This was a great discussion. I've been a longtime fan of Jonathan Haidt's work, but had not previously heard of Rev. Keller, but will now try to look him up and learn more about his work, as result of this video.
"consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith" (Hebrews 13:7) I'm so thankful for the impact and legacy of pastor and theologian Tim Keller (1950 - 2023) who today passed into eternity
@@oliviakramer2245 I just have some hastily scribbled down in a number of places, I would recommend listening to the sermons with pencil and paper at the ready.
Hmm , ever hear of Christopher Hitchens? ruclips.net/video/HaBIDUYWKzA/видео.html Genius, cerebral, ( if not , just wow ) read every book ? Library , Be amazed, then we also have the amazing , calm, eloquent Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,, I just love eloquent, cerebral, funny people who help us evolve intellectually and broaden our minds, we must not follow blindly Just saying worth sharing and we need to start to think Sheeple and a follower? Some want to not stretch and be a thinker, Hay they got you .. Ya think?
Nelson Cummings The problem is that Athiests can become easily trapped inside an echo chamber. I am an evolutionist, but I find great wisdom and actual concrete moral truth from many wise Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus. The problem is when we hear someone speak and discount everything they say without actually listening to their thoughts and doing the hard work of using logic to doing battle with those ideas in our minds. I’m often guilty of lacking empathy and humility in my discussions with others and it is something I must continue to be mindful of.
This was one of the most interesting of all the Forums I’ve listened to. Mainly because although they disagree on God, they agree on other issues. In a world where so many people are constantly angry in their discussions, it was nice to hear one where the students got an opportunity to hear what a great discussion on a good topic sounds like. Very well done! Thank you for this presentation.
Because it’s a question that has no reasonable answer. It is difficult to experience a thinking human who can accept evil AND a loving god. It’s nonsense.
My favorite video / lecture in many many years. This kind of collaboration is exactly what we need right now. I can't share & like enough, but I will try try try.....
A long time fan of both of these men. I am coming back to this video four years later for a second or third listen. My first impression back in 2017 was that I wanted them to get deeper, disagree and debate more explicitly. I was concerned they were self-censoring their public conversation in an effort to model a civility that was more necessary than the issues they were speaking about. In 2021 this has aged well, but the environment of the Coddling of the American Mind is even more intense. It is hard to imagine moral teachers better equipped for the issues the world and the emerging generations of Americans are dealing with today. Incredibly thankful for them both and Veritas for hosting. Wholly encourage anyone tempted to read (and listen to) all you can by both of these men.
the fact that keller didn't bring up the blind men holding on to different parts of the elephant, shows his restraint in the pursuit of agreement with haidt.. Cuz I would argue that's exactly where haidts view of others is originating
8 Minutes in, and Keller is already criticizing John Rawls. I love this guy. For a great rebuttal of John Rawls' "Theory of Justice", check out "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.
This is an excellent discussion. I think that Jonathan Haidt is right-on about identity politics as a way of invalidating your opponent by teaching young people to make slurs against and not engage in intellectual arguments or solving injustice, but instead linking them to racism. we need convincing arguments not forcing intimidation.
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, thanks Veritas for bringing these thoughtful and respectful conversation partners together - a model of how we might implement pluralism in practice today!
Agree, empathy and the understanding that a social contract to respect one another is a benefit to all. It’s in our DNA. part of what makes us a little different than our chimp cousins.
I love how Tim Keller brings up the non-provable aspect of morality. When people take the view that it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, it actually flies in the face of reason. We live in a world where we won't always understand everything, and where having scientific explanations for everything is actually irrational and, frankly, deadening. We live in a world where it is always necessary to believe in something. Some are just appalled at the idea of believing in God/Jesus, even when there are true reasons to do so. AND, yes! So on point about true Christianity being humbling. The center of our faith is one who died for love, and for the love of us sinners no less.
Good to see a program on the late Tim Keller. I still remember that review on Yelp about Redeemer Presbyterian Church. Nothing I've ever heard or read about Redeemer has ever been proven more accurate or cogent. Excerpts edited for brevity and clarity: COMMENT: I have been to Redeemer West side and East side services. I still go from time to time. I used to take part in several of the volunteer opportunities at Redeemer. So why only 3 stars? Because a church is more than just a pastor. Now there is no perfect church. But there are some serious things lacking here: First of all, there is no prayer meeting or focus on corporate prayer for the entire church. The very basic part of the Christian faith that Jesus himself said with his own lips was Matthew 21:13. "It is written," He said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers." Prayer is just talking to God, it doesn't require any special talent, skill or training. So the lack of prayer at this church is very alarming to me. And I haven't heard anyone speak of repentance at Redeemer --- ever. Again, I have listened to hundreds of sermons and been to at least a hundred services both on the West and East sides. The church ministries are called "ministries" but are run like any secular organization. Redeemer Presbyterian is run like a business, a well-oiled corporate machine, and not a church. The other 2 things which are cultural and not spiritual but are off-putting to me are: 1. Most of the members and regular visitors to Redeemer are transplants, not New Yorkers, so the church is a large city church but run like a small town church where there are very few native New Yorkers. It seems most of the members are not established in the city and are just passing through. 2. The other is that it seems the majority of the congregation is looking for a spouse, and very aggressively. When you walk in, the first thing people do is look at your hand for a ring, and then are bold enough to ask if it is a wedding ring. That experience is not unique to me, but to all of the guests I bring here. In addition, in any volunteer group I have been to, the small talk from both men and women centered around trying to find a spouse. Then the few married people were usually complaining about their marriages. The pastor knows about this, and does see it as a problem because he addresses it in his sermons. But people don't seem to listen. It is like they are all living in 1950's rural America. One other major problem I have with the church is that it is mostly white and Asian. I believe the reason is that the congregation ---- and this is not the pastoral team's fault --- seems to be focused on their careers and making money, and not on God at all. God is there to bless their agendas; this is how they seem to operate. I believe this is true for a few reasons. One, the culture of the church and focus of the congregation seems to be on Whites and Asians who make good money and have high-end careers, rather than on God. A huge basic tenet of the Christian faith is Death to Self. But at Redeemer, when you hear testimonies approved by the pastoral staff, they usually start with the person's professional credentials. I do not see any Death to Self there, but actually the opposite: It's "Look at what I can do for God because of my high income and education." It is not wrong to have a high income or education as a Christian. But the focus (at Redeemer) is wrong. So for these reasons, I think the church is best for those who are not Christians yet but are seekers of God, or those established in the faith already. It is not good in my opinion for the average believer looking for a home church. The church in my opinion is more intellectual than spiritual.
Professor Haidt would do well to have a discussion with Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron is a Catholic intellectual well versed in Philosophy, Theology, cultural issues, history etc. He has a worldwide audience and he's a great communicator. It would be an engaging and fruitful discussion.
First, a great discussion I am happy to have come across. I expect to return often to The Veratis Forum. To add to Tim Keller's comments on suffering- As a member of the Mormon faith, a huge part of our understanding of God's plan for us is agency. We have the freedom to act, and have always had this freedom- it is inherent in what we are. While we can use that agency for good, we are also free to use it for bad, and so to summarize this idea as simply as possible, much of the world's suffering then is a product of this agency- the choices some might make which inflict suffering on others, the choices we ourselves might make which bring us suffering and so forth. God will respect this agency regardless of it's externalities. I also believe that there is light in the concept of working in this life to become like God. Through suffering... though it should be stated that suffering isn't the only avenue for this learning or progress, there are myriad ways of which suffering is only one... we become more like Him as we gain patience, empathy, strength etc. However, it would be ignorant to ignore the countless examples where suffering does not bring these kinds of benefits, or teach us God-like lessons. It is with these scenarios where faith in Christ's atonement is the only answer. His power to make whole the weak and broken. To have faith that those that have suffered will find peace, not in death, but in life beyond this one. And so it's beneficial to remember, this life is a means to different ends, it is not the end itself. The claims of the Christian faith are lofty, to be sure, but I have faith in them and that faith is a living thing.
Maybe we suffer because we love, God’s greatest expression of love was seen in His own suffering in Christ crucified, a self sacrificing act, the epitome of real love we give our life daily for others
It is about the attitude. But it's also about the government. The government ruins everything. By trying to gain political power thru grievance and resentment, we are destroying the ideals of tolerance.
Four Ways in which Christians are exclude: Elimination(get them out), domination(you can be in my space but you have to have an inferior spot, Assimilation( you're ok as long as you go along), Abandonment(you may have needs but I don't care). Do We really want a truly pluralistic society and how we can get there. allowing Christian speech? Human Rights 9:58
Well done, but I wish guys like you could give more specific examples of how to deal with ideas that seem to threaten our very idea of what is basic to survival, or at least to the well being of our children. For example, how do you have a conversation with someone who supports a law that installs curriculum dealing with sexual identity that not only does not line up with science, but tears down everything you are teaching in your home about the subject.
New Amsterdam was pretty close to pluralistic because no one group could survive without the others. (See the book, Island at the Center of the World) I suspect this is the only way pluralism can take hold. Even then it's iffy. Majorities are not fond of dissent, much less opposition.
We’ve lost meaning with the push for secularism. The scientific answer is great for the researcher and practitioner in many cases, because of possibly the intrinsic value for those persons, however for the common person and other professionals science can hold little value in the manner of meaning, numbers don’t often if ever hold deep emotional connotations!
Right away it appears Haidt's world view and religion is social Darwinism for which there is no empirical evidence. "We evolved to...blah, blah, blah...tribalism..., blah, blah blah", is his evolutionary belief system. His personal world view reigns supreme. Which is fine, he's a learned academic. However he doesn't seem recognizant of this, or at least, acknowledge the possibility that his own beliefs may be false or only partially true. I think this hobbles him greatly in a discussion over pluralism and the differing world views in society.
Haidt states that "Gold is more valuable than silver" is a fact and not his opinion, and this is how we can develop moral values. But what he fails to mention is, that there is a standard (the metals market)that we can point to, that makes it a fact. If it is wrong to murder, then Haidt needs to point to something outside of his opinion to indicate what makes it wrong. Keller rightly pointed out to him that he is just espousing moral relativism.
Nick Ioakimidis I agree with one caveat. Gold is only worth more than sliver if you appeal to that index. In fact, it is not more valuable. There are many times this is true. What if you have gold, but what you need is sliver? Then sliver is more valuable. What if gold is extremely down on the market & silver is extremely up (happens), then silver is worth more than gold by the standard. What if in the future you had a replicator (like in Star Trek)? Then the value of gold vs silver, only comes down to what it takes to replicate it. That may make food more valuable than both, due to complexity. It is not a fact that gold is worth more than silver. It does take more money to buy gold though, right now.
another obvious problem with 'emergent morality', as he explained it, is if human rights have indeed 'emerged' via cultural interaction over time, then they cannot be universal in the timeless sense, because if they 'emerged', they can 'disappear' as well. there's nothing concrete upholding them outside of human interactions. so yes, that's just another fancy bit of moral relativism.
mackdmara That is not a weakness in his argument because he is implying economic value specifically in his example. It is factually accurate that gold is more economically valuable than are coconuts. However, if you are on a deserted island and need coconuts to survive, then coconuts are factually more valuable to your survival than is gold. That does not contradict the fact that gold is more economically valuable in the global marketplace. In other words, facts always have a context in which they exist, and one factual context does not inherently contradict another; indeed, that is merely a *different* fact altogether.
Rhyca Exactly. And it seems to me that truth (or valence) can be knowable, yet is applied differently depending on the context. I think many people see the varying ways that truth can manifest and think that it is, at its essence, completely relative and unknowable.
Haidt is the only speaker against identity politics who hasn't taken up the same tactics as those engaged in identity politics (snarkiness, attack, outrage, self-righteousness...) I am tempted to send this to some of them but I can no longer cope with their lunacy. They even have created their own new slurs (eg snowflakes, etc).
That is a good point. But I think it is out of sheer frustration and the need to describe what is happening. I definitely appreciate JH though. He aims to keep everyone on board rather than inadvertently causing more division.
The way I understand professor Haidt's speech is that he is basically saying that we need to create a religion (a religion of plurality). However, it would be a religion that's saying that the only turth is that there is no truth, which is in itself not a truth by its own definition. Furthermore, a created religion is not possible, for it is basically self-worshiping, only that the self is humanity instead of individuals. Well, we will never agree on how to worship ourselves, I don't think. Lastly, created or discovered, they are still religions. instead of worshiping god/gods, you worship humans as gods. What is the difference? In the end this is no religion vs. atheist talk, but talks between two different religion. I think.
Haidt says that he thinks the future is uncertain. What does that mean? What does an 'uncertain future' look like? A military takeover? Civil war? What??
I have a problem with the idea (of Miroslav Volf) that "assimilation" amount to excluding. In fact, it is the opposite! Assimilation is a social process and the necessary condition NOT to be excluded from a group or a society. What needs to be assimilated (or respected) to be accepted? These are the habits and customs, the mores, the great social codes (dress, moral, interaction and so on). In other words - the culture of a group or a society. Culture is what constitutes the cement of a society and what allows its members to really live together. Assimilation is not a matter of "opinion" as it is suggested here (6:44-6:48). It a necessary process in the formation and the perpetuation of groups or societies. "Necessary" because there is no possibility of a common life without an homogenous culture. A "truly pluralistic society" - a liberal dream - is an impossibility! Exclusion and inclusion are part of an unavoidable phenomenon and must be studied and examined from an anthropological, sociological (and even sociobiological) perspective and not a moral one! This fundamental process is part of the creation of a all societies. Social mechanisms have long been unconscious. Anthropology and sociology have brought them to light, but it would be very presomptuous to believe that because they are now known, they can be controlled or even ignore. Sooner or later, there will be a violent return of the repressed or the ignored. It will be interesting to analyse the tensions created by religions (mainly judaïsm and islam) which sanctify a cultural order considered to be "divine" and explicited in a thorah or a sharia. The main problem we see is precisely a "refusal of assimilation" with the inevitable consequence of a rejection by groups or societies that rightly see this refusal as a threat to their own cultural order! What is very interesting is that "elimination" and "domination" are strong tendancies of islam (and in a lesser extent in judaïsm), its texts and doctrine.
My answer to the question of why we have suffered. Without choice, there is no Love. God wanted a relationship with his creation. He wanted to Love us. We cannot know him if we do not have a choice to choose not God. If you are a fish in water, you do not know you are in water unless at some point you are a fish out of the water. The result of choosing not God leads to suffering because God is Love, and life and good. So not God, tends to result in being non-harmonious with his creation, which results in suffering. A person may prefer to be nonharmonious with creation in order to be a God unto himself. The fact is, it leads to pain because God is the Father of all that is good.
so the opposite of love is suffering? wouldn't it just be the 'absence' of love, which is apathy? I'm not sure suffering and apathy is remotely equivalent, no matter how much the bible tries to convince you otherwise.
Neglecting Rawl's resolution to stick to good reasons to agree isn't going to get us any closer to a pluralistic society. The paths of least resistance towards realizing our shared ambitions are the avenues where we have some chance still of encountering each other as fellow citizens, through the overcoming of those struggle we share in common, and a positive universal project of that sort demands universally acceptable reasons to coalesce.
It is unfortunate that NYU makes Haidt hesitant to get into specifics given the entire enterprise of accommodating conservative religion in a modern secular society lives or dies in the details.
Hi Ben. I think I understand your comment but I'd be interested in understanding it more fully (I'm sincerely asking, not being snarky). I did find Haidt's comments about not being able to discuss "sacred values" as disturbing. If you (or anybody) cannot engage with people about certain topics, then that strikes me as very problematic and a threat to true learning and exchanging of ideas...it's also a lead into a form of assimilation that I believe Keller was talking about (you are ok as long as you conform to whatever set of beliefs the social elite have determined are right for you).
I like Keller and his intellectual weight, but he´s a little short on the combined empirical basis of Christianity that goes with the foundations of pluralism and its issues of integrity. I´ll have to lay my thinking out more explicitly and contact him.
There is a quiet calm in Mr. Keller because he has the Holy Spirit in him. He is not on the defensive, about to attack or wanting to get his point across in any ill will manner. I do not see any of that in the other gentleman who does not have a higher power other than himself.
I would love to hear what these same people would think today. I wonder if they would notice the fact that the MainStreamMedia is mainly a Propaganda Machine. I wonder if they would recognize the very real "enemies" within who have played and are playing their part in the destruction of America. The entire world has a common enemy. I'll just call them the Globalists who are for the most a moral. They are in partnership with anyone who will support the end game... that is the global dominance of all people to the few who will end up directing every facet of life in the future, including life and death, who lives and who dies.
At 1:19:04, Haidt attempts to explain what a moral emergentist is. Does anyone think he is successful in even describing it as a real thing? As Keller says it sounds a lot like moral relativism.
Ok.... good talk ... but. Ignores social "loading". "loading" is a term that refers to the capacity of a "risk diverse system". Too much load & the system will fail. Or ... too little risk & the system will fail (adapt) or too much risk fail (grow).
*"Gold is objectively more valuable regardless of the culture/people"* That is quite ridiculous. Surely it is my want/need that determines value. I live in a world with little gold and lots of water. I'm in a jewelry store on a lakeside beach. The gold ring is virtually 1,000's of times more 'valuable' than water. I'm dying of thirst as I walk through the desert with gold jewelry an empty canteen. I'd give all of my jewelry for some water. My child is sitting in my jewelry store, surrounded by gold jewelry. He would happily have me trade all of the gold for a toy that he doesn't have.
What benefit is there in children being raped? And this question puts the free will argument that religious people appeal to to rest. Why? Because God gives the rapist his free will but ignores the free will of the child. There's no religious argument, let alone a good one, for the suffering in the world, especially of innocent children. If you can imagine a "benefit" or a "good thing" coming out of a child being raped, you've at least someone in common with the rapist. And that's how religious belief and rationalization poisons someone's mind. And Tim sounds like a very nice guy. But in order to protect his beliefs he has to make all kind of inhumane assumptions.
Hi there! Sharing this video of a rape victim who saw purpose in her tragedy: ruclips.net/video/P4JX47BG1go/видео.html. Really hope you have enough time to see it. I’d also like to understand more what you meant by having something in common with the offender when one sees meaning in sufferings.
I think it's largely a consequence of how common block/ignore functionality is nowadays, making it easy for people to isolate themselves into echo chambers. Personally I think any belief that can't withstand an honest conversation about truth isn't a good belief to have. I wouldn't have mentioned atheism/theism since it didn't seem on topic to this conversation at first glance, but the talk does bring it up and _man_ do I see a ton of theists simply ignore an explanation of why their evidence of god isn't logical (and therefore not actually evidence). It's frustrating, because I wish there was an easy way to get them to care about truth. I do think Keller's method (if you believe in A why don't you believe B) is great. _However it does seem to overvalue consistency and undervalue truth._ After all we can imagine some guy Gary arguing that leprechauns are the creators of the universe, and presenting a _perfectly internally consistent worldview_ about leprechauns. Would that consistency mean leprechauns exist? Of course it wouldn't. So how then do we help Gary know that his belief isn't justified by the evidence?
I would love to hear your views on A Case For Christ. The evidence for Jesus is quite different from leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and the like! This is coming from someone (me, and also the author of that book) who used to think Christianity was ridiculous. Obviously I didn't think so anymore for a variety of reasons. :)
@@taracrist4126 Well maybe go back and rewatch (or reread) The Case for Christ and tell me how many times extrabiblical evidence is provided for any supernatural claim of the Bible. That's why he takes a lot of time to focus on things he does have evidence of (like Christ _dying,_ where I think the evidence is fairly reasonable) and then by the time he gets to the supernatural claim (that Christ _resurrected_ ) mysteriously you'll notice there's no longer outside evidence corroborating the story. So then...there's no case.
I like much of what Tim Keller says, but I'm not always a fan of how he says it. I mean the way he prefaces his opinions with the statements of others. So-and-so says, Dershowitz wrote, philosophers have argued, etc. It lacks force and gives the impression he has no original thoughts of his own.
I'm with you that it gets a bit predictable. But he is quoting sources his intellectual opponents find credible in order to strengthen his case. He's arguing from within his opponents' framework in order to be more persuasive to them.
doing the opposite can create the impression that one believes ones every thought is wonderful because all you ever do is tell everyone about them. I think he went just a bit overboard in this talk but in moderation I approve.
I disagree completely with the first speakers' message about how unique and special christians are. It has been stated for far too long and gets in the way of pluralism.
I am not sure I heard Tim say that exactly (happy to be corrected though). I think he did say (here and elsewhere) that Christ and Christianity are unique and special and not necessarily, or even often, Christians themselves. But perhaps you would disagree with that too, which is fine. I think the point Tim was making was that making exclusive claims (like the one about Christianity) is not antithetical to pluralism, because, [1] everyone makes exclusive claims (even if they think they don't) and [2] pluralism, in this context, is about finding ways to co-operate and live together in the presence of moral frameworks that contradict one another.
Human rights are man-made, as every other moral or ethics source they hold dear - including the bible, the quran, talmud, etc. No one says human rights came from god. That's obvious. But I never heard a decent argument against any of the content of the human rights declaration. Only objections to its source: faliable humans. That's pretty weak imo. Human rights don't make destinctions between different people and their particular identities or characteristics. They don't imply in groups and out groups. Exactly the opposite of religious belief systems.
Yes, the Christian God is good. He is also love. But neither circumscribe Him. The governing attribute is holiness. i.e. total otherliness. "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not your thoughts. Evil necessarily has a symbiotic relationship with good. However, good has no need of evil. Evil does manifest/magnify good. Good, however, is good no matter if evil ever occurred or not. Evil is only evil in relation to good. The hope of Christianity is that evil will be extinguished at some point in the future (but not until all restraint is removed to show its true face).
Good for you. But, I see no indication that she wasn’t as happy listening to two bright minds as I, and unconcerned about their genital configuration and the pigmentation of their skin. I’m equally unconcerned about those in the moderator. She did a great job. The auditorium seemed well maintained too. Kudos to the staff responsible for that regardless of the same trivialities.
The "reason for suffering?" question: I would have thought that the place to begin would be Genesis. Adam/Eve were warned not to disobey God. By ignoring the warning, they brought shame, death and suffering, not only upon themselves, but upon all of their descendents. I wonder, how many atheists would really prefer to return to an idyllic existence, without death and suffering? An existence lived in total innocence of evil, without any opportunity to reject God and experience the pleasures of sin. Would they not themselves make the same choice as Adam and Eve, knowing it would lead to death and suffering? Do they (we) not make exactly that choice every day and every time we disobey God's commandments? God is “good” but He is not to be confused with Santa clause. He is also holy, just and righteous and will punish evil doers severely. Until that day, “the rain will continue to fall upon on both the just and unjust”. That seems most unfair, but we take God as we find Him. Our responsibility is not to excuse Him, but to accurately represent Him. It’s a pity that the pastor did not do so in answering this question.
Do a search : Child killing pathos in the bible. Religious belief may be healthy for some people, but don't ask me to accept something so ludicrous a deity obsessed with the trimming of male body parts or the interpretations of iron-age literature with loads of magic & allegory.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
This was a great discussion. I've been a longtime fan of Jonathan Haidt's work, but had not previously heard of Rev. Keller, but will now try to look him up and learn more about his work, as result of this video.
He is fantastic.
he is worth reading.
You won't be disappointed with Keller.
Mar Thivierge The a Reason for God is a modern classic. One of my favorite goto resources.
Daniel Wells wu7
"consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith" (Hebrews 13:7)
I'm so thankful for the impact and legacy of pastor and theologian Tim Keller (1950 - 2023) who today passed into eternity
😭😭🙏🏽 I love him so much!!! RIP TKelz! I can’t wAit to see him in Heaven!
Is answer on suffering is so much more prominent when we consider that he himself battled cancer.
Tim Keller is truly an anointed and well educated individual
Amen to that. He has been greatest Christian preacher even in my life.
Tim Keller is my favorite Christian so far!
The best, most polite & civil talk between 2 men with opposite beliefs. Bravo!
Keller is truly an intellectual Christian of our time. I need to find out more about him.
I have learned a lot from him.
Tim Keller , I am inspired by your words and the truth of what you shared resonates with my soul. Thank you!
Dr. Keller is a blessing to the world. Get a copy of one of his books, especially, "The Prodigal God".
I want Keller's reading list! What a well read guy.
Yeah I've written some of them down.
@@pianomaly9859 would you mind sharing?
@@oliviakramer2245 I just have some hastily scribbled down in a number of places, I would recommend listening to the sermons with pencil and paper at the ready.
I don't think there is a book that Tim Keller has NOT read. The man is a walking library on social/moral/philosophical/religious topics.
Lol it would appear so.
I agree
Hmm , ever hear of Christopher Hitchens? ruclips.net/video/HaBIDUYWKzA/видео.html Genius, cerebral, ( if not , just wow ) read every book ? Library , Be amazed, then we also have the amazing , calm, eloquent Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,, I just love eloquent, cerebral, funny people who help us evolve intellectually and broaden our minds, we must not follow blindly Just saying worth sharing and we need to start to think Sheeple and a follower? Some want to not stretch and be a thinker, Hay they got you .. Ya think?
Strictly speaking, that is not true of anyone.
Nelson Cummings The problem is that Athiests can become easily trapped inside an echo chamber. I am an evolutionist, but I find great wisdom and actual concrete moral truth from many wise Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus. The problem is when we hear someone speak and discount everything they say without actually listening to their thoughts and doing the hard work of using logic to doing battle with those ideas in our minds. I’m often guilty of lacking empathy and humility in my discussions with others and it is something I must continue to be mindful of.
Timothy Keller is one of my favourite preachers on the internet! I’ve learned so much from him. Thank you Timothy!!
This was one of the most interesting of all the Forums I’ve listened to. Mainly because although they disagree on God, they agree on other issues. In a world where so many people are constantly angry in their discussions, it was nice to hear one where the students got an opportunity to hear what a great discussion on a good topic sounds like. Very well done! Thank you for this presentation.
I don’t know
Tim is such a wise man, and one thing I have taken from this disussion is the importance of reading, and reading outside of our own world-views!
Read N.Berdyaev "The destiny of man":) Really, one of the best authors ever!
Not enough recognition of the moderator in the comments. She was great.
Agreed!
What I found absolutely amazing was her honesty about things she feared; however, she willingly listened. Kudos to her!!
I agree with your comment!!
Agreed, I’d love to hear her give a talk, and know her viewpoints. She’s a very classy host.
Fantastic discussion and debate... Tim Keller was amazing in his thoughtful and insightful responses!!
My man really wasted time on asking Keller on the Problem of Evil like there hasn't been responses to this in 3,000 years.
There are something like maybe 100 ways to answer this famous question. But I am glad that Tim brought up the uniquely Christian response.
Mo kidding. Dude acted like he was the first person to ever think of that question. LoL.
Because it’s a question that has no reasonable answer. It is difficult to experience a thinking human who can accept evil AND a loving god. It’s nonsense.
My favorite video / lecture in many many years. This kind of collaboration is exactly what we need right now. I can't share & like enough, but I will try try try.....
A long time fan of both of these men. I am coming back to this video four years later for a second or third listen.
My first impression back in 2017 was that I wanted them to get deeper, disagree and debate more explicitly. I was concerned they were self-censoring their public conversation in an effort to model a civility that was more necessary than the issues they were speaking about. In 2021 this has aged well, but the environment of the Coddling of the American Mind is even more intense. It is hard to imagine moral teachers better equipped for the issues the world and the emerging generations of Americans are dealing with today.
Incredibly thankful for them both and Veritas for hosting.
Wholly encourage anyone tempted to read (and listen to) all you can by both of these men.
Well said, thank you.
I so enjoyed this conversation and discussion. Thank you, so much!
This forum should have been titled "Correct Political Correctness"
Excellent discourse, this is what America is about, not categories of people locked in hatred. Love it!!
tim keller at 35:00 is blowing minds
“Although I am doubtful that you will”
savage
the fact that keller didn't bring up the blind men holding on to different parts of the elephant, shows his restraint in the pursuit of agreement with haidt.. Cuz I would argue that's exactly where haidts view of others is originating
8 Minutes in, and Keller is already criticizing John Rawls. I love this guy. For a great rebuttal of John Rawls' "Theory of Justice", check out "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.
That was a great discussion. Thanks for hosting guys.
Very impressed by both speakers here.
Excited to listen to 2 of my favourite thinkers
Great conversation. Please, another discussion around points where you both differ.
Really enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing
Loved the ideas presented. I hope both secular and sacred groups can perspective-take, remove the "otherness" and see we're all in this together.
Good chat. Enjoyed both speakers. Thank you.
God bless in Christ Jesus, amen! Annelies, the Netherlands.
Great discussion. Thanks for posting.
Brilliant people.
This is an excellent discussion. I think that Jonathan Haidt is right-on about identity politics as a way of invalidating your opponent by teaching young people to make slurs against and not engage in intellectual arguments or solving injustice, but instead linking them to racism. we need convincing arguments not forcing intimidation.
This si so great and very important.
So Haidt is like an atheist who's an evangelist for religion. Good for him! 🤣
Some people need to be told what to do.
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, thanks Veritas for bringing these thoughtful and respectful conversation partners together - a model of how we might implement pluralism in practice today!
EXCELLENT!
This is great
it's also empathy for suffering, that makes people understand human rights. you don't necessarily need to have faith to believe in human rights.
Agree, empathy and the understanding that a social contract to respect one another is a benefit to all. It’s in our DNA. part of what makes us a little different than our chimp cousins.
I love how Tim Keller brings up the non-provable aspect of morality. When people take the view that it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, it actually flies in the face of reason. We live in a world where we won't always understand everything, and where having scientific explanations for everything is actually irrational and, frankly, deadening. We live in a world where it is always necessary to believe in something. Some are just appalled at the idea of believing in God/Jesus, even when there are true reasons to do so. AND, yes! So on point about true Christianity being humbling. The center of our faith is one who died for love, and for the love of us sinners no less.
*Universal Morality* - Do onto others as you would have done unto you.
It is very simple, very, Very simple, so simple a 4 year old gets it.
Good to see a program on the late Tim Keller.
I still remember that review on Yelp about Redeemer Presbyterian Church. Nothing I've ever heard or read about Redeemer has ever been proven more accurate or cogent.
Excerpts edited for brevity and clarity:
COMMENT:
I have been to Redeemer West side and East side services. I still go from time to time. I used to take part in several of the volunteer opportunities at Redeemer.
So why only 3 stars? Because a church is more than just a pastor.
Now there is no perfect church. But there are some serious things lacking here:
First of all, there is no prayer meeting or focus on corporate prayer for the entire church. The very basic part of the Christian faith that Jesus himself said with his own lips was Matthew 21:13. "It is written," He said to them, "'My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers."
Prayer is just talking to God, it doesn't require any special talent, skill or training. So the lack of prayer at this church is very alarming to me.
And I haven't heard anyone speak of repentance at Redeemer --- ever. Again, I have listened to hundreds of sermons and been to at least a hundred services both on the West and East sides.
The church ministries are called "ministries" but are run like any secular organization.
Redeemer Presbyterian is run like a business, a well-oiled corporate machine, and not a church.
The other 2 things which are cultural and not spiritual but are off-putting to me are:
1. Most of the members and regular visitors to Redeemer are transplants, not New Yorkers, so the church is a large city church but run like a small town church where there are very few native New Yorkers. It seems most of the members are not established in the city and are just passing through.
2. The other is that it seems the majority of the congregation is looking for a spouse, and very aggressively. When you walk in, the first thing people do is look at your hand for a ring, and then are bold enough to ask if it is a wedding ring. That experience is not unique to me, but to all of the guests I bring here. In addition, in any volunteer group I have been to, the small talk from both men and women centered around trying to find a spouse. Then the few married people were usually complaining about their marriages. The pastor knows about this, and does see it as a problem because he addresses it in his sermons. But people don't seem to listen. It is like they are all living in 1950's rural America.
One other major problem I have with the church is that it is mostly white and Asian. I believe the reason is that the congregation ---- and this is not the pastoral team's fault --- seems to be focused on their careers and making money, and not on God at all. God is there to bless their agendas; this is how they seem to operate.
I believe this is true for a few reasons. One, the culture of the church and focus of the congregation seems to be on Whites and Asians who make good money and have high-end careers, rather than on God. A huge basic tenet of the Christian faith is Death to Self. But at Redeemer, when you hear testimonies approved by the pastoral staff, they usually start with the person's professional credentials. I do not see any Death to Self there, but actually the opposite: It's "Look at what I can do for God because of my high income and education." It is not wrong to have a high income or education as a Christian. But the focus (at Redeemer) is wrong.
So for these reasons, I think the church is best for those who are not Christians yet but are seekers of God, or those established in the faith already. It is not good in my opinion for the average believer looking for a home church. The church in my opinion is more intellectual than spiritual.
How have I not seen this till now...
Professor Haidt would do well to have a discussion with Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron is a Catholic intellectual well versed in Philosophy, Theology, cultural issues, history etc. He has a worldwide audience and he's a great communicator. It would be an engaging and fruitful discussion.
First, a great discussion I am happy to have come across. I expect to return often to The Veratis Forum.
To add to Tim Keller's comments on suffering- As a member of the Mormon faith, a huge part of our understanding of God's plan for us is agency. We have the freedom to act, and have always had this freedom- it is inherent in what we are. While we can use that agency for good, we are also free to use it for bad, and so to summarize this idea as simply as possible, much of the world's suffering then is a product of this agency- the choices some might make which inflict suffering on others, the choices we ourselves might make which bring us suffering and so forth. God will respect this agency regardless of it's externalities. I also believe that there is light in the concept of working in this life to become like God. Through suffering... though it should be stated that suffering isn't the only avenue for this learning or progress, there are myriad ways of which suffering is only one... we become more like Him as we gain patience, empathy, strength etc. However, it would be ignorant to ignore the countless examples where suffering does not bring these kinds of benefits, or teach us God-like lessons. It is with these scenarios where faith in Christ's atonement is the only answer. His power to make whole the weak and broken. To have faith that those that have suffered will find peace, not in death, but in life beyond this one. And so it's beneficial to remember, this life is a means to different ends, it is not the end itself. The claims of the Christian faith are lofty, to be sure, but I have faith in them and that faith is a living thing.
Maybe we suffer because we love, God’s greatest expression of love was seen in His own suffering in Christ crucified, a self sacrificing act, the epitome of real love we give our life daily for others
Who likes Tim Keller just read N.Berdyaev "The destiny of man" ... Really deep stuff!!!
Timothy Keller is a great man!! May God be with him :)
Most Americans today despise religion, certainly many at their university does. It is no longer the norm, more like a counter-culture of some sort.
"It's all about the attitude."
It is about the attitude. But it's also about the government. The government ruins everything. By trying to gain political power thru grievance and resentment, we are destroying the ideals of tolerance.
Four Ways in which Christians are exclude: Elimination(get them out), domination(you can be in my space but you have to have an inferior spot, Assimilation( you're ok as long as you go along), Abandonment(you may have needs but I don't care). Do We really want a truly pluralistic society and how we can get there. allowing Christian speech? Human Rights 9:58
Well done, but I wish guys like you could give more specific examples of how to deal with ideas that seem to threaten our very idea of what is basic to survival, or at least to the well being of our children. For example, how do you have a conversation with someone who supports a law that installs curriculum dealing with sexual identity that not only does not line up with science, but tears down everything you are teaching in your home about the subject.
I hope they gave credit to professor bloom for his book which discusses his topic
New Amsterdam was pretty close to pluralistic because no one group could survive without the others. (See the book, Island at the Center of the World) I suspect this is the only way pluralism can take hold. Even then it's iffy. Majorities are not fond of dissent, much less opposition.
We’ve lost meaning with the push for secularism. The scientific answer is great for the researcher and practitioner in many cases, because of possibly the intrinsic value for those persons, however for the common person and other professionals science can hold little value in the manner of meaning, numbers don’t often if ever hold deep emotional connotations!
Right away it appears Haidt's world view and religion is social Darwinism for which there is no empirical evidence. "We evolved to...blah, blah, blah...tribalism..., blah, blah blah", is his evolutionary belief system. His personal world view reigns supreme. Which is fine, he's a learned academic. However he doesn't seem recognizant of this, or at least, acknowledge the possibility that his own beliefs may be false or only partially true. I think this hobbles him greatly in a discussion over pluralism and the differing world views in society.
As an example of an all all-too-rare reasonable conversation this video is recommended by Douglas Murray in the latest edition of Standpoint magazine.
Taking it literally not seriously ;) , how many understand this reference :)
Peter Thiel
It isn't so much the closing of the modern mind but the decay of it.
Haidt states that "Gold is more valuable than silver" is a fact and not his opinion, and this is how we can develop moral values. But what he fails to mention is, that there is a standard (the metals market)that we can point to, that makes it a fact.
If it is wrong to murder, then Haidt needs to point to something outside of his opinion to indicate what makes it wrong. Keller rightly pointed out to him that he is just espousing moral relativism.
Nick Ioakimidis
I agree with one caveat. Gold is only worth more than sliver if you appeal to that index. In fact, it is not more valuable. There are many times this is true.
What if you have gold, but what you need is sliver? Then sliver is more valuable. What if gold is extremely down on the market & silver is extremely up (happens), then silver is worth more than gold by the standard. What if in the future you had a replicator (like in Star Trek)? Then the value of gold vs silver, only comes down to what it takes to replicate it. That may make food more valuable than both, due to complexity.
It is not a fact that gold is worth more than silver. It does take more money to buy gold though, right now.
another obvious problem with 'emergent morality', as he explained it, is if human rights have indeed 'emerged' via cultural interaction over time, then they cannot be universal in the timeless sense, because if they 'emerged', they can 'disappear' as well. there's nothing concrete upholding them outside of human interactions. so yes, that's just another fancy bit of moral relativism.
mackdmara That is not a weakness in his argument because he is implying economic value specifically in his example. It is factually accurate that gold is more economically valuable than are coconuts. However, if you are on a deserted island and need coconuts to survive, then coconuts are factually more valuable to your survival than is gold. That does not contradict the fact that gold is more economically valuable in the global marketplace.
In other words, facts always have a context in which they exist, and one factual context does not inherently contradict another; indeed, that is merely a *different* fact altogether.
Rhyca Exactly. And it seems to me that truth (or valence) can be knowable, yet is applied differently depending on the context. I think many people see the varying ways that truth can manifest and think that it is, at its essence, completely relative and unknowable.
@@chrisbessey358 sounds like ypu just disagreed with Rhyca. You can't bend absolute truth or it's a false positive
Haidt is the only speaker against identity politics who hasn't taken up the same tactics as those engaged in identity politics (snarkiness, attack, outrage, self-righteousness...) I am tempted to send this to some of them but I can no longer cope with their lunacy. They even have created their own new slurs (eg snowflakes, etc).
That is a good point. But I think it is out of sheer frustration and the need to describe what is happening. I definitely appreciate JH though. He aims to keep everyone on board rather than inadvertently causing more division.
The way I understand professor Haidt's speech is that he is basically saying that we need to create a religion (a religion of plurality). However, it would be a religion that's saying that the only turth is that there is no truth, which is in itself not a truth by its own definition.
Furthermore, a created religion is not possible, for it is basically self-worshiping, only that the self is humanity instead of individuals. Well, we will never agree on how to worship ourselves, I don't think.
Lastly, created or discovered, they are still religions. instead of worshiping god/gods, you worship humans as gods. What is the difference? In the end this is no religion vs. atheist talk, but talks between two different religion. I think.
Yes, you've hit on a fundemental truth; atheism and evolutionist beliefs both conform more to the definition of "religion," rather than "science."
Haidt says that he thinks the future is uncertain.
What does that mean?
What does an 'uncertain future' look like?
A military takeover?
Civil war?
What??
It doesn't look like anything because it is unknown -- that's what "uncertain" means.
16:48 - And everyone else is welcome!
Human rights: when more humans have rights, more talented thinkers, engineers, inventors, athletes, artists are given opportunities.
I have a problem with the idea (of Miroslav Volf) that "assimilation" amount to excluding. In fact, it is the opposite! Assimilation is a social process and the necessary condition NOT to be excluded from a group or a society. What needs to be assimilated (or respected) to be accepted? These are the habits and customs, the mores, the great social codes (dress, moral, interaction and so on). In other words - the culture of a group or a society. Culture is what constitutes the cement of a society and what allows its members to really live together.
Assimilation is not a matter of "opinion" as it is suggested here (6:44-6:48). It a necessary process in the formation and the perpetuation of groups or societies. "Necessary" because there is no possibility of a common life without an homogenous culture. A "truly pluralistic society" - a liberal dream - is an impossibility! Exclusion and inclusion are part of an unavoidable phenomenon and must be studied and examined from an anthropological, sociological (and even sociobiological) perspective and not a moral one! This fundamental process is part of the creation of a all societies. Social mechanisms have long been unconscious. Anthropology and sociology have brought them to light, but it would be very presomptuous to believe that because they are now known, they can be controlled or even ignore. Sooner or later, there will be a violent return of the repressed or the ignored.
It will be interesting to analyse the tensions created by religions (mainly judaïsm and islam) which sanctify a cultural order considered to be "divine" and explicited in a thorah or a sharia. The main problem we see is precisely a "refusal of assimilation" with the inevitable consequence of a rejection by groups or societies that rightly see this refusal as a threat to their own cultural order! What is very interesting is that "elimination" and "domination" are strong tendancies of islam (and in a lesser extent in judaïsm), its texts and doctrine.
My answer to the question of why we have suffered. Without choice, there is no Love. God wanted a relationship with his creation. He wanted to Love us. We cannot know him if we do not have a choice to choose not God. If you are a fish in water, you do not know you are in water unless at some point you are a fish out of the water. The result of choosing not God leads to suffering because God is Love, and life and good. So not God, tends to result in being non-harmonious with his creation, which results in suffering. A person may prefer to be nonharmonious with creation in order to be a God unto himself. The fact is, it leads to pain because God is the Father of all that is good.
so the opposite of love is suffering? wouldn't it just be the 'absence' of love, which is apathy? I'm not sure suffering and apathy is remotely equivalent, no matter how much the bible tries to convince you otherwise.
Neglecting Rawl's resolution to stick to good reasons to agree isn't going to get us any closer to a pluralistic society. The paths of least resistance towards realizing our shared ambitions are the avenues where we have some chance still of encountering each other as fellow citizens, through the overcoming of those struggle we share in common, and a positive universal project of that sort demands universally acceptable reasons to coalesce.
R.I.P Keller
It is unfortunate that NYU makes Haidt hesitant to get into specifics given the entire enterprise of accommodating conservative religion in a modern secular society lives or dies in the details.
Hi Ben. I think I understand your comment but I'd be interested in understanding it more fully (I'm sincerely asking, not being snarky). I did find Haidt's comments about not being able to discuss "sacred values" as disturbing. If you (or anybody) cannot engage with people about certain topics, then that strikes me as very problematic and a threat to true learning and exchanging of ideas...it's also a lead into a form of assimilation that I believe Keller was talking about (you are ok as long as you conform to whatever set of beliefs the social elite have determined are right for you).
dddaannnngggg. Tim Keller wanted all the smoke.
There are also these nice reads... Practical meditation and The way and goal of Rajyoga ... these are from Brahma Kumaris (omshantistore).
I like Keller and his intellectual weight, but he´s a little short on the combined empirical basis of Christianity that goes with the foundations of pluralism and its issues of integrity. I´ll have to lay my thinking out more explicitly and contact him.
There is a quiet calm in Mr. Keller because he has the Holy Spirit in him. He is not on the defensive, about to attack or wanting to get his point across in any ill will manner. I do not see any of that in the other gentleman who does not have a higher power other than himself.
I would love to hear what these same people would think today. I wonder if they would notice the fact that the MainStreamMedia is mainly a Propaganda Machine. I wonder if they would recognize the very real "enemies" within who have played and are playing their part in the destruction of America. The entire world has a common enemy. I'll just call them the Globalists who are for the most a moral. They are in partnership with anyone who will support the end game... that is the global dominance of all people to the few who will end up directing every facet of life in the future, including life and death, who lives and who dies.
At 1:19:04, Haidt attempts to explain what a moral emergentist is. Does anyone think he is successful in even describing it as a real thing? As Keller says it sounds a lot like moral relativism.
No. He failed. He really just says numbers of people in agreement help make it real
Ok.... good talk ... but. Ignores social "loading". "loading" is a term that refers to the capacity of a "risk diverse system". Too much load & the system will fail. Or ... too little risk & the system will fail (adapt) or too much risk fail (grow).
35:57 - 36:31 That truth still needs to be explained to parts of the church.
One of this two individuals beliefs are incorrect, and the consequences are eternal.
Silver is much more abundant than Gold therefore Gold is objectively more valuable regardless of the culture/people.
*"Gold is objectively more valuable regardless of the culture/people"*
That is quite ridiculous. Surely it is my want/need that determines value.
I live in a world with little gold and lots of water.
I'm in a jewelry store on a lakeside beach. The gold ring is virtually 1,000's of times more 'valuable' than water.
I'm dying of thirst as I walk through the desert with gold jewelry an empty canteen. I'd give all of my jewelry for some water.
My child is sitting in my jewelry store, surrounded by gold jewelry. He would happily have me trade all of the gold for a toy that he doesn't have.
What benefit is there in children being raped? And this question puts the free will argument that religious people appeal to to rest. Why? Because God gives the rapist his free will but ignores the free will of the child. There's no religious argument, let alone a good one, for the suffering in the world, especially of innocent children. If you can imagine a "benefit" or a "good thing" coming out of a child being raped, you've at least someone in common with the rapist. And that's how religious belief and rationalization poisons someone's mind. And Tim sounds like a very nice guy. But in order to protect his beliefs he has to make all kind of inhumane assumptions.
Hi there! Sharing this video of a rape victim who saw purpose in her tragedy: ruclips.net/video/P4JX47BG1go/видео.html. Really hope you have enough time to see it. I’d also like to understand more what you meant by having something in common with the offender when one sees meaning in sufferings.
'Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.'
Ok I'm not James Corden so I'll own up about stealing that. From Jon Stewart.
I think it's largely a consequence of how common block/ignore functionality is nowadays, making it easy for people to isolate themselves into echo chambers. Personally I think any belief that can't withstand an honest conversation about truth isn't a good belief to have.
I wouldn't have mentioned atheism/theism since it didn't seem on topic to this conversation at first glance, but the talk does bring it up and _man_ do I see a ton of theists simply ignore an explanation of why their evidence of god isn't logical (and therefore not actually evidence). It's frustrating, because I wish there was an easy way to get them to care about truth.
I do think Keller's method (if you believe in A why don't you believe B) is great. _However it does seem to overvalue consistency and undervalue truth._
After all we can imagine some guy Gary arguing that leprechauns are the creators of the universe, and presenting a _perfectly internally consistent worldview_ about leprechauns. Would that consistency mean leprechauns exist? Of course it wouldn't.
So how then do we help Gary know that his belief isn't justified by the evidence?
I would love to hear your views on A Case For Christ. The evidence for Jesus is quite different from leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and the like! This is coming from someone (me, and also the author of that book) who used to think Christianity was ridiculous. Obviously I didn't think so anymore for a variety of reasons. :)
@@taracrist4126 Well maybe go back and rewatch (or reread) The Case for Christ and tell me how many times extrabiblical evidence is provided for any supernatural claim of the Bible.
That's why he takes a lot of time to focus on things he does have evidence of (like Christ _dying,_ where I think the evidence is fairly reasonable) and then by the time he gets to the supernatural claim (that Christ _resurrected_ ) mysteriously you'll notice there's no longer outside evidence corroborating the story. So then...there's no case.
centripetal
I just cannot buy this "You can't see God's reasons for suffering, doesn't mean he doesn't have one."
Why?
It does seem intellectually irrefutable, but you're right that it is not very emotionally satisfying.
I like much of what Tim Keller says, but I'm not always a fan of how he says it. I mean the way he prefaces his opinions with the statements of others. So-and-so says, Dershowitz wrote, philosophers have argued, etc. It lacks force and gives the impression he has no original thoughts of his own.
What they said proves his point i.e 'thoughts of his own'?
I'm with you that it gets a bit predictable. But he is quoting sources his intellectual opponents find credible in order to strengthen his case. He's arguing from within his opponents' framework in order to be more persuasive to them.
doing the opposite can create the impression that one believes ones every thought is wonderful because all you ever do is tell everyone about them. I think he went just a bit overboard in this talk but in moderation I approve.
@@GospelMeetsBushcraftthis.
There's a place for wastes of time like this
It's called the city dumpyard
interesting how Haidt is far more generous to the WASPs than Keller.
That's how this kinds of debates should be done. More grace shown to our "enemy" tribes than to our own.
Evangelicals aren't WASPs.
@@snippletrap Tim Keller is a WASP. He was criticizing his own tribe.
18:43 the reverend JH begins
With two well stated sides.... have to give this thumbs up. The winner is Prof. Haidt.
I disagree completely with the first speakers' message about how unique and special christians are. It has been stated for far too long and gets in the way of pluralism.
I am not sure I heard Tim say that exactly (happy to be corrected though). I think he did say (here and elsewhere) that Christ and Christianity are unique and special and not necessarily, or even often, Christians themselves. But perhaps you would disagree with that too, which is fine. I think the point Tim was making was that making exclusive claims (like the one about Christianity) is not antithetical to pluralism, because, [1] everyone makes exclusive claims (even if they think they don't) and [2] pluralism, in this context, is about finding ways to co-operate and live together in the presence of moral frameworks that contradict one another.
@@avranju
Unfortunate that you didn't even get a reply from the opening poster.
@@samdg1234 To be fair, my response was 3 months after @skiphoffenflaven8004's comment. Chances are, @skiphoffenflaven8004 never saw the response!
Human rights are man-made, as every other moral or ethics source they hold dear - including the bible, the quran, talmud, etc. No one says human rights came from god. That's obvious. But I never heard a decent argument against any of the content of the human rights declaration. Only objections to its source: faliable humans. That's pretty weak imo. Human rights don't make destinctions between different people and their particular identities or characteristics. They don't imply in groups and out groups. Exactly the opposite of religious belief systems.
I say human rights comes from the dignity of being created in the image of God. Of course, I'm not the only one.
Human rights come down to Do unto Others as You would be done by others.
Johnathan Haidt needs to read a book called “Not a Fan”.
Yes, the Christian God is good. He is also love. But neither circumscribe Him. The governing attribute is holiness. i.e. total otherliness. "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not your thoughts. Evil necessarily has a symbiotic relationship with good. However, good has no need of evil. Evil does manifest/magnify good. Good, however, is good no matter if evil ever occurred or not. Evil is only evil in relation to good. The hope of Christianity is that evil will be extinguished at some point in the future (but not until all restraint is removed to show its true face).
Wish the female professor directing the evening had been able to add her perspective to the two white males.
Good for you.
But, I see no indication that she wasn’t as happy listening to two bright minds as I, and unconcerned about their genital configuration and the pigmentation of their skin. I’m equally unconcerned about those in the moderator. She did a great job.
The auditorium seemed well maintained too. Kudos to the staff responsible for that regardless of the same trivialities.
The "reason for suffering?" question: I would have thought that the place to begin would be Genesis. Adam/Eve were warned not to disobey God. By ignoring the warning, they brought shame, death and suffering, not only upon themselves, but upon all of their descendents. I wonder, how many atheists would really prefer to return to an idyllic existence, without death and suffering? An existence lived in total innocence of evil, without any opportunity to reject God and experience the pleasures of sin. Would they not themselves make the same choice as Adam and Eve, knowing it would lead to death and suffering? Do they (we) not make exactly that choice every day and every time we disobey God's commandments?
God is “good” but He is not to be confused with Santa clause. He is also holy, just and righteous and will punish evil doers severely. Until that day, “the rain will continue to fall upon on both the just and unjust”. That seems most unfair, but we take God as we find Him. Our responsibility is not to excuse Him, but to accurately represent Him. It’s a pity that the pastor did not do so in answering this question.
Do a search : Child killing pathos in the bible.
Religious belief may be healthy for some people, but don't ask me to accept something so ludicrous a deity obsessed with the trimming of male body parts or the interpretations of iron-age literature with loads of magic & allegory.