Shelly Kagan is one of the best philosophers ever. I really hope he does more debates. His course on death is amazing and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning philosophy. He has this unique ability to really get to the core of what's being said with a level of clarity that I don't see in other thinkers.
Xeno Yeah, but a lecture can run amuck unchecked. That's the great thing about debates. You have another person willing to confront something that has been said.
Xeno I watch debates to hear both sides an argument. It helps me form my opinions. Lectures can be helpful, but no opinions should be formed until those ideas presented in lectures are confronted. Have you ever noticed how thoughts and ideas seem less attractive after you hear someone argue against them?
Great discussion. I don't agree with N.T. Wright on multiple points, but I love that they could have this exchange respectfully and thoughtfully. Regardless of their viewpoints, both of these dudes are very brilliant.
Jacob Rattin I agree. It was really refreshing to hear such an honest discourse. I'm an atheist and I watch a lot of these sorts of debates and the falseness is usually very apparent. I love Kagan but thought he was a tad aggressive here. I didn't agree with Wright and saw little in the way of evidence for what he said, but I really liked him and enjoyed listening to him. He engaged so honestly and openly, and was very charitable in his assumptions and characterisations of what Kagan was saying.
A quote from C.S. Lewis' book: MERE CHRISTIANITY. Book III ch. 10. HOPE. I'm only posting this whole chapter because it is so relevant to this discussion and because Lewis sums up so much of what Wright is saying. Though I think N.T. Wright did a great job, if C.S. Lewis was there to give his two cents, I think he would have just read this chapter from his book. Here it is: "Hope is one of the Theological virtues. This means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do. It does not mean that we are to leave the present world as it is. If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth "thrown in": aim at earth and you will get neither. It seems a strange rule, but something like it can be seen at work in other matters. Health is a great blessing, but the moment you make health one of your main, direct objects you start becoming a crank and imagining there is something wrong with you. You are only likely to get health provided you want other things more -food, games, work, fun, open air. In the same way, we shall never save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.Most of us find it very difficult to want "Heaven" at all-except in so far as "Heaven" means meeting again our friends who have died. One reason for this difficulty is that we have not been trained: our whole education tends to fix our minds on this world. Another reason is that when the real want for Heaven is present in us, we do not recognise it Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first think of some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning, can really satisfy. I am not now speaking of what would be ordinarily called unsuccessful marriages, or holidays, or learned careers. I am speaking of the best possible ones. There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of longing, which just fades away in the reality. I think everyone knows what I mean. The wife may be a good wife, and the hotels and scenery may have been excellent, and chemistry may be a very interesting job: but something has evaded us. Now there are two wrong ways of dealing with this fact, and one right one.(1) The Fool's Way.-He puts the blame on the things themselves. He goes on all his life thinking that if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after. Most of the bored, discontented, rich people in the world are of this type. They spend their whole lives trotting from woman to woman (through the divorce courts), from continent to continent, from hobby to hobby, always thinking that the latest is "the Real Thing" at last, and always disappointed.(2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."-He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, "to cry for the moon." This is, of course, a much better way than the first, and makes a man much happier, and less of a nuisance to society. It tends to make him a prig (he is apt to be rather superior towards what he calls "adolescents"), but, on the whole, he rubs along fairly comfortably. It would be the best line we could take if man did not live for ever. But supposing infinite happiness really is there, waiting for us? Supposing one really can reach the rainbow's end? In that case it would be a pity to find out too late (a moment after death) that by our supposed "common sense" we had stifled in ourselves the faculty of enjoying it.(3) The Christian Way.-The Christian says, "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same."There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of "Heaven" ridiculous by saying they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs."11. Fait
@jorgethegreatness I could barely understand your English. Read what Lewis wrote (and not just this chapter). Also, I think this sentence was reserved for you. " if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."
I think he is a utilitarianist, although that might be a huge oversimplification, but basically he only buys old clothes that would maybe have been thrown away anyway. So he can use the other money on people who need it way more
An excellent debate between two very intelligent people. Kagan's moderate and refreshing approach to a fascinating conversation is welcome compared with the many and arrogantly flat debates of Hitchins, bless his barren soul. Dr. Wright's depth of perception and logic makes so much sense no matter which side of the argument you're on. The final decision is ours to make .
Shelly Kagan is so fuckin' cool. As a representative of Yale, he goes up in a debate against a fellow philosopher and starts talking about love, knowledge and bringing happiness to others. That he says these things without a hint of pretense is what makes it so cool. The man doesn't seem to have a malicious bone in his body, and he speaks shamelessly (and rightfully so!) about things that are genuinely valuable in the real world.
David - I cannot imagine he would not consider himself a philospher - it is such a general term. But you did preface as "minor quibble" so perhaps title matters... That said - we are all philosphers....some are simply more developed - and in doing so, are potentially just more screwed up
Interesting conversation at times, though a lot of the conversation on the resurrection fell back to stock criticisms and stock answers. I appreciate two moments of intellectual honesty from both of them: for NT Wright it was admitting that you could always be skeptical 57:10 (his point about Caesar was good too), and for Shelly Kagan it was admitting that he doesn't find Jesus attractive 1:05:53 (which un-charitably someone could claim this colors his view of the historical argument).
Shelly Kagan us awesome! N.t. Wright had the upper hand about new testament scholarship but his views are problematic there as well. Kagan is really good.
Good discussion, I wish we had more debates involving Shelly Kagan on youtube. At about 44:40 N T Wright says it's *impossible to explain how the Christian movement got started unless something extraordinary happened* , No it's not, we have a very good idea how Christianity got started, it's not too far removed from how Mormonism got started, one person makes an extraordinary claim ( with absolutely no credible back up or eye witnesses of note), it starts with a rumor, gets picked up by others, more stories are added, and bingo, you've got yourself a cult. A religion is just a cult that's hit the big time .. Just ask Joseph Smith or Ron L Hubbard, they are experts in that field.
so who was the one person, what was the extraordinary claim and why didn't die off after the apostles like so many religious beliefs at the time? And do you really mean to say that all 500 witnesses were not creditable, not even one? With Smith and Hubbard you have them and them alone pointing to themselves, with Christianity you have over 500 eyewitnesses pointing to, not themselves, but Christ.
Aha, indeed, who was that one person? nobody knows. Oh to have a time machine and go back 2,000 years. Why didn't it die off?, I would imagine a claim of a messiah would have given those downtrodden and persecuted Jews a great hope.. word spread and before you know it, this rumor had become rooted. Religious beliefs at that time were like trees competing for sunlight, many died off, but one flourished. but even Christianity grew many branches, spreading out into many variations. ( i notice I'm making a lot of botanical references here, it's not intentional). :-) Ah, these 500 witnesses, yes, this is a claim made in 1st Corinthians by Paul. Paul did not even meet Jesus in the flesh, he only knew him via some kind of hallucination on the road to Damascus. Where were these 500 people when they witnessed the risen Christ? We have no idea. Who were these 500 people?, we haven't got a clue. Why didn't the 4 gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke or John mention it? **********************************************
"No it's not, we have a very good idea how Christianity got started, it's not too far removed from how Mormonism got started," LOL! Nonsense. There's zero evidence for the historical claims of Mormonism.
Lol indeed Yesica, you are absolutely right, the evidence for the historical claims of Mormonism is indeed very thin. It's good to be in agreement with you. I'd also say LOL, there is also zero credible evidence for the historical claims of Christianity.
bonnie43uk lol if you think there is zero credibility to the gospels. Why didn't the 4 gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke or John mention it? They did, Luke 23, but also Mark 15, and Matthew 27.
Dr. Shelly Kagan was technically right about the Bratslav Hasidim "not naming another leader," but he was wrong in comparing its so-called messianic quality to that of early messianic Christianity. Rebbe Nachman was the founding leader of the Bratslav/Breslov, but after he died in 1810, they did not name another leader because they didn't have anyone to name. Kagan's comment implies that Nachman continued to be their messianic figure, but that simply isn't true. It's not at all clear that Nachman continued to be anything more than an inspiration to them; this branch of Hasidism is sometimes called the "Dead Hasidim" because they HAVE NOT HAD ANY formal leader since Rebbe Nachman. If anything, this makes them more like those leaderless 1st-century messianic movements, except that the difference in time, culture, and lack of apocalyptic expectations allowed the Bratslav movement to go on where the earlier apocalyptic movements necessarily failed. The Bratslav have led yearly pilgrimages to Nachman's grave site, but for the first 200-300 years the early Christians did NOT use Jesus' tomb for pilgrimages, nor as a shrine (something Wright points out in his book). Only after Constantine legalized and then officialized Christianity, in the 300's AD, only then did people start wanting to know where all these special locations were. But going back to the point about dead messiahs, it is anachronistic to compare what happened in the leadership of one time period and culture with the leadership of another, very different time period and different culture, especially because they tend invariably to be governed by differing ideologies and expectations about what their leader would do. The reason Wright compared early Christianity to the movements of Simon bar Giora and Simeon ben Kosiba (bar Kochba) is because those movements arise from the same cultural and ideological milieu as Christianity. Kagan's unhesitating comparison of the Bratslav Hasidim to early Christianity indicates that he is unaware of the ideological differences between the two movements: whatever may have been true of Hasidim leadership or messiahship, that simply wasn't the case in the first century AD. In late Second-Temple Judaism, a dead messiah is no Messiah. There is a consensus in contemporary New Testament scholarship that no Jews in the Second Temple period thought that the Jewish Messiah would die--nobody did. It simply wasn't an option. A kingdom-bringing messiah who failed to usher in the kingdom was, by definition, NOT the Messiah. It isn't just Wright who says this; liberal scholars like Bart Ehrmann and Dale Martin and others say it too. Even Israel Knohl abandoned his earlier theory about a pre-Christian dying-and-rising Messiah. As long as the evidence for all this is solid, as indeed it appears to be, then Kagan's objection (that there were other movements who continued believing in their dead messiah) is simply wrong. That "they haven't named another leader" doesn't mean they still consider Nachman to be their leader. After his death, the Bratslav Hasidim did not say, "He's still leading us just as he did before"; no; but the early Christians did say that about Jesus.
Why isn't Kagan on any podcasts or involved with all these other public intellectuals? I remember nearly a decade ago emailing him to help him run his social media because I really wanted to see his voice out in the public sphere with the Hitchens/Harris' et. Al. Sad to see his visibility hasnt grown!
Good stuff. I'm just a bit frustrated watching the Resurrection portion. Wright's argument is complex and cannot possibly be articulated within a few minutes. So, here, his argument comes off as weak when in reality it is a strong and sophisticated explanation. With that said, I want to see Shelly Kagan and David Bentley Hart debate sometime soon.
So Wright has 'proven' in a 800 page book that there was a person in history that was dead, completely dead and later was alive again and is still alive .... And no one here thinks that this sounds crazy? Why doesn't Wright go on and prove that Godzilla, the tooth fairy, and Thor really exist? Why hasn't Wright received a Nobel prize in .... (i don't know what discipline, I guess physics) for his work yet?
Al Gebra history doesn't work like that. history works on probability and plausibility but Wright can't prove the extraordinary claims just conjecture.
Jesus lived, o.k., Jesus had a following, no problem, others had too but o.k., may be his followers were convinced that he was the messiah and one can show this historically, no problem. But then to go from this to 'yeah and by the way, he rose from the dead and still lives ...' Why does Wright do this? No wonder that Keagan wipes the floor with Wright here. The correct thing for Wright would have been to just claim at the beginning that it is his belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why make a fool out of oneself and claim that there is historical evidence, when there can not be historical evidence?
To the extent that this is a debate and not a discussion, N.T. Wright flatly loses at 55:00 onwards in his defence of the Gospels. To suggest that the (in)famous synoptic problem doesn't apply to the resurrection accounts is just bizarre. Just because they're not identical accounts doesn't mean there's not obvious literary dependence. He can get away with Christianity's pseudohistory with a philosopher, but someone who knows the history would demolish every talking point. Christians, let me know what you think his strongest example was.
For the life of me I can't understand why the answer to Shelley's question "If you upload my software into two bodies, which one is me? They can't both be me." is transparently obvious. The answer is of course that neither of them can be you. When I sit across from the couch you're sitting on, I am not puzzled as to why I am not you, or how you could be you and not me, or how I am sure that I'm not you. Admittedly the qualitative nature of consciousness makes it inherently difficult to understand, but regardless of that, the answer is still easy to accept: I know I'm not you because I can see you over there. If I were you, then I would be looking from the opposite side of the room. I know I am me because this body that is me is where the sensory organs that perceive the world is housed. And the answer of multiple uploads is the exact same - it is that simple. Each of those bodies is perceiving the world from its own sensory organs. If you can see them sitting on the couch across from you, then it should be very clear to you, equally clear as in looking at anyone else, that neither of them are you. BUT -- if you die first -- and then your software is uploaded into two new bodies.... The answer is still the exact same. Neither of them are you, because you are dead. There is no longer a "you" to look at them on the other side of the couch, because you are dead. Your sensory organs are no longer functioning and may have already decayed. You can not be both alive and dead. So if you are dead, there is no question as to which of these living persons is you. Neither. This answer is correct, but how is this answer not *obviously* correct to Shelley or anyone else? Is it sufficient proof for you that you are not me that you can stare at me in person and discuss with me? That is not convincing enough that you are not me? And your answer is "Well you're telling me that you are me, and you honestly believe you are me, and you have my memories and personality and desires and so on. So for that reason, because of the things you say and believe, and your personality, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I am me." Will somebody please refute this? Do your worst. This is such a strong argument that I will be so impressed if you can refute it successfully, and I would really appreciate you helping me to have just a slightly more correct view of this world if I am making a mistake.
It is very nice that Kagan mentioned it that they didn't address the title of the discussion. I was waiting for it and it never came... Overall it was a cool and civilized discussion but kinda disappointing.
An individual hallucination is one thing, but positing a group hallucination is another. Regarding the dates of the gospels, Dr. Gary Habbermas has shown that resurrection creeds started going around within 5 years of the crucifixion.
I come back to this exchange every now and then and give it a listen. Shelly Kegan demonstrates what a growing number of cultural observers will realize, it seems to me. His thinking is bankrupt. Kegan believes in materialism. He says this confidently. At the same time he seems not to be indifferent to sublimity and love, for example. He even extols such things He also uses abstract universals, such as laws of logic and reason. And he believes that everything is matter in motion. His personal commitments in thinking do not comport with his worldview. He leans on immaterial to live but denies it in his worldview. He speaks as if he does not believe the worldview he espouses. Surprise, St. Paul might say, for St. Paul wrote thousands of years ago in the Letter to the Romans that Kegan, as well all do is suppressing the truth [of the existence of the one true God] in unrighteousness and is without an apology before God [apology in the sense of a defense and a lack thereof before God: ἀναπολογήτους )
I would love to hear a debate between Shelly Kagan and Jordan Peterson. They both have this element of providing a vision for how to understand life and how to live. Kagan is much more clear in this formulations, and I think he would be able to get through Petersons continous questioning of the meaning of words and get to the core of the matter.
I , for one, would like to state the disappointment I felt when I came across a Yale philosophy 101 course, and found it to be metaphysically empty. Shelly, within the first two or so courses, tossed out the soul and embraced physicalism as an assumption as quickly as possible. I can see how the academic machine embraces this, but reject this philosophical bias for whatever it's worth. I see no more reason to embrace physicalism than solipsism. Shelly's appealing to the audience as I've seen in another debate regarding the holocaust and using Hitler as the 'evil we all know so obviously' to center around, I feel is wrong. Another whining Jewish academic, using the low-hanging fruit of the Third Reich whenever necessary. Nothing against Jews, but a lot of us are tired of the kvetching about the Holocaust and particularly referral to it when at a loss for anything else to bring up.
The moderator had to hold Kagan back so many times. She was there to protect Christianity in front of the veritas forum. Kagan walks away from this one without any damage to his positions.
25:20 I think a potential answer to this query is that IF software can be replicated/recreated AND this task can only be done by one being that is God, then the act of Faith would function as the basis on which softwares are chosen for replication. In other words, software may be replicated, but only by God, and only by virtue of faith. This would go along just fine with traditional Christian belief on rebirth by faith and salvation as well and also resolve the issue of: What about other atheist software? (Softwares not eligible for replication unless they have faith i.e., the ticket. Will there be multiple copies? (There cannot be because it assumes God that God would not replicate it)
+Al Gebra The Jews had this explicit relationship with their God going on for a thousand years, and then Jesus came and made it even more direct and personal. It is far from poetry, but it isn't test-tube science either.
I am at the 35-minute mark or so and I am curious why anyone would think joy, beauty, coming to know and understand, peace, fellowship, love and goodness would ever get old. It is such a curious and naive and depressing position to hold that life is a bore and therefore I do not want to live forever. It actually reveals that the speaker has given himself over to death and prefers its condemnation than the gift of eternal life. And that disturbs me because there is so much goodness and intelligence in the other professor.
I invite each side of debates to try very hard to actually hear out the other side clearly and respectfully before drawing conclusions. I think both believers and nonbeliers need to work harder at this. I recognize a tendency in myself to not do this. I am a follower of Jesus and I can understand why in today's western culture the concept of God and the incarnation sound crazy to western thinkers today. Respectfully challenging each other is healthy. Making broad, negative generalizations or insulting is not healthy. All known non-western cultures accept that something exists beyond the material world. Are we going to categorically dismiss what these other cultures have to say about this issue without giving them a hearing?
Darnley What do you mean? His evidence is the real world. We in fact KNOW for certain that we are as he described us. To tack on something else is the position that requires evidence. The evidence I see is that when someone dies, they really do die. They're physical body ceases to work. Maybe there is something else but there is NO evidence to suggest that's true besides a persons wish for it to be true because they're afraid of not existing anymore. AKA death.
+Brian Aglira What if someone who has proven they know such things says otherwise? What if credible witnesses saw and and handled a resurrected person? Not all things that are true happen every day in front of our own eyes.
Maybe that did happen. Why should you or I believe it though if they can't verify or replicate it. You could make this argument for literally anything you want. What if someone who has proven they know that aliens lived in their basement for a year says that they did. Well maybe they're correct but reasonable people wouldn't believe it until it was demonstrated to them
+Brian Aglira Asking for the aliens in the basement to be replicated is ridiculous. So we are left with verification = who said it, why should we believe them, where is corroborating testimony, did they act consistent with their statements, etc. These have been dealt with exhaustively. Look it up.
The problem is credible witnesses did not see a resurrection. If this type of argument was brought up in a modern court of law, I would suspect the attorney would be fired for incompetence. These have been dealt with, you're right. The results however are not convincing to any unbiased person in the world. The fact that Biblical scholars disagree vehemently about every issue surrounding the resurrection including whether Jesus was even a real person is enough for any reasonable person some 2,000 years later who didn't see it and can only rely on the testimony by people 30 to 70 years after the fact, to conclude that it's not convincing. But conversation over. Theres nothing in the world that would change your mind so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time
What I take from the end of this, is that the reason why christianity is so powerful, is the belief that the Good has already begun; is existing; is promised. Jesus was & is real, and you may join his movement of creative love. The physicalist worldview is often set up in a much more pessimistic way, starting on a foundation of nothing. It is your responsibility to create Good in the world; there are no magical saviors. Both admit to suffering. The objective & outcome is the same, but the physicalist seems to have a much bigger job. Of course it looks more attractive to join a construction team in building a house than to start from scratch. Why not start with an optimistic view? We have here a universe of extraordinary beauty and wonder, full of life and full of people who want to improve it! We need no savior; the Good is already here! Our tools are infinite!
Contrary to many physical-ists, I don't think we have to "create good." The world does have a shape, which I suppose one could call God. The Chinese call it Tao. It is the way that shows us that selfishness is ultimately self destructive and that honesty is the best policy. This makes life easier if we follow Tao, and it makes our relations with others ultimately peaceful and constructive. It is very hopeful to live in that way, especially with the challenges that we all have and the pity that we all need. Now believing that Jesus rose from the dead is a supernatural story that might be true, but it seems very hard to accept today.
NT Wright is an eloquent poetic speaker, but he's making bold claims. his reason to believe in God is because of jesus, not the other way around. he also attributes love to Jesus and claim about the resurrection is not evidence.
Did he just say that the gospels were clearly written by 4 separate people? What? There are word for word paragraphs that are the same. You have got to be insane to believe they just happened to write down the exact same words.
+truckcompany There is also material unique to each gospel. Matthew and Luke clearly utilized Mark, since they both considered him to be a reliable source, but they compiled material from other sources.
Exactly, Matthew and Luke clearly utilized Mark (and other authors such as Q). But as I listen to what he said. Is he actually trying to argue against the position that less than 4 people wrote the bible? And what he meant to say that _at least_ 4 distinct authors wrote the gospel. This would make more sense because the alternative is just silly.
Jesus was God and chose to go through a human death for our sake -- to help us. I know it is tough to grasp. There are statues of Jesus that show his heart encircled by thorns. The heart represents his love and the thorns represent our "sin" in this story.
John Stewart he didn’t really suffer though . His god and went back being a god , it’s nothing like what a human would truly feel because when we die we don’t even know where and what will happen . It’s extremely dishonest to say he truly suffered when he purposely set the rules that way to begin with .
How odd for Shelly to say believing the gospel true or even more specifically BEING true doesnt ADD anything to the human experience. Just shows like NT said you can not believe in anything successfully if you like using philosophy.
Kierkegaard also rejected the attempt to articulate philosophy and the Bible. He described his experience of finding life practically unlivable without religion (it is absurd), but then making a leap of faith in God. He was an early "existentialist."
I would have like to see continuity addressed further. Besides continuity of form, there is obviously the continuity of conscious. But in addition, I think there is a continuity that we recognize in literature - that people develop in paths that have antecedents both internal and external - call then character and karma respectively. We might even go further and say there is a continuity of teleology, that is purpose and meaning. These aspects of continuity are addressed in the biblical teaching about judgement and reward. It's too bad Dr Wright didn't get that far.
Watch Shelley's lectures on it then!! A couple of his classes from his course on Phil of Death are about personal identity, which is largely a question of personal identity over time or 'continuity' as you've said, and they (just like all the rest) are excellent classes. There are 26 or so and I highly recommend watching them all in order since he develops an argument throughout the entire course. But those sessions are titled "Personal Identity" or something like that. You're welcome! :D Enjoy
Never got much out of either of these guys - plus Wright is so ethereal and detached I really don't find his words meaningful. Sounds like a reincarnated scholastic - says a lot of great ponderous words with no real substance.
First, only N.T. Wright has the intellectual depth to interact with an atheist and not look like a fool. The problem is these two men are on such different philosophical planes that their interactions go nowhere. Nothing was settled. One complication is, the biblical-historical arguments for the Christian faith is so incredibly multi-layered that a mere 90 minute discussion doesn't do it justice. We are talking about 66 pieces of writing written by what, 45 different people? That will create a very dense set of claims that are ALL based on non-physical realities. Humanist will never believe in any Christian doctrine. It is out of their philosophical jurisdiction. And they are correct to disbelieve.
The only thing I see in Wright is that he can talk quite poetically. But I see no depth in his intellectual abilities. If he had been smart in this debate he would have seen that he doesn't really have good arguments. From the beginning he should have acknowledged that he believes in immortality and that he has not really good arguments for it ...
One man has no meaning in his life and the other one has meaning or at least wants to have meaning. Would you rather be unknowingly correct and miserable or would you rather believe you are living life with purpose? Whenever there is an atheist and a theist in a debate, almost without exception the atheist comes off as snarky and cynical and miserable and mean and the theist comes off as a little gentler and kinder and happier.
i know it probably won't be a welcomed critique here, but it always seems to be jewish academics who bring pessimistic, atheistic, or relativistic perspectives to the table. don't you think that maybe that's part of the reason why our culture has been disintegrating since the post-war era?
Wright just played the role of a true apologist (and Kagan a slightly aggressive but kind questioner) by feeling the fire and coming out clean. None of this nonsense academic apologetics where you memorize your points and regurgitate in the name of Jesus.
God cannot be the source of objective morality , first, because mankind has invented so many gods, one must first make a subjective choice of one (or many) of them before arguing that he/she is the true one. Second, even if you can make the case that only one god (out of thousands) is the real one, that god will immediately be found to be contradicting himself, and here I must speak only of Christianity as that is what is familiar to me, the god of the bible changes his mind on what is right or wrong, the Christian religion has splintered into thousands of denominations, and which one is the right one? - in the end, you are down to again making a subjective choice as to which sub-sect of a sect of a denomination of a religion you're going to follow. Third, even if there is only one true god, and his morality is consistent, the god of the bible cannot be that god, because he clearly issues abhorrent and immoral commandments, such as the slaughter of the Amalikates, the instructions that rape is OK as long as you marry the girl afterwards, that menstruating women are unclean, that petulant children should be stoned to death, etc... That god cannot be moral. Fourth, even if there is only one true god, and his teachings are consistent, and he is found to be moral, we would still need arbiters and judges and juries to decide what justice is. We may say, murder is always wrong; but surely, there is a difference when an abused wife kills her monster of a husband and when someone kills an innocent child? There must be wiggle room and space for discretion and careful moral deliberation. Even king Solomon, he didn't make his judgment by going to the scriptures, but used his moral reasoning. So the very idea of objective morality is I think misguided, unless we are talking about general principles, and for that, Do not harm, Do help, seem to me to be sufficient and better than any book of faith.
+SelfReflective I'd like to divide your points into two categories: invalid arguments, and valid ones plus my responses. Invalid arguments: 1. Different people believe different gods, therefore God cannot be the basis for morality. Conclusion does not follow from the premises. God can be the basis for morality even if NOBODY believes in Him. 2. Christianity has different denominations, therefore God cannot be the basis for morality. Conclusion again does not follow. Not only is the morality taught by the major denominations consistent on virtually every point, but, again, humans could be wrong in their interpretation, and God would still have established morals. 3. God is immoral. This statement is absurd. It presupposes a morality independent of God, something an atheist cannot support. In a world without a morality established by an Ultimate Authority, what's to say human life is valuable? Nothing. Valid points: 2. God has changed His mind. My response to this would take too long, so I invite you to read RC Sproul's article dealing with the issue: www.ligonier.org/blog/does-god-change-his-mind/ And the same theory, stated more succinctly: www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-prayer-change-gods-mind 3. God broke His own morals, with regards to many of His actions in the Old Testament. Again, I can't respond to all of your 4 points here, but I think you'll find your answers to your questions in this article: www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites and the second half of this one: www.reasonablefaith.org/problems-with-the-old-testament. Concerning your "uncleanness" example: remember that this is talking about CEREMONIAL uncleanness. They were not to worship with the others until a certain amount of time had passed. This had no effect whatsoever on their position with God. 4. You are exactly right! We do need judges and lawgivers to define exactly what is murder. This is why Paul directs Christians to obey the Roman authorities, unless they say to do something explicitly immoral (like worship an idol). The crucial point is this: systems of ethics are properly BUILT ON scriptural teachings (such as your "do not harm, do help," which seems to me remarkably similar to Jesus' "love your neighbor as yourself"!). I hope I answered your objections to your satisfaction. I sincerely hope I can at least give you reason to think Christianity might be true.
Thank you for your exhausting reply, just to add this, you're are defending an idea of God, which no-one believes in or worships. People believe in Jahve, Jesus, Allah, Thor, Zeus etc., and I'm arguing that all those deities, being man's inventions, cannot be taken as a basis for morality anymore than any other system of ethics can. Of course, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you assume I'm attacking an idea of God. No. I'm talking about concrete, named gods.
The materialist view must answer some troubling questions: Since no material entity created itself, where did we come from? If random process brought the brain/mind together, how can we trust our rational thinking? If we know that there is a good, then we know that there is an evil: Where do we get these concepts from? On the materialist's view, we only dance to our individual DNA so good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and justice is a farce.
1. You assume that the starting point it’s the nothing and that things have to como from it which it’s illogical. You can think the other way around (although it’s difficult) there’s never been “the nothing” there’s always been something in existence and the concept of nothing isn’t just that just an idea. 2. It’s was not a random process. It was due to a selection process wich Is the opposite of random. Traits are selected for its aid to survive, so the selected traits are often fuctional, so if rational thinking was selected is most likely that it function generally well at least for ordinary survival problems, then we refined and enriched it it with rules, mental structures, methodology and concepts. 3. It’s just a label we start using after we developed religious thoughts. The concepts of good and evil are just the religious equivalents of suffering/welfare. Justice it’s not a farce, but it is a construct.
Kagan's basic argument is incredulity. "Well, I just can't imagine how any of that could possibly be true, therefore it isn't." Well, okay. Not terribly persuasive but I suppose it has a certain emotional appeal to it.
Barry Anderberg Why should saying "I don't believe these supernatural claims that you are making with no worthwhile evidence at all" need to be persuasive? The theist is the one making the claim (an outlandish one at that) so the theist has the burden of proof. There are many reasons for the burden of proof to sit where it does. One becomes apparent when asking yourself what precisely Kagan could have refuted. Much of what NT Wright had to say was baseless conjecture. There weren't many (any?) specific, clear, evidenced claims made that he could refute.
That's a good question in this context. Normally that answer would be simple - something that can be demonstrated. When talking of things for which there is no evidence, that's a lot harder. Which is a huge problem that the person making the claims has to contend with, not the person rejecting the claims. The view Kagan expressed on death is as much as we can honestly say on the topic. Every example of death seems to be the same - shortly (generally within a couple of minutes) after the heart stops pumping blood everything that we think of as congruent with "being alive" ceases to be. No movement of blood around the body providing energy and ability to move, no brain activity, no consciousness. And once the body and brain reaches this state they never come back. (There's a period of at least a few minutes after the heart stops that is really interesting and we have a lot of learning to do. I'm obviously not saying no-one has ever come back after being called clinically dead during this short period. I'm saying no-one has ever come back after this period is definitely over. It doesn't hurt my point at all to put a very conservative number on it, so let's say after 24 hours). Kagan expressed a confident belief that what we observe about death is all there is. He's not necessarily right, but his view is perfectly consistent with everything we know about death. Experiments have been done to look for the soul, and evidence for all sorts of other supernatural things and none has ever been found. Yet we have millions of examples where science and investigation has shown that something that was previously thought to have a supernatural cause was in fact a natural, unguided process. Wright, on the other hand, makes many claims about what happens after death for which there is no evidence. He believes these things because of his interpretation of the bible, so the likelihood of his views on afterlife are dependent on: * Whether his interpretation is correct * Whether the bible we have today accurately represents what the authors original wrote/intended * Whether the original authors actually had knowledge about what happens after death For the sake of this discussion I'd be happy to accept the first two without question. The final one is the problem I have. If someone came to me today claiming to know what happens after death I wouldn't even be tempted to believe them (I doubt you would either). And if they told me they have this knowledge because a deity told them that wouldn't make me suddenly accept what they'd say. I apply the same reasoning to identical claims made 2000 years ago. This is of course the core difference between an atheist like myself and theists. Theists believe on faith and other reasons I either cannot evaluate (like personal experience / feelings) or reasons I can evaluate and think are poor (like scriptural evidence, or logical arguments like intelligent design). I don't believe the bible is the word of god, or divinely inspired, or written by witnesses of a real deity that performed actual miracles and was resurrected after death so I put no weight on the claims it makes. Conversely Christians do believe these things, so it follows naturally that they should have no problem accepting that a deity they already believe is all powerful can transport us to a place they already think exists (heaven) after their physical body dies here on earth. So to actually answer your question: * A short answer is that Wright could make specific claims that we could evaluate (eg. "I think there is a soul. I believe the soul is x, and I think it interacts with our physical bodies in method y. After death I believe it goes to location z." etc) * And my fuller answer is that I think this really pushes back to whether we already believe the claims in the bible, so evidence that the claims in the bible really are true (the supernatural ones; miracles, resurrection etc). Evidence showing these things are true is exactly what I'd expect to see. Without this evidence I see no reason to accept the claims (and good reasons not to), which is of course why I am an atheist. I see lots of religious and other supernatural claims and I apply my skepticism of them equally. I see no reason to reject other religions based on lack of evidence, but to accept Christianity based on the same poor evidence.
Creation is a womb where God given cognitive free-will minds reveal their motivation and potential inheritance of perfected children of God! Ephesians 1:3-9
Kagan sounds incredibly ignorant around the 50 minute mark on his assessment of the historical evidence for the resurrection and his characterization of the disciples after Jesus's death.
Only Shelly Kegan had anything good or interesting to say here. The moderator did a terrible job and I feel sorry for the self-deluded Christian who kept interrupting , asked no questions and mere wants to believe based on poor and very shaky evidence. Poor guy. His construct of what happens after death is pure fantasy and myth. One have one life to live. Live it well and be kind to others and try to leave this earth a better place for future generations.
It has happened on many occasions. I speak at international meeting around the world. You missed out! :-) The weakness of Craig moral arguments were very skilfully and simply expose by Shelly Kegan.
Wright speaks quite poetic, sadly this has nothing to do with reality. He seems not even to understand that he really hasn't good arguments for his worldview ....
+Al Gebra Because that's not the topic of the debate. Look elsewhere if you want to see a defense of the faith; there is plenty out there, including from Dr Wright.
Interesting conversation, but Shelly Kagan interrupts alot and does not listen very well, which comes across as "I've got a bone to pick and I'm not really going to give you space to reply." He is obviously not a historian. Also, can I just say that such a naive acceptance of anything, let alone epicureanism/physicalism, is the very first thing any first-year humanities undergrad is taught not to do.
Shelly was kinda of a dush but love is energy lol definitely wright cant explain everything in a few minutes but ravi Zacharias would kill shelly. Naturalism is a extreme type of extreme relativism he basically saying that its all based off his opinion is almost ultimate illusion the naturalist believes himself over all things it extreme paranoia. Naturalist remind me of Adam hiding from a angry God that was never angry Adam thought something of God that was never true he ran away trusting himself. The naturalist ultimately have no meaning to life because life is some game with ultimately a bog illusion and joke love isnt real neither is your pain they argue not against God but they argue against God. The naturalist make opinion its not evven based off evidence it just mere thoughts experiments that have become horrific and tragic i wonder what atheist do when there on there death bed and wonder whats after they think back on all there debates fighting for hat if a naturalist why does it matter to debate?
I think that atheists would be better off calling themselves naturists. It would describe a belief -- that natural law explains everything that can be known -- and it would also be less negative than "atheist."
N.T.believes in a resurrection if billions of people who have no where to go and live to infinity in a world without the things they know and love in their time and place .He hasn't thought it through
The Resurrection hope may make death easier to cope with for the Christian since they believe that they will be reunited with their loved one again. However, the Christian worldview makes death harder to deal with than it ever could be for the nonbeliever in many cases because of the belief in the resurrection to everlasting contempt. Faith comes with a realization of both greater gain and greater loss. There is only possible consolation in bereavement for the Christian if they are confident in the salvation of the deceased. And the atheist suffers loss without hope of ever seeing their loved ones again but they do not have to suffer the dread of their possible damnation.
+Steven Strnad This is certainly true. But what we can be comforted with is that they are judged on what they are responsible for, their own choices, including the choice to accept or refuse eternal life.
Why do nihilists always need to have an explanation of how God does supernatural creative things? Not at all trying to argue that therefore Christians don't need to explain their views but obviously if God is God that spoke the universe into existence and created life then giving a human a new body, no problem at all
obvious the moderator is hostile to the christian, the way she holds her arm.....we should expect our message to be foolishness to those that are perishing, indeed we are fools for christ!
problem is that atheism leads to nihilism, hence this discussion is useless as neither of the two have free will, everything they say and do is simply such that this discussion has no meaning at all, indeed meaning becomes leached out of the entire universe. atheism , like all ideologies has a serious flaw; it contradicts itself, or rather it is the grave digging the grave.
Kagan also seems utterly unaware of the numerous undesigned coincidences in the gospels that lend further credibility to their legitimacy. See the book by Lydia McGrew "Hidden In Plain View" for more information.
No surprise that the atheist speaks of life and the universe in terms of darkness and bleakness. Yikes, man! Listen to yourself, will ya? Your very words testify against the veracity of your worldview. To wit, Jesus spoke two thousand years ago...I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life...Not to say this sums the case, but it surely is nonetheless indicative that these are no mere fables.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Shelly Kagan is one of the best philosophers ever. I really hope he does more debates. His course on death is amazing and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning philosophy. He has this unique ability to really get to the core of what's being said with a level of clarity that I don't see in other thinkers.
He's got a great debate with William Lane Craig. Really worth looking up and listening to.
Bl Exactly! But philosophical debates don't seem to get anywhere, so we want more lectures!
Xeno Yeah, but a lecture can run amuck unchecked. That's the great thing about debates. You have another person willing to confront something that has been said.
Racer X
But I watched a few debates, and they hardly directly address the questions/statements the other give!
Xeno I watch debates to hear both sides an argument. It helps me form my opinions. Lectures can be helpful, but no opinions should be formed until those ideas presented in lectures are confronted. Have you ever noticed how thoughts and ideas seem less attractive after you hear someone argue against them?
Great discussion. I don't agree with N.T. Wright on multiple points, but I love that they could have this exchange respectfully and thoughtfully.
Regardless of their viewpoints, both of these dudes are very brilliant.
Jacob Rattin
I agree. It was really refreshing to hear such an honest discourse.
I'm an atheist and I watch a lot of these sorts of debates and the falseness is usually very apparent. I love Kagan but thought he was a tad aggressive here. I didn't agree with Wright and saw little in the way of evidence for what he said, but I really liked him and enjoyed listening to him. He engaged so honestly and openly, and was very charitable in his assumptions and characterisations of what Kagan was saying.
Can't get enough of Kagan. I love his well reasoned passion. He's so funny. x)
This was an amazing exchange. Kudos to both Wright and Kagan!
A quote from C.S. Lewis' book: MERE CHRISTIANITY. Book III ch. 10. HOPE. I'm only posting this whole chapter because it is so relevant to this discussion and because Lewis sums up so much of what Wright is saying. Though I think N.T. Wright did a great job, if C.S. Lewis was there to give his two cents, I think he would have just read this chapter from his book. Here it is: "Hope is one of the Theological virtues. This means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do. It does not mean that we are to leave the present world as it is. If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get earth "thrown in": aim at earth and you will get neither. It seems a strange rule, but something like it can be seen at work in other matters. Health is a great blessing, but the moment you make health one of your main, direct objects you start becoming a crank and imagining there is something wrong with you. You are only likely to get health provided you want other things more -food, games, work, fun, open air. In the same way, we shall never save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.Most of us find it very difficult to want "Heaven" at all-except in so far as "Heaven" means meeting again our friends who have died. One reason for this difficulty is that we have not been trained: our whole education tends to fix our minds on this world. Another reason is that when the real want for Heaven is present in us, we do not recognise it Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first think of some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning, can really satisfy. I am not now speaking of what would be ordinarily called unsuccessful marriages, or holidays, or learned careers. I am speaking of the best possible ones. There was something we grasped at, in that first moment of longing, which just fades away in the reality. I think everyone knows what I mean. The wife may be a good wife, and the hotels and scenery may have been excellent, and chemistry may be a very interesting job: but something has evaded us. Now there are two wrong ways of dealing with this fact, and one right one.(1) The Fool's Way.-He puts the blame on the things themselves. He goes on all his life thinking that if only he tried another woman, or went for a more expensive holiday, or whatever it is, then, this time, he really would catch the mysterious something we are all after. Most of the bored, discontented, rich people in the world are of this type. They spend their whole lives trotting from woman to woman (through the divorce courts), from continent to continent, from hobby to hobby, always thinking that the latest is "the Real Thing" at last, and always disappointed.(2) The Way of the Disillusioned "Sensible Man."-He soon decides that the whole thing was moonshine. "Of course," he says, "one feels like that when one's young. But by the time you get to my age you've given up chasing the rainbow's end." And so he settles down and learns not to expect too much and represses the part of himself which used, as he would say, "to cry for the moon." This is, of course, a much better way than the first, and makes a man much happier, and less of a nuisance to society. It tends to make him a prig (he is apt to be rather superior towards what he calls "adolescents"), but, on the whole, he rubs along fairly comfortably. It would be the best line we could take if man did not live for ever. But supposing infinite happiness really is there, waiting for us? Supposing one really can reach the rainbow's end? In that case it would be a pity to find out too late (a moment after death) that by our supposed "common sense" we had stifled in ourselves the faculty of enjoying it.(3) The Christian Way.-The Christian says, "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that other country and to help others to do the same."There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of "Heaven" ridiculous by saying they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs."11. Fait
@jorgethegreatness I could barely understand your English. Read what Lewis wrote (and not just this chapter). Also, I think this sentence was reserved for you. " if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."
MIchael Ledner g
@@arod88 maybe you should learn to understand English better.
Good to see Kagan dressed professionally for the occasion.
Joe Lackey lol
+Joe Lackey He's dressed to Kill as always :)
Thas his savage mode dress code.
I think he is a utilitarianist, although that might be a huge oversimplification, but basically he only buys old clothes that would maybe have been thrown away anyway. So he can use the other money on people who need it way more
What’s wrong with the way he’s dressed?
Again, I don't see how this is a 'debate'. Where's the discussion? It's just talking and sharing thoughts.
An excellent debate between two very intelligent people. Kagan's moderate and refreshing approach to a fascinating conversation is welcome compared with the many and arrogantly flat debates of Hitchins, bless his barren soul. Dr. Wright's depth of perception and logic makes so much sense no matter which side of the argument you're on. The final decision is ours to make .
I think the moderator did a really good job. Trying to force the conversation in a particular direction would probably have made it less valuable.
I had the great honor of sitting in the auditorium during this interaction.
It's nice to hear some civilised discussion for once
Kagan is brilliant and far too passionate haha
I wish there was a Q&A!
I could listen to Kagan all day! Wish there was more videos of him on youtube.
Shelly Kagan is so fuckin' cool. As a representative of Yale, he goes up in a debate against a fellow philosopher and starts talking about love, knowledge and bringing happiness to others. That he says these things without a hint of pretense is what makes it so cool. The man doesn't seem to have a malicious bone in his body, and he speaks shamelessly (and rightfully so!) about things that are genuinely valuable in the real world.
+Hektor Annatar Minor quibble: Dr. Wright is a bible scholar and a retired pastor (bishop to be precise), not a philosopher.
David - I cannot imagine he would not consider himself a philospher - it is such a general term. But you did preface as "minor quibble" so perhaps title matters... That said - we are all philosphers....some are simply more developed - and in doing so, are potentially just more screwed up
Shelly Kagan is awesome!
you're easily impressed
Interesting conversation at times, though a lot of the conversation on the resurrection fell back to stock criticisms and stock answers. I appreciate two moments of intellectual honesty from both of them: for NT Wright it was admitting that you could always be skeptical 57:10 (his point about Caesar was good too), and for Shelly Kagan it was admitting that he doesn't find Jesus attractive 1:05:53 (which un-charitably someone could claim this colors his view of the historical argument).
Great discussion, definitely deserving of multiple viewings.
Shelly Kagan us awesome! N.t. Wright had the upper hand about new testament scholarship but his views are problematic there as well. Kagan is really good.
NT Wright is brilliant and winsome!
Good discussion, I wish we had more debates involving Shelly Kagan on youtube. At about 44:40 N T Wright says it's *impossible to explain how the Christian movement got started unless something extraordinary happened* , No it's not, we have a very good idea how Christianity got started, it's not too far removed from how Mormonism got started, one person makes an extraordinary claim ( with absolutely no credible back up or eye witnesses of note), it starts with a rumor, gets picked up by others, more stories are added, and bingo, you've got yourself a cult. A religion is just a cult that's hit the big time .. Just ask Joseph Smith or Ron L Hubbard, they are experts in that field.
so who was the one person, what was the extraordinary claim and why didn't die off after the apostles like so many religious beliefs at the time?
And do you really mean to say that all 500 witnesses were not creditable, not even one?
With Smith and Hubbard you have them and them alone pointing to themselves, with Christianity you have over 500 eyewitnesses pointing to, not themselves, but Christ.
Aha, indeed, who was that one person? nobody knows. Oh to have a time machine and go back 2,000 years. Why didn't it die off?, I would imagine a claim of a messiah would have given those downtrodden and persecuted Jews a great hope.. word spread and before you know it, this rumor had become rooted. Religious beliefs at that time were like trees competing for sunlight, many died off, but one flourished. but even Christianity grew many branches, spreading out into many variations. ( i notice I'm making a lot of botanical references here, it's not intentional). :-)
Ah, these 500 witnesses, yes, this is a claim made in 1st Corinthians by Paul.
Paul did not even meet Jesus in the flesh, he only knew him via some kind of hallucination on the road to Damascus. Where were these 500 people when they witnessed the risen Christ? We have no idea. Who were these 500 people?, we haven't got a clue.
Why didn't the 4 gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke or John mention it?
**********************************************
"No it's not, we have a very good idea how Christianity got started, it's not too far removed from how Mormonism got started,"
LOL! Nonsense. There's zero evidence for the historical claims of Mormonism.
Lol indeed Yesica, you are absolutely right, the evidence for the historical claims of Mormonism is indeed very thin. It's good to be in agreement with you.
I'd also say LOL, there is also zero credible evidence for the historical claims of Christianity.
bonnie43uk lol if you think there is zero credibility to the gospels.
Why didn't the 4 gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke or John mention it?
They did, Luke 23, but also Mark 15, and Matthew 27.
Dr. Shelly Kagan was technically right about the Bratslav Hasidim "not naming another leader," but he was wrong in comparing its so-called messianic quality to that of early messianic Christianity. Rebbe Nachman was the founding leader of the Bratslav/Breslov, but after he died in 1810, they did not name another leader because they didn't have anyone to name. Kagan's comment implies that Nachman continued to be their messianic figure, but that simply isn't true. It's not at all clear that Nachman continued to be anything more than an inspiration to them; this branch of Hasidism is sometimes called the "Dead Hasidim" because they HAVE NOT HAD ANY formal leader since Rebbe Nachman. If anything, this makes them more like those leaderless 1st-century messianic movements, except that the difference in time, culture, and lack of apocalyptic expectations allowed the Bratslav movement to go on where the earlier apocalyptic movements necessarily failed. The Bratslav have led yearly pilgrimages to Nachman's grave site, but for the first 200-300 years the early Christians did NOT use Jesus' tomb for pilgrimages, nor as a shrine (something Wright points out in his book). Only after Constantine legalized and then officialized Christianity, in the 300's AD, only then did people start wanting to know where all these special locations were. But going back to the point about dead messiahs, it is anachronistic to compare what happened in the leadership of one time period and culture with the leadership of another, very different time period and different culture, especially because they tend invariably to be governed by differing ideologies and expectations about what their leader would do. The reason Wright compared early Christianity to the movements of Simon bar Giora and Simeon ben Kosiba (bar Kochba) is because those movements arise from the same cultural and ideological milieu as Christianity. Kagan's unhesitating comparison of the Bratslav Hasidim to early Christianity indicates that he is unaware of the ideological differences between the two movements: whatever may have been true of Hasidim leadership or messiahship, that simply wasn't the case in the first century AD. In late Second-Temple Judaism, a dead messiah is no Messiah. There is a consensus in contemporary New Testament scholarship that no Jews in the Second Temple period thought that the Jewish Messiah would die--nobody did. It simply wasn't an option. A kingdom-bringing messiah who failed to usher in the kingdom was, by definition, NOT the Messiah. It isn't just Wright who says this; liberal scholars like Bart Ehrmann and Dale Martin and others say it too. Even Israel Knohl abandoned his earlier theory about a pre-Christian dying-and-rising Messiah. As long as the evidence for all this is solid, as indeed it appears to be, then Kagan's objection (that there were other movements who continued believing in their dead messiah) is simply wrong. That "they haven't named another leader" doesn't mean they still consider Nachman to be their leader. After his death, the Bratslav Hasidim did not say, "He's still leading us just as he did before"; no; but the early Christians did say that about Jesus.
Can anyone tell us which of which of them Shelly was referring to when he said he doesn't like a lot of Jesus's teachings?
Start with Luke 14:26:Matthew 25:41
Why isn't Kagan on any podcasts or involved with all these other public intellectuals? I remember nearly a decade ago emailing him to help him run his social media because I really wanted to see his voice out in the public sphere with the Hitchens/Harris' et. Al. Sad to see his visibility hasnt grown!
I am sooo tempted to look down in the comments.... but I just know way too well what I will find...
It actually isn't too bad
It's the replies to comments that are scary, lol
This is the best example on how this discussions or debates should be. Now don't try that out there or you might loose some teeth!!!
Good stuff. I'm just a bit frustrated watching the Resurrection portion. Wright's argument is complex and cannot possibly be articulated within a few minutes. So, here, his argument comes off as weak when in reality it is a strong and sophisticated explanation. With that said, I want to see Shelly Kagan and David Bentley Hart debate sometime soon.
+Matt Robinson There are other videos where Wright goes into that. He's written an entire 800+ page tome on the subject!
+Thagomizer My point exactly.
So Wright has 'proven' in a 800 page book that there was a person in history that was dead, completely dead and later was alive again and is still alive .... And no one here thinks that this sounds crazy? Why doesn't Wright go on and prove that Godzilla, the tooth fairy, and Thor really exist? Why hasn't Wright received a Nobel prize in .... (i don't know what discipline, I guess physics) for his work yet?
Al Gebra history doesn't work like that. history works on probability and plausibility but Wright can't prove the extraordinary claims just conjecture.
Jesus lived, o.k., Jesus had a following, no problem, others had too but o.k., may be his followers were convinced that he was the messiah and one can show this historically, no problem. But then to go from this to 'yeah and by the way, he rose from the dead and still lives ...' Why does Wright do this? No wonder that Keagan wipes the floor with Wright here. The correct thing for Wright would have been to just claim at the beginning that it is his belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Why make a fool out of oneself and claim that there is historical evidence, when there can not be historical evidence?
Love the moderator LOL. She's sassy and authoritative.
Excellent discussion!
To the extent that this is a debate and not a discussion, N.T. Wright flatly loses at 55:00 onwards in his defence of the Gospels.
To suggest that the (in)famous synoptic problem doesn't apply to the resurrection accounts is just bizarre.
Just because they're not identical accounts doesn't mean there's not obvious literary dependence.
He can get away with Christianity's pseudohistory with a philosopher, but someone who knows the history would demolish every talking point.
Christians, let me know what you think his strongest example was.
For the life of me I can't understand why the answer to Shelley's question "If you upload my software into two bodies, which one is me? They can't both be me." is transparently obvious.
The answer is of course that neither of them can be you. When I sit across from the couch you're sitting on, I am not puzzled as to why I am not you, or how you could be you and not me, or how I am sure that I'm not you. Admittedly the qualitative nature of consciousness makes it inherently difficult to understand, but regardless of that, the answer is still easy to accept: I know I'm not you because I can see you over there. If I were you, then I would be looking from the opposite side of the room. I know I am me because this body that is me is where the sensory organs that perceive the world is housed. And the answer of multiple uploads is the exact same - it is that simple. Each of those bodies is perceiving the world from its own sensory organs. If you can see them sitting on the couch across from you, then it should be very clear to you, equally clear as in looking at anyone else, that neither of them are you.
BUT -- if you die first -- and then your software is uploaded into two new bodies....
The answer is still the exact same. Neither of them are you, because you are dead. There is no longer a "you" to look at them on the other side of the couch, because you are dead. Your sensory organs are no longer functioning and may have already decayed. You can not be both alive and dead. So if you are dead, there is no question as to which of these living persons is you. Neither. This answer is correct, but how is this answer not *obviously* correct to Shelley or anyone else?
Is it sufficient proof for you that you are not me that you can stare at me in person and discuss with me? That is not convincing enough that you are not me? And your answer is "Well you're telling me that you are me, and you honestly believe you are me, and you have my memories and personality and desires and so on. So for that reason, because of the things you say and believe, and your personality, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I am me."
Will somebody please refute this? Do your worst. This is such a strong argument that I will be so impressed if you can refute it successfully, and I would really appreciate you helping me to have just a slightly more correct view of this world if I am making a mistake.
It is very nice that Kagan mentioned it that they didn't address the title of the discussion. I was waiting for it and it never came... Overall it was a cool and civilized discussion but kinda disappointing.
An individual hallucination is one thing, but positing a group hallucination is another. Regarding the dates of the gospels, Dr. Gary Habbermas has shown that resurrection creeds started going around within 5 years of the crucifixion.
I come back to this exchange every now and then and give it a listen. Shelly Kegan demonstrates what a growing number of cultural observers will realize, it seems to me. His thinking is bankrupt. Kegan believes in materialism. He says this confidently. At the same time he seems not to be indifferent to sublimity and love, for example. He even extols such things He also uses abstract universals, such as laws of logic and reason. And he believes that everything is matter in motion. His personal commitments in thinking do not comport with his worldview. He leans on immaterial to live but denies it in his worldview. He speaks as if he does not believe the worldview he espouses. Surprise, St. Paul might say, for St. Paul wrote thousands of years ago in the Letter to the Romans that Kegan, as well all do is suppressing the truth [of the existence of the one true God] in unrighteousness and is without an apology before God [apology in the sense of a defense and a lack thereof before God: ἀναπολογήτους )
I would love to hear a debate between Shelly Kagan and Jordan Peterson. They both have this element of providing a vision for how to understand life and how to live. Kagan is much more clear in this formulations, and I think he would be able to get through Petersons continous questioning of the meaning of words and get to the core of the matter.
25:00 the answer is the very man that died was raised. Proof is the empty grave.
Correlates of consciousness does not equal consciousness. How many times does that have to be said?
All four gospel authors were carefully quoting from source material. For more on this, you might look up "Ur-Markus" or "Textual Criticism".
very interesting... two men that I really appreciate...
38:38 this is only one of the few areas where I felt like Wright weakened in explaining things even within a theological framework.
MORE SHELLY KAGAN MORE SHELLY KAGAN MORE SHELLY KAGAN!!!!
I , for one, would like to state the disappointment I felt when I came across a Yale philosophy 101 course, and found it to be metaphysically empty. Shelly, within the first two or so courses, tossed out the soul and embraced physicalism as an assumption as quickly as possible. I can see how the academic machine embraces this, but reject this philosophical bias for whatever it's worth. I see no more reason to embrace physicalism than solipsism. Shelly's appealing to the audience as I've seen in another debate regarding the holocaust and using Hitler as the 'evil we all know so obviously' to center around, I feel is wrong. Another whining Jewish academic, using the low-hanging fruit of the Third Reich whenever necessary. Nothing against Jews, but a lot of us are tired of the kvetching about the Holocaust and particularly referral to it when at a loss for anything else to bring up.
The moderator had to hold Kagan back so many times. She was there to protect Christianity in front of the veritas forum. Kagan walks away from this one without any damage to his positions.
25:20 I think a potential answer to this query is that IF software can be replicated/recreated AND this task can only be done by one being that is God, then the act of Faith would function as the basis on which softwares are chosen for replication.
In other words, software may be replicated, but only by God, and only by virtue of faith. This would go along just fine with traditional Christian belief on rebirth by faith and salvation as well and also resolve the issue of:
What about other atheist software? (Softwares not eligible for replication unless they have faith i.e., the ticket.
Will there be multiple copies? (There cannot be because it assumes God that God would not replicate it)
Kind of surprised Wright didn't mention the fact the quote from 1 Corinthians 15, even according to Bart Ehrman, comes from a year after Jesus' death.
always make the mistake of reading comments
Wright is by far the more holistic thinker here.
+Ben Pugh But what good arguments has he for his beliefs? I saw none. Using nice words says nothing ... Wright seems to be a reality denying poet ...
+Al Gebra The Jews had this explicit relationship with their God going on for a thousand years, and then Jesus came and made it even more direct and personal. It is far from poetry, but it isn't test-tube science either.
+Ben Pugh Yes, like a homeopath compared to a medical doctor.
+gerhitchman Lazy.
I am at the 35-minute mark or so and I am curious why anyone would think joy, beauty, coming to know and understand, peace, fellowship, love and goodness would ever get old. It is such a curious and naive and depressing position to hold that life is a bore and therefore I do not want to live forever. It actually reveals that the speaker has given himself over to death and prefers its condemnation than the gift of eternal life. And that disturbs me because there is so much goodness and intelligence in the other professor.
I invite each side of debates to try very hard to actually hear out the other side clearly and respectfully before drawing conclusions. I think both believers and nonbeliers need to work harder at this. I recognize a tendency in myself to not do this. I am a follower of Jesus and I can understand why in today's western culture the concept of God and the incarnation sound crazy to western thinkers today. Respectfully challenging each other is healthy. Making broad, negative generalizations or insulting is not healthy. All known non-western cultures accept that something exists beyond the material world. Are we going to categorically dismiss what these other cultures have to say about this issue without giving them a hearing?
What created the experience your having right now?
At 11:25 SK says, "I think that I'm just this lump of flesh and bone and blood and muscle..." Fine; we all have opinions. What's his evidence?
Darnley What do you mean? His evidence is the real world. We in fact KNOW for certain that we are as he described us. To tack on something else is the position that requires evidence. The evidence I see is that when someone dies, they really do die. They're physical body ceases to work. Maybe there is something else but there is NO evidence to suggest that's true besides a persons wish for it to be true because they're afraid of not existing anymore. AKA death.
+Brian Aglira What if someone who has proven they know such things says otherwise? What if credible witnesses saw and and handled a resurrected person? Not all things that are true happen every day in front of our own eyes.
Maybe that did happen. Why should you or I believe it though if they can't verify or replicate it. You could make this argument for literally anything you want. What if someone who has proven they know that aliens lived in their basement for a year says that they did. Well maybe they're correct but reasonable people wouldn't believe it until it was demonstrated to them
+Brian Aglira Asking for the aliens in the basement to be replicated is ridiculous. So we are left with verification = who said it, why should we believe them, where is corroborating testimony, did they act consistent with their statements, etc. These have been dealt with exhaustively. Look it up.
The problem is credible witnesses did not see a resurrection. If this type of argument was brought up in a modern court of law, I would suspect the attorney would be fired for incompetence. These have been dealt with, you're right. The results however are not convincing to any unbiased person in the world. The fact that Biblical scholars disagree vehemently about every issue surrounding the resurrection including whether Jesus was even a real person is enough for any reasonable person some 2,000 years later who didn't see it and can only rely on the testimony by people 30 to 70 years after the fact, to conclude that it's not convincing. But conversation over. Theres nothing in the world that would change your mind so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time
What I take from the end of this, is that the reason why christianity is so powerful, is the belief that the Good has already begun; is existing; is promised. Jesus was & is real, and you may join his movement of creative love. The physicalist worldview is often set up in a much more pessimistic way, starting on a foundation of nothing. It is your responsibility to create Good in the world; there are no magical saviors. Both admit to suffering. The objective & outcome is the same, but the physicalist seems to have a much bigger job. Of course it looks more attractive to join a construction team in building a house than to start from scratch. Why not start with an optimistic view? We have here a universe of extraordinary beauty and wonder, full of life and full of people who want to improve it! We need no savior; the Good is already here! Our tools are infinite!
Contrary to many physical-ists, I don't think we have to "create good." The world does have a shape, which I suppose one could call God. The Chinese call it Tao. It is the way that shows us that selfishness is ultimately self destructive and that honesty is the best policy. This makes life easier if we follow Tao, and it makes our relations with others ultimately peaceful and constructive. It is very hopeful to live in that way, especially with the challenges that we all have and the pity that we all need.
Now believing that Jesus rose from the dead is a supernatural story that might be true, but it seems very hard to accept today.
NT Wright is an eloquent poetic speaker, but he's making bold claims. his reason to believe in God is because of jesus, not the other way around. he also attributes love to Jesus and claim about the resurrection is not evidence.
Did he just say that the gospels were clearly written by 4 separate people? What? There are word for word paragraphs that are the same. You have got to be insane to believe they just happened to write down the exact same words.
They are not word for word.
+truckcompany There is also material unique to each gospel. Matthew and Luke clearly utilized Mark, since they both considered him to be a reliable source, but they compiled material from other sources.
Exactly, Matthew and Luke clearly utilized Mark (and other authors such as Q). But as I listen to what he said. Is he actually trying to argue against the position that less than 4 people wrote the bible? And what he meant to say that _at least_ 4 distinct authors wrote the gospel. This would make more sense because the alternative is just silly.
@@truckcompany The gospels were written by 4 different authors
Damn.....does anyone have the cell # of NT Wright's dealer?
I think the best defender of religion would be an atheist or agnostic.
"The love we see when Jesus dies on the cross ..." ???? Could someone explain this?
Jesus was God and chose to go through a human death for our sake -- to help us. I know it is tough to grasp. There are statues of Jesus that show his heart encircled by thorns. The heart represents his love and the thorns represent our "sin" in this story.
John Stewart he didn’t really suffer though . His god and went back being a god , it’s nothing like what a human would truly feel because when we die we don’t even know where and what will happen . It’s extremely dishonest to say he truly suffered when he purposely set the rules that way to begin with .
@@johnstewart7025 I would prefer no one to go through a death for me, I had not even the chance to prevent this :(
@@Brion15 I really don't understand, how does this help us? And God going through a fake suffering makes even less sense ...
How odd for Shelly to say believing the gospel true or even more specifically BEING true doesnt ADD anything to the human experience. Just shows like NT said you can not believe in anything successfully if you like using philosophy.
Kierkegaard also rejected the attempt to articulate philosophy and the Bible. He described his experience of finding life practically unlivable without religion (it is absurd), but then making a leap of faith in God. He was an early "existentialist."
I would have like to see continuity addressed further.
Besides continuity of form, there is obviously the continuity of conscious.
But in addition, I think there is a continuity that we recognize in literature - that people develop in paths that have antecedents both internal and external - call then character and karma respectively. We might even go further and say there is a continuity of teleology, that is purpose and meaning.
These aspects of continuity are addressed in the biblical teaching about judgement and reward. It's too bad Dr Wright didn't get that far.
Watch Shelley's lectures on it then!! A couple of his classes from his course on Phil of Death are about personal identity, which is largely a question of personal identity over time or 'continuity' as you've said, and they (just like all the rest) are excellent classes. There are 26 or so and I highly recommend watching them all in order since he develops an argument throughout the entire course. But those sessions are titled "Personal Identity" or something like that. You're welcome! :D Enjoy
I don’’t think I will Survive my death
Wright is awesome.
Does he believe in the Trinity?
Tom is so academic you wonder if he is getting across. Wm Craig is if anything worse. There is passion there, but it is not expressed.
Never got much out of either of these guys - plus Wright is so ethereal and detached I really don't find his words meaningful. Sounds like a reincarnated scholastic - says a lot of great ponderous words with no real substance.
First, only N.T. Wright has the intellectual depth to interact with an atheist and not look like a fool. The problem is these two men are on such different philosophical planes that their interactions go nowhere. Nothing was settled.
One complication is, the biblical-historical arguments for the Christian faith is so incredibly multi-layered that a mere 90 minute discussion doesn't do it justice. We are talking about 66 pieces of writing written by what, 45 different people? That will create a very dense set of claims that are ALL based on non-physical realities.
Humanist will never believe in any Christian doctrine. It is out of their philosophical jurisdiction. And they are correct to disbelieve.
The only thing I see in Wright is that he can talk quite poetically. But I see no depth in his intellectual abilities. If he had been smart in this debate he would have seen that he doesn't really have good arguments. From the beginning he should have acknowledged that he believes in immortality and that he has not really good arguments for it ...
The world of christians is so bizarre. I was never a believer, let alone in a world as Wright describes it ...
There are many worlds of Christians...:-)
Kagan came to the bottom of why he is not convinced of the resurrection. He simply does not like what Jesus said.
One man has no meaning in his life and the other one has meaning or at least wants to have meaning. Would you rather be unknowingly correct and miserable or would you rather believe you are living life with purpose?
Whenever there is an atheist and a theist in a debate, almost without exception the atheist comes off as snarky and cynical and miserable and mean and the theist comes off as a little gentler and kinder and happier.
Purpose of life: to love and be loved. Secularism promotes love of self, whereas Christianity promotes love for another.
Lots of 'ifs' .... 'If there is a God and if bla bla, then' ... Too many in my view ...
Wright isnt arguing as a philosopher hes just being a historian and it makes him seem really ignorant against Kaigan
Does Kagen see anything but himself?
i know it probably won't be a welcomed critique here, but it always seems to be jewish academics who bring pessimistic, atheistic, or relativistic perspectives to the table. don't you think that maybe that's part of the reason why our culture has been disintegrating since the post-war era?
Shelly did his best.
Wright just played the role of a true apologist (and Kagan a slightly aggressive but kind questioner) by feeling the fire and coming out clean. None of this nonsense academic apologetics where you memorize your points and regurgitate in the name of Jesus.
Shelly is awesome. NT keeps going round and round with his "logic."
Kagan is quite persuasive ...
God cannot be the source of objective morality , first, because mankind has invented so many gods, one must first make a subjective choice of one (or many) of them before arguing that he/she is the true one.
Second, even if you can make the case that only one god (out of thousands) is the real one, that god will immediately be found to be contradicting himself, and here I must speak only of Christianity as that is what is familiar to me, the god of the bible changes his mind on what is right or wrong, the Christian religion has splintered into thousands of denominations, and which one is the right one? - in the end, you are down to again making a subjective choice as to which sub-sect of a sect of a denomination of a religion you're going to follow.
Third, even if there is only one true god, and his morality is consistent, the god of the bible cannot be that god, because he clearly issues abhorrent and immoral commandments, such as the slaughter of the Amalikates, the instructions that rape is OK as long as you marry the girl afterwards, that menstruating women are unclean, that petulant children should be stoned to death, etc... That god cannot be moral.
Fourth, even if there is only one true god, and his teachings are consistent, and he is found to be moral, we would still need arbiters and judges and juries to decide what justice is. We may say, murder is always wrong; but surely, there is a difference when an abused wife kills her monster of a husband and when someone kills an innocent child? There must be wiggle room and space for discretion and careful moral deliberation. Even king Solomon, he didn't make his judgment by going to the scriptures, but used his moral reasoning. So the very idea of objective morality is I think misguided, unless we are talking about general principles, and for that, Do not harm, Do help, seem to me to be sufficient and better than any book of faith.
+SelfReflective I'd like to divide your points into two categories: invalid arguments, and valid ones plus my responses.
Invalid arguments:
1. Different people believe different gods, therefore God cannot be the basis for morality. Conclusion does not follow from the premises. God can be the basis for morality even if NOBODY believes in Him.
2. Christianity has different denominations, therefore God cannot be the basis for morality. Conclusion again does not follow. Not only is the morality taught by the major denominations consistent on virtually every point, but, again, humans could be wrong in their interpretation, and God would still have established morals.
3. God is immoral. This statement is absurd. It presupposes a morality independent of God, something an atheist cannot support. In a world without a morality established by an Ultimate Authority, what's to say human life is valuable? Nothing.
Valid points:
2. God has changed His mind. My response to this would take too long, so I invite you to read RC Sproul's article dealing with the issue: www.ligonier.org/blog/does-god-change-his-mind/ And the same theory, stated more succinctly: www.catholic.com/quickquestions/does-prayer-change-gods-mind
3. God broke His own morals, with regards to many of His actions in the Old Testament. Again, I can't respond to all of your 4 points here, but I think you'll find your answers to your questions in this article: www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites and the second half of this one: www.reasonablefaith.org/problems-with-the-old-testament. Concerning your "uncleanness" example: remember that this is talking about CEREMONIAL uncleanness. They were not to worship with the others until a certain amount of time had passed. This had no effect whatsoever on their position with God.
4. You are exactly right! We do need judges and lawgivers to define exactly what is murder. This is why Paul directs Christians to obey the Roman authorities, unless they say to do something explicitly immoral (like worship an idol). The crucial point is this: systems of ethics are properly BUILT ON scriptural teachings (such as your "do not harm, do help," which seems to me remarkably similar to Jesus' "love your neighbor as yourself"!).
I hope I answered your objections to your satisfaction. I sincerely hope I can at least give you reason to think Christianity might be true.
Thank you for your exhausting reply, just to add this, you're are defending an idea of God, which no-one believes in or worships. People believe in Jahve, Jesus, Allah, Thor, Zeus etc., and I'm arguing that all those deities, being man's inventions, cannot be taken as a basis for morality anymore than any other system of ethics can. Of course, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you assume I'm attacking an idea of God. No. I'm talking about concrete, named gods.
Good point.
The materialist view must answer some troubling questions: Since no material entity created itself, where did we come from? If random process brought the brain/mind together, how can we trust our rational thinking? If we know that there is a good, then we know that there is an evil: Where do we get these concepts from? On the materialist's view, we only dance to our individual DNA so good and evil are in the eye of the beholder and justice is a farce.
1. You assume that the starting point it’s the nothing and that things have to como from it which it’s illogical. You can think the other way around (although it’s difficult) there’s never been “the nothing” there’s always been something in existence and the concept of nothing isn’t just that just an idea.
2. It’s was not a random process. It was due to a selection process wich Is the opposite of random. Traits are selected for its aid to survive, so the selected traits are often fuctional, so if rational thinking was selected is most likely that it function generally well at least for ordinary survival problems, then we refined and enriched it it with rules, mental structures, methodology and concepts.
3. It’s just a label we start using after we developed religious thoughts. The concepts of good and evil are just the religious equivalents of suffering/welfare.
Justice it’s not a farce, but it is a construct.
Kagan's basic argument is incredulity. "Well, I just can't imagine how any of that could possibly be true, therefore it isn't." Well, okay. Not terribly persuasive but I suppose it has a certain emotional appeal to it.
Barry Anderberg
Why should saying "I don't believe these supernatural claims that you are making with no worthwhile evidence at all" need to be persuasive? The theist is the one making the claim (an outlandish one at that) so the theist has the burden of proof.
There are many reasons for the burden of proof to sit where it does. One becomes apparent when asking yourself what precisely Kagan could have refuted. Much of what NT Wright had to say was baseless conjecture. There weren't many (any?) specific, clear, evidenced claims made that he could refute.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih To rephrase my question - how do you define evidence when you're asking for "worthwhile evidence"?
That's a good question in this context. Normally that answer would be simple - something that can be demonstrated.
When talking of things for which there is no evidence, that's a lot harder. Which is a huge problem that the person making the claims has to contend with, not the person rejecting the claims. The view Kagan expressed on death is as much as we can honestly say on the topic. Every example of death seems to be the same - shortly (generally within a couple of minutes) after the heart stops pumping blood everything that we think of as congruent with "being alive" ceases to be. No movement of blood around the body providing energy and ability to move, no brain activity, no consciousness. And once the body and brain reaches this state they never come back. (There's a period of at least a few minutes after the heart stops that is really interesting and we have a lot of learning to do. I'm obviously not saying no-one has ever come back after being called clinically dead during this short period. I'm saying no-one has ever come back after this period is definitely over. It doesn't hurt my point at all to put a very conservative number on it, so let's say after 24 hours).
Kagan expressed a confident belief that what we observe about death is all there is. He's not necessarily right, but his view is perfectly consistent with everything we know about death. Experiments have been done to look for the soul, and evidence for all sorts of other supernatural things and none has ever been found. Yet we have millions of examples where science and investigation has shown that something that was previously thought to have a supernatural cause was in fact a natural, unguided process.
Wright, on the other hand, makes many claims about what happens after death for which there is no evidence. He believes these things because of his interpretation of the bible, so the likelihood of his views on afterlife are dependent on:
* Whether his interpretation is correct
* Whether the bible we have today accurately represents what the authors original wrote/intended
* Whether the original authors actually had knowledge about what happens after death
For the sake of this discussion I'd be happy to accept the first two without question. The final one is the problem I have. If someone came to me today claiming to know what happens after death I wouldn't even be tempted to believe them (I doubt you would either). And if they told me they have this knowledge because a deity told them that wouldn't make me suddenly accept what they'd say. I apply the same reasoning to identical claims made 2000 years ago. This is of course the core difference between an atheist like myself and theists. Theists believe on faith and other reasons I either cannot evaluate (like personal experience / feelings) or reasons I can evaluate and think are poor (like scriptural evidence, or logical arguments like intelligent design). I don't believe the bible is the word of god, or divinely inspired, or written by witnesses of a real deity that performed actual miracles and was resurrected after death so I put no weight on the claims it makes. Conversely Christians do believe these things, so it follows naturally that they should have no problem accepting that a deity they already believe is all powerful can transport us to a place they already think exists (heaven) after their physical body dies here on earth.
So to actually answer your question:
* A short answer is that Wright could make specific claims that we could evaluate (eg. "I think there is a soul. I believe the soul is x, and I think it interacts with our physical bodies in method y. After death I believe it goes to location z." etc)
* And my fuller answer is that I think this really pushes back to whether we already believe the claims in the bible, so evidence that the claims in the bible really are true (the supernatural ones; miracles, resurrection etc). Evidence showing these things are true is exactly what I'd expect to see. Without this evidence I see no reason to accept the claims (and good reasons not to), which is of course why I am an atheist. I see lots of religious and other supernatural claims and I apply my skepticism of them equally. I see no reason to reject other religions based on lack of evidence, but to accept Christianity based on the same poor evidence.
Creation is a womb where God given cognitive free-will minds reveal their motivation and potential inheritance of perfected children of God!
Ephesians 1:3-9
Kagan sounds incredibly ignorant around the 50 minute mark on his assessment of the historical evidence for the resurrection and his characterization of the disciples after Jesus's death.
Only Shelly Kegan had anything good or interesting to say here. The moderator did a terrible job and I feel sorry for the self-deluded Christian who kept interrupting , asked no questions and mere wants to believe based on poor and very shaky evidence. Poor guy.
His construct of what happens after death is pure fantasy and myth.
One have one life to live. Live it well and be kind to others and try to leave this earth a better place for future generations.
+My OpenMind Well, I know I wouldn't give you the time of day if someone granted you a podium.
It has happened on many occasions. I speak at international meeting around the world. You missed out! :-)
The weakness of Craig moral arguments were very skilfully and simply expose by Shelly Kegan.
LOL, this is N. T. Wright, not Craig!
I commented on the wrong discussion. AHHHHHH.
If death is thee end, then it's pointless for Shelly to even concern himself on the topic any further.
To me the world and reality would be unbearable living with a nihilistic worldly view
Christian word salad...
Wright speaks quite poetic, sadly this has nothing to do with reality. He seems not even to understand that he really hasn't good arguments for his worldview ....
+Al Gebra Because that's not the topic of the debate. Look elsewhere if you want to see a defense of the faith; there is plenty out there, including from Dr Wright.
I know the 'arguments'. I am sorry, but there is not really a defense, especially when it comes to history.
Interesting conversation, but Shelly Kagan interrupts alot and does not listen very well, which comes across as "I've got a bone to pick and I'm not really going to give you space to reply." He is obviously not a historian. Also, can I just say that such a naive acceptance of anything, let alone epicureanism/physicalism, is the very first thing any first-year humanities undergrad is taught not to do.
Dave Burke because nt wright makes bold claims
Shelly was kinda of a dush but love is energy lol definitely wright cant explain everything in a few minutes but ravi Zacharias would kill shelly. Naturalism is a extreme type of extreme relativism he basically saying that its all based off his opinion is almost ultimate illusion the naturalist believes himself over all things it extreme paranoia. Naturalist remind me of Adam hiding from a angry God that was never angry Adam thought something of God that was never true he ran away trusting himself. The naturalist ultimately have no meaning to life because life is some game with ultimately a bog illusion and joke love isnt real neither is your pain they argue not against God but they argue against God. The naturalist make opinion its not evven based off evidence it just mere thoughts experiments that have become horrific and tragic i wonder what atheist do when there on there death bed and wonder whats after they think back on all there debates fighting for hat if a naturalist why does it matter to debate?
I think that atheists would be better off calling themselves naturists. It would describe a belief -- that natural law explains everything that can be known -- and it would also be less negative than "atheist."
N.T.believes in a resurrection if billions of people who have no where to go and live to infinity in a world without the things they know and love in their time and place .He hasn't thought it through
The Resurrection hope may make death easier to cope with for the Christian since they believe that they will be reunited with their loved one again. However, the Christian worldview makes death harder to deal with than it ever could be for the nonbeliever in many cases because of the belief in the resurrection to everlasting contempt. Faith comes with a realization of both greater gain and greater loss. There is only possible consolation in bereavement for the Christian if they are confident in the salvation of the deceased. And the atheist suffers loss without hope of ever seeing their loved ones again but they do not have to suffer the dread of their possible damnation.
+Steven Strnad This is certainly true. But what we can be comforted with is that they are judged on what they are responsible for, their own choices, including the choice to accept or refuse eternal life.
Why do nihilists always need to have an explanation of how God does supernatural creative things? Not at all trying to argue that therefore Christians don't need to explain their views but obviously if God is God that spoke the universe into existence and created life then giving a human a new body, no problem at all
The Jew insists on framing the discussion and controlling the dialogue, nearly without exception. In this case, interrupting to do so. Why?
Hannah Bludworth the atheist is the Jew..that's who she/he's referring to
You've corrupted the minds of youth with philosophy Shelly Kagan, Do you know what happened to Pythagoras and Socrates?
obvious the moderator is hostile to the christian, the way she holds her arm.....we should expect our message to be foolishness to those that are perishing, indeed we are fools for christ!
Shelley Kagan talks nonsense. No match for NT Wright
No, Wright is not the person on the left hand side. That is Prof. Kagan. But apart from that you are absolutely right ...
problem is that atheism leads to nihilism, hence this discussion is useless as neither of the two have free will, everything they say and do is simply such that this discussion has no meaning at all, indeed meaning becomes leached out of the entire universe. atheism , like all ideologies has a serious flaw; it contradicts itself, or rather it is the grave digging the grave.
NT Wright..word salad
Kagan also seems utterly unaware of the numerous undesigned coincidences in the gospels that lend further credibility to their legitimacy. See the book by Lydia McGrew "Hidden In Plain View" for more information.
No surprise that the atheist speaks of life and the universe in terms of darkness and bleakness. Yikes, man! Listen to yourself, will ya? Your very words testify against the veracity of your worldview. To wit, Jesus spoke two thousand years ago...I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life...Not to say this sums the case, but it surely is nonetheless indicative that these are no mere fables.
Shelly Kagan is like an exhausting child who never gets the point.