Atheist AMAZES audience! Apologist's Evening Prayer (CS Lewis) Alex O'Connor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Did C.S. Lewis repudiate reason as a means of comprehending and defending God? Atheist thinker Alex O'Connor @CosmicSkeptic surprised the audience of his dialogue with Justin Brierley @justinbrierley reciting Lewis's "The Apologist's Evening Prayer" from memory, before giving his take on its meaning.
Watch the full conversation here: • Is There a Rebirth of ...
For more thinking faith & a free copy of my audiobook: beacons.page/justinbrierley
There's a reason CSL said Christianity is not easy.
Today's Christians are even further removed from Christianity than were the Christians of his day.
How so?
@@scottgodlewski306 Lots of Christians see Christianity as a spiritual way of life and not as an intrinsic belief Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.
Lewis was also a broad church Anglican, which is far away from the average American Evangelical. He was also highly influenced by Romanticism and Owen Barfield.
@@mysteryman8122 Something you do and not something you believe?
"One last word. I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as the one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result when you go away from the debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the reality--from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another’s continual help--oremus pro invicem. (Let us pray for each other.)"
- C.S. Lewis
I love Justin. How very well he responded to a "slightly off'" comment from Alex. Totally ready to respond to his, "I think it's quite a damning report on the use of reason in this sort of argument for God's existence and quarrel over religion."
Justin responds with, "I think that was a prayer that Lewis was saying for himself, "deliver me from believing that I can do your job for you, God,"
I suck at poetry, but,
"From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;"
It would seem to me that Lewis could very legitimately be seen to be chiding himself if he were to take any thought for himself. I'm reminded of J.I. Packer whom I was privileged to get to know a bit. When he was being given a glowing introduction at a particular event or another, I heard him say, on two occasions I think, God, forgive me for enjoying that. I loved Dr. Packer. Packer loved Lewis and was a student at Oxford while Lewis taught there. Although I'm not sure they ever met. This interpretation I'm offering for these lines from Lewis, are supported by Lewis in Chapter 14 of The Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape rightly points to God's intent,
"His whole effort, therefore, will be to get the man’s mind off the subject of his own value altogether. He would rather the man thought himself a great architect or a great poet and then forgot about it, than that he should spend much time and pains trying to think himself a bad one."
A very similar caution concerning our vanity comes in the line,
"Take from me all my trumpery lest I die."
So very good on Justin. The quick response was you knowing your stuff. It was reminiscent of your (former?) colleague, Ruth Jackson in her interviewing of Dan Barker & Dr Carolyn Weber. There, Ruth Jackson was pretty near the star of the show. At 1;16;00 she responds to Dan Barker's rejection of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord trilemma with what Lewis was actually directing the trilemma toward and gets him (Dan) to conclude with Lewis that, the "good moral teacher" was not an option. Dan rejects it saying he was not a good moral teacher (exactly what Lewis said, quote, "But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.") Dan seemingly also rejects him as Lord, but does he prefer liar or lunatic. As far as I can tell he doesn't tip his hand.
Just like Justin here, Ruth knew her stuff there.
Great job Ruth.
Yes, it is ultimately impossible to convince someone else to enter into a relationship with God. To choose to love God. All the apologist can do is reveal that this “direction”, this choice, is reasonable. That this “relationship” is worth exploring. Reason does help us arrive here. It is a crucial step.
Is Alex the most well liked (by Christians) atheist on RUclips? Certainly seems like it.
Honest atheists are well liked. Besides Alex, Tom Holland and Douglas Murray come to mind.
Honestly been enjoying bits of his stuff. Good Arguments and classy.
@@theexurian1079
What would you say is his best argument against God’s existence?
@@samdg1234 Douglas Murray is popular among Christians largely just because he's conservative and thinks the West was built on Christian values, not so much for making actual concessions to Christian apologetics. But I do find the guy pretty likeable and even as a liberal atheist I still get the appeal
@DANGJOS yeah I've heard a lot of people call him the new Hitchens which in many ways I think he is but their main difference is that Hitchens was the best new atheist at making enemies even on his own side and Alex is the best at not just being diplomatic but actually making friends on both sides
I can't help but love Alex O'Connor.
“The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Jeremiah 17:9&10.The heart is deceitful above all things….
@@samdg1234 is that why even when your heart tells you that killing children is bad you must obey it because a voice in your head which you identify as yahweh told you to do so?
I don't think Lewis' conversion was primarily intellectual. I believe his thoughts recognised at some point where pure reason and intellect seen as understanding and logic would take him, away from all good, life and beauty, and then was able to let go of it to an extent and trust something else in him. He didn't reject reason, but put it in it's place, as one tool. He slowly started to trust his imagination and heart by letting go of what we call the intellectual to some extent.
This must not be confused with ancient concepts of the intellect, which encompass also the imagination and other faculties, and is a quite different concept.
He spoke that poem so well, but I agree with Justin's interpretation. It's a poem for oneself, a poem for someone who knows he is very intelligent, but remembers he is only an image of the Creator, and needs only to rest in Jesus, lest he be like a rich man who cannot enter the kingdom.
Perfect message for JBP, and many of us❤
Yeshua/Jesus said it only took a mustard seed amount of faith. A lot of people determined that meant that’s all the measured amount was required to believe without evidence, but the alternate is that there is so much evidence that the only amount of faith required is a mustard seed size because that’s all the evidence allows.
99% certainly, 1% faith.
Brilliant stuff and great interpretation from Justin. God bless Alex.
Excellent response, keep it up Justin
Guys, i know Alex is well liked by Christians. He is a nice guy, but he doesn't seem to be anywhere close to becoming religious. Besides, many religions out there, who knows which one he may choose (if he ever does ofc lol).
Yeah, people in here just can’t seem to fathom an atheist who recites a religious poem in a RELIGIOUS discussion won’t drop on his knees and convert on the spot.
I’ve followed this dude for years, have watched many of his discussions, and knows EXACTLY what it would take to convert him. He’s not converting anytime soon. And yet people in here who have watched him have a single discussion act as if they know better. The hubris I tell you.
@@_Sloppyhamwhat exactly would it take to convert him
@@Abhiraj_Jana since none of the evidence that Christians have presented to him are convincing to him, he said the only thing would be a profound personal experience. He also recognizes that is something that would only be convincing to him and couldn’t really be used to convince other people.
That was beautiful ♥
Where can we see Alex OConnor live?
Most excellent! I was worshipping our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ during Alex's rendition of Lewis's prayer! He (Alex) is not far from The Kingdom!! I truly love that young man! Thank you, Justin, for all of your Kingdom work, bravo! RnMT
Amen!
He's actually pretty far away. While he can understand the beauty of faith in Christ, he has many, many reasons he doesn't think it is true. Divine hiddenness, the problem of suffering (evil if you grant there is a God) and biblical contradictions give him reason to not accept it as true.
If Alex ever becomes Christian (and we should all pray for that) he will be surely one of the top Christian apologists of our time.
I thank God for choosing Israel to bring The Holy Scriptures ( referred to as the Old Testament)thru history to my generation…. allowing me to know what God is like.Not a man ,never was and never will be
Whats the background music😅
What is the music used in this video? It sounds absolutely stunning!
The World Awaits by Jo Wandrini
@@Birdieupon thank you very much. Good premises❤
There is a love within reason that will take you beyond reason to what reason always sought
Wow
I love Justin. How very well he responded to a "slightly off'" comment from Alex. Justin was totally prepared to respond to Alex's, "I think it's quite a damning report on the use of reason in this sort of argument for God's existence and quarrel over religion."
Justin responds with, "I think that was a prayer that Lewis was saying for himself, "deliver me from believing that I can do your job for you, God,"
I suck at poetry, but, from this,
"From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;"
It would seem to me that Lewis could very legitimately be seen to be chiding himself if he were to take any thought for himself. I'm reminded of J.I. Packer whom I was privileged to get to know a bit. When he was being given a glowing introduction before speaking at a particular event or another, I heard him say, on two occasions, I think, "God, forgive me for enjoying that." I loved Dr. Packer. Packer loved Lewis and was a student at Oxford while Lewis taught there. Although I'm not sure they ever met. This interpretation I'm offering for these lines from Lewis are supported by Lewis in Chapter 14 of The Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape rightly points to God's intent,
"His whole effort, therefore, will be to get the man’s mind off the subject of his own value altogether. He would rather the man thought himself a great architect or a great poet and then forgot about it, than that he should spend much time and pains trying to think himself a bad one."
A very similar caution concerning our vanity comes in the line,
"Take from me all my trumpery lest I die."
So very good on Justin. The quick response was you knowing your stuff. It was reminiscent, to me, of your (former?) colleague, Ruth Jackson in her interviewing of Dan Barker & Dr Carolyn Weber. There, Ruth Jackson was pretty near the star of the show. At 1;16;00 she responds to Dan Barker's rejection of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord trilemma with what Lewis was actually directing the trilemma toward and gets him (Dan) to conclude with Lewis that, the "good moral teacher" was not an option. Dan rejects it saying he was not a good moral teacher (exactly what Lewis said, quote, "But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.") Dan seemingly also rejects him as Lord, but does he prefer liar or lunatic. As far as I can tell he doesn't tip his hand.
Just like Justin here, Ruth knew her stuff there.
Great job Ruth.
Another option is Legend, and that is the option Barker prefers, though he views even the legend as not morally worthy.
@@truncated7644
You say, *"Another option is Legend, ..."*
But that misses the point and causes me to wonder that you know how the trilema is to be applied.
The best way I can think to attempt an explanation is through an analogy.
Consider the fictional character Sherlock Holmes. I'm no huge fan, but according to Wikipedia, "The character Sherlock Holmes first appeared in print in 1887's A Study in Scarlet." which is enough for us. The trilemma for Sherlock Holmes might go that Sherlock was either a detective, a hockey player or an astronaut. So to the best of my knowledge Sherlock Holmes was a detective, and there was no indication that he was either a hockey player or an astronaut. Only an incompetent reader could read "A Study in Scarlet" fictional or not and think that he was either a hockey player or an astronaut. To enter into a discussion about whether the book is fictional or not is to be answering a total different question to what an accurate, skilled reading of the text should communicate. It is irrelevant to the question of "What was Sherlock Holmes's occupation?" as to its fictional/non-fictional status.
It is the same with the question under consideration about Jesus. The legend/non-legend status has nothing to do with the question of whether Jesus was just a good-moral teacher as communicated in the Bible.
Here is how Lewis put it,
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
@@samdg1234 I follow your argument. I'm not a mythicist. When I say legend, by that I mean the stories about Jesus show legendary development. People told stories about Jesus to create converts. Before a written text stabilized the narrative, stories that were more effective in creating converts were retained and embellished. C.S. Lewis' argument hinges on the historical accuracy of gospel accounts. If the gospels include narratives that make theological points of interest to the gospel writers 30, 40 and 50 years after Jesus' life, I don't think it is unreasonable to view the veracity of the claims with skepticism.
@@truncated7644
You say,
*"I follow your argument"*
But then go to,
*"C.S. Lewis' argument hinges on the historical accuracy of gospel accounts."*
In the second quote here, if the argument that you are referring to is the trilemma argument, I don't see how you claim to follow my argument.
My argument is that C.S. Lewis's trilemma argument does *not* rely upon the historical accuracy of the gospels, but merely accurate reading of the *'story'* whether that story is factual, legend, myth or otherwise. The person claiming Jesus to be merely a good moral teacher is supposedly making this claim on the basis of the *'story'.* Lewis seems to be saying that a competent reader of the *'story',* can't make this claim on the basis of the *'story'.* No more than the competent reader of "A Study in Scarlet." could claim Sherlock Holmes was employed as an astronaut.
But I seem to be repeating myself. I don't know how to make my point clearer.
Thanks!
I pray that one day, Alex realizes the Truth, and puts his faith in Jesus!
Do the people here posting about how much they like Alex's sincere search for God realize how his non-resistant non-belief conflicts with the Bible's declaration that God is adequately revealed and that all are subject to judgment who don't believe? Alex is the embodiment of the divine hiddenness argument. He is an atheist hero in that he makes this so very clear. Christians who can't accept that say "he is so close" and hope and pray he converts. Otherwise, they would have to say he just wants to sin and refuses to bow down before his Lord. Well, which is it?
Reason's capacity is finite, it has its limits, its scope. It has its role and place in the human condition but it cannot determine and circumnavigate that condition.
It's a poem a nice poem that happens to be from any religion since all have their benefits and beauty does medating mean someone will be a Buddishit
Lovely recitation, Alex!
And yes, I agree Lewis was asking to be delivered from pride, and from considering himself a martyr when people laughed at him, etc., but in the modern age it's fully legitimate to set aside authorial intent and co-create meaning with the author. I think you turned the coin around and showed its other side.
Except Alex sadly missed the golden nugget of truth in Lewis’ poem. There is a such thing as truth, and when found must be correctly understood, and not twisted to fit an incorrect idea. If all truth can be twisted to whatever fleeting and incorrect meaning we want, then there is no truth. This is not a dig at Alex because he’s on the right path. He is almost there.
The laughter is from him telling a joke or maybe a funny barb in order to score points and get a response from the audience. He is viewing himself (in that moment of their laughter) as a victor, not a martyr.
Lewis is speaking about the dangers of Oxbridge-style ready wit and cleverness that seeks to entertain, overawe, or impress for self-aggrandizement as a pitfall along the narrow way to God.
Poor Kierkegaard...
Beautiful, Alex. You’re almost home.
And then biblical slavery comes up...
you're almost home to your massacre-loving god ❤
@@weedloland massacres, and lamd theft, rape apologies, blackmailing, generational curses and punishment, etc.
@@eprd313 and at the center of it The Cross where God Himself bore all the pain, shame, betrayal and death and rose on the third so that whosoever believes in Him shall no perish but have everlasting life...❤
@@MalsawmkimaKhawlhring you can't deceive rational empathetic people with your narcissistic god's weekend performance. Palestinian kids are suffering a thousand times more than Jesus suffered from Thursday to Friday, for what? To save his own flawed creation from himself so that he won't torture us for ever and ever if we bow down and worship him? You people are nuts, really
Alex familiarity with the bugs in the code of christianity , is astounding..He's sees the emporer, and enumerates the so called clothes.
What Alex is identifying here is a bug in the code of modernity.
The insight he shares comes directly from C.S. Lewis. He is restating a very Christian critique of a modernist, pseudo-Christian approach to reasoned argument.
Perhaps he was a bit drunk.
As a Catholic, I find Alex's humility and generosity of spirit endearing. I hope to be as kind and welcoming when I debate atheists.
Alex is smart and knowledgeable enough to adopt a more arrogant (Dawkinsian?) posture when engaged with Theists, but he chooses to remain respectfully skeptical, not dismissive or insulting. This posture invites reciprocation on the part of his Christian interlocutors and makes their discussions far more interesting and valuable.
Like other non-Theist thinkers and scientist on RUclips lately, like Tom Holland, Douglas Murray, Bret Weinstein, and John Vervaeke, I think Alex recognizes the philosophical power, objective beauty, and socio-cultural value of Christianity, while also remaining a critic of it's darker historical and institutional expressions, its unanswered questions, and its ultimate reliance on personal intuitions and experiences to ground ones faith.
These secular intellectuals are increasingly popular with Christians because they challenges us without denigrating us. This is a good basis for helping us move away from the old "conflict thesis" paradigm into a meta-modern synthesis of faith and reason that can help society recover from our current crisis of meaning.
God bless Alex O'Connor.
Alex is closer to Sam Harris,they both get the oneness of being.
I couldn't help but come back over here and comment again.
I'm just watching Alex in the just-released episode of him at the Dissident Dialogues.
And to my understanding, he got Lewis wrong over there, too. ruclips.net/video/IhfAfEh3g5Y/видео.htmlsi=5kUSLErmzkgi5lIY&t=914 and not just "The Apologists Evening Prayer" mentioned there as well.
The limits to human reason...imagine such limits exist...hmm...!
Reason can only take you so far, (the Christian) God is utterly uninterested in mere mental assent to his existence. God want's you to love him and have a relationship with him, that is not a mental pursuit. Think of it this way I have a friend Eric lets say that I give you all facts about him, do you know him and love him? Of course not you've never met him.
A reason based approach can get you to accepting God's existence but that is the tiniest step of what God wants from you. The real heavy lifting at that point remains ahead of you.
So what happens if a reason-based approach convinces you there is most likely nothing to love or submit to? Is being wrong about that worthy of damnation?
*quotes C.S. Lewis*
"HE'S ALMOST A CHRISTIAN"
@Treesandmountains 💀💀💀 funny enough, christians say something similar when a christian becomes an atheist.
Or the common theist response to the alternate "conversion" - "He was never a real atheist."
Alex is a real cross-tease.
Alex put tears in my eye.I can’t wait for the day when Alex will not only say it but believe and declare it on his channel.I know this day will come
Doubt it, but you can keep your hopes up
Yeah I doubt it too. He knows too much. At that point, you just can’t unsee some things. He’ll be sympathetic towards christianity as acknowledge its use in society and how it brings meaning to many. But that’s about it.
@@docmanhattan7675 Or it could be that he knows too little (as we all do), and that he's yet to see more things
@@franzchristianvelasco9693 there are things once you learn about Christianity you can’t unlearn them. It’s very obvious that Christianity (or any religion) isn’t true once you start studying it. The closest we can get to a truth of creation is either deism or atheism. Either no God/gods exist or there is a deistic God or gods that created the universe and he or they are totally indifferent to the happenings within its creation.
Dementia could come early I suppose.
And reason brings us to the moment we choose “relationship” with our Creator. For this we embrace faith. We move beyond mere reason.
In what sense are you using the word faith? Please define it.
@@samdg1234 are you in a relationship ? Did you use reason when deciding if you wanted to pursue the relationship? Once you get into the relationship you move from just reason to having faith in the individual and relationship. You don’t know everything about them. You are taking a calculated risk. You have faith in them, but you got to this point by using reason.
Hallelujah!!! I’m blessed and favored with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and support the work of God and the church. For Your glory, LORD! HALLELUJAH!
Oh really? Tell me more! Always interested in hearing stories of successes.
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
Alex is going to convert to Christianity one day.
Imagine making a career out of challenging Christianity all while borrowing from it for moral, intellectual, epistemological, metaphysical, scientific, philosophical, et al, capital. 😂😂😂😂
or imagine using the moral, intellectual, epistemological, metaphysical, scientific, philosophical capital to conduct an internal critique of Christianity and finding it lacking, as Alex does. Alex, as do I, want to know there is a loving God, but our human minds don't find the evidence, particularly for Yahweh, to be convincing.
@@truncated7644 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 again demonstrate how a metaphysical ultimacy of magical mindless material provides those preconditions. You can’t. Atheism is adorable.
@@truncated7644 there is no evidence apart from the Triune God who made the facts of reality what they are. Bullcrap you want to know God exists.
@@truncated7644 atheists don’t want God to exist because they’d have to give up their illusion of autonomy
Love this post. Absolutely spot-on! ❤
Very meaningful. But I wish I could turn off the soaring music. Truly distracting and so unnecessary.
If you hate the music that much, you'll be relieved to know there's no music under it in the video of the full event! (see the link in the info)
atheism is great
but christianity is better
In my opinion
C. S. Lewis the Christian hitchens, overrated and arrogant
I wouldn‘t quite put him in the same category as Hitchens, but as a Christian I fully agree that Lewis is one of the most if not most overrated Christian defenders. He seemed to want to provide rational arguments for Christianity that could be reconciled with the Christian theology of his time. The free will defense of hell, the naturalistic fallacy etc. I think he limited himself to his era and was forced to rely on weaker arguments for Christianity because of that.
@Treesandmountains You don't like Hitchens. That is irrelevant. Instead of smearing his character in the most un-Christian way, can you tell us what he said that was wrong? Also, it seems you attribute a change of character to Lewis' conversion. Where is your evidence of this supposed change?
@@tzenophile I think you missed what Treesandmountains was saying. This was purely a comparison of character, which was on full public display for us to be able to compare.
Alex is so close! ❤ “For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
1 Corinthians 15:53
You apparently haven't watched any of his other content, because he's no where close to believing in christianity.
he called an indictment to strawman the whole thing