As an "old" atheist, meaning someone who was atheist before the rise of Dawkins and the "new" atheism of the early 2000s, the one thing I credit Dawkins with, through his book, was me "coming out of the atheist closet" so to speak. Before, I'd either deflect, or kinda hide my atheism behind vague language when the subject of God or religion came up. So, that I'll give him credit for. But, over the last 18 years of reading both other atheist or agnostic thinkers, as well as religious and apologetics arguments, I realized that Dawkins is honestly, intellectually underdeveloped on many of religious ideas, Christian or otherbeliefs, and definitely not an effective communicator. On religion, he's pretty much Bill Maher with an British accent. This isn't to say that he's necessarily "wrong" about things seemingly nonsensical to him. There are belief that people hold, that I find genuinely puzzling. And THAT'S where I think the more important conversations can happen. Dismissing something as nonsense, is far less interesting than actually listening to someone explain why it is they believe it. Not so much to listen to be convinced, more so to listen to better understand how beliefs work. What moves people. Why, as an atheist, do I somehow not see what literally tens of billions of other humans have, for a very long time. I haven't watched this discussion yet, because honestly, Dawkins is a tough listen these days. This doesn't mean I think atheist shouldn't ask her tough questions, I just hope we ask MEANINGFUL questions. P.s. Apologies for the wall of text 😂
Thanks for sharing your perspective! It's definitely useful to be curious about why and how people come to believe certain things, even if you don't agree.
Indeed. However, dismissing something as nonsense is not merely less interesting, it's arrogant, ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Dawkins' astounding arrogance is, frankly, nauseating. I don't care what you believe or don't believe, ad hominem attacks and bullying is not fair intellectual discourse and he needs to be called out for it!
@@nicolamustard7232 He often is called out for it. But again, I'm not saying that he's wrong, but simply that he hasn't communicated why he is "right" effectively.
It is nice to hear this from an athiest for the time being. As a Christian in my talks with most athiest I try to explain the position of the Christian on the topic and never get more often than not a total dismissal. They don't even entertain the idea. I believe Christianity makes the most sense if you can first hold the position that a mystery is possible in that everything can't be explained but some things are innately known then actually understand why the cross and the resurrection truly explains life as we actually experience it. Christianity is simply facts nor is it blind faith it is a combination of the 2. There are reasons of history and the heart. Both converge to make sense of life. We are heads with hearts. I understand athiest mostly seem to say the world is reason alone then try to smuggle in ethics. They can accept their mystery but not mine.
What Ayaan describes is a God who speaks. That is precisely what the scriptures discuss. Not a distant deity that is unconcerned with this material universe and living creatures, but a God whose desire is to break through and commune with a distracted humanity. When he finally gets our attention, we are often very surprised.
@@stephenbailey9969 what you describe could very well be something internal. Think about why a God can be so comforting for some and ineffectual for others. Human psychology.
@@JohnCamacho Yes. It is internal, no doubt. But a God that manifests in power that is beyond the individual, with knowledge and acts, is precisely what scriptures describe and what people experience. For interesting sources, I suggest you check out Craig S. Keener's "Miracles Today" and Nabeel Qureshi's "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus".
Great take, Dr. O! Dawkins does inadvertently make a good point regarding the doctrinal basis for Christianity and "taking the whole package". Where he goes astray is in his naturalistic-materialistic presuppositions and not being able to recognize those presuppositions and engaging on that level.
Was about to make a similar comment - Christianity won't be understood or purely naturalistic grounds. To further your point he seems to be unaware of these presuppositions he has, that is he takes them for granted.
@Repentee And yet Christians cannot support any non-natural, reliable method for understanding their religion, and science has done a great deal of work illuminating the mechanisms by which people come to believe things. Spoilers: it's not the holy spirit. If you want people to not assume naturalism, provide some proof that there is more.
@@WaterCat5 Seriously? Ok, then answer some simple questions such as....why are you? What does it mean 'to be'? Why is consciousness? How do you know? What does it mean to know? Does love exist? If so, how do you measure it empirically?
@@Repentee "Christianity won't be understood or purely naturalistic grounds." You can claim this about any religion. Many atheists are willing to change their mind if something is presented (like a methodology) to be able to tell whether something non-naturalistic exists.
@@JohnCamacho thanks for the polite response, it is refreshing. you said: "You can claim this about any religion." Not claiming to represent any other religion so I don't think any answer I give will suffice here. Perhaps you have specific examples? "Many atheists are willing to change their mind if something is presented (like a methodology) to be able to tell whether something non-naturalistic exists." This sounds good but I think it's a naive view (not meant as an insult). I think a lot of atheists would like to believe this about themselves but I think there is a lot more at stake in the atheist psyche in this discussion than mere data points and arguments, the evidence. Here I'm thinking worldview commitments, human sovereignty, emotional baggage, values, semantics, etc. The bible confirms this (Romans 1) and I think real life experiences do too. To add, In all my years talking to atheists This is what I've seen in spite of presentation of arguments (deductive BTW) given where the atheist in question accepts both premises and still refuses to accept the conclusions. Sure it's anecdotal at some level, but no more anecdotal then your case.
You are the best apologist I’ve ever heard. Your arguments actually make sense unlike the majority of popular personalities who just want to reinforce dogmas. Thank you for being sincere.
Many former Christians will find this video very irritating. Dr. Ortlund is making waves & he knows it. He's a lot smarter than most of his subscribers think he is.
And many of them are just trying to show off how smart they are. Pride at its finest. Gavin makes sense every time he speaks and anyone with a basic understanding of English understands him, which is what makes him so great.
Glen Scrivner is excellent, too. Gavin interviewed him about his book The Air We Breathe. It's the Christian version of Dominion by Tom Holland. Google Glen Scrivner speak live ministries on RUclips and look for some of his critique videos. He's got a few on Richard Dawkins. They are all excellent. He has a critique on the same dialogue with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Absolutely fascinating.
@@thomasrutledge5941 No his subscribers know how smart he is. lol Part of the reason we like him so much is he’s smart yet humble. He doesn’t let knowledge go to his head, he’s earnestly looking for the truth because of his love for God and everyone else. As the Word of God says knowledge puffs itself up but love edifies all.
If a Christian believes Romans 1;20, then what is the purpose of being involved in Christian apologetics at all? "Never Use Romans 1;20 with Non-Believers!" ruclips.net/video/H8Nu5QXXtVU/видео.htmlsi=yL6TQf0RWibmVDTw
"It's very difficult to explain" Oh how I can relate to that! I'm quite certain that I'll spend the rest of my life trying to understand it. I have sorrow for the soul of Richard Dawkins, and those who follow in his path. That they do not (yet) know the blessing it is to live a life of striving with God.
@@mihaimoldo No, see that's what you don't understand. The reason I can't fully explain it, is because I can explain it 1000 different ways, knowing full well that every single one of them will only ever just barely scratch the surface of the full depth of revelation that has become known to my soul.
@@KFish-bw1om that's the opposite of knowing something. Aka delusional. If you can explain it in 1000 ways then it's the opposite of can't explaining it . These 2 notions are mutually exclusive.
@@mihaimoldo Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps something is missing from your understanding? Or has that never even entered your mind as a possibility?
@@KFish-bw1om it's quite possible that Dawkins is working out his relationship with God in his own way. He's done a lot of good for religion, helping to weed out some of it's superstitions & anti-science biases, and has probably given many people courage to break free from harmful forms of religion
I am Eastern Orthodox and am part of one of the most conservative and insular orthodox groups out there - I love your work, you’re the man!!!! Your content is so helpful and enjoyable even when I disagree which is often.
One thing that has always struck me about Dawkins and his ilk, is the almost complete lack humility when debating Christians, and the unwavering trust in their own intellect. Even though they have barely scratched the surface of knowledge, they operate as if they alone have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe!
Well, what's actually happening is that the arguments for Christianity are bad and do not have sufficient explanatory and predictive power. Furthermore, it's clear Christians have even less knowledge than atheists (or perhaps its better to say they have seemingly false or unprovable "knowledge"). How many false doomsday prophecies have there been? How many times has the church conveniently adjusted it's doctrine to match the times? Show me one true claim about the world that Christianity has that science and rational inquiry cannot also reasonably prove, and maybe then people will take you seriously.
Yes but there are more formidable atheist philosophers people can read. Dawkins and by extension the New Atheists were there to popularize atheism not completely defend it. The defence comes through philosophy
My favorite part in Contact (the movie), was when Jodi Foster and Matthew Mcconaughey's characters were on the balcony during that party, talking about love, and proof. Not sure if that is in the book, but man, is that ever a powerful scene. "prove it" 🤯
I remember when Greg Boyd (in his Bethel/Baptist General Conference days) taught a class at the church I attended, and when this movie came out he joked that it was his favorite movie because the theologian gets the girl.
I love the end because Jodi has a totally real experience and because she can't prove it, sjw finally experiences the derision she gave to those who lived by faith. She thought faith was blind, when it fact it was seeing, and those she told couldn't see.
I would love a video on the harsh language that the prophets use for Israel. Specifically when they refer to Israel as a woman and what she deserves for her disobedience. I'm currently walking with a young woman that finds the language distasteful and the condemnation of Israel overly brutal.
Ain't nobody defending Biblical Israel not even the Jews 😂 Hahahaha Imagine getting out of Egypt and making an Idol lol... That's some unfaithfulness... On a serious note, why is she getting offended when modern Jews would rightfully call out their ancestors? I just read Samuel today so it's a funny comment to come across! Thx and God bless
@zackattack366 The difficulty is there, but not so much when we look at the Bible as a whole. It's harsh with the male tendencies, too (Matt. 5:28 comes to mind). The Bible has a lot of loving spousal expression of love. Isaiah 54, the book of Hosea, Song of Solomon. Even the "harsh" words are part of His warning us of spiritual danger, out of love. James 4:4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. What also helped me is reminding myself that we don't have a horizontal relationship with God, so He assumes the superior position. (He is our Father, not child. Jesus is our Older Brother, not younger). "The male you could have escaped, for it exists only on the biological level. But the masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it." - C.S. Lewis, _That Hideous Strength_
Actually, the imagery is profound. God identifies as a man and the spiritual husband of Israel. Therefore, Israel's disobedience worshipping idols is equated with adultery, something every man can relate to.
Carl Sagan was open to & interested in paranormal phenomena. He found Ian Stevenson's reaserch on reincarnation very interesting. There are many scientists interested in & even involved in paranormal phenomena & spirit communication. They just are not vocal about it.
I’m concerned at the level of scrutiny Ayaan’s conversion is under. We all need time to grow in understanding after conversion. To expect her to have perfect theology at this point is unrealistic and possibly damaging to her walk. Dawkins was rude. Calling Christianity “obvious nonsense” is not an argument, it’s lazy. He can’t even be bothered to make an argument. And the subtext is that anyone who believes is an idiot. And then he dares to consider himself her friend? With friends like that who needs enemies.
You should make allowance for different kinds of friendships. I’ve spent more than 20 years sparring like this with my best friends. It fits with our personalities. We’re not friends in spite of this kind of argument but because of it. I admit, though, it doesn’t always look great on stage. Especially if they’re only professional friends and not close personal friends (but I really don’t know).
It is nice to see you making videos again! 🍻🍻 About this left vs right brain I agree with your general views. I just can not find a single left brain word in Dawkins tirades (yeah, yeah, I know - technically all words are left brain). It is all pathos. I think he just reeks of emotions, anxiety pumping out one verbal attack after another. And I think it often is the case that atheists are very emotional about the topic of religion and stray far from the logical and rational, computeresque thinkers they perhaps claim to be. To be honest it does take some stern motivation to learn enough about something you dislike just so that you can argue with people over it. And I do firmly believe that emotions do serve as one of very few such motivators.
Thank you. I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins wore a tie that looks like the DNA double-helix, the mysteries of which were discovered by Frances Collin’s (with a team), a brilliant scientist who is also a Christian.
Hopefully not. Alex O'Connor is a kid who doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time and Dawkins is just an ignoramus of the highest order. I read "God delusion". It was atrociously bad researched. This guy knows nothing about the Christian faith or history. Why he even thought he could write such a book is beyond me. I guess it's the typical arrogance of the scientist who thinks he can explain the whole world, even in fields that are too far removed from his area of expertise. And O'Connor is simply annoying in his pathetic attempt to model himself after Hitchens. Also - he has just as little knowledge about Christian history as Dawkins despite his claim that he studied theology - I see none of it in his debates. Gavin talking to any of them would be like a mathematics professor talking to someone who can't even add 2 + 2.
@@MrSeedi76 I would like to see Ortlund vs O'Connor. I think a pleassant, intelligent Reformed Baptist is exactly who you need to evangelise an atheist who believes in a deterministic (or maybe random) nihilistic world. I'm not Reformed and shortly probably won't be Baptist, but Ortlund would be the right tool of God for this job.
@@SeanusAurelius No, no.... I think O'Connor needs to have a chat with Bishop Robert Barron. A Thomistic theologian with a deep understanding of church history and the Scriptures.... Boom! 🎇
Man Dawkins philosophically and theologically is the bottom of the barrel. In his worldview he isn’t justified in calling anyone nonsensical or intellectually dishonest because that implies they have to be intellectually honest and in his worldview no one any such obligation. Dawkins believes there is no moral obligations so why should expect anyone to be honest at all . He believes his purpose is to spread atheism and yet he believes that life has no purpose . Dawkins doesn’t realise by his belittling of her he is actually being an amazing evangelist for Christianity as people really do by attention to bad character
What do you mean he isn't justified? Just because there is no cosmic reason doesn't mean you can't criticize people for being dishonest. It's a bad trait for most situations. We're a social species, and we generally expect people to be honest because there's usually no advantage to being dishonest or someone lying doesn't matter. When people lie in important situations, those people should rightly be maligned to discourage the behavior. You don't seem to understand that someone can have a personal purpose without thinking they have a cosmic one.
@@WaterCat5 that’s precisely my point I’m not saying he can’t criticise others but his worldview can’t justify that . In fact on his world view I may need to lie to survive or so can pass on my genes . And your using words like “rightly “ says who on your worldview. Because in his and your view morality is relative why should I not lie when I can gain something out of it . I’m not saying that you don’t know lying is wrong but 0 justification for it. And on the meaning point . Dawkins actually believes his meaning is to tell people they have no meaning . That may not be contradictory but it’s pretty crazy if you ask me . And expecting people to be honest bro . Really . People lie in courts everyday and even in everyday life infact we sometimes think people are lying to us . And yet again we should we expect someone to be honest if there is no morality .
@@Lurkingdolphin I don't know what you mean by "justify." It's pretty clear to me that I would prefer people tell me the truth in the vast majority of situations because it lets me make the most informed decisions. Is that not justification? If not, what is? Dawkins is saying his personal meaning is to tell people they have no cosmic meaning. You are conflating the two meanings. I do generally expect people to be honest, but obviously people lie when it advantages them. It's simple cost-benefit analysis. If I think someone has reason to lie, and I don't really know them, I will consider the option and how badly I would be harmed if they did lie. If someone told me what they ate for breakfast, I'm just gonna believe them unless it's something outrageous. If someone is trying to sell me something, I am going to assume they are generally overstating their product because it's advantageous for them to convince me. IDK, this seems super straightforward to everyone. I think you operate this way as well in your everyday life. I'd be surprised if you didn't.
@@thomasrutledge5941 yes; but I've never heard of a case where a stroke made you lisp! Slurred speech; yes! I like Dawkins but he thounds tho thilly now trying to thay 'thith is nonthenth!'
Thanks Pastor Gavin. Don’t you think CS Lewis would agree with Dawkins on the importance and preeminence of truth? He said something like: “if Christianity is true, a good man would want to believe in it even though he might not get personal benefit. If it’s false no good man should believe it”
That is an amazing story of what the Holy Spirit has done, and her life through the Lord Jesus Christ, and you can tell she is an amazing individual and a new creation in Christ, moving into more and more of what the Lord has for her. Very awesome.
Can we get Dawkins and Bishop Barron together for a chat? I'd love to see Dawkins take a dose of humility, which I agree is important in every human endeavor.
I mean when you come from a place of “there is something” then leads you to it has to be an all powerful God the miracles of virgin birth, healing, and resurrection are not the typical stumbling blocks. The most shocking thing is God is personal, that He cares, and that He wants to draw all to Him. Atheists wrestle with how there could be miracles when there is nothing. Christians wrestle with a God that cares.
Well put. Lots of fruitful overlap with the work of Iain McGilchrist on the brain hemispheres. His study leads him to reject atheism / materialism. Just one more vector nudging people towards God. Also lots of resonance with Pascal - the intense personal experience ushering in a totally new paradigm, but not irrationality by any means, rather renewed reason, chastened reason, faith seeking understanding.
Gavin, We have not heard this woman confess Christ as her only Saviour? Christianity has dozens of forms, and only one is where salvation is found, and that is believing the good news of Lord Jesus for oneself. There is no VICOR according to our Messiah Gavin.
FAITHs are conspiracy theories. Each “FAITH” makes unprovable assertions about what a God wants. What makes one faith a better conspiracy theory than the others? How is faith any different from other conspiracy theories or gossip (without evidence)?
Although you express appreciation for Prof Dawkins, we have to understand that his writings and programmes have led millions into the doctrines of atheism for which he bears an awful responsibility.
@@Qwerty-lp1fz Because it's a hopeless, nihilistic, existentially barren and empty way to live. And if we go by the atheistic regimes of the 20th century, also a potentially very dangerous philosophy on which to build a society. In a very poorly written book (or books), Dawkins, in his limitless arrogance, has determined that he knows more than all the people who for millennia have studied, thought, written, built, analyzed, expressed (artistically, musically, through literature), endeavoured, studied, added to human philosophy, learned, questioned, fought, died all for the seeking of and determining of Truth. That's quite a lot of arrogance. 🤦🏽♀️He's made a killing off ignorantly tearing down all that human thought and endeavour has built up (even that upon which his 'scientism' stands). An extraordinarily ignoble legacy to leave.🙄 Go read Plato, then Aristotle, then Aquinas (and I don't mean Dawkins' foolish and empty interpretation of Aquinas). These people were intellectually honest, sincerely seeking Truth through reason, thought and analysis. Dawkins by comparison is an ignorant, arrogant buffoon.
@@nicolamustard7232 Atheism is a stance about a single question about the world and as such is basically compatible with almost any "philosophy to live by". One could argue that Christianity is "dangerous" after reading how e.g. Aquianas advocated for death penalty for heretics based specifically on his Christian theology. I don't know what's about the rant about Dawkins, ok I get it that you really hate the guy.
Dawkins is definitely missing something for sure… More like it, someone. I pray that the spirit of the Lord will draw him in Jesus name because he is 83 now. Just saying. I don’t mean to be rather blunt here, or maybe I do. If he doesn’t repent, pretty soon, he’s going to eat his words, and I would absolutely hate that for him. What a waste of life not knowing the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ayaan is sincere about Christianity. Dawkins is sincere about Christianity as he doesn't believe in any faiths. The insincere ones are those that say they are Christian but have no interest in the physical resurrection or those that mock Christianity altogether but secretly hold to other spiritual beliefs that they like to keep out of the discourse. For example their are Jordan Peterson followers who would like to broaden Christianity to mean anything that suits them, and their are supposedly atheist sites that have a decent percentage of followers with other spiritual beliefs. Maybe orthodox Christianity is in more danger of being watered down and becoming irrelevant by those that are spiritual than it is of being eradicated by the purely materialistic.
Nice false dichotomy. There is no "god" or "nothing" choice to be made. The universe is still here. Thats something. And we do not have conclusive evidence that there is no god or higher reality, just enough to know that there isnt yours.
ORTLUNDISM: n. The synthesis of Christianity with Absurdism and Historical Revisionism. The idea seems to be that it's always possible for two sufficiently clever apologists on opposite sides of a debate to craft arguments that would eventually overwhelm the common Christian's ability to decide between them, and this could cause him to endlessly vascilate. Therefore, these competing sides become the rock and hill of Sisyphus. What to do, then? In the absence of the possibility of truth, embrace the absurdity. If the Orthodox and Catholics want to argue about which tradition is "truer" to history, why not show you can also play the same game, and argue that history supports the Baptist faith? The struggle alone is enough to raise your heart to a stable seat in Heaven, even as the rock just keeps going up and down
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Dawkins' statements reminded me of how Leo Strauss pointed out years ago that during the Enlightenment anti-religious thinkers didn't succeed in disproving the claims of faith, but they effectively resorted to mockery. "Don't you think it's nonsense?" or "Obviously, that's not true" are not rational arguments for or against something.
There are much better arguments than those, and the onus of proof is on the theist. If the theist wishes to make their God impregnable to reason, the atheist has no choice but to point out the obvious bias and pitfalls involved.
@@WaterCat5 Hi. Thanks for replying. There's no "onus" on the theist-except if they are trying to impose religion on others. That is an approach that most wise believers reject today. And a similar thing is true in a different way for atheists. I've seen some who claim they "know" there is no God. This is rationally impossible to prove (thus atheism is not "impregnable to reason" and reason cannot defeat faith), and the "onus" would be on them to try to do so. But as long as atheists claim to merely believe there is no God, they are fine. Your thoughts?
@@WaterCat5 it's tiresome that atheists repeat this over and over. I would say that the atheist (or adherent to 'scientism') must be able to answer the why and the what questions as much as the how questions, but they can't, and so all they have is, 'well it's all nonsense'. The arrogance is palpable. Go read Plato, then Aristotle, then Aquinas. Then come back and we'll talk. 🤦🏽♀️🙄
Well there are questions that you can ask a theist that they will feel odd to answer, e.g. could you be wrong about God? A case against faith can be brought up easily, especially in the world we live where there are so many different religions and there are those as confident about their non Christian religions as you are about yours. Religious confusion. Seems hardly fair that a hindu grows up in a predominantly hindu family and will taste death instead of life, through no fault of their own.
Lets just take a minute to praise God. Think about it. Gavin, Ayaan, a Christian in Palestine, Iran or India, Paul the Apostle, Jeffery Dahmer, Michael Jones, Charles Spurgeon, you and me are all brothers and sisters redeemed in Christ and are children of God. If one part of us suffer, then we all do; if one part of us rejoices, we all do. It is honestly so exciting and wonderful and awesome to know that we are all in one family. I can meet a genuine Christian in the middle of Pakistan and feel like I am at home due to simple fact that Christ has redeemed us and we have His Holy Spirit inside of us. Seeing this video made me realise that although they're miles apart and probably never met, Gavin and Ayaan share one thing in common and that is that they're in Christ AND I AM ALSO RELATED TO THEM. God is good!
“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbours together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. Praise the Lord!
I used to be an Atheist until I was 28 and growing up in the UK it is easy to live a life ignoring religion. I have found though that my Atheist background has helped me since becoming a Christian. On Atheism, nothing you think, say, do or feel ultimately matters. We will all have the same fate. So even if I am wrong about my faith, so what? It is not going to change anything. Also more positively, I found that living a life following Christ brings meaning and hope. The hope that there is such a thing as ultimate justice makes living in this violent, unjust world bearable.
It would be nice if one didn’t need to decide to take a Pascal-esque sort of wager to come to that conclusion. My trouble is most arguments for the validity of Christianity aren’t strong enough to justify the belief and it ends up as a simple case of desiring it to be true rather than being confident in it. You could justify any belief on that basis. I’m not an expert on all arguments and reality at large or anything, that’s just how I currently see it, being honest.
@@Capt.Fail. I am not offering an argument, just sharing my own experience. I think my former Atheism has given me a mindset which frees me from caring about anything other than searching for what I feel and know to be true and good. That led me to Christ and the Gospel. Dawkins says we are merely DNA reproduction machines. Maybe he is right. Maybe he is not. I just dont see why on Atheism any of it matters.
@@clivejungle6999 Sure, and if that’s how far down you have to go to convince yourself of Christianity, then it’s likely not true. Which, sure, you can say you don’t care either way and will just believe it anyways because it doesn’t matter, but for me I can’t just convince myself of it knowing that there’s no good reason to believe it and I’d likely be lying to myself. Same goes for evangelizing, not sure how you’d go out to convince people of Christianity on the basis of, “I just want it to be true.” There are also plenty of people and philosophers that disagree about the lack of meaning without God, so that’s not exactly a clear-cut certainty either (although at this moment in time, due to religious upbringing or lack of understanding or whatever else, I do tend to agree with you).
@@Capt.Fail. well said - and not to mention, the whole idea of salvation may also be in jeopardy from people who essentially taking a pascal-esque wager by just deciding to believe in God because it "gives them a sense of purpose", and not because they actually believe in the events of the bible. So are they "true" Christians anyway?
Richard Dawkins' repeated appeals to "isn't it obviously nonsense" reveal his unquestioning faith as an atheist. Here, as in other public remarks, his stance is: "you don't really believe this, do you?" Because, for him such beliefs are literally incomprehensible, so his starting position is that the central tenets of the Christian faith can't possibly be sincerely held by inteligent people. But they _are_ sincerely held. That fact alone might reasonably arouse someone's curiosity to ask whether there might be more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy.
Also, it reveals how much the potency of atheist polemucs depended on the zeitgeist. They would like to believe they engage with arguements from first principle, but so much of the plausibility of their rhetoric depends on an audience (including the christians among it) that already have a modern imagination and modern sensibilities supplied to them by non-rational means.
You assume much . His questions stem from his personal relationship with Ali, they spoke a lot in private about the subject of religion as Dawkins said so in the debate ...publicly. Watching people deciphering hidden meanings in his simple questions is both hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
Dawkins: you don't believe Mary got pregnant by God, that is nonsense also Dawkins: isn't it so amazing how everything just magically spawned out of nothing all by itself somehow!
The right and left brain comments were so helpful. I've always thought this and never been able to express it. Christopher Hitchens used to suffer from this tone deafness too. I used to listen to him berate Christianity and think to myself "you just don't get it".
Your section titled "Is There Something or Nothing?" reminded me of the movie Signs, specifically an analysis of the movie by Like Stories of Old. In the analysis, LSOO shows us that people try to construct meaning through narratives and that faith is about seeing the signs, i.e., experiencing a transcendental other. It's a great analysis and pertains to the topic. The name of the video is "The Essence of Faith - What Signs Was Really About."
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the person without the Spirit does not receive what comes from God's Spirit because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually. This is Dawkins.
My worry is she did not answer his question about the resurrection at all. She used the word “something” a few times. She never mentioned sin, repentance, salvation, forgiveness, Christ paying the penalty for her sin, the cross, His blood shed for her. There was a lot missing from her “ testimony”. She was told to “ pray” by a psychiatrist/ psychologist- who did she pray to and what did she pray? That’s important. I would have to hear a lot more about what she actually believes. K
I keep reminding myself that she's a new Christian just beginning to learn the basics of Theology. Though. Obviously a super smart lady, she's just starting the journey in Christian doctrine and there's a lot to learn let alone Express is such a setting
@@geraldbritton8118 yes there is a lot to learn. But usually one is convicted by the Holy Spirt of sin and hell and the need to be saved by faith in Christ by hearing the Gospel. There should be some rudimentary knowledge of the Gospel. Anyway I do pray that she has had a genuine conversion wrought by God in her heart. That she has been regenerated
The problem isn't that Dawkins is too analytical, it's that he rejects God in his heart. He's heard the good news, and he considers it rubbish. He tries to dissuade young believers. I feel pretty clear that you aren't making excuses for Dawkins and others like him, but there's more going on here than simply starting at two different points.
Hi Gavin, love your channel! I think your right brain/left brain analysis could be helpful. But I feel it is more helpful to see it as a difference between Spirit and Flesh. Dawkins is reasoning from eyes which are still blind to the Gospel truth. It’s still folly to him. The Spirit awakened Ayaan, and brought her to a place to see Christ in her spiritual poverty. Dawkins has no concept of such things as spiritual bankruptcy or poverty (yet). Praying that the light of the Spirit will shine through his friend Ayaan and awaken him to Jesus.
You're probably drowning in comments and will never see this. But I feel compelled to comment. To the best of my research this memorable quote originates with Sam Shoemaker. He said, "One can never find God by reason alone; but once one finds God by faith, he discovers his faith is not unreasonable." I've always thought this is just about the right balance between the faith and reason. Thanks for your labors in the Word and Theology.
Dawkins was not hospitable throughout this discussion. His use of pejoratives and callous dismantling of Ali’s experience does not show any genuine nor respectful behavior. He’s not purely operating from a left brain mentality, he’s angry. He’s angry someone who was “on his team” left to join one he’s been vehemently against for years.
I agree that scientistic versions of atheism are existentially shallow. Unfortunately they get the most play because they’re influential in the English speaking world and because they’re intellectually accessible. But there are much more serious philosophical versions of atheism (and/or secularism) with existential sensitivity and depth. I realize apologetics focuses on what’s popular or influential, since it’s missional, but as a result it typically doesn’t deal with the most robust versions of either atheism or secularism. I wish it did, I’m an atheist and I crave a conversation I just can’t find. I say that here because I appreciate your respect and openness, you’re a Christian who’s open to dialogue. Unfortunately, few Christians and few atheists are.
Too many people expect too much from Ali. She's a new Christian, biblically unknowledgable - see the bit about Abraham - and a skilled politician who knows that she can't defend all the downstream corollaries. Atheists, take your swings at Ali while she can't refute you skillfully. You probably won't have long. If she's really been brought to faith, that situation will very much change. She'll be just as effective an ally of the gospel as she was an enemy. Christians, including those who don't believe she has really come to faith yet, pray for her. I took 10 years from abandoning atheism before I got all the way there. Christ does not give up when he goes searching for that lost sheep, and nor does he put it down if it's wet or heavy or unable to walk!
Wow, she's amazing. Speaking beautifully to the heart of what people are caring about and realizing more and more. And you nailed it, Gavin. Great job.
Dawkins’s scientism precludes his from considering the possibility of a reality beyond the material. In actuality, his viewpoint is probably more “faith”-based than the typical Christian philosopher or cosmologist, where his priors make it impossible for him to honestly seek out and attempt to rationalize the views of those who disagree with him. Dawkins is undeniably an intelligent individual in his field, but when it comes to matters of philosophy, especially ontology and epistemology, he is woefully lacking.
@@TruthUnites I thought this was excellent and very valuable for all of us - theists, Christians, Athiests...well ... humans. As a Catholic, I obviously disagree with some of your videos and some of your specific arguments. But thought this was so good I should acknowledge it with a contribution (I can't in good conscience be a general patron).
One of the problems with Dawkins is instead of actually engaging the thinking with Christian theology, he just all describes it as all nonsense as has been his campaign from the early 2000s. Contra to his believed intellectual honesty, he's not a very open minded person. He's already come up to their own decision before even digging deep enough to critique it. And he is not good at critiquing it. The God delusion was not a compelling book.
The God Delusion was, by far, the worst philosophical work written by a well-regarded intellectual. I say it’s philosophical because it discusses, in a polemical way, theistic/deistic philosophy, and is just terribly deficient on basic matters of ontology, epistemology, and causality. “The Ultimate 747” is a chapter which made me wonder if his work was just an exercise on how lazy and stupid he could be whilst selling millions of copies, where he would put no effort in and still make bank.
@@WayneDrake-uk1ggI don’t hate Dawkins, but some of his philosophical arguments are pretty awful, and his priors don’t allow for constructive dialogue (constructive in the sense of forgoing ad hominem insults and buzzwords). Dawkins is a brilliant man in his field, but he is not a brilliant philosopher, most assuredly.
@@UTNatlChamps but we could argue that in expressing his moral sensibilities, detached from religion, in a very outspoken way, he's at least pointing out things--whether right or wrong--that we, immersed in our own religion, might otherwise be oblivious to. For example, I used to be a big fan of WLC's Divine Command Theory, but eventually I was given pause to reconsider after hearing so many atheists "shout" *that* it's obviously wrong (even if they don't really dig into the philosophical underpinnings of "why")
This is a wonderful debate as Dawkins attacks in the open exposing his hostilities and need for God. The world without God is a hopeless one and Ayaan is calm and gentile and as proverb 25:15 states a soft word breaks a bone and this can win souls to Christ.
Folks including Gavin who are having trouble with Richard saying that it's obvious nonsense, put yourself in place of someone following a non Christian religion, who has looked at Christianity in the past. Do you get why they would think it's nonsense? No? How about you think about what they believe i.e. their religion. Is it nonsense? Maybe you wouldn't say so out loud but would you think it? I mean you don't believe it's true, right? Remember Richard and Ayaan are friends and he is likely to be honest with her and speaks his mind. In fact you can tell that Ayaan is not troubled by it.
This story sounds like an issue for a psychologist, not evdence of God! Its like people who are low and the idea of God gives them courage or a something! Also if people believe that God touched her and changed her life then what about stories where people claim to feel God to do bad things! The Yorkshire Ripper said that God spoke to him and told him to murder women! So if this womans experience was real couldn't the Rippers experience be real! I think he was mentally ill, so of course not real, but how would we know! It's interesting that she found this and not another religion to help her! She might also have found another way to fulfill herself that wasn't spiritual! You can see how Religion can be seen as created by man as it serves as a tool to help people psychologically in giving them a framework in which to live! It doesn't have to be true! If you believe it, then it is true! Its true that this experience wss real, but all experiences can seem real, but are they! People can take drugs and hallucinate! People can hallucinate and see things that are not there in everyday life, who are mentally sane! We all make mistakes we all see things that are not there! This sounds like a person who sees oil spilt on the road which they interpret as looking like religious figure and then say it was a sign form God! It could be who knows but i think you have to tale a more analytical approach to these questions!
I didn't sense a conversion either, but an experience that propelled her toward a journey of seeking--which is still great! Despite Dawkins' hubris and lack of charity, I think there was something to what he was getting at.
TRUTH Truth is easier to learn. TRUTH is easier to remember. Truth is easier to tell. Truth is easier to defend. Truth is easier to live. But lies and conspiracy theories are sometimes convincing if we fail to THINK!
Dawkin's greatest flaw is one that has been prevalent for a while in public intellectuals: he is a brilliant Biologist that knows a little bit of Philosophy (Analytic Philosophy), and he has a need to prove himself self sufficient, so he reduces everything to the toolbox he has, which is early XXI century Biology and some Analytical second hand commentary, and the result is that he is somewhat good at deconstructing, and very bad at constructing. Which is to say: Dawkins is a brilliant Biologist, a passing Statistician, a mediocre Chemist, a really bad Physicist, an awful Jurist, barely a beginner Philosophers (in many senses, an Anti-Philosopher), a Null in language learning and language related disciplines like Hermeneutics and Philology, an inept Political Scientist, and so on. We are all like that, the best of us are really good at a very narrow specialty, and mostly inept at everything else, or passing grade in informal conversations, but would be immediately butchered were we to try to write something outside of our field for peer review. The difference is, a lot of intellectuals know that and show a high degree of humbleness, which is an obvious instance to have, and which you don't need to be a genius to see. Mathematicians (that are not clinically insane) don't nay say their doctors when taking antibiotics because the doctor failed to formalize their entire argument as to why they need antibiotics in Mathematical jargon, they do the obvious thing, and defer the solution of a specific problem to a trained specialist. The really wise will circumvent their limitations by comparing reports from various specialists, in the case of a doctor, having their case analized by 2, 3, 4 doctors, the more difficult the problem, and the higher the stakes, the more doing this is advisable. Dawkins won't have none of it, and this is why he ends up in conversations in which he is trying to debate Philosophy with battle hardened specialists in cognitohazard warfare with nothing but his passing knowledge of Analytical Philosophy, which then makes him look cringe. The inverse is also true, Dawkins success, and the success of the Neoatheism movement in general, is due to the insistence of some Theologians of taking the bait and trying to debate Biology with a brilliant trained Biologist, which then allows people like Dawkins to wipe the floor with them on live TV.
I would have to agree that Dawkins can be entertaining to listen to. I have heard him say that he has an affection for the Anglican church, because nobody really believes it, which is not true, but I do think it is interesting that he likes the Anglican Church, like the formalism, and the holidays and stuff like that. Well, there’s a reason he likes it. I think it was one time when a Catholic priest asked him to name one of the 10 Commandments or something if I’m not mistaken. He said, “oh, God… “He had to call on God to help him remember one of the commandments that he thought he knew that he didn’t even believe. Lol
Dawkins is far to comfortable with his world view. He is convinced that what Christian beliefs are rubbish. He wants to shame the lady if she admits to certain beliefs. On a side note, I think the right brain / left brain thing is not very well understood. I think logic and emotion are far more complicated than this. I am no expert however.
A very good assessment of their conversation and the issues presented therein. Well done. I was particularly impressed with your explanation of the left/right brain dynamic. Some of your recent (the last year or so) videos have made it apparent that you are left brain dominant and I believe it has contributed to some blind spots in your analysis of history and understanding of certain theological concepts held by the Apostolic Churches. It’s relieving to know that you at least recognize we (humans) need more than our analytical, purely logical, function in order to arrive at truth. Again, well done.
My problem with her answers was that she seemed unable to firmly say she believes the truth claims of Christianity are not just true for here but is also objectivly true.
I think a bit of the disconnect is concerning if she is converting because she finds the beliefs meaningful or if she has converted because she thinks it is sufficient evidence to believe that these Christian doctrines are true in addition to the meaning it provides. I am actually not saying the former reason isn’t good enough on it's own but it is a real difference. The issue they are having is what can one infer from this experience rather than just why the experience was important in helping her with the challenges in her life.
@ryana1787 let's say there were two academic level scientists debating a very complicated detailed issue. One has to be right, would you say the other is speaking non sense no matter what his points are?
@@kylecityy no, not in my use of the word. Don’t get hung up on the word nonsense because it is hurting your feelings. True or false: a religion can be false but also useful to its followers?
As an "old" atheist, meaning someone who was atheist before the rise of Dawkins and the "new" atheism of the early 2000s, the one thing I credit Dawkins with, through his book, was me "coming out of the atheist closet" so to speak. Before, I'd either deflect, or kinda hide my atheism behind vague language when the subject of God or religion came up.
So, that I'll give him credit for. But, over the last 18 years of reading both other atheist or agnostic thinkers, as well as religious and apologetics arguments, I realized that Dawkins is honestly, intellectually underdeveloped on many of religious ideas, Christian or otherbeliefs, and definitely not an effective communicator. On religion, he's pretty much Bill Maher with an British accent.
This isn't to say that he's necessarily "wrong" about things seemingly nonsensical to him. There are belief that people hold, that I find genuinely puzzling. And THAT'S where I think the more important conversations can happen. Dismissing something as nonsense, is far less interesting than actually listening to someone explain why it is they believe it. Not so much to listen to be convinced, more so to listen to better understand how beliefs work. What moves people. Why, as an atheist, do I somehow not see what literally tens of billions of other humans have, for a very long time.
I haven't watched this discussion yet, because honestly, Dawkins is a tough listen these days. This doesn't mean I think atheist shouldn't ask her tough questions, I just hope we ask MEANINGFUL questions.
P.s. Apologies for the wall of text 😂
Thanks for sharing your perspective! It's definitely useful to be curious about why and how people come to believe certain things, even if you don't agree.
Indeed. However, dismissing something as nonsense is not merely less interesting, it's arrogant, ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Dawkins' astounding arrogance is, frankly, nauseating. I don't care what you believe or don't believe, ad hominem attacks and bullying is not fair intellectual discourse and he needs to be called out for it!
@@nicolamustard7232 He often is called out for it.
But again, I'm not saying that he's wrong, but simply that he hasn't communicated why he is "right" effectively.
It is nice to hear this from an athiest for the time being.
As a Christian in my talks with most athiest I try to explain the position of the Christian on the topic and never get more often than not a total dismissal. They don't even entertain the idea. I believe Christianity makes the most sense if you can first hold the position that a mystery is possible in that everything can't be explained but some things are innately known then actually understand why the cross and the resurrection truly explains life as we actually experience it. Christianity is simply facts nor is it blind faith it is a combination of the 2. There are reasons of history and the heart. Both converge to make sense of life.
We are heads with hearts. I understand athiest mostly seem to say the world is reason alone then try to smuggle in ethics. They can accept their mystery but not mine.
What Ayaan describes is a God who speaks.
That is precisely what the scriptures discuss. Not a distant deity that is unconcerned with this material universe and living creatures, but a God whose desire is to break through and commune with a distracted humanity.
When he finally gets our attention, we are often very surprised.
Such a contrast to the distant, capricious, deceitful God of Islam
@@ProfYaffle Or distant, capricious, deceitful God of Old Testament
@@stephenbailey9969 what you describe could very well be something internal. Think about why a God can be so comforting for some and ineffectual for others. Human psychology.
@@JohnCamacho Yes. It is internal, no doubt. But a God that manifests in power that is beyond the individual, with knowledge and acts, is precisely what scriptures describe and what people experience.
For interesting sources, I suggest you check out Craig S. Keener's "Miracles Today" and Nabeel Qureshi's "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus".
@@stephenbailey9969 I'm suggesting it is all psychology. Some people "learned" to need a God; others can get by without one.
Great take, Dr. O! Dawkins does inadvertently make a good point regarding the doctrinal basis for Christianity and "taking the whole package". Where he goes astray is in his naturalistic-materialistic presuppositions and not being able to recognize those presuppositions and engaging on that level.
Was about to make a similar comment - Christianity won't be understood or purely naturalistic grounds. To further your point he seems to be unaware of these presuppositions he has, that is he takes them for granted.
@Repentee And yet Christians cannot support any non-natural, reliable method for understanding their religion, and science has done a great deal of work illuminating the mechanisms by which people come to believe things. Spoilers: it's not the holy spirit.
If you want people to not assume naturalism, provide some proof that there is more.
@@WaterCat5 Seriously?
Ok, then answer some simple questions such as....why are you? What does it mean 'to be'? Why is consciousness? How do you know? What does it mean to know? Does love exist? If so, how do you measure it empirically?
@@Repentee "Christianity won't be understood or purely naturalistic grounds."
You can claim this about any religion. Many atheists are willing to change their mind if something is presented (like a methodology) to be able to tell whether something non-naturalistic exists.
@@JohnCamacho thanks for the polite response, it is refreshing. you said:
"You can claim this about any religion."
Not claiming to represent any other religion so I don't think any answer I give will suffice here. Perhaps you have specific examples?
"Many atheists are willing to change their mind if something is presented (like a methodology) to be able to tell whether something non-naturalistic exists."
This sounds good but I think it's a naive view (not meant as an insult). I think a lot of atheists would like to believe this about themselves but I think there is a lot more at stake in the atheist psyche in this discussion than mere data points and arguments, the evidence. Here I'm thinking worldview commitments, human sovereignty, emotional baggage, values, semantics, etc. The bible confirms this (Romans 1) and I think real life experiences do too.
To add, In all my years talking to atheists This is what I've seen in spite of presentation of arguments (deductive BTW) given where the atheist in question accepts both premises and still refuses to accept the conclusions.
Sure it's anecdotal at some level, but no more anecdotal then your case.
LOVE the Top Gun: Maverick connection! God bless you Pastor Ortlund; sending prayers from Kyiv, Ukraine!
Be safe man!
Prayers for Ukraine. Slava Ukraini
@@MrDanielEarle Thank you! God bless you all. Слава Україні! Слава Христу!
Praise God! Thank you for Sharing this testimony. Wow I feel Dalkins is listening to his friend and we will see more from the Holy Spirt soon .
You are the best apologist I’ve ever heard. Your arguments actually make sense unlike the majority of popular personalities who just want to reinforce dogmas. Thank you for being sincere.
Many former Christians will find this video very irritating. Dr. Ortlund is making waves & he knows it. He's a lot smarter than most of his subscribers think he is.
And many of them are just trying to show off how smart they are. Pride at its finest. Gavin makes sense every time he speaks and anyone with a basic understanding of English understands him, which is what makes him so great.
Not all of them, but those who agree with Dawkins it would seem.
Glen Scrivner is excellent, too. Gavin interviewed him about his book The Air We Breathe. It's the Christian version of Dominion by Tom Holland.
Google Glen Scrivner speak live ministries on RUclips and look for some of his critique videos. He's got a few on Richard Dawkins. They are all excellent. He has a critique on the same dialogue with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Absolutely fascinating.
@@thomasrutledge5941 No his subscribers know how smart he is. lol Part of the reason we like him so much is he’s smart yet humble. He doesn’t let knowledge go to his head, he’s earnestly looking for the truth because of his love for God and everyone else. As the Word of God says knowledge puffs itself up but love edifies all.
Thank you for your patient discussion of this. I need to pray for increased patience. ❤🙏🏼
If a Christian believes Romans 1;20, then what is the purpose of being involved in Christian apologetics at all?
"Never Use Romans 1;20 with Non-Believers!"
ruclips.net/video/H8Nu5QXXtVU/видео.htmlsi=yL6TQf0RWibmVDTw
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. I always appreciate your videos.
"It's very difficult to explain"
Oh how I can relate to that! I'm quite certain that I'll spend the rest of my life trying to understand it. I have sorrow for the soul of Richard Dawkins, and those who follow in his path. That they do not (yet) know the blessing it is to live a life of striving with God.
That's probably because you don't have a grasp on the idea. If you belive it at your core you can explain it in a 1000 different ways.
@@mihaimoldo No, see that's what you don't understand. The reason I can't fully explain it, is because I can explain it 1000 different ways, knowing full well that every single one of them will only ever just barely scratch the surface of the full depth of revelation that has become known to my soul.
@@KFish-bw1om that's the opposite of knowing something. Aka delusional.
If you can explain it in 1000 ways then it's the opposite of can't explaining it . These 2 notions are mutually exclusive.
@@mihaimoldo Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps something is missing from your understanding? Or has that never even entered your mind as a possibility?
@@KFish-bw1om it's quite possible that Dawkins is working out his relationship with God in his own way. He's done a lot of good for religion, helping to weed out some of it's superstitions & anti-science biases, and has probably given many people courage to break free from harmful forms of religion
I am Eastern Orthodox and am part of one of the most conservative and insular orthodox groups out there - I love your work, you’re the man!!!! Your content is so helpful and enjoyable even when I disagree which is often.
Old Believer?
One thing that has always struck me about Dawkins and his ilk, is the almost complete lack humility when debating Christians, and the unwavering trust in their own intellect. Even though they have barely scratched the surface of knowledge, they operate as if they alone have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe!
Well, what's actually happening is that the arguments for Christianity are bad and do not have sufficient explanatory and predictive power. Furthermore, it's clear Christians have even less knowledge than atheists (or perhaps its better to say they have seemingly false or unprovable "knowledge"). How many false doomsday prophecies have there been? How many times has the church conveniently adjusted it's doctrine to match the times? Show me one true claim about the world that Christianity has that science and rational inquiry cannot also reasonably prove, and maybe then people will take you seriously.
Yes but there are more formidable atheist philosophers people can read. Dawkins and by extension the New Atheists were there to popularize atheism not completely defend it. The defence comes through philosophy
My favorite part in Contact (the movie), was when Jodi Foster and Matthew Mcconaughey's characters were on the balcony during that party, talking about love, and proof. Not sure if that is in the book, but man, is that ever a powerful scene. "prove it" 🤯
I remember when Greg Boyd (in his Bethel/Baptist General Conference days) taught a class at the church I attended, and when this movie came out he joked that it was his favorite movie because the theologian gets the girl.
I love the end because Jodi has a totally real experience and because she can't prove it, sjw finally experiences the derision she gave to those who lived by faith.
She thought faith was blind, when it fact it was seeing, and those she told couldn't see.
Thank you for the wonderful work you're doing for the Kingdom! (Personally, I would say tone deaf is an understatement. I would call it callous.)
I would call it blind arrogance....
Great video. Thank you for sharing that exchange. It’s very powerful.
I would love a video on the harsh language that the prophets use for Israel. Specifically when they refer to Israel as a woman and what she deserves for her disobedience. I'm currently walking with a young woman that finds the language distasteful and the condemnation of Israel overly brutal.
Ain't nobody defending Biblical Israel not even the Jews 😂
Hahahaha Imagine getting out of Egypt and making an Idol lol...
That's some unfaithfulness...
On a serious note, why is she getting offended when modern Jews would rightfully call out their ancestors?
I just read Samuel today so it's a funny comment to come across!
Thx and God bless
@zackattack366
The difficulty is there, but not so much when we look at the Bible as a whole. It's harsh with the male tendencies, too (Matt. 5:28 comes to mind).
The Bible has a lot of loving spousal expression of love.
Isaiah 54, the book of Hosea, Song of Solomon.
Even the "harsh" words are part of His warning us of spiritual danger, out of love.
James 4:4
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
What also helped me is reminding myself that we don't have a horizontal relationship with God, so He assumes the superior position. (He is our Father, not child. Jesus is our Older Brother, not younger).
"The male you could have escaped, for it exists only on the biological level. But the masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it."
- C.S. Lewis, _That Hideous Strength_
Actually, the imagery is profound. God identifies as a man and the spiritual husband of Israel. Therefore, Israel's disobedience worshipping idols is equated with adultery, something every man can relate to.
I love Contact. It’s especially interesting considering the worldview of its author
Carl Sagan was open to & interested in paranormal phenomena. He found Ian Stevenson's reaserch on reincarnation very interesting.
There are many scientists interested in & even involved in paranormal phenomena & spirit communication. They just are not vocal about it.
I’m concerned at the level of scrutiny Ayaan’s conversion is under. We all need time to grow in understanding after conversion. To expect her to have perfect theology at this point is unrealistic and possibly damaging to her walk.
Dawkins was rude. Calling Christianity “obvious nonsense” is not an argument, it’s lazy. He can’t even be bothered to make an argument. And the subtext is that anyone who believes is an idiot. And then he dares to consider himself her friend? With friends like that who needs enemies.
Absolutely! And not only is it lazy, it is intensely arrogant and he's basically bullying Ms. Hirsi Ali.
You should make allowance for different kinds of friendships. I’ve spent more than 20 years sparring like this with my best friends. It fits with our personalities. We’re not friends in spite of this kind of argument but because of it.
I admit, though, it doesn’t always look great on stage. Especially if they’re only professional friends and not close personal friends (but I really don’t know).
Love it. Where’s the outro music Gavin? Always has me feeling like I’m about to play wave race 64
Great vid Gavin
It is nice to see you making videos again! 🍻🍻
About this left vs right brain I agree with your general views. I just can not find a single left brain word in Dawkins tirades (yeah, yeah, I know - technically all words are left brain). It is all pathos. I think he just reeks of emotions, anxiety pumping out one verbal attack after another.
And I think it often is the case that atheists are very emotional about the topic of religion and stray far from the logical and rational, computeresque thinkers they perhaps claim to be. To be honest it does take some stern motivation to learn enough about something you dislike just so that you can argue with people over it. And I do firmly believe that emotions do serve as one of very few such motivators.
Great Video. So encouraging!
I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding the Jordan and Alex conversation on Jordan Petersons podcast recently.
Mmmm....yes, that one was.... interesting 🤔
Thank you. I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins wore a tie that looks like the DNA double-helix, the mysteries of which were discovered by Frances Collin’s (with a team), a brilliant scientist who is also a Christian.
It would be superb to see you with Alex O Connor or Richard Dawkins.
Hopefully not. Alex O'Connor is a kid who doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time and Dawkins is just an ignoramus of the highest order. I read "God delusion". It was atrociously bad researched. This guy knows nothing about the Christian faith or history. Why he even thought he could write such a book is beyond me. I guess it's the typical arrogance of the scientist who thinks he can explain the whole world, even in fields that are too far removed from his area of expertise.
And O'Connor is simply annoying in his pathetic attempt to model himself after Hitchens. Also - he has just as little knowledge about Christian history as Dawkins despite his claim that he studied theology - I see none of it in his debates.
Gavin talking to any of them would be like a mathematics professor talking to someone who can't even add 2 + 2.
@@MrSeedi76 I would like to see Ortlund vs O'Connor. I think a pleassant, intelligent Reformed Baptist is exactly who you need to evangelise an atheist who believes in a deterministic (or maybe random) nihilistic world.
I'm not Reformed and shortly probably won't be Baptist, but Ortlund would be the right tool of God for this job.
@@SeanusAurelius No, no.... I think O'Connor needs to have a chat with Bishop Robert Barron. A Thomistic theologian with a deep understanding of church history and the Scriptures.... Boom! 🎇
i hope she finds a church to ground her. my prayers for her. 🙏
Man Dawkins philosophically and theologically is the bottom of the barrel.
In his worldview he isn’t justified in calling anyone nonsensical or intellectually dishonest because that implies they have to be intellectually honest and in his worldview no one any such obligation.
Dawkins believes there is no moral obligations so why should expect anyone to be honest at all .
He believes his purpose is to spread atheism and yet he believes that life has no purpose .
Dawkins doesn’t realise by his belittling of her he is actually being an amazing evangelist for Christianity as people really do by attention to bad character
What do you mean he isn't justified? Just because there is no cosmic reason doesn't mean you can't criticize people for being dishonest. It's a bad trait for most situations.
We're a social species, and we generally expect people to be honest because there's usually no advantage to being dishonest or someone lying doesn't matter. When people lie in important situations, those people should rightly be maligned to discourage the behavior.
You don't seem to understand that someone can have a personal purpose without thinking they have a cosmic one.
@@WaterCat5 that’s precisely my point I’m not saying he can’t criticise others but his worldview can’t justify that . In fact on his world view I may need to lie to survive or so can pass on my genes .
And your using words like “rightly “ says who on your worldview. Because in his and your view morality is relative why should I not lie when I can gain something out of it .
I’m not saying that you don’t know lying is wrong but 0 justification for it.
And on the meaning point . Dawkins actually believes his meaning is to tell people they have no meaning . That may not be contradictory but it’s pretty crazy if you ask me .
And expecting people to be honest bro . Really . People lie in courts everyday and even in everyday life infact we sometimes think people are lying to us . And yet again we should we expect someone to be honest if there is no morality .
@@Lurkingdolphin I don't know what you mean by "justify." It's pretty clear to me that I would prefer people tell me the truth in the vast majority of situations because it lets me make the most informed decisions. Is that not justification? If not, what is?
Dawkins is saying his personal meaning is to tell people they have no cosmic meaning. You are conflating the two meanings.
I do generally expect people to be honest, but obviously people lie when it advantages them. It's simple cost-benefit analysis. If I think someone has reason to lie, and I don't really know them, I will consider the option and how badly I would be harmed if they did lie. If someone told me what they ate for breakfast, I'm just gonna believe them unless it's something outrageous. If someone is trying to sell me something, I am going to assume they are generally overstating their product because it's advantageous for them to convince me.
IDK, this seems super straightforward to everyone. I think you operate this way as well in your everyday life. I'd be surprised if you didn't.
Glad I clicked… he simply did not listen …
Hoping you have listened to "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God" podcast/book by Justin Brierley. Its great!
When did Richard Dawkins start speaking with a lisp!?? Sounds like Cindy Brady!!!
He had a stroke on Feb 5, 2016.
Cindy Brady. lol He might take that as a compliment. Who knows? =D
@@thomasrutledge5941 yes; but I've never heard of a case where a stroke made you lisp! Slurred speech; yes! I like Dawkins but he thounds tho thilly now trying to thay 'thith is nonthenth!'
Thanks Pastor Gavin. Don’t you think CS Lewis would agree with Dawkins on the importance and preeminence of truth? He said something like: “if Christianity is true, a good man would want to believe in it even though he might not get personal benefit. If it’s false no good man should believe it”
That is an amazing story of what the Holy Spirit has done, and her life through the Lord Jesus Christ, and you can tell she is an amazing individual and a new creation in Christ, moving into more and more of what the Lord has for her. Very awesome.
Can we get Dawkins and Bishop Barron together for a chat? I'd love to see Dawkins take a dose of humility, which I agree is important in every human endeavor.
Dawkins has his own presuppositions. As a bag of mostly water, he can't argue against anyone's belief.
I mean when you come from a place of “there is something” then leads you to it has to be an all powerful God the miracles of virgin birth, healing, and resurrection are not the typical stumbling blocks. The most shocking thing is God is personal, that He cares, and that He wants to draw all to Him. Atheists wrestle with how there could be miracles when there is nothing. Christians wrestle with a God that cares.
Well put. Lots of fruitful overlap with the work of Iain McGilchrist on the brain hemispheres. His study leads him to reject atheism / materialism. Just one more vector nudging people towards God.
Also lots of resonance with Pascal - the intense personal experience ushering in a totally new paradigm, but not irrationality by any means, rather renewed reason, chastened reason, faith seeking understanding.
Gavin, We have not heard this woman confess Christ as her only Saviour?
Christianity has dozens of forms, and only one is where salvation is found, and that is believing the good news of Lord Jesus for oneself.
There is no VICOR according to our Messiah Gavin.
They're referring to a Vicar, which is the word used by the Anglican Church for preacher.
Mark Malcolm is a man of God
FAITHs are conspiracy theories.
Each “FAITH” makes unprovable assertions about what a God wants.
What makes one faith a better conspiracy theory than the others?
How is faith any different from other conspiracy theories or gossip (without evidence)?
Although you express appreciation for Prof Dawkins, we have to understand that his writings and programmes have led millions into the doctrines of atheism for which he bears an awful responsibility.
What is bad about being atheist?
@@Qwerty-lp1fz Because it's a hopeless, nihilistic, existentially barren and empty way to live. And if we go by the atheistic regimes of the 20th century, also a potentially very dangerous philosophy on which to build a society.
In a very poorly written book (or books), Dawkins, in his limitless arrogance, has determined that he knows more than all the people who for millennia have studied, thought, written, built, analyzed, expressed (artistically, musically, through literature), endeavoured, studied, added to human philosophy, learned, questioned, fought, died all for the seeking of and determining of Truth. That's quite a lot of arrogance. 🤦🏽♀️He's made a killing off ignorantly tearing down all that human thought and endeavour has built up (even that upon which his 'scientism' stands). An extraordinarily ignoble legacy to leave.🙄
Go read Plato, then Aristotle, then Aquinas (and I don't mean Dawkins' foolish and empty interpretation of Aquinas). These people were intellectually honest, sincerely seeking Truth through reason, thought and analysis. Dawkins by comparison is an ignorant, arrogant buffoon.
@@nicolamustard7232 Atheism is a stance about a single question about the world and as such is basically compatible with almost any "philosophy to live by". One could argue that Christianity is "dangerous" after reading how e.g. Aquianas advocated for death penalty for heretics based specifically on his Christian theology. I don't know what's about the rant about Dawkins, ok I get it that you really hate the guy.
Dawkins is definitely missing something for sure… More like it, someone. I pray that the spirit of the Lord will draw him in Jesus name because he is 83 now. Just saying. I don’t mean to be rather blunt here, or maybe I do. If he doesn’t repent, pretty soon, he’s going to eat his words, and I would absolutely hate that for him. What a waste of life not knowing the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ayaan is sincere about Christianity. Dawkins is sincere about Christianity as he doesn't believe in any faiths.
The insincere ones are those that say they are Christian but have no interest in the physical resurrection or those that mock Christianity altogether but secretly hold to other spiritual beliefs that they like to keep out of the discourse. For example their are Jordan Peterson followers who would like to broaden Christianity to mean anything that suits them, and their are supposedly atheist sites that have a decent percentage of followers with other spiritual beliefs.
Maybe orthodox Christianity is in more danger of being watered down and becoming irrelevant by those that are spiritual than it is of being eradicated by the purely materialistic.
6:16 have a listen to iain mcgilchrist on this
Nice false dichotomy. There is no "god" or "nothing" choice to be made. The universe is still here. Thats something. And we do not have conclusive evidence that there is no god or higher reality, just enough to know that there isnt yours.
Philosopher of nothingness: From ZEN Buddhism made Japanese philosophy
ruclips.net/video/OeOTbyy7uYE/видео.htmlsi=BXkeHarws-xC6Tnm
ORTLUNDISM: n. The synthesis of Christianity with Absurdism and Historical Revisionism. The idea seems to be that it's always possible for two sufficiently clever apologists on opposite sides of a debate to craft arguments that would eventually overwhelm the common Christian's ability to decide between them, and this could cause him to endlessly vascilate. Therefore, these competing sides become the rock and hill of Sisyphus. What to do, then? In the absence of the possibility of truth, embrace the absurdity. If the Orthodox and Catholics want to argue about which tradition is "truer" to history, why not show you can also play the same game, and argue that history supports the Baptist faith? The struggle alone is enough to raise your heart to a stable seat in Heaven, even as the rock just keeps going up and down
You posting this here only makes you look incredibly childish.
@@nathanfosdahl4074 trolls will be trolls
Thank goodness this is a bot, cause otherwise outlined would be living rent free in this guys head
You will win over more people by engaging arguments under videos where they are actually made. BTW, since when is mocking a fruit of the spirit?
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Dawkins' statements reminded me of how Leo Strauss pointed out years ago that during the Enlightenment anti-religious thinkers didn't succeed in disproving the claims of faith, but they effectively resorted to mockery. "Don't you think it's nonsense?" or "Obviously, that's not true" are not rational arguments for or against something.
When Christians could not refute the polemics of Celsus and Porphyry against Christianity they banned and burned them.
There are much better arguments than those, and the onus of proof is on the theist. If the theist wishes to make their God impregnable to reason, the atheist has no choice but to point out the obvious bias and pitfalls involved.
@@WaterCat5 Hi. Thanks for replying. There's no "onus" on the theist-except if they are trying to impose religion on others. That is an approach that most wise believers reject today. And a similar thing is true in a different way for atheists. I've seen some who claim they "know" there is no God. This is rationally impossible to prove (thus atheism is not "impregnable to reason" and reason cannot defeat faith), and the "onus" would be on them to try to do so. But as long as atheists claim to merely believe there is no God, they are fine. Your thoughts?
@@WaterCat5 it's tiresome that atheists repeat this over and over. I would say that the atheist (or adherent to 'scientism') must be able to answer the why and the what questions as much as the how questions, but they can't, and so all they have is, 'well it's all nonsense'. The arrogance is palpable. Go read Plato, then Aristotle, then Aquinas. Then come back and we'll talk. 🤦🏽♀️🙄
Well there are questions that you can ask a theist that they will feel odd to answer, e.g. could you be wrong about God?
A case against faith can be brought up easily, especially in the world we live where there are so many different religions and there are those as confident about their non Christian religions as you are about yours.
Religious confusion. Seems hardly fair that a hindu grows up in a predominantly hindu family and will taste death instead of life, through no fault of their own.
Lets just take a minute to praise God. Think about it. Gavin, Ayaan, a Christian in Palestine, Iran or India, Paul the Apostle, Jeffery Dahmer, Michael Jones, Charles Spurgeon, you and me are all brothers and sisters redeemed in Christ and are children of God. If one part of us suffer, then we all do; if one part of us rejoices, we all do. It is honestly so exciting and wonderful and awesome to know that we are all in one family. I can meet a genuine Christian in the middle of Pakistan and feel like I am at home due to simple fact that Christ has redeemed us and we have His Holy Spirit inside of us. Seeing this video made me realise that although they're miles apart and probably never met, Gavin and Ayaan share one thing in common and that is that they're in Christ AND I AM ALSO RELATED TO THEM. God is good!
God is good indeed.
So good!
“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbours together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Praise the Lord!
What is God doing for the majority of the world that are non Christians, most of whom follow the religion of their parents? What then?
I used to be an Atheist until I was 28 and growing up in the UK it is easy to live a life ignoring religion. I have found though that my Atheist background has helped me since becoming a Christian. On Atheism, nothing you think, say, do or feel ultimately matters. We will all have the same fate. So even if I am wrong about my faith, so what? It is not going to change anything. Also more positively, I found that living a life following Christ brings meaning and hope. The hope that there is such a thing as ultimate justice makes living in this violent, unjust world bearable.
Similiar to me, I was an atheist/agnostic until my early twenties wrestling with the meaning of existence
It would be nice if one didn’t need to decide to take a Pascal-esque sort of wager to come to that conclusion. My trouble is most arguments for the validity of Christianity aren’t strong enough to justify the belief and it ends up as a simple case of desiring it to be true rather than being confident in it. You could justify any belief on that basis.
I’m not an expert on all arguments and reality at large or anything, that’s just how I currently see it, being honest.
@@Capt.Fail. I am not offering an argument, just sharing my own experience.
I think my former Atheism has given me a mindset which frees me from caring about anything other than searching for what I feel and know to be true and good. That led me to Christ and the Gospel.
Dawkins says we are merely DNA reproduction machines. Maybe he is right. Maybe he is not. I just dont see why on Atheism any of it matters.
@@clivejungle6999 Sure, and if that’s how far down you have to go to convince yourself of Christianity, then it’s likely not true. Which, sure, you can say you don’t care either way and will just believe it anyways because it doesn’t matter, but for me I can’t just convince myself of it knowing that there’s no good reason to believe it and I’d likely be lying to myself.
Same goes for evangelizing, not sure how you’d go out to convince people of Christianity on the basis of, “I just want it to be true.”
There are also plenty of people and philosophers that disagree about the lack of meaning without God, so that’s not exactly a clear-cut certainty either (although at this moment in time, due to religious upbringing or lack of understanding or whatever else, I do tend to agree with you).
@@Capt.Fail. well said - and not to mention, the whole idea of salvation may also be in jeopardy from people who essentially taking a pascal-esque wager by just deciding to believe in God because it "gives them a sense of purpose", and not because they actually believe in the events of the bible. So are they "true" Christians anyway?
Richard Dawkins' repeated appeals to "isn't it obviously nonsense" reveal his unquestioning faith as an atheist. Here, as in other public remarks, his stance is: "you don't really believe this, do you?" Because, for him such beliefs are literally incomprehensible, so his starting position is that the central tenets of the Christian faith can't possibly be sincerely held by inteligent people. But they _are_ sincerely held. That fact alone might reasonably arouse someone's curiosity to ask whether there might be more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy.
Basically he's a bully
Also, it reveals how much the potency of atheist polemucs depended on the zeitgeist.
They would like to believe they engage with arguements from first principle, but so much of the plausibility of their rhetoric depends on an audience (including the christians among it) that already have a modern imagination and modern sensibilities supplied to them by non-rational means.
Yeah. It just feels like a fundamentalist resistance to another perspective.
You assume much . His questions stem from his personal relationship with Ali, they spoke a lot in private about the subject of religion as Dawkins said so in the debate ...publicly.
Watching people deciphering hidden meanings in his simple questions is both hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
That illustrates the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity and monergism.
Dawkins: you don't believe Mary got pregnant by God, that is nonsense
also Dawkins: isn't it so amazing how everything just magically spawned out of nothing all by itself somehow!
NOTHING: The Science of Emptiness
ruclips.net/video/BCUmeE8sIVo/видео.html&si=7juCHUjv5sP8Y9dk
The right and left brain comments were so helpful. I've always thought this and never been able to express it. Christopher Hitchens used to suffer from this tone deafness too. I used to listen to him berate Christianity and think to myself "you just don't get it".
She is intelligent, honest, brave and beautiful. Praise God.
Thanks Gavin
Your section titled "Is There Something or Nothing?" reminded me of the movie Signs, specifically an analysis of the movie by Like Stories of Old. In the analysis, LSOO shows us that people try to construct meaning through narratives and that faith is about seeing the signs, i.e., experiencing a transcendental other. It's a great analysis and pertains to the topic. The name of the video is "The Essence of Faith - What Signs Was Really About."
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the person without the Spirit does not receive what comes from God's Spirit because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.
This is Dawkins.
My worry is she did not answer his question about the resurrection at all. She used the word “something” a few times. She never mentioned sin, repentance, salvation, forgiveness, Christ paying the penalty for her sin, the cross, His blood shed for her. There was a lot missing from her “ testimony”. She was told to “ pray” by a psychiatrist/ psychologist- who did she pray to and what did she pray? That’s important.
I would have to hear a lot more about what she actually believes. K
I keep reminding myself that she's a new Christian just beginning to learn the basics of Theology. Though. Obviously a super smart lady, she's just starting the journey in Christian doctrine and there's a lot to learn let alone Express is such a setting
@@geraldbritton8118 yes there is a lot to learn. But usually one is convicted by the Holy Spirt of sin and hell and the need to be saved by faith in Christ by hearing the Gospel. There should be some rudimentary knowledge of the Gospel. Anyway I do pray that she has had a genuine conversion wrought by God in her heart. That she has been regenerated
The problem isn't that Dawkins is too analytical, it's that he rejects God in his heart. He's heard the good news, and he considers it rubbish. He tries to dissuade young believers.
I feel pretty clear that you aren't making excuses for Dawkins and others like him, but there's more going on here than simply starting at two different points.
The increase in movie references is delightful. Thanks for a great video!
Good vid 👍
Thanks!
thanks for the support! :)
Hi Gavin, love your channel!
I think your right brain/left brain analysis could be helpful.
But I feel it is more helpful to see it as a difference between Spirit and Flesh.
Dawkins is reasoning from eyes which are still blind to the Gospel truth.
It’s still folly to him. The Spirit awakened Ayaan, and brought her to a place to see Christ in her spiritual poverty.
Dawkins has no concept of such things as spiritual bankruptcy or poverty (yet). Praying that the light of the Spirit will shine through his friend Ayaan and awaken him to Jesus.
You're probably drowning in comments and will never see this. But I feel compelled to comment. To the best of my research this memorable quote originates with Sam Shoemaker. He said, "One can never find God by reason alone; but once one finds God by faith, he discovers his faith is not unreasonable." I've always thought this is just about the right balance between the faith and reason. Thanks for your labors in the Word and Theology.
Dawkins was not hospitable throughout this discussion. His use of pejoratives and callous dismantling of Ali’s experience does not show any genuine nor respectful behavior. He’s not purely operating from a left brain mentality, he’s angry. He’s angry someone who was “on his team” left to join one he’s been vehemently against for years.
I agree that scientistic versions of atheism are existentially shallow. Unfortunately they get the most play because they’re influential in the English speaking world and because they’re intellectually accessible. But there are much more serious philosophical versions of atheism (and/or secularism) with existential sensitivity and depth.
I realize apologetics focuses on what’s popular or influential, since it’s missional, but as a result it typically doesn’t deal with the most robust versions of either atheism or secularism. I wish it did, I’m an atheist and I crave a conversation I just can’t find.
I say that here because I appreciate your respect and openness, you’re a Christian who’s open to dialogue. Unfortunately, few Christians and few atheists are.
Keep up the good work, by the way, great channel, great scholarship and reiterated and inspiring shows of intellectual charity.
Too many people expect too much from Ali.
She's a new Christian, biblically unknowledgable - see the bit about Abraham - and a skilled politician who knows that she can't defend all the downstream corollaries.
Atheists, take your swings at Ali while she can't refute you skillfully. You probably won't have long. If she's really been brought to faith, that situation will very much change. She'll be just as effective an ally of the gospel as she was an enemy.
Christians, including those who don't believe she has really come to faith yet, pray for her. I took 10 years from abandoning atheism before I got all the way there. Christ does not give up when he goes searching for that lost sheep, and nor does he put it down if it's wet or heavy or unable to walk!
Wow, she's amazing. Speaking beautifully to the heart of what people are caring about and realizing more and more. And you nailed it, Gavin. Great job.
oh what a treat to hear and think about--thanks be to God for He is and He is good
Amen!! Be faithful to the end. You are Loved as are all of us, we just need to accept the Love.
I've said often that Richard Dawkins' best argument is his British accent. 😅
Dawkins’s scientism precludes his from considering the possibility of a reality beyond the material. In actuality, his viewpoint is probably more “faith”-based than the typical Christian philosopher or cosmologist, where his priors make it impossible for him to honestly seek out and attempt to rationalize the views of those who disagree with him. Dawkins is undeniably an intelligent individual in his field, but when it comes to matters of philosophy, especially ontology and epistemology, he is woefully lacking.
11:36 gold.
Thanks!
thank you!
@@TruthUnites I thought this was excellent and very valuable for all of us - theists, Christians, Athiests...well ... humans. As a Catholic, I obviously disagree with some of your videos and some of your specific arguments. But thought this was so good I should acknowledge it with a contribution (I can't in good conscience be a general patron).
Existential commitment.....i like it
Dawkins is just kind of a jerk, honestly. He never takes people of faith seriously and it makes it really hard to listen to him.
One of the problems with Dawkins is instead of actually engaging the thinking with Christian theology, he just all describes it as all nonsense as has been his campaign from the early 2000s. Contra to his believed intellectual honesty, he's not a very open minded person. He's already come up to their own decision before even digging deep enough to critique it. And he is not good at critiquing it. The God delusion was not a compelling book.
The God Delusion was, by far, the worst philosophical work written by a well-regarded intellectual. I say it’s philosophical because it discusses, in a polemical way, theistic/deistic philosophy, and is just terribly deficient on basic matters of ontology, epistemology, and causality. “The Ultimate 747” is a chapter which made me wonder if his work was just an exercise on how lazy and stupid he could be whilst selling millions of copies, where he would put no effort in and still make bank.
Why hate on Dawkins? The god he rejects is one no Christian should accept, anyway
@@WayneDrake-uk1ggI don’t hate Dawkins, but some of his philosophical arguments are pretty awful, and his priors don’t allow for constructive dialogue (constructive in the sense of forgoing ad hominem insults and buzzwords). Dawkins is a brilliant man in his field, but he is not a brilliant philosopher, most assuredly.
@@UTNatlChamps but we could argue that in expressing his moral sensibilities, detached from religion, in a very outspoken way, he's at least pointing out things--whether right or wrong--that we, immersed in our own religion, might otherwise be oblivious to. For example, I used to be a big fan of WLC's Divine Command Theory, but eventually I was given pause to reconsider after hearing so many atheists "shout" *that* it's obviously wrong (even if they don't really dig into the philosophical underpinnings of "why")
I think you should watch 2001: A Space Odyssey if you haven't already.
Doc Gavin will have many adventures.
"Open the Pod bay doors, HAL."
ruclips.net/video/gpwvJzcfL1w/видео.htmlsi=yWV2dX8sMxPzrEEZ
This is a wonderful debate as Dawkins attacks in the open exposing his hostilities and need for God. The world without God is a hopeless one and Ayaan is calm and gentile and as proverb 25:15 states a soft word breaks a bone and this can win souls to Christ.
Folks including Gavin who are having trouble with Richard saying that it's obvious nonsense, put yourself in place of someone following a non Christian religion, who has looked at Christianity in the past. Do you get why they would think it's nonsense? No? How about you think about what they believe i.e. their religion. Is it nonsense? Maybe you wouldn't say so out loud but would you think it? I mean you don't believe it's true, right?
Remember Richard and Ayaan are friends and he is likely to be honest with her and speaks his mind. In fact you can tell that Ayaan is not troubled by it.
This story sounds like an issue for a psychologist, not evdence of God! Its like people who are low and the idea of God gives them courage or a something! Also if people believe that God touched her and changed her life then what about stories where people claim to feel God to do bad things! The Yorkshire Ripper said that God spoke to him and told him to murder women! So if this womans experience was real couldn't the Rippers experience be real! I think he was mentally ill, so of course not real, but how would we know! It's interesting that she found this and not another religion to help her! She might also have found another way to fulfill herself that wasn't spiritual! You can see how Religion can be seen as created by man as it serves as a tool to help people psychologically in giving them a framework in which to live! It doesn't have to be true! If you believe it, then it is true! Its true that this experience wss real, but all experiences can seem real, but are they! People can take drugs and hallucinate! People can hallucinate and see things that are not there in everyday life, who are mentally sane! We all make mistakes we all see things that are not there! This sounds like a person who sees oil spilt on the road which they interpret as looking like religious figure and then say it was a sign form God! It could be who knows but i think you have to tale a more analytical approach to these questions!
I thought Carl Sagan was an atheist? Will have to read the book contact. I enjoyed the movie.
I didn't sense a conversion either, but an experience that propelled her toward a journey of seeking--which is still great! Despite Dawkins' hubris and lack of charity, I think there was something to what he was getting at.
TRUTH
Truth is easier to learn.
TRUTH is easier to remember.
Truth is easier to tell.
Truth is easier to defend.
Truth is easier to live.
But lies and conspiracy theories are sometimes convincing if we fail to THINK!
Dawkin's greatest flaw is one that has been prevalent for a while in public intellectuals: he is a brilliant Biologist that knows a little bit of Philosophy (Analytic Philosophy), and he has a need to prove himself self sufficient, so he reduces everything to the toolbox he has, which is early XXI century Biology and some Analytical second hand commentary, and the result is that he is somewhat good at deconstructing, and very bad at constructing. Which is to say: Dawkins is a brilliant Biologist, a passing Statistician, a mediocre Chemist, a really bad Physicist, an awful Jurist, barely a beginner Philosophers (in many senses, an Anti-Philosopher), a Null in language learning and language related disciplines like Hermeneutics and Philology, an inept Political Scientist, and so on. We are all like that, the best of us are really good at a very narrow specialty, and mostly inept at everything else, or passing grade in informal conversations, but would be immediately butchered were we to try to write something outside of our field for peer review. The difference is, a lot of intellectuals know that and show a high degree of humbleness, which is an obvious instance to have, and which you don't need to be a genius to see. Mathematicians (that are not clinically insane) don't nay say their doctors when taking antibiotics because the doctor failed to formalize their entire argument as to why they need antibiotics in Mathematical jargon, they do the obvious thing, and defer the solution of a specific problem to a trained specialist. The really wise will circumvent their limitations by comparing reports from various specialists, in the case of a doctor, having their case analized by 2, 3, 4 doctors, the more difficult the problem, and the higher the stakes, the more doing this is advisable. Dawkins won't have none of it, and this is why he ends up in conversations in which he is trying to debate Philosophy with battle hardened specialists in cognitohazard warfare with nothing but his passing knowledge of Analytical Philosophy, which then makes him look cringe. The inverse is also true, Dawkins success, and the success of the Neoatheism movement in general, is due to the insistence of some Theologians of taking the bait and trying to debate Biology with a brilliant trained Biologist, which then allows people like Dawkins to wipe the floor with them on live TV.
I would have to agree that Dawkins can be entertaining to listen to. I have heard him say that he has an affection for the Anglican church, because nobody really believes it, which is not true, but I do think it is interesting that he likes the Anglican Church, like the formalism, and the holidays and stuff like that. Well, there’s a reason he likes it. I think it was one time when a Catholic priest asked him to name one of the 10 Commandments or something if I’m not mistaken. He said, “oh, God… “He had to call on God to help him remember one of the commandments that he thought he knew that he didn’t even believe. Lol
Dawkins is far to comfortable with his world view. He is convinced that what Christian beliefs are rubbish. He wants to shame the lady if she admits to certain beliefs. On a side note, I think the right brain / left brain thing is not very well understood. I think logic and emotion are far more complicated than this. I am no expert however.
A very good assessment of their conversation and the issues presented therein. Well done. I was particularly impressed with your explanation of the left/right brain dynamic. Some of your recent (the last year or so) videos have made it apparent that you are left brain dominant and I believe it has contributed to some blind spots in your analysis of history and understanding of certain theological concepts held by the Apostolic Churches. It’s relieving to know that you at least recognize we (humans) need more than our analytical, purely logical, function in order to arrive at truth. Again, well done.
My problem with her answers was that she seemed unable to firmly say she believes the truth claims of Christianity are not just true for here but is also objectivly true.
I think a bit of the disconnect is concerning if she is converting because she finds the beliefs meaningful or if she has converted because she thinks it is sufficient evidence to believe that these Christian doctrines are true in addition to the meaning it provides. I am actually not saying the former reason isn’t good enough on it's own but it is a real difference. The issue they are having is what can one infer from this experience rather than just why the experience was important in helping her with the challenges in her life.
You sound like AI here.
Oh this’ll be good
Let’s see what pope Gav says in this
Religion can be both useful and historical nonsense.
Define nonsense
@@kylecityy false
@ryana1787 what if I believed something that is true but took a very silly/false line of reasoning to get there. Would that be considered nonsense?
@ryana1787 let's say there were two academic level scientists debating a very complicated detailed issue. One has to be right, would you say the other is speaking non sense no matter what his points are?
@@kylecityy no, not in my use of the word.
Don’t get hung up on the word nonsense because it is hurting your feelings.
True or false: a religion can be false but also useful to its followers?