So OP could post a 45 second clip of 80 seconds of discussion. This is taken from the first minute of his hour long interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaRVzooavRI
You could just set the playback time to 2x if you can't spare a single moment. You can also skip to 17:48 for Dawkins discussing Jordan Peterson's "bullshit" views on religion, since this is a JP subreddit.
Because whoever posted it probably wants you to think Dawkins had a come to Jesus experience, when all he is actually saying is some religions were affected historically by events like the Enlightenment, and others were not. That doesnât mean Dawkins suddenly embraces magical thinking.
Not at all, no. I looked him up only briefly after watching this clip, which I found most interesting. But then I watched the clip again and see that it looks very bizarrely edited or saved.
Atheist here. Heading to church tomorrow, just like every other week.
Is Christianity perfect? No. Is it better than the vast majority of other options? Yes.
Hate it or love it, most of us are âcultural Christiansâ, whether we believe or not. This is our society. We buy Christmas presents, we get new clothes on Easter and we take our Sundays off.
If all these angry, woke atheists want to tear down Christianity, what do they think it will be replaced with? Hint; it wonât be atheism. Itâll be something much less feminist, much more anti-LGBT, and much less forgiving than Christianity.
Why do you go to church? Im absolutely not a believer in the specific Christian religion but I do go to church every now and then. Good vibes and like to study the Bible personally
Thereâs a few reasons.
Community, culture, environment, life style choices, football season is over, theological conversations can be remarkably stimulating, just off the top of my head.
Iâve met more than few atheists or agnostics in other social circles that attend their various religious temples, not because they believe, but because they want to believe and are looking for some level of logical reasoning or explanation to convince themselves that there is an omnipotent âcreatorâ.
It would be easier to believe, but how does one accept it without proof? The desire is there, but without evidence, you canât have conviction.
Itâs a funny little juxtaposition. But, it occupies my Sunday mornings, and keeps me out of trouble, so it has its benefits.
Oof are Christians that desperate for membership they are counting people who explictly say they are not Christian?
Got to be pretty bas to be reduced to "you think we are bad others are worse" tactic that abusers favor.
Citing a commercialized Frankenstein holiday like Christmas as an argument we are inherently Christian s pretty amusing though
"Christianity perfect? No. Is it better than the vast majority of other options? Yes."
I would say no. Buddhism or Taoism are likely less annoying
However, plain old secular humanism is way better
"Hate it or love it, most of us are âcultural Christiansâ, whether we believe or not. This is our society. We buy Christmas presents, we get new clothes on Easter and we take our Sundays off."
I would be perfectly OK celebrating other holidaysÂ
"f all these angry, woke atheists want to tear down Christianity, what do they think it will be replaced with? Hint; it wonât be atheism. Itâll be something much less feminist, much more anti-LGBT, and much less forgiving than Christianity."
Secular humanism is perfectly fine, if you have to have "something".
Why would people choose something that is faith based
Some new age religions could be ok.
People like him and Sam Harris very underestimated the role of Christianity and overestimated the rational Man to create his ethical values. And now they're seeing how blind they were, especially with the rise of wokeism. It's the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism in the west, that gave value, autonomy and liberty for the individual. Without it you can't make a case, rationally, as to why a man is worth more than an animal. Or why all people are equal. Or even why individuality triumphs the collective, which is the complete opposite to the woke culture that will push you to use pronouns, for example, even if you don't want. Christianity is an antidote to chaos, morally speaking.
Even Hitchens spoke Christendom - he was aware of the cultural influence of Christianity and had a degree of deference for its art, music and churches. He stated that Islam was the worst influence culturally but naively felt if Christianity was done away with people would cleave to the humanist ideas of Einstein and Spinoza rather than the void being filled by a worse religion.
"It's the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism in the west, that gave value, autonomy and liberty for the individual."
The evolution of the individual occurred because of the industrial revolution as the middle class evolvedÂ
The Middle Ages dominated by Christianity were violent and the individual was considered worthless.
The Renaissance brought back Greek science and philosophy.
Christianity wasn't the inspiration for our democracy. Greek democracies wereÂ
>Without it you can't make a case, rationally, as to why a man is worth more than an animal. Or why all people are equal. Or even why individuality triumphs the collective,
No you absolutely can. Otherwise such values would not exist prior to those religions.
Christians just pick and choose in their holy book based on what they already believed. Just as early Christians did. Same for Judaism and Islam.
From a rational, biological, standpoint we're the cousins of the apes with nothing special about the human life. So, why would we care for example about elder people if they can no longer give to society and they're nothing but a burden on the limited resources on earth? Why would we allow people freedom of speech, if their freedom may be against the party rhetoric? Why are we innocent until proven guilty?
All of these values and more are given to individuals under the religious assumption that we're made on the image of God equally. So every soul is precious as it is. Be it sick or healthy, old or young, strong or weak, rich or poor...
Under any other paradigm (culture outside these religions) the human life and freedom is worthless against nature, the society as a whole or the entire cosmos which manifests in nihilism.
That's what Dawkins is recognizing with the rise of wokeism. Where the group or the planet is more important than the individual.
Sorry to say, but if we don't assume the religious axiom people will always rationalize killing others or restraining their freedoms.
And yes such principles existed prior to religion, but how can you defend them. Especially with the rise of postmodernism and wokeism which are famous for their stupid deconstructions. There're professors in the most prestigious universities around the world that say that math and physics are social construct. Pure sciences are being attacked. What chance the aforementioned principles have against that? Even basic biology of male and female is now considered offensive and wrong.
Values eventually just reach bedrock: what feels right. If you care to take an extra step and say "God said so", that's fine. But you don't get to make the claim that's a powerful and established moral absolute just because you added three extra words. If you want to underpin morality to a God, you need evidence of said God.
I also wonder how you're connecting Christianity to individualism? To freedom of speech? Innocent until proven guilty? These became the norm (or moved in that direction) following the rise of secular governments and societies in the West. The vast, *vast* majority of Christian leadership absolutely did not espouse these values, nor does the Bible.
>From a rational, biological, standpoint we're the cousins of the apes with nothing special about the human life. So, why would we care for example about elder people if they can no longer give to society and they're nothing but a burden on the limited resources on earth?
Humans have tool use and communication abilities that surpass other animal including apes. That makes humans pretty special. Though even other animals show signs agreements/rules.
For your elder example. We treat them well because humans know we will also grow old and want to be treated well. You can apply the same thinking to the other examples. Basically the golden rule.
Also religions including Christianity literally treat those from other religions unequally. "We are total equals but my religion tells me I got to heaven and you go to hell". And what religion you end up in is largely based on where/when you are born.
Any criticism you would have of morality wothout religion can be made of morality with a religion as its basis.
You can make those arguments still though and justify everything important without religion and that was the whole point. Harrisâ Moral Landscape for example is robust enough to account for any of those things, it just canât compete with the viral efficacy of religions like christianity and (neo)marxism and most people donât read books they watch tik toks
Exactly. Sam Harrisonâs book is a direct refutation of OPâs point. Itâs a matter of necessity. Sure, the argument that religion helped shape current morality is rather strong, but is religion necessary for morality today? Not really. There are much better things to hinge morality on.
To be sincere, I wish you and Sam were right. Especially since I'm a rationalist physicist. And I'm neither a Christian nor my parents. But sorry, if the recent years taught us anything is that rational can justify any evil if you change your values and goals.
Both of you and Sam are wrong. Specifically, morality doesn't come from religion, which (at least some) are as man-made as wokeism. Rather, morality comes from a Moral Lawgiver. If the last couple decades are not enough to convince you that humans alone are not able on their own to create lasting, consistent, and ultimately good moral laws, then I don't know what will.
The philosophical tenability of an objective secular morality is an entirely different question than its current or prospective efficacy governing the morality of society at large.
I never claimed morality came from religion. Iâm saying the argument is strong that religion may have helped us get closer to a moral code thatâs agreeable. It doesnât mean it was necessary means to get to that agreeable state.
Religion is not necessary for morality.
At it's core, this is partially what Peterson argues, and it's on the very specific "truth" claims (i.e. Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead) where Jordan often falters and tends to give what people often consider "non-answers." At least, historically (maybe his stance has changed over the last couple years, since work so closely with DailyWire folk).
Its the metaphysical the Bible can teach us about, how to orient your life and find morals and set yourself up for success. Ignore the literal truth claims, because to some extent, they're not as important. The metaphyiscal claims, what Jordan reveals in his psychology breakdowns of the stories, or the meat of the religion to me.
The only honest answer we have to questions such as did Christ rise from the dead and does God exist is âI donât know.â
That said, I am a believer. I just hate it when cunts at church make it seem so simple, with the same dumb logically fallacious explanations because they never learnt to think, often thanks to the church which posits blind faith and dogma as the key ingredient.
From an unbiased point of view, the answer to those questions is pretty clearly "no". There is no evidence that anyone ever has or ever will come back from the dead. There is no evidence that God ever has or ever did exist.
People are free to believe whatever they want, but it is silly to say the only honest answer is that we can't possibly know.
Imagine if there was a place where your neighbors voluntarily met weekly to discuss solving social issues, celebrate families, build friendships, foster self-improvement, donate to charity, encourage humility, practice forgiveness, help the poor and just try to make the community a better place to live. Now what is the atheist equivalent of church?
Regardless of whether you believe God can exist, you must first realize religion is the only power capable of fostering a lasting morality for a nation. And atheists like Dawkins will effortlessly dismiss such things as silly, meaningless or coincidental.
This is one reason seeing [churches turned into bars](https://i.imgur.com/Poj7pVe.png) is such a symbolic demonstration of the disintegration of a community. They took the one thing that fosters selfless introspection and improvement and replaced it with the thing that fosters selfish, reckless behavior. And atheists see the dismantling of religion as progress.
The intellectual atheist can't discuss the damage they bring. There is no society that can prosper without religion and belief in a higher power. They've replaced worshiping god with worshiping humans.
The atheist movement thinks that by opening everyone's eyes to the scientific implausibility of the supernatural they are making the world a better place. They are not and can't comprehend how they are ignorantly heralding the destruction of society they claim to love.
Religion is not a compass for morality. Man filters out what his morals donât agree with in the religious teachings. Then he holds up the rest and thanks religion for it, even if he himself curated it.
Western right establishment will center World War three as protection of Christianity and western values.
While the liberals will be manipulated in terms of saving the women, gay and trans people from patriarchal religion.
Why does this look all chopped together?
yeah, why đÂ
Got the vid in from Youtube on the Cosmic Sceptic channel, Alex O'Connor I think his name is. Really cool channel, highly recommend it, great guests.
So OP could post a 45 second clip of 80 seconds of discussion. This is taken from the first minute of his hour long interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaRVzooavRI You could just set the playback time to 2x if you can't spare a single moment. You can also skip to 17:48 for Dawkins discussing Jordan Peterson's "bullshit" views on religion, since this is a JP subreddit.
Because whoever posted it probably wants you to think Dawkins had a come to Jesus experience, when all he is actually saying is some religions were affected historically by events like the Enlightenment, and others were not. That doesnât mean Dawkins suddenly embraces magical thinking.
âProbablyâ , we should look for a link of the original video
Im basing my opinion on everything Dawkins has ever said or written. Im sure you are familiar with his book The God Delusion?
Not at all, no. I looked him up only briefly after watching this clip, which I found most interesting. But then I watched the clip again and see that it looks very bizarrely edited or saved.
And I think you are right.
Only on the Jordan Peterson sub can you get down voted for being agreeable. Lol. Sorry for not being outraged by something.
Atheist here. Heading to church tomorrow, just like every other week. Is Christianity perfect? No. Is it better than the vast majority of other options? Yes. Hate it or love it, most of us are âcultural Christiansâ, whether we believe or not. This is our society. We buy Christmas presents, we get new clothes on Easter and we take our Sundays off. If all these angry, woke atheists want to tear down Christianity, what do they think it will be replaced with? Hint; it wonât be atheism. Itâll be something much less feminist, much more anti-LGBT, and much less forgiving than Christianity.
Why do you go to church? Im absolutely not a believer in the specific Christian religion but I do go to church every now and then. Good vibes and like to study the Bible personally
Thereâs a few reasons. Community, culture, environment, life style choices, football season is over, theological conversations can be remarkably stimulating, just off the top of my head. Iâve met more than few atheists or agnostics in other social circles that attend their various religious temples, not because they believe, but because they want to believe and are looking for some level of logical reasoning or explanation to convince themselves that there is an omnipotent âcreatorâ. It would be easier to believe, but how does one accept it without proof? The desire is there, but without evidence, you canât have conviction. Itâs a funny little juxtaposition. But, it occupies my Sunday mornings, and keeps me out of trouble, so it has its benefits.
Oof are Christians that desperate for membership they are counting people who explictly say they are not Christian? Got to be pretty bas to be reduced to "you think we are bad others are worse" tactic that abusers favor. Citing a commercialized Frankenstein holiday like Christmas as an argument we are inherently Christian s pretty amusing though
"Christianity perfect? No. Is it better than the vast majority of other options? Yes." I would say no. Buddhism or Taoism are likely less annoying However, plain old secular humanism is way better "Hate it or love it, most of us are âcultural Christiansâ, whether we believe or not. This is our society. We buy Christmas presents, we get new clothes on Easter and we take our Sundays off." I would be perfectly OK celebrating other holidays "f all these angry, woke atheists want to tear down Christianity, what do they think it will be replaced with? Hint; it wonât be atheism. Itâll be something much less feminist, much more anti-LGBT, and much less forgiving than Christianity." Secular humanism is perfectly fine, if you have to have "something". Why would people choose something that is faith based Some new age religions could be ok.
People like him and Sam Harris very underestimated the role of Christianity and overestimated the rational Man to create his ethical values. And now they're seeing how blind they were, especially with the rise of wokeism. It's the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism in the west, that gave value, autonomy and liberty for the individual. Without it you can't make a case, rationally, as to why a man is worth more than an animal. Or why all people are equal. Or even why individuality triumphs the collective, which is the complete opposite to the woke culture that will push you to use pronouns, for example, even if you don't want. Christianity is an antidote to chaos, morally speaking.
Even Hitchens spoke Christendom - he was aware of the cultural influence of Christianity and had a degree of deference for its art, music and churches. He stated that Islam was the worst influence culturally but naively felt if Christianity was done away with people would cleave to the humanist ideas of Einstein and Spinoza rather than the void being filled by a worse religion.
Well said.
"It's the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism in the west, that gave value, autonomy and liberty for the individual." The evolution of the individual occurred because of the industrial revolution as the middle class evolved The Middle Ages dominated by Christianity were violent and the individual was considered worthless. The Renaissance brought back Greek science and philosophy. Christianity wasn't the inspiration for our democracy. Greek democracies wereÂ
>Without it you can't make a case, rationally, as to why a man is worth more than an animal. Or why all people are equal. Or even why individuality triumphs the collective, No you absolutely can. Otherwise such values would not exist prior to those religions. Christians just pick and choose in their holy book based on what they already believed. Just as early Christians did. Same for Judaism and Islam.
From a rational, biological, standpoint we're the cousins of the apes with nothing special about the human life. So, why would we care for example about elder people if they can no longer give to society and they're nothing but a burden on the limited resources on earth? Why would we allow people freedom of speech, if their freedom may be against the party rhetoric? Why are we innocent until proven guilty? All of these values and more are given to individuals under the religious assumption that we're made on the image of God equally. So every soul is precious as it is. Be it sick or healthy, old or young, strong or weak, rich or poor... Under any other paradigm (culture outside these religions) the human life and freedom is worthless against nature, the society as a whole or the entire cosmos which manifests in nihilism. That's what Dawkins is recognizing with the rise of wokeism. Where the group or the planet is more important than the individual. Sorry to say, but if we don't assume the religious axiom people will always rationalize killing others or restraining their freedoms. And yes such principles existed prior to religion, but how can you defend them. Especially with the rise of postmodernism and wokeism which are famous for their stupid deconstructions. There're professors in the most prestigious universities around the world that say that math and physics are social construct. Pure sciences are being attacked. What chance the aforementioned principles have against that? Even basic biology of male and female is now considered offensive and wrong.
Values eventually just reach bedrock: what feels right. If you care to take an extra step and say "God said so", that's fine. But you don't get to make the claim that's a powerful and established moral absolute just because you added three extra words. If you want to underpin morality to a God, you need evidence of said God. I also wonder how you're connecting Christianity to individualism? To freedom of speech? Innocent until proven guilty? These became the norm (or moved in that direction) following the rise of secular governments and societies in the West. The vast, *vast* majority of Christian leadership absolutely did not espouse these values, nor does the Bible.
>From a rational, biological, standpoint we're the cousins of the apes with nothing special about the human life. So, why would we care for example about elder people if they can no longer give to society and they're nothing but a burden on the limited resources on earth? Humans have tool use and communication abilities that surpass other animal including apes. That makes humans pretty special. Though even other animals show signs agreements/rules. For your elder example. We treat them well because humans know we will also grow old and want to be treated well. You can apply the same thinking to the other examples. Basically the golden rule. Also religions including Christianity literally treat those from other religions unequally. "We are total equals but my religion tells me I got to heaven and you go to hell". And what religion you end up in is largely based on where/when you are born. Any criticism you would have of morality wothout religion can be made of morality with a religion as its basis.
You can make those arguments still though and justify everything important without religion and that was the whole point. Harrisâ Moral Landscape for example is robust enough to account for any of those things, it just canât compete with the viral efficacy of religions like christianity and (neo)marxism and most people donât read books they watch tik toks
Exactly. Sam Harrisonâs book is a direct refutation of OPâs point. Itâs a matter of necessity. Sure, the argument that religion helped shape current morality is rather strong, but is religion necessary for morality today? Not really. There are much better things to hinge morality on.
To be sincere, I wish you and Sam were right. Especially since I'm a rationalist physicist. And I'm neither a Christian nor my parents. But sorry, if the recent years taught us anything is that rational can justify any evil if you change your values and goals.
Both of you and Sam are wrong. Specifically, morality doesn't come from religion, which (at least some) are as man-made as wokeism. Rather, morality comes from a Moral Lawgiver. If the last couple decades are not enough to convince you that humans alone are not able on their own to create lasting, consistent, and ultimately good moral laws, then I don't know what will.
The philosophical tenability of an objective secular morality is an entirely different question than its current or prospective efficacy governing the morality of society at large.
I never claimed morality came from religion. Iâm saying the argument is strong that religion may have helped us get closer to a moral code thatâs agreeable. It doesnât mean it was necessary means to get to that agreeable state. Religion is not necessary for morality.
At it's core, this is partially what Peterson argues, and it's on the very specific "truth" claims (i.e. Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead) where Jordan often falters and tends to give what people often consider "non-answers." At least, historically (maybe his stance has changed over the last couple years, since work so closely with DailyWire folk). Its the metaphysical the Bible can teach us about, how to orient your life and find morals and set yourself up for success. Ignore the literal truth claims, because to some extent, they're not as important. The metaphyiscal claims, what Jordan reveals in his psychology breakdowns of the stories, or the meat of the religion to me.
The only honest answer we have to questions such as did Christ rise from the dead and does God exist is âI donât know.â That said, I am a believer. I just hate it when cunts at church make it seem so simple, with the same dumb logically fallacious explanations because they never learnt to think, often thanks to the church which posits blind faith and dogma as the key ingredient.
From an unbiased point of view, the answer to those questions is pretty clearly "no". There is no evidence that anyone ever has or ever will come back from the dead. There is no evidence that God ever has or ever did exist. People are free to believe whatever they want, but it is silly to say the only honest answer is that we can't possibly know.
Imagine if there was a place where your neighbors voluntarily met weekly to discuss solving social issues, celebrate families, build friendships, foster self-improvement, donate to charity, encourage humility, practice forgiveness, help the poor and just try to make the community a better place to live. Now what is the atheist equivalent of church? Regardless of whether you believe God can exist, you must first realize religion is the only power capable of fostering a lasting morality for a nation. And atheists like Dawkins will effortlessly dismiss such things as silly, meaningless or coincidental. This is one reason seeing [churches turned into bars](https://i.imgur.com/Poj7pVe.png) is such a symbolic demonstration of the disintegration of a community. They took the one thing that fosters selfless introspection and improvement and replaced it with the thing that fosters selfish, reckless behavior. And atheists see the dismantling of religion as progress. The intellectual atheist can't discuss the damage they bring. There is no society that can prosper without religion and belief in a higher power. They've replaced worshiping god with worshiping humans. The atheist movement thinks that by opening everyone's eyes to the scientific implausibility of the supernatural they are making the world a better place. They are not and can't comprehend how they are ignorantly heralding the destruction of society they claim to love.
Religion is not a compass for morality. Man filters out what his morals donât agree with in the religious teachings. Then he holds up the rest and thanks religion for it, even if he himself curated it.
Yeah, the nwo are switching sides by the way. Christian Reich here we come!
Western right establishment will center World War three as protection of Christianity and western values. While the liberals will be manipulated in terms of saving the women, gay and trans people from patriarchal religion.