think it's true that Christianity itself attempts to describe reality, including the very real realities of the human experiences of virtue and morality. However, I don't think that effectively describing virtue and morality makes those experiences in any way contingent upon Christianity itself. I also don't see any reason as to why they can't be reflected back on Christianity to support the atheist case. The internal contradictions of the Bible's moral theories were one of the reasons I deconstructed my faith to begin with. I could never bring myself to imagine that Jesus Christ himself would command us to stone, conquer, or enslave anyone and that Christ-like virtue was the very crack in the foundation that I needed to free myself through deconstruction.
I don't think that Christians realize that deconstruction isn't centered on Christianity, but rather our entire conceptualization of identities. Christianity is merely one of the most influential identities in a diverse list of sociocultural relations that people have and for most atheists, once the religion falls, so too do the rest of the dominos (political, national, ego, etc) that were entrenched in that Christian foundation. Learning our sociocultural history, the various influences of different ideas and how they've interacted with each other such that we could emerge as we are today is one of the most important things we can do to reconstruct ourselves in the wake of our atheism. Outside of the chains of dogma, we can be free to use different perspectives as they effectively apply and one of the reasons that we are so caught up in the Christian perspective on values is that we are often trying to demonstrate that very same internal moral inconsistency that severed our ties to begin with. We are trying to engage with you by speaking your own language.
At the end of the day, we are very aware that we use the same selfless love that you find in Jesus to challenge the hate and the violence and the bigotry that most of the rest of the religious frame is chained to, and if that weren't the case, we probably wouldn't have had a reason to deconvert to begin with.
There's also a case to be made about pre-existing cultures in general. Would Christianity not then owe its values to Zoroastrianism, Greek and Egyptian polytheism, even Canaanite polytheism, or other pagan religious traditions and philosophies? It's not like Jesus or Moses were the inventors of selflessness, but surely Christians don't then argue that their understanding wasn't also afforded to them by their predecessors. The potential for love isn't just Christian, it's human.
These people are misinformed. They have this ahistorical view that Christianity just fell from the sky. Christianity was influenced by its surroundings. You find all the same morals in ancient Near Eastern Wisdom texts.
Christianity borrows many of its moral and ethical assertions from older cultures and religions.
@@_____case it's words like "borrows" or "steals from" that I am objecting to. It implies that there is an ability to own/monopolize facts about reality
@@He.knows.nothing"MyCulture Inc. Trade marked. All rights reserved. Patented. Do not redistribute or pirate MyCulture without implicit consent."
😂😂😂
And even *if* there was a case to be made for this argument, the facts themselves are that "christian" scientists were usually christian either because (like Alex said) there wasn't a reasonable alternative yet, or they were christians because otherwise they would be lynched by the church. Most things Christians credit to Christianity were things they made all manner of efforts to eliminate before pretending to have championed all along (e.g. gay marriage). It's historical revisionism at its most insidious.
The victory in this conversation is the civilized tone of the participants .
The surprising thing about "rebirth of belief in God" is it is ironically explained by the way it is stated.
*BIRTH RATES*
Simply put, you see religious families having religious children. The birth rate among the non-religious is much lower and thus the propagating of lack of religion isn't happening. Religion hasn't become any more convincing with better arguments. Religious people know they can teach their kids religion at a young age and make it a core part of their worldview. From then on, it's more likely they'll remain religious.
From the most recent polls I've seen, religious adherence has shifted downward significantly in the past decade alone. I can understand contemporary atheists examining Christian theology as a humanistic anthropological reality of life on Earth... but I'm not sure that translates to "Rebirth" as he argues. There's also no guarantee that children raised in a religious household will remain religious in adulthood.
@@rabd3721It’s actually not only the Christian birth rate. It’s also the Muslim birth rate. While being born to a religious family doesn’t mean you’ll be religious, it does vastly increase the probability and is the most associated aspect of someone you could know the predict their religion.
@@rabd3721 Take a look at the countries with the highest birthrates and look at the religion relationship:
Somalia is a Muslim state and prohibits conversion.
Angola is described as "overwhelming Christian"
Now let's look at the countries with the lowest birthrates and the relationship with religion.
Hong Kong has over 50% with no religion and 10% total Muslim/Christian
South Korea has over 60% with no religion
@@rabd3721 The increase in percentage of religious individuals is directly connected to birthrates of countries where religion is central to that country. Religion hasn't become any more convincing.
Many people in the modern world have decided to focus on their own lives and not procreating. However, religious individuals differ in that they still see the need to procreate since many religions teach to do this. This is literally how religions have survived.
Think of a religion like a nation. If the nation doesn't have a high enough birthrate, it goes away. Religions literally work the same way. The biggest way to get people in the religion is to raise someone in the religion.
@@malirk I understand, you're talking about non-Western countries. My focus is on nations who have prospered/progressed enough to achieve the highest benchmarks of human rights and privileges. When human beings have the liberty to be themselves, you end up with dwindling religious faith. Many "religious" countries who mandate religious belief are authoritarian and fascist. I'm not particularly impressed with religious adherence in these countries, because it appears to be under threat of criminal liability.
It's not about "changing your mind" as you said, it's about something being changed inside of you that the mind begins to realize.
Hi Paul!
So it is about changing your mind after all.
@@niemand7811 Which is the literal definition of "repent".
My goodness! Justin's defense of the obvious contradictions between modern secular morality and "Biblical" morality are mental gymnastics amazing to behold!
How do you mean?
Not sure I can stand another Justin interview but I'll listen at some point. It's just i can almost predict everything he says now.
Indeed, he may have hosted many non-believers, but he doesn't appear to have actually listened to anything they said.
@@EnglishMike never trust a christian, especially an apologist, two faced dog poop IMHO.
@@EnglishMikeHe listens carefully with a tightly closed mind.
My West African ancestors would turn in their grave if they were told that before the white man landed on their shores with the Bible, they knew nothing about human dignity and compassion.
what is your favourite greek god?
@@srrysdrthu6716 Hermes. Messenger of the gods and the patron of thieves but truth be told I've always loved the demi-gods more. Achilles is my all time favorite.
@@SkinnyGreekGod cool :D
Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe
Wouldn’t they turn in their graves to know what Africans did to Africans. Africans are the worst in this they always blame whites for slavery even though it was started by Africans and banned by whites.
Wow, a great discussion here which does help make the case of Justin's book and current thesis.
This is more like a nice open-ended conversation between friends than the 'knock 'em down' type of confrontations that happened at the height of the New Atheist 'movement' and I'm so grateful for it!
The path towards genuine understanding of each other in our polarized society surely looks like this.
A wonderful conversation about God without the antagonism. I loved reading Dominion as well. It certainly turned on a few light bulbs for me.
I'm confused by the way "New Atheism" is cast in this conversation. Yes, it was relatively novel that a group of guys suddenly started making money being publicly atheist in the English-speaking world, but it's not like they were advancing revolutionary philosophical concepts.
You can only sell so many books refuting the same old arguments for theism before anyone who's interested in buying them notices that they've heard all this before and/or otherwise loses interest In public figures being aggressively opposed to theism.
But it seems to me the way they're talking about it is meant to suggest that the loss of interest in this particular moment signals a loss of interest in atheism or, perhaps, even a renewed interest in theism?
Seems a bit nonsequitur to me.
I think the openness with which religion was being debunked by these people is amazing in itself because in many parts of the world it is illegal or majorly socially shunned to have these kinds of conversations.
Hold my beer.
"New-neo Catholic" and "Post-Sputtering Protestant".
No clue what either means, but I am ready to label any and all cherry picking christian strangers I meet with these newfound terms. 😂
@@MrYellyThe fact that this is exactly how the term new atheism was created lmao
@@MrYellywhat would you consider "cherry picking"?
Actually, I think it's that none of those writers are respected as philosophers by anybody outside of a particular brand of atheist. Dennet left religious polemic and went back to his actual field, nobody I know--religious or secular--takes Dawkins seriously as a philosopher.
Hitchens was only ever the hero of angry teenage / early 20s atheists and even Alex has made videos subject Hitchens' logic to scrutiny and finding it wanting (as did serious philosophers back when Hitch was making the arguments). That doesn't take away that Hitch was wildly entertaining, though, and was better with his social/political commentary (the fields where he made his actual reputation).
And finally, Harris has fallen into irrelevance as his brand of atheist has led him into Islamophobic, even genocidal tirades. One can even detect outright misanthropy in Harris's tones, and Chomsky really put a dent in any view of Harris as a particularly informed or enlightened commentator.
About me: DPhil in Philosophy from Oxford.
I'm very impressed. Lovely conversation.
As an athiest who was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, I find these conversations cathartic. I wanted Christianity to be true for many years, but I find its core claims and apologetic explanations wanting. I can't force myself to believe in a god, but loyalty to my family keeps me chasing the tail of comparative theology. This channel helps me feel less alone.
No offence, but why would you want it to be true.
Even without the risk of eternal damnation everlasting life sounds like a monkey's paw wish that is bound to backfire.
@@bdnnijs192 When everyone you love has made it their their entire identity and purpose in life, not being on the same page creates a painful rift. That's really the crux of why I wanted it to be true in my young adult years.
If you were talking about some other youtuber's opinion, then you could say, "Well, I think..." But we are talking about the ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe. Who says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to give us over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until a about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. And what is your authority? Why should we believe you? You say things like, "Why didn't God do this or that. And, I FEEL like He should have done it this way, or that way." Look, if I decided someone should die and then carried that out, I would be a murderer fit for jail or execution. BUT, if God decides a person has come to the end of his days, He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to HIs only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.
@Mike-qt7jp I've spent decades searching out the kinds of claims you are making here, and I there always end up being too many holes, paradoxes, and logical fallacies to the claims. You can assert the claims with as much confidence as you want, but that doesn't make them true. There are too many conflicting ideas within the canonical books for them to be inspired by a perfect god. No matter what interpretational methodology you choose, you will always end up with a puzzle missing pieces and extra pieces that don't fit.
@@Mike-qt7jp Cooly story bro 🤡
The idea that something like compassion is rooted specifically in Christianity is wild. And attributing things to Christianity because they were developed by Christians in a time and place where everybody was Christian (at least publicly) is also wild. We don't know how the world would look now had Christianity not become the official religion of the Roman Empire, but it would take a brave person to insist that we wouldn't have arrived at a lot of the same social liberal values without it.
@@Hjff_-gdgyhh_5kfj Cool. Those are definitely words.
Romanes Eunt Domus
I like to think we arrived at what liberal social value we have (or the few still left in some cases like the US), despite Christianity trying to hold us back, not because of it!
@@Leszek.Rzepecki YES!! They seem to blank out ever Christian atrocity and the iron boot they used to keep women as second class citizens
Compassion™️
If the decrease in faith does not matter, then the increase in faith does not matter.
Good point!
It's not "Christian" values and "Christian" morality. It's Enkightenment values and morality. And the Enlightenment was a reaction TOWARDS secular thinking/values and AGAINST religious thinking and morality, not a development of them.
Another thought: I wonder whether Justin - or any of Alex's Christian conversation partners over the years - is as genuinely open to changing their mind, as Alex is to changing his
A committed Christian can never be open to changing their mind. They can only, as Justin says, find some passages challenging, whilst still believing them as the word of God
@@paulwellings-longmore1012the word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. That claim in itself is fundamentalist. And I only see these types of strawman debates honestly.
@@MrSeedi76 are you able to expand on this a little please? Who are the strawmen and who are the real men?
the problem with religists is they have god listening to every conversation they have and they are petrified of hell, whether they admit it or not, if you believed in hell you'd be wetting your pants at the thought of annoying god, so, they can't be trusted, they would lie, cheat, steal, sacrifice a family member rather than annoy god - never trust a christian. it wasn't catholics stopped the inquisition.
@@MrSeedi76"The word of God is Jesus not the bible."
How do you know this is true?
You're making a claim with no evidence to back it up. At best you have a person who may have been a loose representation of Jesus with possibly a different name who did exist and get crucified. The evidence for that isn't very good. But let's assume this person did exist. We still have no good evidence to believe he performed supernatural acts and was what the bible claims. That's a huge leap to make.
Former atheist here, saved by a stupendous intervention from what I now know to be God - it's all grace. I love Alex as the most honest atheist and Justin as a most honest Christian. Very good conversation.
Saved? From what? S'il te plaît réponds-moi en français.
Oh stop it. You know what I mean.
@@cachinnation448 well, not really actually, from a live without belief?
@@cachinnation448 No we do not know what you mean. We know some typicalochristian made claims. But that is what you belief. What you believe in does not transcribe to knowledge. It means we know what you claim to believe but not what you really mean as we do not experience your belief on our own terms.
God bless you, and welcome home ❤@@cachinnation448
I am 70 years old. I believed in Christianity all my life. I no longer believe in the God of the Bible or that Jesus was the son of God, but I am not an atheist. I believe in a intelligence in what we see and observe. I lean heavily toward the NDE testamonies.
To me, this interview can be summed up by this quote: "If your opponent is making a mistake, dont stop them."
Justin is nice, yet delusional with optimism of a belief itself for which he actually concedes is second to its truthfulness. And for every “surprising conversion” he refers to, I could match him with 3-4 deconversions.
Great conversation! Love Justin and Alex’s good faith interactions.
Here in the US, Religion isn't having a resurgance, and Atheism and agnosticism, is still growing. But one thing that IS going on is that religion is working to consolidate power. They've succeeded in working their way into our government, stacked the deck in elections to favor their wins, and are going after soft targets that the general public tend not to notice or bother to vote in, such as local government, and especially school boards. They've identified a weakness in how people vote in our country and they're exploiting it to grab as much power as they can. Voter turnout for presidential elections are huge. But turnout for mid-term elections and for local elections is usually very low, and that gives them an edge in those elections. A huge problem is that the general public just doesn't seem to understand how government works and that those elections other than the presidential one are the most important ones to vote in. So there's a definite religious conservative power grab and power consolidation underway here.
I have so much respect for Alex for having these conversations. I've been watching his videos for about 7 years, and I've seen him grow so much in that time. The only way we can grow as people is to be able to have civil respectful discussions with those holding beliefs different than our own, and Alex does an amazing job of that. We could ALL stand to follow his example
2 likes, lol
As per usual Alex seems either unwilling or unable to push back on the absurd claims of these Christians
They won't come on if he pushes back at all
sad to see alex go the way of access journalism :/
I think he does a reasonably good job of formulating counter-arguments through questions. Remember, they're interviews, not debates. I would also argue that most people here are already more than familiar/in sync with Alex's arguments and views, and have the tools to dismantle those absurd claims by ourselves. The only thing to be gained from it actually happening on camera would be a sort of dialectic bloodthirst, what's the point?
@@CosmicTeapot There';s a nice middle ground between being completely passive and engaging in some bloodthirsty debate. I'm just saying Alex could push back more, especially against the on the face of it flat-out ridiculous claims that his Christian guests often make.
@@gerhitchmanI'm more concerned with the lack of pushback he showed against some of the more right wing guests he had recently. Religion is on the decline. Nationalism, racism, homophobia is on the rise. That's where the true battle waits. Of course when dealing with Christian nationalism you can battle both at the same time. But they don't necessarily go hand in hand.
I must confess that I have previously allowed myself to get a bit (sometimes more than a bit) reactionary to the content of yours which I've seen, Alex. I'm about 25 minutes into this interview, and I recognize that I was ignorant/wrong to have the rather presumptuous perception that you were primarily intent upon mocking and making a fool of Christians and Christianity. You are a wonderful discussion partner. This is very refreshing to watch.
Thank you man.
I have visited Nigeria for business purposes working with hospitals there, and unfortunately I have to say that the Christianity I saw there has grown to become rather toxic. It has been heavily influenced by the Pentacostal form of Christianity in the U.S. The rights of LGBT people are non-existent. Grifters and fake faith healers are far too common. The "prosperity" gospel has also taken hold so imagine the worst TV evangelists from the US, but in Nigerian form. There is a tendency to treat mental illness with a religious rather than medical approach. I could go on and on about the cultural impact of Christianity there, but little of it was good from my perspective.
As a Christian I agree with this assessment. I have had a lot of contact with Nigerians in the past and since I’m married to a Ghanaian and visited her country multiple times. The Christian culture in those countries is not straightforward. First of all, a lot of the culture can be explained by their past traditional spirituality. Many Christians there believe in both or at least act like it. They are very superstitious.
Personally I think it’s a great contrast between a sophisticated and systematic religion vs a more simple and random religion. This is also why these countries lean more to Pentecostalism. As this is one of the least systematic Biblical interpretations, leans heavily on personal experiences and compliments most with their traditional thinking about spirituality.
And even though they take their faith very seriously. Most people I’ve talked to have not thought through their arguments of why they believe what they believe.
There is one big problem in Pentecostalism. Is their view on doubt. I think doubting is a great part of faith. And has been so in most of western Christianity. While ironically Pentecostalism and some other streams which frown on doubt had a western origin.
The whole secular humanist is actually christian is like saying alchemy made the iPhone. Better things have grown from shoulders of giants
This was very thought provoking. I'm a recovering Catholic (largely in Alex's camp) and I really enjoyed this conversation with Justin. I'm tempted to link this video to my dad who thinks I'm totally irreligious. The world has changed since the era of the new atheists.
Well, at 68yo, I can say I'm a fully recovered Catholic. The only time I'm in church is for hatches, matches and dispatches, and the next will be my own! I just think worrying about god(s) is pointless. If he/she/it/they were that keen on dealing with us, they'd find a sure-fire way of letting us know! Meanwhile, I save money by not supporting clergy, even better! ;)
What like about this channel is the fact of it being a conversation, it’s not adversarial.
Listening to Justin, You'd think Christian values are birthed from thin air whereas Christianity also borrowed from the culture before it.. Even if Christianity shaped the morality of today it does not mean that we cannot rebuke it and move away from it to a better moral standard.. What even is the point of mentioning that?
It is by pure arrogance to assume another persons good graces to be your own. As if envy is a merit, or lacking as a quality. Religion is a cruel joke played upon children.
I'd argue, as a Christian who studied theology, that so-called moral Christian values were never a "moral consensus" anywhere in the world. And certainly not in any European country. Influences came from basically everywhere. Greek philosophy, Islam, the enlightenment. Heck, just today I talked with my wife about how Marquis de Sade had an influence on criminal law with his theory that murder because of lust, rage, etc should be treated differently from cold blooded murder. And that's exactly what we see in criminal law. And it's based on de Sade of all people. He also made a very good argument for the relativity of all moral values.
@@MrSeedi76 I agree with you totally.
I am a Christian apologist From England Nottingham, Atheism is growing in Britain, and Christianity is falling and people claiming too be Christian, Becouse we live in a Society where wrong means right and right means wrong, we are Becoming More and More love for self as a British society and the benefits of Christianity is falling in Britain.
Why do you believe in god?
I consider myself a little-a "atheist" when it comes to God, a big-A "Atheist" when it comes to the Christian God.
I appreciate that this point was touched on here, but in general i wish more discussions wouldn't automatically conflate the two
Yes, I had the same thought exactly
Neither Islam or Christianity has a coherent argument that would exclude one from the other.
Hell, they cant reasonably exclude any form of monotheism from their own nonsense without any cherry picking.
@@rp-ot6ov Good question! I think that it's possible that we humans, with our tiny material bodies and brains, can't have a handle on the everything that's in/around/outside the cosmos. It's not likely (which is the atheist in the little-a atheist) that a god or something that is remotely like a god exists, but it is likely that there's more to the cosmos than we can ever know.
Also, what is God? A human like God with a form and a will? Haha nope! But expanding the definition includes concepts like matter-from-consciousness, Brahman, etc.
So no, such a "god" isn't gonna come down and say anything 😆
@@rp-ot6ov pretty simple. There might be a being out there that is responsible for our creation and that we would label as a "god" but no one knows what its actual deal is so all these religious interpretations are man-made nonsense. Not something I personally believe but it feels perfectly plausible.
@@ZangelinBigfoot and aliens are plausible. More so than "that one exact christian god". Other than that we can float around in the realms of deism or agnosticism, or simply accept that there is no evidence for a god, by which no differentiation would be necessary.
If I were to summarise Justin's input in this entire discussion I would say that his capacity for compartmentalisation is impressive, to the point where his claims are almost "Quantum" in nature !
Statistics show a decline in numbers of believers, but with a little excusagist massaging and touch of whispy fluff, we can completely flip that state of affairs !
Christianity's influence on society weakened to the degree that most prominent atheists are now concentrating on other issues! it must mean that christianity is winning!!!!!!!
It seems to me that the 'rebirth' is a new tack for Christians in the age of social media. I see so many formulaic comments along the lines of 'I can't believe I used to think Christopher Hitchens (other Atheist thinker) was right, but now I've grown up I realise Jesus is the guy for me". Strikes me as an attempted reboot.
It's the shame what they're doing to Hitch, when you have clowns like Michael Knowles going on his podcast to "debate" a dead man.
The response to the atheists attacks on Christianity has grown and had to improve on our defense of Christianity.
Also with the liberal consensus of secular Biblical Scholarship by atheists and exChristians in their attack specifically on the Bible and their attempted redaction of many interpretations has a large influence on secular society from liberal Religious studies programs on trying to debunk the Bible as only a man-made literature without any Divine authority.
I am one of them. Christopher hitches was wrong.
I just call it "Talking ill about the dead", which is most definitely a religious hobby. At least pick a guy who is still alive to rebute your idiotic nonsense.
All it shows me is that even something as rigid as religion, can still degenerate into moral bankrupcy.
@@MohitKumar-jf8lzHow?
So we in the West decry murder and rape and sexual slavery and the abuse of children by virtue of inheriting Judeo-Christian values and using those values as a moral compass? Is this to suggest that those from a Buddhist or Hindu or pagan culture would be basically okay with those depredations, having been denied a Judeo-Christian culture?
Christian apologia is all well and fine, and I wish this gentlemen well with his book tour and an honest reception from all people of open minds. But I must admit, this argument is deeply specious to me.
Most atheists are just tired of arguing about the same thing over and over again. this doesn't mean there's a surprise rebirth of belief in God.
Most Christians are tired too. I think the both groups should just not try to convince the other side of anything.
True, there is a limit to the number of times you can push the atheist message again and again. Richard Dawkins is still doing this by repeating old video clips and some new ones, and full videos, because he feels very passionately about it! Justin Brierley saying that atheists don't seem to care anymore, and his talking of a rebirth of a belief in God is utter rubbish. I haven't heard any famous atheists saying they have seen the light and are bowing down to god or a religion, or anything like that because it won't happen. they are too intelligent. Here is Richard Dawkins' latest short video clip!
ua-cam.com/users/shorts8W7I3_ss9V0?feature=shared
Christianity has so many holes in it that arguments for me it are a non-starter. I think it's basically infinitely easier to argue that religion is wrong than it is that it's correct because of that. It's a huge uphill battle for apologists if you're trying to use reason. You basically have to throw away all of science to argue Christianity is true. The same goes for the others. I am definitely tired of apologists who use tired arguments, as if they haven't heard any of the counterarguments of the last half-century.
I think these people are better off to argue that they believe a god exists but that the religious doctrine is extremely faulty, inconsistent, and proven false in some cases. Basically arguing that "we still don't understand how the universe came to be". You lose a lot of baggage when cutting out religious doctrine.
@@daniel-panek That's not the whole picture, IMHO. I was and remained a Christian for the first 30 years of my life because until then I had never encountered serious objections to my faith. I have listened to many of the various Dawkins, Hitches, Onfray... I've always found the vast majority of their claims very weak and easily demolishable, if not false, especially when they deal with the Bible or with Ethics. It was only when I learned enough about behavioural biology, neuroscience, ethology and astrophysics, only then my faith was dismantled. But I had to dig an awful lot, and I reached that results only because of my incredible curiosity and love for the Truth. My biology professor in high school taught me nothing interesting about science, so I'm actually more angry with him than with the priests that sustained my faith during my adolescence.
All these best-sellers Atheist often cause more damages to the Atheist cause than the religion apologists. For example if you look at the thesis of Bart Ehrman, he seems to demolish some New Testament truths, until you realise the embarrassing quantity of cherry picking and omissions in his dissertations. Is he giving a good service to the anti-religious cause?
@@MrSeedi76 if christianity becomes politically irrelevant than maybe then
A beautiful, highly interesting and honest conversation - could not take my eyes and ears off it. Well done, Alex - full respect to you for a great interview. Impressed also by Justin’s insights and fluency.
What no, Justin spins bullshit for like half the runtime.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 That is exactly the kind of graceless and ignorant remark that atheists have become well-known for, particularly since they mistakenly styled themselves as “new”.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 What a typically graceless reply from the commenting atheist. Little wonder that “new atheism” didn’t last very long.
@@superman00001 I don't appreciate word games and I don't like to beat around the bush. If that's something you have a problem with, I don't care. He constantly reiterates how Christianity is allegedly responsible for the moral character of so called "Western civilization."
Eventually, when you end up emotionally broken and Surrender your logic and integrity - then you're ready to become a Christian. That's the "Leap of faith" they are talking about. "Works" with any other magic solution, but the problem still remains. It gets worse.😅😉
I have no desire to surrender my "logic and integrity.". It may work for some people but I tend to question things.
Respectfully...
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think you might be utterly missing the point that I'm making here John. I'm not giving any advices here to you personally or anyone else. I'm just giving an example of how one could be lead to take the wrong path out of sheer despair. Respectfully.
Alex is sharp as usual. The conversation is great.
Justin is a nice enough guy, but his whole worldview is steeped in absolute nonsense!
I agree with the second part of your remark, but not so sure about the first: there's a limit to the amount of smarm one can endure - and giving a platform to gun-toting, misogynistic US evangelicals with no mention of their extremism is odd behaviour for supposed decency.
That was one of the most lovely conversations I've ever listened to on your channel or anyone else's! Very interesting topics and both you and Justin are so kind and polite to each other. I hope people follow in your general trend in having these polite and intellectually honest conversations in the realm of religion and other topics.
As for the section about modern ethics being based on Christianity, it certainly does not feel quite right to say that our general social values are based on Christianity and especially the life of Jesus. It is clear to me that the rise of Christianity was a big turning point in ethics, but I hesitate to so quickly say "yeah all of my inclinations of compassion, equality, and social justice come directly from, and only from, Christianity." Surely there's a bit more nuance than that, even if Christianity was a large driving force. Christianity itself doesn't come from nowhere, and it makes sense to me that Jesus and his teachings would have been influenced from his cultural context -- being a Jewish man from Galilee at the time of Roman rule over the Levant.
Still, I think its good to acknowledge the history that leads us to the values we have today -- it being largely Christian in origin. But I also think that we can drop what we don't like from Christianity (LGBTQ+ issues, treatment of women, animals) and keep what we do like going forward (compassion, equality, social justice) as our ideas change and grow.
"Gods teachings" + cherry picking + being permanently blindfolded to what interpretations wreak upon the world.
Good luck with turning the most dogmatic, rigid, conservatist and archaic doctrine into semi progressive fluidity. As I think that is paradoxical unto itself.
Religion is the rare instance it is better to throw out the baby along with the bathwater.
I am pretty sure that apologetics are also dying right now…
The war is over… Atheism won… last year alone a million people left the church in Germany.
Atheism hasn't won. It's not even a worldview. It's a lack of one.
Fundamentalism has lost to Science because it refused to grow and adapt.
@@BaA-zz4pqWhere are you from? What are you forced to do in the mosque?
Germany isn't the world : atheistism hasn't won anything as it's a minority all over the world!
@@sabar2453Forced to glorify a pedo prophet and an inhumane scam of a religion.
@@BaA-zz4pq You have my sympathy and understanding. I once had to act like that in a super-Christian society.
Great conversation!
Hell yeah, I enjoyed the unbelievable appearance, hopefully this will be just as good!
Justin's main blindspot is that he's analyzing these issues from too religious a lens. He credits all western moral development to Christianity because it's based on compassion, and surely compassion was invented by Christianity. He looks at the obsession with wokeism as a religious impulse, instead of a outflowing of manufactured political outrage bait. People are becoming more interested in Catholicism because they're finding legitimate truth value in it all of a sudden, nevermind that all the people "realigning" on this happen to be right wing political pundits hyping "return to tradition" aesthetics and political messaging.
Concise and on point analysis. I wonder what you have to say on semi-religious "spiritual" people becoming almost brainwashed by old conspiracy theories, since Alex and other atheists seem to completely ignore this.
brierly is a two faced pond scum, spend a few minutes listening to him and his apologist mates with no atheists around, all they do is atheist bash.
And Alex accepted all the chauvinistic garbage wholesale, not s lick of pushback.
I would push back on the idea that christian morality is based on compassion. The majority of the Bible focuses more on obedience.
The thing is, Justin isn't doing this on his own - there are countless non-religious historians and sociologists who are making the same point. Quite strongly, in fact.
For someone that asks for nuance Brierly has a breathtakingly ignorant view of non-Christian religious morality, and very rose colored glasses when seeing the influence of Christianity on modern social values, in the west or otherwise.
Alex, I would love to talk to you about this conversation. It appears that you're just talking past each other. I will also say it was one of the best conversations I've heard in years about the topic. I did have an epiphany as I was listening to you and Justin. We do have to transition to a new way of thinking when we talk about the morphing of religion into philosophy and ethics. We get so hung up about the labels, judeo Christian, atheist, Christian, God, and must start to look at it on a different level.
I don’t understand this link between Christianity and equality (for women, for races/ethnicities, whatever) when it took said Christian nations almost 2,000 years to get there and we’re still working on it. If it had been 200 years, maybe, but 2,000? I don’t see how there can even be a correlation, let alone causation.
Sure it is a subtle thing, but we may say that the whole cultural and intellectual environment that Christianity created during the centuries posed the bases (or some of the bases) for our modern conception of social and moral issues like equality etc., the core of that being the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This remains valid even if Jesus was not God and did not resurrected: his moral message was truly remarkable.
You say "the least 200 years"... well, one of the problems in the Middle Ages was that girls of noble families were often forced to get married at a very young age for the political purposes of their families. Who opposed that, saying the a girl should get married at least only when she can express a conscious consent? Some bishops. Feminists ante litteram? Who knows...
History is a complex thing, the influences of the current culture can be traced back in the centuries, but at the same time, every époque has its own problems, issues and quirks: equality was never an issue (not as we define it nowadays) before 200 years ago, so how do you expect the Church to fight for it?
It's really not difficult to bring christians and not christians together: leave me alone, you can ask once but never insist, don't ask for humongous tax exemptions, don't force your ideas into public schools, don't ask for funds for denominational schools and don't try to legislate, again imposing things you believe in. There you have it; I don't see any problem and yet.....
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings about the various things said by each of you in this discussion.
There were moments where each of you were impressively thoughtful and reasonable.
There were moments where Justin gets away with some gaslighting nonsense and you (Alex) are supportive of it.
There were moments where you brilliantly negate some bit of nonsense he was trying to get away with.
But at least it was overall thought provoking and has potential to forward the discussions for others.
Agreed. Wish that Justins numerous fallacies would have been adressed.
Far too many of Justin's baseless assertions were allowed to go unchallenged.
Awesome. Justin is my favorite Christian whatever he is (thinker, mediator, influencer, host?)
Of those options, I'd go with "host". "Apologist" would be more accurate, which means he's not awesome, he's dishonest.
@@jursamaj what do you mean? Yeah I wonder about apologist but he has always seemed somewhat focused on fostering conversation and asking probing questions, les so on direct apologetics.
@@JesseTateJustin is dishonest, fallacious and arrogant. At least in this conversation.
1: he knows atheism is not a collective or group
2: then strawmans that concept by dividing that which cannot be a collective into "new" and "old" based on 9/11 of all things. Does he think Europe and Asia somehow still care about 9/11?
3: And then assumes humanity to be incapable of empathy and morality without his particular religion from which he cherry picks and is unable to defend in relation to other monotheisms.
The guy is a clown.
It is amazing to see how it seems easy to argue that everything that would be considered as progress on values (good) gets attached to Judeo-Christian values. It would be equally easy to attach Democracy, Law practice, Government structure and other as Greco_Roman Values
Ya, but I don't support democracy. so, there is that.
Let's extend this guy's argument (Christianity was necessary to bring about the overthrow of bad Christianity and bad people behavior, because all there was was Christianity (accept it wasn't - it was Judaism)".
Here's the extended argument:
"The general movement against slavery comes from a background of slavery. We can extol slavery and slave culture because it produced this anti-slavery movement that we all accept as good."
Jesus Christ.
How about we come to the conclusion that kindness and justice towards people is a human trait that competes with other traits that people have, such as enslavement and cruelty and injustice. Religions were the first second and third crack at both cruelty and kindness. And now I think this guy agrees that kindness and justice should win out. Alex and I agree.
What's left out of this discussion is the rationality of believing a God exists in the first place. Whether religion is useful in some situations for people trying to further their agenda is completely separate from whether the God exists. I think the way to move forward is to try to figure out what's true. And if you have to redefine "true" to make a set of religious beliefs true, your effort already wanders.
One more thought...
And this guy seems to think that the goodness of Christianity came from the New Testament and all of the awfulness came from the Old Testament. He completely ignores the awfulness brought in specifically by the New Testament. The idea of needing to be saved from an awfulness that God created in the first place. The tableau of loved ones who were saved having to live with the idea that a big chunk of the loved ones they really care about were not saved. The idea of living for eternity in the presence of the God that came up with these ideas in the first place. It's Not even an original idea. It's just the imperfection and torment of life extended to forever.
This guy... I'm sorry, but the claim that all compassion stems from Christian morals is so utterly ridiculous and Alex' attempts of gently communicating the lack of coherence Justin's claims have are frustratingly patient. At some point you have to just snap. He critisizes that atheists are "chery picking" evidence to show that religion has caused religion-specific evil, but when he is shown that Christian scripture dictates homocidal homophobia as a virtue, that needs to be looked over because the bible still teaches the "impetus to do good". Ridiculous. Also: So human dignity and compassion stem from Christian morals? So every human civilisation before Christianity had no shred of morals? Who is going to believe this nonsense? What about compassion just actually being a mechanism in our fucking DNA that is based on reciprocity, a survival strategy that is btw obvservable in certain species of primate's behvaiour. Seems more reasonable to me than to weirdly choose a specific religion that you happen to believe in by chance, because you happen to have been born in this century, and because you're british. This man very obviously is desperately clinging onto his world view with sheer dishonesty towards himself.
Yup. I dont think I can sit through another "interview" like this. Terribly frustrating to see hateful nonsense to be so readily tolerated.
15:25 What is Alex talking about here? Christianity was neither ubiquitous in the world at the time he is describing, and also it hasn't been a permanent historic institution. You have to eliminate Greek/ Roman paganism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu religions, folk religions, etc. to make his claim that "science didn't exist to challenge the claims of Christianity." The second fold in all of this is that not every institution was owned by the church or monks or priests, but the scientific revolution was founded by overwhelmingly these people.
Third, surely Alex is smart enough to recognize that as our society has become increasingly secular, it has become less scientific. We recently had a Supreme Court justice claim she couldn't "define a woman" because "she's not a biologist." Even the most dead-brained Reagan Young Earth Creationists have a higher level of scientific understanding than that.
I don't think Justin's views matter much. He was listening to debates for 20 years yet he still uses the weakest arguments himself.
Cited frank turek as having "an interesting argument". Lol.
@@uninspired3583 Yea. He's a perfect example of a person who will always believe, because he just wants to. Arguments don't matter and the books are just a cash printers for him, not actual attempts to fight for his believes.
he doesn't care as long as he can feel superior, if i;m "new atheist" he's "new christian" - subs, likes, books sales, patrons, ZERO interest in what jesus was about. brierly is LOATHSOME.
That's a lot of religious apologists: virtually all have arguments that have been debunked or strongly counter-argued. Some of them have been crushed literally decades ago.
This isn't a debate, and he does have good arguments, in a conversational level atleast, and this video isn't titled "Justin's argument for belief in God" is it?
Good convo. My eyes are wore out from all the eyerolling. Christianity and religion has been basically tore down over the years, and he considers it a win that atheist thinkers have moved on to being "anti woke". Big W there.
I am having a really big problem with the careless way in which religious belief, organized religion, and secularism are being treated here as all the same thing. A small portion of the population, which is not growing too fast, is the firebrand atheists which models itself quite a bit on New Atheism. It has not died out and it will not grow quickly in the near future. Another is now called the "nones", and is growing like wildfire. This is the one group that is depleting the ranks of organized religion, and it is a lot more related to secularism than to either strong atheism or organized religion. You can claim that there is a huge rebirth of belief in God because most of the nones might answer "yes" to the question of "does a god or gods exist?" but they are not rebooting religion, they are mostly organizing their lives without abiding by or thinking much about organized religions.
The people who are going to reduce every organized religion to its bones are not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, or strong atheists in general, they are the ones who say "Jesus is love, I like love, I like to believe that some higher being exists, and for everything else just don't bother me with religion".
Can you do me a solid and define these words for me, and describe in what way you set them apart from one another?
"New Atheism"
"Strong Atheism"
"Weak Atheism"
"Firebrand Atheism"
"Non religious"
"Nones"
Because to me, it seems like a very fanfic type of pokemon naming from a religious perspective, to be honest.
You gave sort of a definition of "nones", but are they not already defined as simply cherry pickers?
Weird and confusing, to say the least.
@@MrYelly The differences between the above are crucial, and are marking big issues in the changing religious landscape. Nones are not cherry pickers, they are people who have left the organized religions and may or may not be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. Non-religious are exactly that: people who don't have a place for religion in their life. They usually believe that no god or gods exist, but will not study the subject or engage in discussions with anyone on the subject. Weak atheists, also called generically agnostics by some, usually take a stand saying that they believe no gods exist, but consider the matter unprovable or unknowable. All of the categories above are similar in the position of mostly not engaging with or against any religious organization or claim.
On the other hand, firebrand atheists, strong atheists, new atheists, anti-theists, and atheists+, to name a few, are actively engaging against all of the organized religions, and against all religious claims. They will protest, they will actively make the case that religious people are wrong, and some will make the case that religion is intimately linked with many kinds of evil.
The group that you did not mention and is arguably the most important is the secularists, or people working for the separation of church and state.
You might be right in saying that some of the above are almost identical, but it would be a historical mistake to put them all in the same bag.
@@MrYelly PS. There are cherry pickers in every religion and every religious organization and every atheist group. There are Jews who eat pork, and Catholics that believe that a sacramental wafer is just bread, and strong atheists that believe in ghosts. There are even Bible literalists who believe that Noah's Ark did not literally exist. Thank God, or the Cosmos, all of us human beings are cherry pickers.
@@MrYellyno, he’s right. Much of the people who say they have no religion, if you ask further, might tell you they are “spiritual.”
This is very vague, so there’s no set definition. But often this means the person doesn’t adhere to organized religion but still believes in a creator or deity. We often conflate the two but more and more people are seeing them as separate.
All the moral values attributed to the Judeo Christian religion were recognized throughout the world thousands of years before any word of them were written in any form, Biblical or otherwise, and were adopted by many thousands of religions and attributed to many thousands of gods adopted before and since the invention of Jesus. All those thousands of gods are equally real, as human subjective creations, and none has ever required objective evidence as a prerequisite for their creators to believe in them. The subjective reality of gods is not in question, it is their objective reality that has never been demonstrated.
No it wasn’t.
Bingo!
I feel I've been drawn to spirituality, but it's basically just resigning to the fact of "I really don't know, and I'm at peace with it".
I was more "decidedly" atheist when I was younger but now I am as agnostic as you can be. Maybe it's sentimentality/delusion of old age but it seems as if there's something connecting all far beyond our human consciousness.
I suppose the bigger point is...how the hell could we ever know? It's all a mystery, my eyes are wide open. So for that reason I've become an "extreme agnostic" in the last few years. I've also stopped worrying about it for that very reason though.
You don’t have to be certain a God doesn’t exist to be described as an atheist, you just have to not be convinced that one does.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.
You're asking how could we ever know about a phenomenon that you just created by way of a feeling or a perception you have. If that's the premise by which you shift towards spiritual belief then its a match made in heaven.
@@MichaelAChristian1 The more I learned about Christianity, the less I believed it to be true.
@@sum8601 Something beyond this life is entirely possible, that's all I'm saying. It would be ignorant to conclusively say that this plane of consciousness is all there is.
All I'm saying is I can't conclusively state either way, and that embracing that there are mysteries beyond that the human collective will never comprehend is an entirely rational thought
This is a good convo.
Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?
"Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?"
It depends how you manipulate the numbers!
E.g. Some christians say that RC's are 'not real christians' and then in the same debate that christianity is the largest religion!
But w/o the 'RC group ' they are NOT the largest religion..
In the west yes, in the world as a whole religious believe is growing due too religious people getting more kids
Lowest it has ever been in America I think, but most people trying to promote religion like to ignore that
In the West, Europe, North America, religious belief is declining, but in other areas in the world it’s on the rise.
@@WerstoftheWorst Well, I bet it was lower in the first 100 yrs ;) but besides that, you're right
Ever noticed how apologists like to say that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God, but then go galloping on as if that is just a given, without ever actually presenting any evidence?
(26:35) "[Because Christianity came first in history as proponent of human rights, therefore human rights can only come from Christianity and intrinsically so.]"
What a load of crap. It's exactly like saying, "the plane was created in the west under a Christian society, therefore planes are an inventions of Christianity and therefore would never have happened."
Values may be present in Christianity, but none of them are exclusive to Christianity.
Justin is so polite and well spoken, that it’s easy to forget he’s full of shit…
Justin, bless him, is a bit too 'happy clappy' but means well.
@@iainrae6159 Yeah, I think he’s trying to be honest, but so much of what he says is nonsense.
He could give a master class in post hoc rationalisation
He’s really passive aggressive.
You guys were not affected at all by the intellectual arrogance and nievete of Dawkins. BTW Dawkins was the laughing stock of the academic world. It was only the popularist idea added to peoples general desire to blame God for their problems that gave him a platform - especially when God doesnt exist? How dare anyone be weak and nice like Julian - it doesnt fit into our dog eat dog NO MORALITY worldview. Pah
Thank you for this conversation Alex. I appreciate it. Can I suggest talking to Jonathan Pageau for another interesting Christian perspective.
As long as people don't want to die and believe they can "live for ever" through paradise, they will keep on justifing fairy tales and myths. This is what religion is all about.
But if you REALLY think about it, who wants to live forever?
Living forever would be bad enough (aka BORING ) but living forever worshipping god? Sounds like HELL!
And as long as they think "justice will be served", which at the end means simply not sharing such eternity with people they don't like.
@@robertx8020we are dealing with the crowd that believes a very fast process of macroevolution took place after a global flood where some of the descendants of a single couple of some generic bears evolved the guts of a carnivorous polar bear while others evolved the guts of a bamboo eating panda in less than 6000 years, but can't grasp the idea of evolution taking place over *billions* of years. You can't expect logic or understanding of time from people who believe their god existed nowhere before time and space existed.
@@robertx8020When I was younger what kept me up at night actually wasn't the idea of hell it was the idea of living forever. I figured that eventually like you said It would get boring, existentially boring. However, one time when I was dreading this fate a rather settling and peaceful thought came to mind that being if heaven truly was heaven there would be no existential threat. I figured either boredom to that degree wouldn't be capable of experiencing, or that heaven would be so infinitely blissful in uniqueness that it would never be horribly boring. This is only useful though if you buy the idea of God, heaven, and hell which judging by your comment you don't.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 And about the fact that some of the ppl you love now, might up in hell 'forever' while you are in heaven?
He has a kind of oblivious, desperate optimism about Christianity that is both endearing and frustrating at the same time.
Yes, Justin, only *your* myth became fact.
What a great conversation
"Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God".
While the belief in Gods is falling world wide, not increasing.
Morality comes from the obvious perception of the uniqueness and specialness of life. Religion takes this perception and invents god as the foundation of morality The ancient world is full of big mistakes, the earth is flat, the sun goes around the earth, disease comes from evil spirits etc. Religion is just another one of those big mistakes.
I know it's uncomfortable for me as someone who has spent only a bit over a month total in China to challenge an actual Chinese person on Chinese philosophy, but I would quite like to know how many Chinese people agree with claim that their traditional culture would simply be unable to articulate any argument against brutal tyranny.
Traditionally, they would have said that the ruling dynasty had lost the Mandate of Heaven and the people therefore had the right to rebel.
Wonderful conversation! Thank you!
Peterson gets pissed when he suspects you're telling him what he believes, yet has no problem proclaiming atheists don't really exist.
As a christian Peterson is a fraud
Alex is calm and allowed productive engagement, i don't believe in his religion of etheism, however i listening to his reason, thanks to Justine i love your show and looking forward to that book🙏
I must confess (pun intended)…
My initial comment was made before I was even close to finishing this video. As I continued to watch, it was comical to see that no matter what positive development Alex mentioned has taken place in modern society, Justin always assumes this positive development is only possible because of Christianity. Imagine a person who every time you tell them something good has happened in the world they say, “that is because of me”. Justin is doing the same thing only projecting it onto Christianity which just so happens to be his world view. I don’t know Justin personally. He may be a good person. But his ideas are stupid…On a tots side note, I have noticed that many people seem to think that being “smart” and being a “good person” go hand and hand. Having a “Big brain” does not mean one has a “good heart” and vice versa. There are many wonderful people out there in the world who are not “book smart”, who have not taken the time or perhaps have not had the time to formulate their ideas on these “deeper” subjects. And that is okay. Not everyone needs to be a “philosopher”….
That's a really good point, glad I thought of it
African and eastern European immigration has given Christianity a boost in the Uk, but it's still in terminal decline.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙️ Justin Briley hosted the "Unbelievable" show for 17 and a half years, focusing on Christian-atheist debates and discussions.
01:24 📚 Justin Briley is now working on a new book titled "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God," exploring the resurgence of interest in Christianity.
03:15 🇬🇧 Religious belief has been on the decline in the UK, with over half of people claiming no religion, but this doesn't necessarily disprove God's existence.
07:24 📢 New atheism emerged in response to religious extremism, especially after 9/11, aiming to challenge religious beliefs and promote atheism.
09:27 🤔 There's debate about the definition of atheism, whether it's a lack of belief in God or the belief that there is no God.
11:33 🧪 The new atheists argued that science contradicts religion, but this claim is based on selective, often outdated arguments.
15:20 🌎 The new atheists often portrayed religion as inherently bad, but there are counterexamples showing the value of religious contributions to culture.
20:06 📖 The new atheists criticized the Bible based on Christian values, revealing a cultural blind spot in their perspective.
20:47 🤔 Atheism's perspective can be shaped by cultural backgrounds, influencing how individuals view religious texts and morality.
23:20 📜 The critique of Old Testament morality can vary based on cultural context, with Judeo-Christian values forming a foundation for criticism.
26:32 💭 Judeo-Christian values have played a significant role in shaping Western moral frameworks, leading to ideas of equality, dignity, and human rights.
33:22 🏛️ A shift towards secularism in Western societies hasn't erased the influence of Christian ideals but has led to divergent interpretations and applications.
40:25 🙏 The decline of traditional religion has given rise to quasi-religious beliefs, such as those surrounding social justice, in contemporary culture.
42:31 🤔 People are searching for stories to make sense of their lives, but many contradict each other.
43:55 📚 The New Atheism movement has shifted its focus away from critiquing religion to other ideological concerns.
45:34 📜 Academics like Peter Boghossian have critiqued politically correct narratives in academia and their impact on academic freedom.
48:25 💡 The conversation about God and religion is changing, and some prominent atheists are recognizing the value of religion.
56:54 🙏 People like Douglas Murray and Tom Holland may not fully embrace Christianity, but they are exploring its merits and historical influence.
59:14 🧐 The shift towards recognizing the value of religion may lead to a more nuanced middle ground rather than outright conversions.
01:03:22 🤔 Jordan Peterson's idea: Jesus as the ultimate fictional character, approximating the ultimate myth.
01:04:01 🧐 The Christian myth as a foundational myth - subject to interpretation.
01:05:10 🙏 Jordan Peterson's focus on living life as if God exists, reflecting inner beliefs through actions.
01:06:36 💭 The role of surrender in faith, laying down intellectual questions in favor of belief.
01:07:31 🌟 Personal conviction and settled belief play a significant role in most Christian journeys.
01:09:51 🤝 Intellectual arguments alone may not lead to religious conversion.
01:13:44 🤔 Thought-provoking conversations and open-mindedness are contributing to the ongoing dialogue on belief in God.
Made with HARPA AI
How can god be dead, he was never alive
Briarly seems to think that popular non-believer UA-camrs turning away from "new atheism" in their content is a sign that people are turning back toward Christianity.
These people's incomes depend on their content. The content of New atheism isn't selling primarily because people are getting tired. Of course they're going to turn to something that generates more content consumption (often pseudo-libertarianism, anti-LGBTQ+, conspiracy theories and MAGA politics). Clearly Dawkins has done this and so have Douglas Murray and Boghossian.
Have their views changed? I don't think we can tell.
It's rather frustrating this touting of Judeo-christian values as if it is special, reliable, correct, righteous... Judeo-christian values have been brought to their 1950s modernity against the will of church leadershipand traditionalists kicking and screaming against every inch of social and civil progress. Judeo-christian values are the cart to the horse of Western progress.
Mere assertions.
Justin appears a nice 'happy clappy ' Christian type lad, though misses the point that the decline in religious belief has been ongoing over the last 100 years post WW1.
I am a Christian. I am excited about the increasing number of truly 'safe spaces' where open and respectful dialogue is happening. I believe that we can 'agree to disagree.' 'Safe spaces' are becoming in our culture, places where the only way to be 'safe' is to agree even if we do not agree, and if one does not agree then it seems the only conclusion to be made in our culture is that one must hate the other person. And this is not just in terms of religion. Thank you Alex for modelling respect for other world views because we all have one and they are complex. It's not about bashing, belittling, or dismissing. In the Bible God says, 'Come let us reason together.' I appreciate that you do not assume that to be a Christian, one has left reason at the door. I am not interested in trying to argue someone out of their world view or even worse, to shut down a conversation. Debates can be respectful and wonderful friendships can be had in spaces like you create. Thank you
To me it is amazing that Justin can on the one hand say, Christianity is the reason to promote equality and on the other hand admit that it's not in the Bible lol
I don’t believe in Christianity either, but you are straw-manning it in the extreme by saying equality is not [explicitly] in the Bible. While you are correct in a very, very narrow sense, you ignore the reference to the golden rule and the claim that all of humanity is made in the image of God. Those Christian claims underpin the West’s sense of individuality and equality.
I am always troubled by the argument that we need religion as a necessary scaffold for proper moral behavior. Our religious texts are wide open for interpretation and abuse… and it’s the ‘other guy’ that has the wrong interpretation. There is no central authority for interpreting these texts - what is being preached in a Southern Baptist congregation is different than what a charismatic congregation in a liberal college town. And every Christian must realize at some level that if he was born on the Arabian Peninsula, they would be a Muslim. So where does that leave us? We will never unite under a common religion, on the contrary, religion will continue to be one of the most divisive forces ever invented. There are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone.
The religious argument also flies in the face of evolutionary factors. We are an ape, yes we are - the evidence says so. As a species, we have existed in our current form for approximately 300,000 years. Higher primates have been around for Millions of years (Lucy). That’s millions of years before Moses, Jesus, and Mohamad. Yet… somehow… without any input from a major organized religion… we made it. We survived millions of years in conditions that were FAR worse than we can hardly imagine today. This is clear evidence we developed a basic moral framework that allowed humans to co-exist in groups. We are not solitary creatures; we rely on others to survive.
I also find it incredulous, and a bit insulting, that we “need us some Jesus” to know it’s bad to beat a child, rape, murder, cheat (especially when one sits down and actually studies the good-book - chocked full of immoral notions). But really, is this what Christians are saying? Are you telling us that if Jesus was proven false tomorrow every Christian would immediately descend into madness? And look at all the problems religion causes. The current conflict in the Middle East is rooted in stories in old books. All the death we are witnessing… all the violence, the poor children being buried under rubble… this hatred can be traced back to some promise a god supposedly made in an old book. In the United States, look at the KKK or the recent U.S. Capitol attack on Jan 6… these were driven by Christian Nationalist ideas.
Please, I think we do better, I don't think we have a choice - we just need to think better.
*Only for the **_lucky few_** ;*
In a world full of people pushing false religious beliefs, _at least as far as Christians are concerned,_ it's sad to see them assert that every one else is just making it up except for them.
Well at least for their _specific version/denomination_ of Christianity.
Only that's not true. Unless you only engage in debates with fundamentalists. Even the Apostle Paul claimed that pagans are a law unto themselves when following what their conscience tells them.
@@MrSeedi76 What's "specifically not true" about my comment ?
*A law onto themselves?*
As Christianity has a long history of being the single moral authority for many countries & cultures, and enforcing laws based on their religious beliefs, I see no reason to exclude them from your assertion.
Gotta love how Alex says he's willing to consider God existing, but Justin never says he's willing to consider the opposite.
The average age of attendees at churches and mosques is rising every year.
That is false at least in the west.
@@mevan883 meh, I don't know the statistics well enough but it seems that the vast majority of churchgoers in the last few decades have been the much older population, rather than younger people, despite the fact that the US has plenty of young people who could be going to church. This seems to suggest that the church will die out assuming the younger generations dont start going to church again
It’s progress to see people of differing worldviews come together and have a civil open minded conversation.
I hope we move away, in a broader sense, from the debate structure of I’m 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.
I don’t think we’re supposed to agree with anyone 100%. There are parts you can agree with, and parts you don’t. We’re all on a journey for knowledge, and valuable pieces of information/understanding can come from people who have a different perspective to you.
It would be nice to see you have a conversation with Iain McGilchrist.
For any given, specific claim, there is an answer. If one side claims there is a creator of the universe, that is either 100% correct, or 100% incorrect. If they start adding other claims alongside that, sure, the collection of claims isn't a binary of correct or incorrect... but for any of those claims individually, it would again be binary. Either a creator of the universe exists or they don't, either leprechauns exist or they don't, if leprechauns existed, they either control rainbows [in some manner] or not. If a creator of the universe exists, they either care about humans or they don't. They either care about whether you eat pigs, or mutilate the genitals of males [circumcision], or females for that matter [Though that one's a crime], or they don't.
Given the size of the universe, not just in space (Over 90 Billion light years in distance) but also in time (13.8 Billion years, at least since the big bang. Possibly/probably more before that) it's ludicrous to imagine a being responsible for creating that, who designed it with intent, and cares about the affairs of humans. One species, of billions, on one planet, of billions, in one galaxy, of billions. Not to mention if they can create "a" universe, nothing's stopping them from creating "more" universes. Improving on the design, and abandoning this failure. Maybe the next universe had more success in the old "finely tuning for life" department.