Hope you all enjoy this - one of the most epic debates we've recorded I reckon. Be the first to watch more debates and get updates and bonus content - sign up at www.thebigconversation.show .
Three white Europeans....who are the VICTORS of Christianity proclaiming Christianity a victory although Grayling mildly pushed back. Why not ask all the indigneous people who's homelands were invaded, conquered and those that survived were oft time forcibly converted? Oh yeh, their voices have mostly been silenced. Might makes right. Love and Light Tara
@@greg5023 the murder of six million Jews was driven by radical scientific racism and what happened in Rwanda was a tribal conflict. These things would never have happened if these people read their Bible. As for what’s happening in the US - the governments’s actions there are for fully secular, non-biblical reasons.
Given your vested interest in one side of the argument I think as a Podcast Unbelievable's professionalism and balance deserves praise compared to more partisan equivalents elsewhere on TH-cam.
The full debates they post are good so I would agree with you there. However all the short selections they post are often pretty one-sided in the way they’re edited.
The same in Ireland. The extent to which our pre-Christian mythologies survive is in what was recorded by monks. This notion of them as history-erasing zealots is so out of step with historical fact as to be laughable.
@stypemann633 yes as mentioned the founding of the first european universities came about as a result of the church. I had a friend who used to tell me the Christian romans destroyed the library of Alexandria, that claim features in a Carl Sagan episode of Cosmos too. In fact the history seems to show a gradual decline I the library over centuries, including a probably accidental fire when Julius Ceasar was there. Its painful to think of all the lost works from that time but in a time later on where cities were repeatedly sacked its hardly surprising so many works were damaged or lost. Even far later on today we still know that Shakespeare wrote and performed some plays which we don't know anything about today expect the title.
In my country ( where christianity actually began), Greece, it was the protochristian mob who burned every single classic library ( serapeion, library of antioch), destroyed every temple, killed every pagan philosopher, banned every non-christian gentile book, closed the academy of plato, the lyceum, banned the olympic games, executed and mutilated every priest and pagan philosopher ( simonides, maximus, gennus,hypatia), burned the work of archimedes, sappho, apollonius, celsus. Less than 2% of ancient greek literature survives and it is not DUE to christians. It is despite christian mobs. Christianity delayed human progress and corrupted human morality to an irreversible extend. The wisdom contained in the delphic maxims or in presocratic philosophy was orders of magnitude superior to faerie tales from goatfuckers in the uncivilised ddesert.
@@lw3646 Your friend tells you the truth. Christians did burn down the serapeion library ( along with the huge library of antioch). We are talking about the 2nd burning of the library of alexandria. They also killed multiple philosophers, e.g hypatia and burned her work in mathematics. You should educate yourself better than some idiot christian apologist e.g tom Holland
On the discussion on slavery around 53:00 , I found something relevant during research for my video on Native American mythology and European reactions to it. When Spanish philosophers debated how to deal with the New World, Bartolomé de Las Casas argued for peaceful discussion and conversion, from a Christian view. His opponent, Juan Gines de Sepúlveda, argues for enslaving them, based not on Christianity, but on Aristotle.
Jonathan Archer Your utopia ends up in Maoist China. Social credit system, starvation and genocide, concentration camps for dissidents and religious people, total police state. I’m sure everyone is just totally going to go along with that.
The Catholic Church also issued 'Sublimus Dei', which was issued against the brutalization of the New World peoples. Also, most peoples of the New World generally died from Old World Eurasian diseases (to the tune of 90-95 percent). A lot of disease of which, was actually brought into from the animals indigenous to the Eurasia-sphere during this point of great convergence (circa 1500-1800 A.D.). Because the only large animals ever domesticated in the New World were the Alpaca and the Llama (because that was all that was available to them, the rest of the relatively large domesticated animals were indigenous to Eurasia - which immunized peoples in that region against a lot of diseases that killed off the peoples of the New World). See Jared Diamond's brilliant work - "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for more information on this...
@@simeonb3726 Yeah, the concept of the 'Virgin Soil Epidemic' really demolishes Mormonisms idea that their religious ideas somehow made contact with the Native Americans in Late Antiquity during the Pre-Columbian Period...
@@WoundedEgo Far, far from being such a person-just thought it was his best work thus far. Until this book's publication, I thought Persian Fire was his best book. Just a fan.
I am a fan of both of these guys. Graylings book about greek philosphy, "Dream of Reason", is excellent. And so is Hollands book "Dominion". I feel privileged to listen to them discussing this for me fascinating topic.
I profoundly hope that Tom is not the last of the thread and that academia will not banish (even persecute) such thirsty minds. Tom is my champion in this discussion.
I'm an atheist, or at least agnostic, contemptuous of Christianity as any religion, and a lover of people like Christopher Hitchens, yet Holland's book was so convincing it changed my perception deeply. I now agree with him, I recognize Christianity's total influence on my worldview, while still being atheist and religious critic, and still valuing the morality the Christian revolution provided. I think all of that is perfectly possible. He seems right on the money when he identifies today's secular and humanist evangelicalism as contingent on Christianity, without this requiring any exclusiveness for other faiths. To cite a Stoic, Seneca, "what is true is mine": atheists or people of any culture might value some products of Christianity and embrace them, without being Christian (although I know Holland focuses rightly on the headaches arising from the Nietszchean argument concerning unmooring Christian morality from its theology).
As Jews we've actually been having substantial discussions as to how secular humanist jews substantially differ from their formerly Christian counterparts
“For two millennia Christianity has dominated!” Dominated who? The “light” was brought to the Americas in 1492, to culture(s) unaffected by either classical/pagan nor it’s Christian offspring. An invasion of an arrogance unprecedented. A trigger it seemed, for Christians to colonize and invade the world. Had they found their unalloyed Satan to hate in red and brown people? Are we waiting for Christianity to reflect what we are told Jesus imagined? Still waiting.
I feel that many atheists ( mainly the new atheists) are ill informed or misinformed of what Christianity is. They are also unwilling to investigate it.
This was nothing more and nothing less than a conversation where a historian educated a philosopher on history. Applause for Holland, he didn't back down like so many others do.
AC Grayling gets it categorically wrong when discussing who maintained Greek philosophy during the Muslim era. It was Syriac monks who were translating key Greek and Roman text prior to the establishment of the Caliphate, and through their work, such philosophies were maintained throughout.
this is true and overall i agree with holland, but i think that the involvment of the islamic translation movement in the 9th century is still signifficant
@@sensennsen what is greek philo ? If you mean greek philosophy, it is beyond any debate that neoplatonism has influenced christianity more than even judaism itself.
@@Lalakis as has aristotles ethics. Aquinas appropriated his ethics into Christian theology. So, the idea Christianity has a supremacy on morality is absolute nonesense. Holland also fails to adress all the other EASTERN traditions that have "Christian" values centuries before Christ. Hes so biased I cant believe hes a non believer
@@crushinnihilismI think the weakness in Holland's argument was Christian thought on sex and the dignity of the body was a massive revolutionary step forward in human morality, in other religions you take as many wives as you want, in the old testament King Solomon has 700 wives and 300 concubines and that seems fine yet in Judaism now monogamy is the norm but Holland would say Christianity came first. But its hard then for Holland to explain why there would have been brothels and prostitutes throughout the middle ages and medival ages, right up into the 18th even early 19th century. He's also a bit weak on slavery, why was it deemed okay for hundreds of years for European governments and merchabts to participate in the African slave trade? I'm not a Catholic but I think at times the church leadership has appeared more interested in earthly powers and pleasures but there have also been some very good popes and bishops too of course. St Augustine is probably the greatest Christian thinker of the early church in my opinion. Where Grayling seems weak to me is he cherry picks the things he likes from classical Greece, but discounts all the horrible bits, the genocide the Athenians commit, the women who can't leave the home unveiled or who can't eat a meal with a man, the xenophobic attitudes of Aristotle and Plato, I'm not attacking them, both men of their time and incredibly clever, knowable and influential. It seems mad though to deny the influence on our law courts for instance, people still swear on the bible. Humanism still seems a pretty minority viewpoint too. Grayling can't really offer any solid evidence or sources either that the early Christian authorities went out of their way to destroy classical culture.
I will be buying Toms book and I look forward to reading it. I didn't realise that my understanding of history had been so tainted by anti Christian sentiment.
I'm Christian and my understanding of my own religion has been tainted by 18th and 19th century myths until a couple of years ago. Also a bunch of 20th C myths regarding Pope Pius and Hitler etc.
600 years before Jesus existed Greek Philosophers deliberated the concept of what " good " is and how " being good " would effect society. You can argue all you want about Christian culture and it's effect on the western world.....It's still derived from the Greeks. Tom simply doesn't want to accept that. He claims that it's still Christian in nature. It's not. It's Greek by design but tought as being Christian. Now that we know better we can stop with the nonsense.
@@holdontoyourwig youre still not getting the point. Noones saying they didnt discuss it, but they didnt arrive at many of our core values that christianity arrived at (cmon here, platos utopia is some sort if fascict, totalitarian state), like valuing the weak as well as the strong in society, or trying to improve the condition of all humans, not just your own tribe.
@@denverbritto5606 I asked Christian friend of mine " why didn't Jesus tell people to free all slaves as it was wicked and wrong to own another human " He replied...." because people wouldn't have accepted him as the Messiah if he did " So Jesus ( knowing that it was wrong ( if he was God )) allowed slavery for the next 2000 years until humans figured out by themselves that it was wrong. Christian values are NOT what we use today in order to live a happy fulfilling and moral life. We don't stone our children or cast out gays or make women walk two steps behind us. The morality of that time belongs in that time. We have moved on....using philosophical thinking and debate.
I read Tom Holland's book and I was looking forward to listening to him. And I'm not disappointed. Very sharp, balance in his speaking and most importantly truthful. Instead of throwing revisionism slogans like the professor, he stays sharp and insists on backing arguments with evidence which our so learnt professor wasn't able to match.
the guy didn't HAVE ANY ''evidence'' just HIS opinions of books he's read , AND ... the bible ... which ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD , it's just a book a book that can't be verified for about the same 80% you REALLY THINK Egyptian culture wouldn't have written down ANYTHING about the millions of slaves who just left ? nothing to found in a culture that wrote down EVERYTHING or that in that same desert ... NOTHING has EVER been found in connection to the story ? ever why didn't the egyptians worship ''YOUR'' god ? why don't the muslims worship YOUR god ? the indians ? the chinese ? people who've never seen another race of human being in the jungle they live ? why ? shouldn't they ? ALL of them ? if it was all real ? people are SO stupid , they will never understand this simple thing , god/source is all , that means YOU , ME , ALL OF US , EVERYTHING who are people praying too ? to themselfs ! you think THIS ... is ''healthy'' ? think again ... and that people need to imagine someone to talk to when they feel bad ? you THAT's healthy ? that they can't even get through their lives on their own merits , without the help of some IMAGINARY DEITY that's ALL it is , because YOU ARE ALL there ever was and ever will be ... WHO DO YOU NEED HELP FROM ? really ... !!! ??? who do you need to be scared of ? from yourself ... ? because there IS nothing else ... people wouldn't BE scared or afraid to ... idk ... go look for a job , do something that you wouldn't dare without praying first ... , ANYTHING people sit at home ...doing NOTHING , but reading stories about people LIVING THEIR LIVES 2000 YEARS AGO ... HOW IS THAT ''living'' ? how ? people need to wake the fuck up and KNOW WHO THEY ARE and that ANY church , mosk , hindu temple IS EMPTY AS FUCK ... there's nothing in there ... why would there be ? EVERYTHING IS IN YOU ... everything ,; the complete universe know who YOU are , and tell people who THEY are , and you'll HELP a lot more people then ANY ''god'' ever could ... if YOU don't see that ... i'm sorry , but you're not who you think you are , i think you're too soft to even start thinking how powerful you really are
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Holland is a humanist, his argument is where western civilisation comes from. The evidence he speaks of isn't evidence of God's existence.
@@ThermaL-ty7bw I think you need some help man, what are you even doing watching this video? Clearly looking for answers but you obviously didn't listen to much of what Holland was saying. He isn't a Christian he just understands its place in history better than virtually anyone going around.
Now everyone in this comment thread should know what theists experience online. Namely, the online atheists types would just spam slogans and chant NO EVIDENCE, without understanding what the video is about, the content or the argument in question. If this happens on a historical video merely about Christianity’s influence rather than the truthfulness of Christianity, how much more rampant is it when it is on the more controversial topic. The chanting of the reprobate minds is numbing, and shuts down all possibility of rational discourse, when all the atheists says is “NO EVIDENCE!!!!!“, despite the theist’s best efforts to share findings and advancements in natural theology (philosophical arguments for the existence of God), setting aside whether it’s ultimately right or not, which isn’t the highlight of this comment, but rather to draw attention to the fact that no matter how good, true, or logically airtight, setting all those aside, to the biased reprobate mind, all he’s instinctively going to respond with is “NO EVIDENCE!!!!!” I leave it up to the reader to decide whether such an approach is what rational adults should be engaged in.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Ohhh noooo you haven't! This reply exposed how the nerve that took the hit was actually yours. In fact, I would be willing to bet money that you didn't even listen to the video. I bet you go around copy/pasting that into random youtube videos. @@astaboy
I would say to the ending question about what Christianity offered the world that no other religion had, is the loving of one's enemy. That is a completely new way of thinking and treating each other.
It seems this is yet to be practiced though for a lot of Christians. Egyptians also usually made friends with their enemies (as a way to advance relationships throughout the Mediterranean) so it's not totally new.
@@LaLaLonna Your example of Egyptians making friends with their enemies is what many countries have done for political reasons, but it's not the same as the Christian idea of loving your enemy.
Na hi verena verani sammantidha kudacanam averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.1 Verse 5: Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law. Loving ur enemy is not just coming from Christianity, even in buddhism and jainism have similar things but if you look at the bible there is many bible verses condone and justify violence against non believers and idoltary but in buddhism and jainism doesn't even encourage violence. Eg in pali canon Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching. - Kakacūpama Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya 28 at MN i 128-29[6
Have you frauds liars and self-deceivers*No* Shame, and *Nothing of-your-own? What do you cal a building full of lying shameless sel f-deceivers? A A Church It's a jolly good thing there Are_ No* christians in s world wherein those that have tried to be christians have failed for want of the necessary ingredients , or as the tale goes, went away sorrowing, for they are so rich in dreams, lies and self-deception
David Bentley Hart helpfully points out that “religion” in the abstract, as an umbrella category, deracinated from any local and regional context, doesn’t exist, and the concept of “religion” is an accretion of the analytic and materialist supremacist Western hegemonies upon the myriad religions of the global east and south. What Western colonialism calls “religion” is just the life and practice, the warp and woof, of peoples who had no concept of “religion” per se. It’s like how there’s no such thing as Christianity, but rather many christianities.
@Good Grief it’s peppered throughout his work, but I would read Atheist Delusions and Being, Consciousness, Bliss, these are the two most pointed criticisms of modernity as Western supremacy. Excellent books.
@Cliff Hanley There's no doubt that modern Western liberal values and ideals are mostly premised on Christian beliefs; they are all historically speaking, heretical derivations that evolved and trace back to Christianity.
deano dog What a red herring. Women had no power what so ever before Christianity not even in Judaism in which the covenant was through the man. You can trace women rights back to baptism in which she becomes a Child of God with all the graces that comes from it. The Christian marriage ceremony for example demands the approval of the bride to be valid. This simple never happend anywhere before Christianity. Like Tom says in the debate, your attitude itself depends on Christianity
Yes, though it did seem a bit like in the debate he was told he was either repeating Gibbon or that he was repeating christian thinking without knowing it, not an original thought though.
“Exemplary” Good but not exemplary. Great debate among the sharp and honest finds agreement on the historical facts and plays off differing conclusions. Grayling just wanders around denying everything. ‘Yeah lots of historic figures like Christ’ is historic sophistry.
@@Nill757 I found Holland's answers weak and evasive. When asked to name some things given to west from christianity, his answer is probably the most stupid thing I ve heard in my life. His intellectual honest is that of an evangelist preacher of the bible belt. Monogamous lifetime matrimony has existed since mesolithic and chalcolithic age. For crying out loud multiple pagan cultures all over the world had this instititution. The ancient greeks not only had 2 goddesses for that ( Hestia and hera) but one of the god damn delphic maxims urged men to marry to one woman for their whole life. Homosexuality and heterosexuality and their nuances has absolutely nothing to do with christianity ( apart from stoning the former to death). Eastern cultures or pre-abrahamic religions had a far more sophisticated approach to this. The idea of secularism/of being religions ..... is he having a stroke ? The concept of science ? ( are we talking about the same christianism which still describes the universe creation in genesis, the one that burned bruno giordano and persecuted galileo while still opposing darwin , the one that burned the classic world ?) The idea of "humans are created to the image of god" ? Every single anthropomorphic religion is based on this notion. The gods of e.g the pagan nordics were not insects or centipede like. They were humans because it is man who wants their creators to look like them, not the other way around. So ofc....our god created us to his image. Babies make little humans out of playdoh and clay In short this illiterate thing that self identifies as historian ( lol ) needs to think more before uttering such baffling stupidities, especially with this absolutely irritating pitch and lisp.nd
Meh, I can agree that it was fascinating and could have been a lot worse but exemplary? I guess the bar is so very low these days that congenial gentlemanly debate is something extraordinary.
@@Nill757 It was a very polished and sophisticated version of Matt Dilahunty plus actual knowledge of philosophy. But the historical analysis is equally pathetic and entirely unfounded by ACG.
An interesting debate. But I am surprised Tom didn't call out AC's poor paraphrasing of the gospel. Jesus actually said that you should love your neighbour as I have loved you... Which goes beyond any other humanistic morality. Not to just love your neighbour as you love yourself, but love your neighbour as Jesus loved you that he died on the cross for us. This is what truely sets Christianity apart from any other religion or philosophy.
“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12 The golden rule seems to be paraphrased correctly. I will note to your overall point, that what Jesus said was a positive act rather than a negative which came prior. I.E. “Don’t do to others as you wouldn’t want done to you…etc” (paraphrasing earlier sources). The key difference being “do good” instead of “don’t do harm.”
Wow. That was one of the best conversations I’ve heard on unbelievable - and it was between two non-religious people! I will definitely be buying Tom’s book!
Bought the audiobook. It’s very good so far. Extremely objective, and presents as much of the whole historical picture as possible. Chapter 14 on the history of the Chinese realizing their star charts were wrong...very interesting.
Alexander Hamilton, its obvious Tom is a closet christian. Only AC Grayling was the atheist. And that is the real reason why christians here have not appreciated his academic contribution to this debate. Such is the bias of religiosity. Bane of our lives.
@@eliasarches2575 im doing neither. Both are exemplary academics. A closet christian, like a closet mystic is unaware of their biases, they only 'believe' they are irreligious. But its easy for those trained to see, the religious mind dismisses historical information (often with a huge grin) in order to retain the beliefs they hold dear. Same happens when the desire to be right trumps facts. Thats why i suggested watching the vid twice. Both offered excellent information. Its simple, beliefs are not facts and nurturing them causes blind spots (biases). But thats nothing, compared to suggesting human intelligence can function even more sensibly without any beliefs whatsoever. Whoa! that brings on an even worse tanty, but its worth checking out.
One of the most important philosophical aproaching methods I've learned as a layman, is that there is very rearly a simple 'just so' explanations to complex issues. Specially regarding our history. However to Grayling allmost everything seems to presents itself as 'it's just this or just that' -stories... I find that interesting
Not necessarily. He's a bit more aggressive in his arguing. He likes togas and dominion. That's all. But as Christianity showed: it is not the most aggressive or the most dominant who is necessarily the one who is right. I see value in the arguments of both men. Tom certainly seems to lack knowledge of eastern philosophies, who DO have a lot in common with humanism - and Christianity, for that matter. There is an innate tendency towards goodness in all peoples (even within primates). To have that tendency come to the fore in complex societies requires development. In the west, we do have Christianity and its deep roots to thank for it. Christianity further voiced ancient ideas and built upon them. Perhaps we could have done it without Christianity, but it did galvanize us around those particular ideas, in a society transforming way, even if the ideas were not originally christian or not exclusively so. Christianity did hold us back and had to evolve in certain ways. Tom should recognise this more. But we were able to build on Christianity, as we were able to build on the classics. Other parts of the world have their traditions leading them to very similar ideas and values. That is not cherry picking. It is quite striking. That does not diminish christian tradition.
You would, you being that sort of liar and self-deceiver that believes what he *wants* to believe and what is it that they are called? Ah yes, pseudo or soi-disant christians and that is why there a*Are_No* christians. How could a dreaming machine and slave of his function possibly justifiably lay claim to being able to be able to be a christian which is seemingly meaningless and just more of the fakery to which men(human beings/ dreaming machines) are so mechanically-automatically predisposed. Can you love or hate someone to order?
He's a primarily a fiction writer, not a historian. He started with vampire stories. He makes bold and rather fanciful claims here - but no real evidence - just some collated opinions.
I heard his first argument, and I immediately thought ‘wait, so if Christianity smashed every in antiquity, but was basically inspired and filled with nothing but ideas of antiquity, then what’s the loss if we then still possess those ideas of antiquity?’
@@thedeviousgreek1540 No man. Christianity is true. The miracles of the catholic church give testimony of that. A few days ago the Pope healed a deaf boy that started talking after receiving the blessing of the pope and her mother cried and cried. Christianity is true my friend. We have so many miracles during the history of christianity that cannot be refuted. Of course you can disbelieve but that doesn't change the truth.
@@mimm091285 Its cool if you believe in miracles and all sorts of magic, just dont say stuff like ''overcame ideas'' nonchalantly. Superstition doesnt overcome logic no matter which god demands it.
Interesting, John Wesley, George Whitfield, John Woolman, Olaudah Equiano, William Wilberforce, John Newton - all lived in the 18th century - all opposed and worked to abolish slavery - all were Christian.
@@redmed10I was making a funny comparison not a serious one to begin with, but for the sake of your argument, give me an example, and give me the verse #
(At 58.01) AC Grayling points to Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man" as a moment in which the paradigm shifts, the medieval emphasis on divine will is decentered and the human will affirmed. Whilst Pico's "Oration" is most certainly an affirmation of the human - the argument he presents is thoroughly and explicitly grounded in Christian theology and assumptions. This seems to be simply the wrong text to invoke in support of the thesis Grayling wants to pursue - namely, that Humanism did not emerge out of Christian tradition. In fact, I would suggest, a close reading of the "Oration", the so-called 'Manifesto of the Renaissance', leads one to precisely the opposite conclusion. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from the text: "But upon man, at the moment of his creation, God bestowed seeds pregnant with all possibilities, the germs of every form of life. Whichever of these a man shall cultivate, the same will mature and bear fruit in him. If vegetative, he will become a plant; if sensual, he will become brutish; if rational, he will reveal himself a heavenly being; if intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, dissatisfied with the lot of all creatures, he should recollect himself into the centre of his own unity, he will there, become one spirit with God, in the solitary darkness of the Father, Who is set above all."
Yes, I think I understand. Brilliantly put. I am reminded of the Creation of Adam in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, which avoids blasphemy by sheer artistic genius and immense sensitivity: Adam reclines in glorious physicality while a somewhat aged God the Father, supported by angels, stretches forth to create him. The mindblowing paradox of Humanism, in light of the purely secular version, which by no means destroys the paradox, is that man is the very image of God, and of course nothing presents this paradox more poignantly than the narrative of Jesus.
Tom is a historian of the classical age. I love philosophy but philosophers rarely lack the hubris to disregard experts when arguing with the expert in their own field
Staggered Potato : Perhaps. But philosophy without history is every generation thinking they’ll finally do socialism the right way. Government only works when it serves the people governed - now who was it that said something about those who would lead should seek to serve in the same way he did?
@@henpines The statement holds: philosophers regularly preach science to top=flight scientists. Sometimes they have a point, but often the hubris is just hilarious.
When speaking about the "love" of the Jains and the fact that they respect all life, and comparing it to Christianity, AC Grayling is making a big mistake, especially for a philosopher. Indeed, the Jains do not want to kill any living thing, so much so that they sweep the ground before they walk on it so that they don't crush or kill any life form, but they do this in order to break the karma cycle they are in so that they never have to be reincarnated. The impulse they have to do these things, is not altruism, it is egotism. This is reflected by how they beg for their food, they cannot kill plant form either, but they do not mind if someone else does so (therefore condemning themselves to another cycle of reincarnation) and they do not mind eating this plant form so long as they did not kill. I do not find this to be love for one another, but love for one's self, and only thinking about one's self. Buddhism works a bit in the same manner. It's not really altruistic, it's centered on one's self.
Interesting. Many years ago I had a friend who was very into meditation and Eastern spiritual stuff. I recall one time saying something to her about helping others, which I rather assumed would be her sort of thing, and she came back very quickly with "I'm not doing this to help anyone else. This is just about me" and she laughed. Despite not being then or now a supremely kind and compassionate type, I was suitably surprised, nay shocked.
Christianity has the ultimate egotist carrot and stick, with it's older version, Judaism, offering earthly rewards. All religions have to do this. I'd still say Jainism is the most altruistic
@@ThePalePrince There is no altruism in Jainism. Sure they wear masks and some have a broom so as to never ever kill any time of life form, as in their view this is bad and would continue the cycle of reincarnation, which in their view is bad. They also believe that plants should not be killed either, as they are also a form of living entity. But then how can they live? Well they let other people kill animals and plants for them to eat. They don't really see these living entities as worth saving from death, it's just that they themselves don't kill. They don't have a problem with eating the death life forms and they don't have a problem with others doing it for them. It's all about them and how they are going to stop their reincarnation cycle. Not about others. They don't have any thoughts about feeding or educating the poor. What matters is to stop your reincarnation cycle; it's all centered on themselves.
@@nerdanalog1707 Couldn't you also in turn argue, maybe not to the same degree, that a decent amount of Christian ethics is centered on self serving altruism? I think a large distinction between ancient Jewish beliefs and Christian beliefs is of dualistic after lives. For Ancient jews, what awaited after death was Sheol, an endless sleep, oblivion. The modern view of the afterlife is very much post biblical. And the idea that you will be rewarded in heaven and punished in hell based on how you follow scripture is in one way dangling a carrot on the stick. Even in today's society it's still up for debate on how to be saved, because it's such an important aspect of the faith, and many would argue the most important. Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is undoubtedly one of the most altruistic symbols in human history, but it is still represented in a mythological sense, how much we champion our own salvation. So isn't ultimately the good you do in the name of Christian values and ethics, rooted in getting the best afterlife possible?
What lacks on the philosopher Grayling in his analysis over these coalescing philosophies regarding love our brother/neighbours are two things: 1.) Historical Outcome Where's Mozi now? Where are the Jains now? I'm more familiar with East Asian philosophy so here goes: Ultimately, Mozi's position was untenable and was ultimately crushed by the Legalists and then Confucians. It was untenable because Mozi's philosophy ultimately prolonged the Warring States Period ("everyone's a brother therefore we gotta help all the Warring States out" which created a stalemate situation among the states, and prolonged the war even further). Meanwhile Legalists and Confucians, recognized that reality is built upon a hierarchy of values, that there must be a ONE that must rule ALL. Both acknowledged that society must be stratified precisely because reality is built upon a hierarchy, and with the latter ultimately submitting to the "God of one's ancestors". They managed to ultimately end the war through the State of Qin, which was a primarily a Legalist state, but was then usurped the Han, who were primarily Confucians. Mozi's devised philosophy "love your neighbors" in itself did not work out. Confucianism, nor Legalism do not focus on that. Confucianism focused more on Virtue, which in the end ultimately devolved to a sort of Legalism in itself as the scholars of Confucius set out to remove any meditations on Ultimate Reality/metaphysics. 2.) Missing one component on who to love: Love your enemies Sure, everyone says to love your brothers and neighbours, that much is obvious, but not one of them said to love your enemies also, except the Christians. So what do we do with enemies without Christ? Since they don't belong to the category of neighbour, nor brother, then all their rights as human are forfeited because they're not part of the in-group at all. They're enemies for goodness sake! Overall, Grayling bringing up these philosophies from other cultures proves to show how he lacks historical insights about them. If those philosophies were worth a dime, they would've continued to exist, and created unity among the nations the philosophies were bred in, and were able to in fact rise up to the same level of moral, and techological advancement as the Christian West when isolated from them. But did the Industrial Revolution, Science, etc. started in China, Japan, etc? LMao, They were extremely lagging behind when the West found them. Likewise, if you talk to an Asian bred in a non-Christian manner, ask them whether each and every person has worth and dignity of their own. They would look at you puzzled. That concept is very much foreign to them because you cannot draw that out in their own philosophies. I'm saying this as an Asian, and I've come to the same conclusion as Tom Holland. It had to be backed by a Christian understanding of the world. The only thing proving in this conversion about Grayling is how much he hates Christianity, for whatever reason that maybe. Philosophy without a thorough understanding of history is very much detached from reality. Really.
Insofar as any reliance can be placed on a tellybox thing there are Jains merrily sweeping the ground and places where they propose to walk or sit in India -seemingly Gandhi's mum was a Jain which I take to be a flavour of Hinduism. " Is it not all one to the poor flies if they are killed by the waft of an angel's wing or a kick of the hoof of o a devil?"
The most interesting video I’ve ever seen on TH-cam! Thanks! I’ve upheld Tom’s ideas about Christianity and the West for more than a decade and I couldn’t be happier to see that a rather more knowledgeable man supports, with better arguments than me, what is evident to anyone who has some sensitivity to how ideas work and how we share and believe in so many things that are not natural or universal even though we tend to believe they are (e.g. human rights).
Some fallacies and errors I think are committed by mr. Grayling: - Fallacy: moving the goal post. He asks for one example of something specific to Christians then, instead of arguing if true or false insists that the examples are not significant enough which is unfalsifiable. - Fallacy: red herring . As an argument for Christians systematically destroying classical works, he insists that Muslim scribes translated writings and are the main cause for classical writings surviving. Also, he does this in a discussion on the Theodosian period where Islam is due to appear more than 200 years later and the early Islamic expansion another hundred after that (Arabs were tribal and polytheistic and Persians zoroastrian for centuries even after muslim conquest in the 7th century). - Raises the argument that humans would reach the same conclusions without stories, metaphors and religious teachings but ignores the fact that humans abstract empirical observations in ANY domain as a main method of solving problems. Mathematics itself relies on different levels of abstractions and the ability to move between different domains (ex: geometrical proof to algebraically formulated problems) and view points to solve problems. - Ignores empirical evidence, i.e. history, where all societies evolved theistic beliefs first, which led to the stabilization of society that was necessary before actual enlightenment could occur. And how many other religious systems managed to create a stable enough secular component that enlightenment could occur and science could thrive, contest and replace religious assumptions ? - Ignores the current situation where purely atheistic/humanistic approaches prove badly suited to integrating new cultures (true, not obvious at the point of the interview) that are religion-centered and start leaning towards censorship, retreating behind taboo labels and repressing open discussions and free speech (i.e. what the church was also previously using :) ).
It would be so good have subtitles in the videos. Especially for me that are just a beginner in English. I like so much the discussions that happens on this channel.
Aother excellent conversation. I thought Grayling was at his weakest - and showing just how thoroughly Christian he is - when he was claiming that human reason can arrive at a concept of equality; that reason can deliver the human rights tradition of western culture. I most fully appreciated this issue when for a several years I taught a course on Nietzsche including a study of "Beyond Good And Evil". Human reason, engaging with the most simple empirical evidence, can easily identify that humans are very far from equal. Choose any feature - size, strength, intellligence, wisdom - and what is completely obvious is that humans are radically different and unequal. Human equality is based entirely on a theological concept of 'made in the image of God' granting a fundamental equality despite the obvious for all to see INEQUALITY. Nietzsche claims that it is entirely natural, right and proper for the strong to dominate and use the weak - a view clearly shared by many in the classical world and elsewhere throughout human history.
Thank you! Those are extremely well put points, especially your contrast of the obviousness of human inequality to the unique declaration of fundamental equality that is only truly given in the Judeo-Christian teaching.
_"Human reason, engaging with the most simple empirical evidence, can easily identify that humans are very far from equal."_ WOW!! Really? You think AC was referring to "equality" in the sense of being physically/mentally "equal"? Sorry, but that just makes you look really ignorant and/or desperate. He's talking about humans being "equally" human.
@@asix9178 that's not what he said. We are talking about equality in the sense of being human beings. Tom Holland (and the vast majority of ancient historians) recognizes that the idea of equality come from Paul not the Greeks and the idea of universal human value comes from Genesis and the theological interpretation not the Greeks. Anyone who believes in universal human values and equality is because they are thinking like a Christian, since the entire western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian values.
Ihate to be the bearer of bad news, but the jesus chap was - for himself, destroyed forever quite some time ago which is to say as one eumelanite put it,"he dead".
Which NOT A SINGLE CHRISTIAN HAS EVER FOLLOWED... all Christians have done all the way to the 20th Century is killing their enemies every single time they have had a chance.... so what are we talking about here? and at the end of it all, the one thing Christianity has brought up in humans is HYPOCRISY.
@@robertbruce1552 with all due respect to Tom, this expression of his is very wrong in light of the truth of Scripture. The truth is, God had always loved all people, but the world had rejected Him. He chose Israel to serve as a type of “guide” to show the world the way back, which has always been through faith. But Israel rebelled countless times and at several points was even far worse than the pagan nations around her. When Christ came, He brought the way for all people, and His birth was through Israel. This was and had always been the promise.
These are two first-rate scholars. Thank you for sharing them with us. There is no way that 1500 years (or so) of Christian authoritarian rule in Europe would not leave profound effects on its History and thought. The rediscovery of Greek thought sparked the end of the Middle Ages, but it could not have simply replaced Christianity. What we got was a fusion of those cultures, the Reformation and the invention of modernity. We have both to thank. Afterthought: Paul’s contribution was central. He upgraded Jewish Christianity to incorporate aspects of Greek thought, especially abstract concepts. Thus the Greeks influenced modern Europe both through and around Christianity.
Of course Christianity played a (massive) role in Europe's history. I think they were talking a bit past each other. Holland insists in describing everything in terms of Christianity, which of course can be done, but it is a miopic endeavor. Grayling, while not outright denying the influence of this religion, insists that Christianity rehashes much of the philosophical thought, religious myths and traditions that predate it. Neither of them are entirely right or wrong, it's just that they focus on different things.
As a secular historian I have enjoyed reading histories of philosophy. I’ve enjoyed reading books by both Holland the Historian and Grayling the Philosopher. Both know history, and I’m glad they both take a secular perspective on history. I’ve enjoyed your channel. Bravado, dear lad.
Unbelievable genuinely hosts some of the best discussions, not just in terms of Christianity, but just in general! I've gained so much insight into Christian history and theology from these podcasts and videos, keep up the good work!
Excellent debate on a very critical topic. Thank you "Unbelievable" once again for maintaining such a high standard for civilized discussion on the important issues of our day.
I found this a really well argued and passionate discussion. As an atheist I am interested to know how much we give up in terms of loss of ethical framework for the functioning of individuals and societies in the post Christian world. Whether this morality came from Christianity or antiquity, some of it remained within Christian teaching and transmitted in particular to childhood learning. I can certainly feel the absence of some ethical framework in many of the children i work with. That said I have the feeling Tom Holland is defending a very tea-and-a-bun Anglicanism which was certainly not my experience of Christianity growing up under repressive irish Catholicism, which practiced a gender based slavery in the Magdalene laundries up until 1980. Also neither man engages with whether humans have a natural morality which seems patently obvious in the anthropogical study of Hunter gatherer groups. Perhaps the emergence of contemporary ideas of what a good life looks like in the 5th and 4th centuries BC happened because of the emergence of urban societies and the need for ethics in dealing with many people including some who were quite different from oneself. And perhaps the codifying of these ethics into a Christian canon enforced by an all seeing all knowing God was necessary for the functioning of even larger societies.
After society has already internalized those positive things Christianity has to teach (and 2000 years was long enough to internalize these), orthodox Christian institutions no longer serve any pedagogical function. They have little to teach that society doesn't already know *better* than then, because society is capable of learning and has acquired practical experience implementing their ideas whilst these Christianity is still chained to its traditions and insulted by the suggestion that it needs to learn. At this point, orthodox Christianity no longer stands out for anything other than those negative influences that society has rightly learned to reject.
I very much appreciate both Holland’s and AC Grayling’s temperaments - so much more civil and instructional than watching Dawkins or Farina and their cynical ad hominem attacks towards their opponents. I believe Holland makes the stronger (more evident) argument than Grayling, but overall a great discussion to hear.
In the 1950s we had Copleston vs Bertrand Russell. Today we have the likes of Holland and AC Grayling tackling similar religious issues. Wonderful stuff and an excellent discussion from both sides. Very much enjoyed.
I'm an atheist with a life long interest in classical history, I agree 100% with Tom Holland on how Christianity has shaped the west, you can't spend a 1000 years living by a single ideology and not have it completely infect your culture, morals and beliefs, you can see this if you live in cultures that have never had Christianity (or Islam which is a spin off) .as for how Christianity was formed, on that point I agree with Mr Grayling.
Because he showed that the Christian monks preserved the work of the ancients, Grayling didn't have a good come back on that.. did the Christians borrow from the ancients? Absolutely! He showed that it has been the continuing reforming of the church that has led to human rights and values as we know it. It's true that the anti-slavery movement was predominantly Christian. I agree with Grayling in that enlightenment is good and needed but enlightenment _alone_ doesn't make a good society. It's faith seeking understanding. It's having a Bible in your hand and learning as much history, philosophy, and science on the other hand :)
@@fraserdaniel3999 l would just add that even enlightenment itself is a ripple effect from Christianity. Paul-> papal revolution -> reformation-> enlightenment.
@@joelrodriguez1232, true, but I think the Christmas community needs to realize the importance of enlightenment. In America at least, there's a lot of fundamentalism that denies a lot of science and is unwilling to progress with the society in terms of empowering women.
This was an excellent debate! Recognising our views are shaped by our cultural inheritance is not the same as agreeing with the truth of those doctrines. The effect of Christianity on the western mind cannot be overstated. But it is for each age to use reason to decide what to make of its cultural inheritance.
To make the link obvious - the first western humanists like Erasmus where Christian humanist scholars who were fusing ideas from the ancient Greek world with Christian ideas to create humanism.
If Alexander had not hellenized the ancient world to the extent that he did, do you think Christianity could’ve formed? It essentially would’ve had to be formed in a vacuum
@@careneh33 Japan is highly westernized in a secular sense, ever since the Meiji restoration, so yeah. But with China, I would agree that it has it's own inheritance of laws and morals. And so with Sri Lanka, India, and every other nation there is really.
Tom is brilliant. Finally a historian who actually knows history and tells the truth about it. AC is full of ..it and should be laughed out of the room.
@@stephengreen2813 it's not a matter of opinion when it comes to history, there's only right or wrong. And since Tom has all the facts and AC mostly talkes out his rear end, it would be quite illogical to treat both views equally. In any case you can't believe both. You can either believe the enlightenment, the human rights movement and so on owe something to Christianity and not just because they all originated in Christian and Christianity influenced countries. Or you can pretend with Grayling that Christianity had nothing to do with it and it just came out of the blue and that it might as well have come from anywhere including themiddle east, give or take a thousand years or so of course. What I really don't get is the idea some people seem to have that if Christianity hadn't been there everything would have been better..like the ancient Romans or Greeks would have gone straight from paganism to the the enlightenment and to the human rights movement if it weren't for Christianity..and so would the Vikings and all the others, right?.. In Graylings view it's just a coincidence that the human values and human rights movement originated in europe and that Christianity had nothing to do with it. Only a biased person could argue that and to simply nod and agree with that nonsense would be disgracefull indeed mr green
@@mistered4783 Point taken , im only making an oberservation based on my own interpretation moving from monotheism to humanism ,whilst gatthering a different prosepective through phylosiphy instead of what ive been used to for the last two decades , i owe you an apolagy for misenturprenting two different view points , it would seem i have to have a better perspective in the future .
@@mistered4783 Christianity gave us the motivation to correct the thing it got wrong like, take joy in bashing the infants head on the rocks. Stoning disrespectful children to death...Yep, Christianity did that quite well.
@@willmeariver7079 I would put it this way, "Christianity gave us the motivation to correct the things OTHERS got wrong.." such as any religion and systems that came before Christianity and some that came after, that are actually trying to undo the progress Christianity made and to return to a more archaic, barbaric conduct..
I love Holland's introduction, because that's essentially where our youths today. Indeed, it is true, the Truth we discovered in the Bible can change you in so many uncomfortable ways, simply because Salvation in Christ does NOT promise comfortable life, but Eternal Life after this life. Instead, we'll be persecuted in different ways. Because a true child of God will be constantly tempted by the Devil to get the "Life" that is in us. And ONLY the "armor of God" that we need to always have on can overcome such endeavors .
Ironically, the exchange between Grayling and Holland reminded me of the scene from "Life of Brian" with Grayling asking the equivalent of Cheese's "What did the Romans ever do for us?" "Well, they built the aqueducts. and then there's the roads...and sanitation!"
One of my favourite debates of all time. I study the history of Christianity at University. I am also a humanist, atheist and a reader of Grayling’s work. Grayling is a brilliant thinker and philosopher. Holland is a brilliant writer and historian (though he is quite narrative in his approach). Holland won this history-centred debate. But I feel like if the motion was simply ‘God exists’, Grayling would have had the edge. Fantastic debate
Daily reminder to a few of my Christian brothers and sisters here: the validity of the historical contributions of a religion does not validate its revelation claim. Mr Holland is not forming an apologetic for the truth of the Christian world-view; he's simply acknowledging that it plays an indispensable role in history, with an impact that has lasted till our present day.
It is fascinating that we have to have debates about how our culture is based on Christian moral and history. This is such a matter of course for other parts of the world and other cultures. Of course there was religion. Were else shall our values come from? Why do we have to convince ourselves that they actually have an origin? We are not better or different than other cultures. Of course our values derive from somewhere. By kicking out the church and embracing science, humanities and rational thought we still cannot receive our values from a historical and cultural vacuum. Brilliant debate, Mr Holland!
And as with almost everything, you cannot pin point outcomes to one single cause. But religion over centuries was a big part of culture and big part of shaping values. Naturally, there are also factors of survival, biological and social reproduction, society building etc that contribute to creating certain values. My point barely was just to say that in the Christian Global North we often underestimate the importance of religion in it - part also is, that we do not like to engage with our own history very much.
Jürgen Habermas. a famous contempory agnostic Philosoph, has also stated that western values are essentially based on christian values. According to him, to postulate anything other is just postmodern gibberish.
@@piushalg8175 Not if you have read any philosophy. I mean any philosophy at all. Since most modern philosophers are NOT theists, an appeal to authority would work against you.
This is a serious misquote that has appeared in many blogs and even published outlets. In short, Habermas actually said that we have no alternative to the legacy of Christianity and not we have no alternative to Christianity: The "quotation" has appeared in a number of books (see below), in Wall Street Journal ("In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead") and in Christian Science Monitor ("Germans reconsider religion"), and you can find it on a large number of blogs in America on Christianity. But this is a misquotation! The right quotation is this: "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999). The misquote rewrites Habermas's statement and changes its meaning: (1) Habermas talks about the historical origin of universalistic egalitarianism - not the foundation of human rights today. (2) Habermas mentions both Judaism and Christianity - not only Christianity. (3) Habermas says that there is no alternative to this legacy ("Erbe" in German) - not that we have no alternative to Christianity.
I think in the conclusion, Tom missed a little strike, in that he forgot to delineate the difference between philosophies like buddha's, and Taoism, and Christ, and that is that the latter enacted His beliefs to the fullest expression. While buddha talked about Love and sat to meditate, to later die peacefully surrounded by his followers.
Remember proselyte Buddha or Paul were long gone before Emperors like Ashoka or Constantine converted to faiths after being arch Expansionists who massacred as pillaged Territory of other People's as old Civilizations, Therefore God's ambit over Mankind needs distinctly overview of History..
Grayling condemns the sexual exploitation of slaves by Roman masters, even though the slaves themselves didn't think it was wrong. Grayling is somehow able to magically create a morality that is identical to that of Christianity, yet claims it owes nothing at all to Christianity. All with a straight face.
Tom's point about who kept the Greek texts alive was interesting, especially his claim that there is an underlying Protestant bias behind the modern enlightenment.
It often takes someone from outside Christian cultures to recognize how fundamentally Christian the West's values are. Sadhu Sundar Singh, an Indian Sikh who became a Christian missionary in the early 1900s said that Europeans have been so immersed in Christian morality that they no longer even recognize them as being Christian. In Indian tradition, upper and lower castes of human beings are certainly not equal-those of upper castes are being rewarded for good deeds in their past lives while those from lower castes are being punished, and so in their worldview, both deserve what they are getting. How does that square with the idea of universal humanist views? When the Jesuits first arrived in Japan there was mass conversion by the peasants to Christianity, and one man upon being asked what the appeal of Christianity was to them was that it "gave them souls." In the pre-existing traditions of Japan, the peasants were not seen as equals to the nobility, and the emperors were viewed as divine, even up until the 20th century. How does that square with the idea of all human beings being created equal? The same was the case in the Roman world prior to Christianity, hence why the first converts to Christianity were women, slaves, the poor, and the oppressed. There is no doubt that philosophical ideas circulating in the Roman world at the time expressed similar moral precepts as the Christians, but what did they do about it? While Christians went out in the world to feed the hungry, care for the lepers, visit those in prisons, rescue abandoned orphans, what were philosophers doing? Sure maybe they had some good ideas, but as Christ said "faith without works is dead." The Christians went out into the world to make a difference. Even during the time when humanism was on the rise, it was largely Christians who went out in the world founding hospitals and schools, inventing scripts for languages that didn't have them, and struggling to bring about a change for the better in the world. The idea that the world can be made better is itself a Christian idea. Progress is a Christian idea. In most other civilizations history is seen as circular, repeating in an endless cycle of creation and destruction. Many cultures didn't even have a concept of time at all. The idea that the world, that humanity, is progressing toward something better is fundamentally Christian and comes from the idea of the Second Coming and bringing about Heaven on Earth. The idea that there are even universal values at all is a fundamentally Christian one. Christianity teaches that there is an absolute good and evil, and that the laws of God are written on the hearts of men.
I watched this discussion not so long after it was first posted online. I’ve now watched it for a second time and still think it is a wonderful conversation by two intellectual giants, both experts in their respective fields of history and philosophy. I really enjoyed watching it (again!).
Good intelligent argument and evidence on both sides. Both emphasise and amplify the points which support their position and highlight the weaknesses of the other. This is typical of all debates. Let’s just accept that both positions contain both weaknesses and valuable material.
Actually, he was give nothing. "Long lasting matrimony"? Pf! If you don't get along with your spouse anymore, get a divorce. Why take the risk of killing each other one day?
The problem was that the ideas Tom was giving could so easily be attributed to cultures before and outside of Christianity, and also that even if one were to grant that these things were uniquely Christian, they were hardly good things, which you would expect would come from the true religion
@25:00 - I appreciate so much of what professor Grayling has to say in other conversations, hard to watch him miss the boat completely here. Aquinas adopted classical philosophy. Likewise, what remains of classical philosophy is mainly due to what Christians found useful and/or sympatico- who needs aristotles poetics? Who needs any alternative record or original work by socrates when Plato seeking the good and truth seems to work so well with church purpose? There was a synthesis preserving much of the classical tradition but not all, not an antithetical destruction. Latin is latin, and Ciciro abides. To be fair, tom holland isn't the first person I'd go to for an explanation of difference re Wittgenstein's tractatus and investigations. Dont think Holland would offer a strong opinion on that, philosophers do have trouble seeing their own limitations, historians start with finding people more interesting than themselves and trying to be half as good as the subject with full knowledge they are just a sketch artist. Healthier intellectual pursuit.
Tom Holland said nothing about Christianity that makes it stand out as exceptional. The same human rights and value of humanity can be found in many, many non and pre-Christian societies all over the world including in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Native American peoples, aborigines of Australia etc. For example, this Native American Ojibwa prayer: 'Teach us love, compassion, and honor that we may heal the earth and heal each other.' Tom Holland's ideas are deeply insulting to the people of many other religions and beliefs, especially given the legacy of the 'Christian' colonisers who committed genocide against native peoples world-wide and spread Christianity, along with colonisation, occupation, apartheid and slavery.
I would recommend checking out Tim O'Neill's "History for Atheists" blog. O'Neill is a nonbeliever, but he absolutely savages the shoddy history and dishonesty displayed by Grayling in this debate.
What you call" history is in practice little more than a set of beliefs pertaining to the non-existent or past, of which nothing can be directly immediately personally experience or known, so the only things on the menu for that are supposition belief or inference, and guesswork or various psychological postures short of direct immediate personal experience or knowledge; history*Can_Only amount to little more than a set of beliefs - no more, it being axiomatic that the non-existent cannot be directly immediately personally experience or known, and of what else can you think that consists largely of beliefs assumption presumptions and inferences cum guesswork? History is merely a set of stories based on what is little more than gossip and hearsay, the word coming from histoire- the French for story, because that is what history*Is* a set of stories(based on little more than gossip or hearsay) about what can *-at_best-*- only be believed to have taken place in the past ; stories about the past of which nothing can be directly immediate personal experienced-*as* directly immediately and personally as pain -anything short of that can only be that form of dreaming that is called belief. At best people can believe or otherwisesrories about the past they cannot(know(as defined)*Anything* about the past; the best that can be done with the past is somethin*Short_of* direct immediate personal experience(as direct immediate an personal as pain). It is a matter of interest psychologically speaking, what sensible distinction can be made as between knowledge(as defined) and belief , which is clearly species of dreaming, or whatever monkey business goes o in the dreaming/associstive function processor or mechanism but call-it-what-you-will, knowledge belief is Not*, but where knowledge ends and belief begins, *that* would be a study in its own right, not forgetting that for men(human beings/dreaming machines) they can go in for that species of lying and self-deception that is believing what they*want*) which the wretched creatures will do wholly unconsciously-mechanically automatically*Passively* or as-is-said, in .... their...... sleep, or whatever you want to call the state they re in when completely hypnotised by one or another of their functions processors or mechanisms, of which there are how many? History is not so much bunk but the next best thing, namely belief; *what_other* posture can be adopted towards the non-existent or unexperienceable(pace Daphne Dumaurier)?
Professor Grayling calmly demolishes Holland’s arguments here. A joy to watch a seasoned professor take on a writer of “popular history”. It’s as if Holland hasn’t heard of Confucius, Mozi, Ashoka, Santideva. The Hindu Vedas (long predating Christianity) call for charity, Ashoka called for secularism and religious tolerance and care for non-human animals (writing in the first animal welfare laws), Mozi called for concern for the general welfare of the population, Islamic Córdoba was a hotbed of science and tolerance, Akbar’s India was an exemplar of religious pluralism while millions perished in the French Wars of Religion and Catholics were being hunted down in Elizabethan England.
Yeah . . . I think I remember reading about that huge wave of conversions to Confucianism sweeping all of western civilization . . . It's true that many Christian ideas and values aren't unique to Christianity when one is looking at the global history of philosophy, but if we're talking about the intellectual roots of western culture . . . There's a big difference between a new idea coming out of a tradition and actually spreading and instilling that idea in flesh and blood people. Many Christian ideas certainly weren't unique to Christianity in the absolute sense, but when it comes to how those ideas actually made it into the minds of western culture that's a very different thing. I didn't think Grayling really demolished much of anything other than a straw-man of Holland's Thesis.
Confucius taught absolute obedience to state, parents and authority figure. I don’t know whether I would call that “modern values” at least not western values. Mozi was only really influential in the warring states period before it was subsumed by confucianism in the Qin and Han dynasties. It didn’t really have a huge impact in the world. Honestly, I am an ethnic chinese myself but modern values like equality under the law are ultimately from paul in the end. I am not too familiar with the Indian figures you mentioned but the indian texts have a caste system, which is definitely not “modern” values. One of the major points Tom Holland made is that slave and free are the same before the eyes of god in the christian worldview, which I do not think the vedas have. Even with the caste system being more fluid in the early stages, the caste system still exists, something that is not “human” or “modern”. Secularism is also not really “modern” or “human”. because most of the world is still religious, christianity being the number one and Islam being the second (and its not the eastern way of dharma, it is a separate thing all together). In fact, I would make the case that spirituality and finding metaphysical meaning is something that all humans share, even among the eastern religions. Harming non human animals is not really a “human” values because we were hunter gatherers in the past and we still harm animals to this day (we only protect some animals, not things like lizards, insects, rats etc). Tolerance is the shadow of love because tolerance is only agreeing to disagree with other people belief. “Love thy enemy” means that you must give your unselfish love to them and help them in need even if you disagree with them completely. Pacifism is also the shadow of love because love is uncompromising. Love means protecting one’s brother and sister, and when push comes to shove, we must protect our love ones even if we have to use violence, something that is innate among social animals. Lastly, italy was the hotbed of science with the renaissance kicking on. The roman catholic church is kind of sketchy with their track record, but scientists like Newton was not shaken in his belief in his discovery of gravity. Science and christianity can exist alongside each other. We must compare apples to apples, islamic science and christian science at its best both helped further the world, but the christian worldview gave rise to the current moral paradigm of science to keep discovering what nature is and how it works.
Can there be such a thing as an " historical" fact, and for whom can it be whatever you mean by- but have no idea, a fact? How is an historical fact distinguishable from any other kind of fact or just a fact simpliciter?
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope you all enjoy this - one of the most epic debates we've recorded I reckon. Be the first to watch more debates and get updates and bonus content - sign up at www.thebigconversation.show .
Good stuff alright. A lot to think about.
Three white Europeans....who are the VICTORS of Christianity proclaiming Christianity a victory although Grayling mildly pushed back. Why not ask all the indigneous people who's homelands were invaded, conquered and those that survived were oft time forcibly converted? Oh yeh, their voices have mostly been silenced. Might makes right.
Love and Light
Tara
Great discussion! This was one of the best big conversations.
@@greg5023 the murder of six million Jews was driven by radical scientific racism and what happened in Rwanda was a tribal conflict. These things would never have happened if these people read their Bible. As for what’s happening in the US - the governments’s actions there are for fully secular, non-biblical reasons.
Unbelievable? GET A BLACK ISRAELITE TO DEBATE ON WHO ARE THE REAL JEWS
Given your vested interest in one side of the argument I think as a Podcast Unbelievable's professionalism and balance deserves praise compared to more partisan equivalents elsewhere on TH-cam.
Modern Day Debate is clearly superior on that point, though.
The full debates they post are good so I would agree with you there. However all the short selections they post are often pretty one-sided in the way they’re edited.
In my country it was actually early christians who saved most of my countries early litterature; the Icelandic Sagas.
Your country is a marvellous one (especially for music)
The same in Ireland. The extent to which our pre-Christian mythologies survive is in what was recorded by monks.
This notion of them as history-erasing zealots is so out of step with historical fact as to be laughable.
@stypemann633 yes as mentioned the founding of the first european universities came about as a result of the church. I had a friend who used to tell me the Christian romans destroyed the library of Alexandria, that claim features in a Carl Sagan episode of Cosmos too. In fact the history seems to show a gradual decline I the library over centuries, including a probably accidental fire when Julius Ceasar was there. Its painful to think of all the lost works from that time but in a time later on where cities were repeatedly sacked its hardly surprising so many works were damaged or lost. Even far later on today we still know that Shakespeare wrote and performed some plays which we don't know anything about today expect the title.
In my country ( where christianity actually began), Greece, it was the protochristian mob who burned every single classic library ( serapeion, library of antioch), destroyed every temple, killed every pagan philosopher, banned every non-christian gentile book, closed the academy of plato, the lyceum, banned the olympic games, executed and mutilated every priest and pagan philosopher ( simonides, maximus, gennus,hypatia), burned the work of archimedes, sappho, apollonius, celsus. Less than 2% of ancient greek literature survives and it is not DUE to christians. It is despite christian mobs.
Christianity delayed human progress and corrupted human morality to an irreversible extend. The wisdom contained in the delphic maxims or in presocratic philosophy was orders of magnitude superior to faerie tales from goatfuckers in the uncivilised ddesert.
@@lw3646 Your friend tells you the truth. Christians did burn down the serapeion library ( along with the huge library of antioch). We are talking about the 2nd burning of the library of alexandria. They also killed multiple philosophers, e.g hypatia and burned her work in mathematics. You should educate yourself better than some idiot christian apologist e.g tom Holland
On the discussion on slavery around 53:00 , I found something relevant during research for my video on Native American mythology and European reactions to it.
When Spanish philosophers debated how to deal with the New World, Bartolomé de Las Casas argued for peaceful discussion and conversion, from a Christian view. His opponent, Juan Gines de Sepúlveda, argues for enslaving them, based not on Christianity, but on Aristotle.
Jonathan Archer Your utopia ends up in Maoist China. Social credit system, starvation and genocide, concentration camps for dissidents and religious people, total police state. I’m sure everyone is just totally going to go along with that.
Very interesting. Could you please send me the references for the Spanish philosophers debate?
The Catholic Church also issued 'Sublimus Dei', which was issued against the brutalization of the New World peoples. Also, most peoples of the New World generally died from Old World Eurasian diseases (to the tune of 90-95 percent). A lot of disease of which, was actually brought into from the animals indigenous to the Eurasia-sphere during this point of great convergence (circa 1500-1800 A.D.). Because the only large animals ever domesticated in the New World were the Alpaca and the Llama (because that was all that was available to them, the rest of the relatively large domesticated animals were indigenous to Eurasia - which immunized peoples in that region against a lot of diseases that killed off the peoples of the New World). See Jared Diamond's brilliant work - "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for more information on this...
@@robertfreid2879 Which also unintentionally demolished the argument for the historicity of 'The book of Mormon'...
@@simeonb3726 Yeah, the concept of the 'Virgin Soil Epidemic' really demolishes Mormonisms idea that their religious ideas somehow made contact with the Native Americans in Late Antiquity during the Pre-Columbian Period...
I recently finished Dominion-one of Mr. Holland's best works. I can't recommend it enough.
It is truly seminal, an absolutely amazing book....
I suggest you consider your biases might be tainted by Christian nationalism.
@@WoundedEgo Far, far from being such a person-just thought it was his best work thus far. Until this book's publication, I thought Persian Fire was his best book. Just a fan.
I am a fan of both of these guys. Graylings book about greek philosphy, "Dream of Reason", is excellent. And so is Hollands book "Dominion". I feel privileged to listen to them discussing this for me fascinating topic.
It was fantastic
Holland's book Dominion is a magnificent work, a masterpiece in my opinion.
I will buy it to wipe my @ss with it.
I’m curious what other works of history qualify as a ‘masterpiece,’ in your opinion. Care to tell us?
@@EyeByBrian Thucydides
It's the most anti-hellenistic book I read, and I don't mean that as a compliment
@@CvW-iy8jt the greeks were wankers
I profoundly hope that Tom is not the last of the thread and that academia will not banish (even persecute) such thirsty minds. Tom is my champion in this discussion.
I'm an atheist, or at least agnostic, contemptuous of Christianity as any religion, and a lover of people like Christopher Hitchens, yet Holland's book was so convincing it changed my perception deeply. I now agree with him, I recognize Christianity's total influence on my worldview, while still being atheist and religious critic, and still valuing the morality the Christian revolution provided. I think all of that is perfectly possible. He seems right on the money when he identifies today's secular and humanist evangelicalism as contingent on Christianity, without this requiring any exclusiveness for other faiths. To cite a Stoic, Seneca, "what is true is mine": atheists or people of any culture might value some products of Christianity and embrace them, without being Christian (although I know Holland focuses rightly on the headaches arising from the Nietszchean argument concerning unmooring Christian morality from its theology).
As Jews we've actually been having substantial discussions as to how secular humanist jews substantially differ from their formerly Christian counterparts
@@Joeshapiro7 I'd be curious to hear more
“For two millennia Christianity has dominated!” Dominated who? The “light” was brought to the Americas in 1492, to culture(s) unaffected by either classical/pagan nor it’s Christian offspring. An invasion of an arrogance unprecedented. A trigger it seemed, for Christians to colonize and invade the world. Had they found their unalloyed Satan to hate in red and brown people? Are we waiting for Christianity to reflect what we are told Jesus imagined? Still waiting.
I feel that many atheists ( mainly the new atheists) are ill informed or misinformed of what Christianity is. They are also unwilling to investigate it.
Great comment!
This was nothing more and nothing less than a conversation where a historian educated a philosopher on history. Applause for Holland, he didn't back down like so many others do.
i doubt you were being objective
@@atilaorhan9864 why? Grayling was clearly ignorant of many things.
@@rationalsceptic7634 Richard Carrier lol
No history is objective. Bias is a significant part of human nature and therefore human storytelling.
@@denverbritto5606 _"Richard Carrier lol"_
Tom Holland, lol
AC Grayling gets it categorically wrong when discussing who maintained Greek philosophy during the Muslim era. It was Syriac monks who were translating key Greek and Roman text prior to the establishment of the Caliphate, and through their work, such philosophies were maintained throughout.
I know, even I, an atheist, cringed on his confidence of pushing the idea of Greek philo to the power of Christianity.
this is true and overall i agree with holland, but i think that the involvment of the islamic translation movement in the 9th century is still signifficant
@@sensennsen what is greek philo ? If you mean greek philosophy, it is beyond any debate that neoplatonism has influenced christianity more than even judaism itself.
@@Lalakis as has aristotles ethics. Aquinas appropriated his ethics into Christian theology.
So, the idea Christianity has a supremacy on morality is absolute nonesense.
Holland also fails to adress all the other EASTERN traditions that have "Christian" values centuries before Christ.
Hes so biased I cant believe hes a non believer
@@crushinnihilismI think the weakness in Holland's argument was Christian thought on sex and the dignity of the body was a massive revolutionary step forward in human morality, in other religions you take as many wives as you want, in the old testament King Solomon has 700 wives and 300 concubines and that seems fine yet in Judaism now monogamy is the norm but Holland would say Christianity came first. But its hard then for Holland to explain why there would have been brothels and prostitutes throughout the middle ages and medival ages, right up into the 18th even early 19th century. He's also a bit weak on slavery, why was it deemed okay for hundreds of years for European governments and merchabts to participate in the African slave trade?
I'm not a Catholic but I think at times the church leadership has appeared more interested in earthly powers and pleasures but there have also been some very good popes and bishops too of course. St Augustine is probably the greatest Christian thinker of the early church in my opinion.
Where Grayling seems weak to me is he cherry picks the things he likes from classical Greece, but discounts all the horrible bits, the genocide the Athenians commit, the women who can't leave the home unveiled or who can't eat a meal with a man, the xenophobic attitudes of Aristotle and Plato, I'm not attacking them, both men of their time and incredibly clever, knowable and influential. It seems mad though to deny the influence on our law courts for instance, people still swear on the bible. Humanism still seems a pretty minority viewpoint too. Grayling can't really offer any solid evidence or sources either that the early Christian authorities went out of their way to destroy classical culture.
I will be buying Toms book and I look forward to reading it. I didn't realise that my understanding of history had been so tainted by anti Christian sentiment.
I'm Christian and my understanding of my own religion has been tainted by 18th and 19th century myths until a couple of years ago. Also a bunch of 20th C myths regarding Pope Pius and Hitler etc.
When you find out what he means by homosexual, please let me know.
600 years before Jesus existed Greek Philosophers deliberated the concept of what " good " is and how " being good " would effect society.
You can argue all you want about Christian culture and it's effect on the western world.....It's still derived from the Greeks.
Tom simply doesn't want to accept that. He claims that it's still Christian in nature. It's not. It's Greek by design but tought as being Christian.
Now that we know better we can stop with the nonsense.
@@holdontoyourwig youre still not getting the point. Noones saying they didnt discuss it, but they didnt arrive at many of our core values that christianity arrived at (cmon here, platos utopia is some sort if fascict, totalitarian state), like valuing the weak as well as the strong in society, or trying to improve the condition of all humans, not just your own tribe.
@@denverbritto5606 I asked Christian friend of mine " why didn't Jesus tell people to free all slaves as it was wicked and wrong to own another human "
He replied...." because people wouldn't have accepted him as the Messiah if he did "
So Jesus ( knowing that it was wrong ( if he was God )) allowed slavery for the next 2000 years until humans figured out by themselves that it was wrong.
Christian values are NOT what we use today in order to live a happy fulfilling and moral life.
We don't stone our children or cast out gays or make women walk two steps behind us.
The morality of that time belongs in that time. We have moved on....using philosophical thinking and debate.
Tom is an asset. Hard to distinguish facts these days but he makes it clear and loud
An asset to Christianity!
I found quite the contrary. According to my knowledge he mostly refused important historical facts and created his own false narratives.
@@andrewclough660 ???
@@vinix333 According to your echo chamber?
Wtf. Tom Tom?
I read Tom Holland's book and I was looking forward to listening to him. And I'm not disappointed. Very sharp, balance in his speaking and most importantly truthful. Instead of throwing revisionism slogans like the professor, he stays sharp and insists on backing arguments with evidence which our so learnt professor wasn't able to match.
What evidence?
the guy didn't HAVE ANY ''evidence'' just HIS opinions of books he's read , AND ... the bible ... which ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING IN THE WORLD , it's just a book
a book that can't be verified for about the same 80%
you REALLY THINK Egyptian culture wouldn't have written down ANYTHING about the millions of slaves who just left ?
nothing to found in a culture that wrote down EVERYTHING
or that in that same desert ... NOTHING has EVER been found in connection to the story ? ever
why didn't the egyptians worship ''YOUR'' god ?
why don't the muslims worship YOUR god ?
the indians ?
the chinese ?
people who've never seen another race of human being in the jungle they live ?
why ?
shouldn't they ? ALL of them ? if it was all real ?
people are SO stupid , they will never understand this simple thing ,
god/source is all , that means YOU , ME , ALL OF US , EVERYTHING
who are people praying too ? to themselfs !
you think THIS ... is ''healthy'' ?
think again ...
and that people need to imagine someone to talk to when they feel bad ? you THAT's healthy ?
that they can't even get through their lives on their own merits , without the help of some IMAGINARY DEITY
that's ALL it is , because YOU ARE ALL there ever was and ever will be ... WHO DO YOU NEED HELP FROM ? really ... !!! ???
who do you need to be scared of ? from yourself ... ? because there IS nothing else ...
people wouldn't BE scared or afraid to ... idk ... go look for a job , do something that you wouldn't dare without praying first ... , ANYTHING
people sit at home ...doing NOTHING , but reading stories about people LIVING THEIR LIVES 2000 YEARS AGO ...
HOW IS THAT ''living'' ?
how ?
people need to wake the fuck up and KNOW WHO THEY ARE and that ANY church , mosk , hindu temple IS EMPTY AS FUCK ...
there's nothing in there ... why would there be ?
EVERYTHING IS IN YOU ... everything ,; the complete universe
know who YOU are , and tell people who THEY are , and you'll HELP a lot more people then ANY ''god'' ever could ...
if YOU don't see that ... i'm sorry , but you're not who you think you are , i think you're too soft to even start thinking how powerful you really are
@@ThermaL-ty7bw Holland is a humanist, his argument is where western civilisation comes from.
The evidence he speaks of isn't evidence of God's existence.
@@ThermaL-ty7bw I think you need some help man, what are you even doing watching this video? Clearly looking for answers but you obviously didn't listen to much of what Holland was saying. He isn't a Christian he just understands its place in history better than virtually anyone going around.
Now everyone in this comment thread should know what theists experience online.
Namely, the online atheists types would just spam slogans and chant NO EVIDENCE, without understanding what the video is about, the content or the argument in question.
If this happens on a historical video merely about Christianity’s influence rather than the truthfulness of Christianity, how much more rampant is it when it is on the more controversial topic. The chanting of the reprobate minds is numbing, and shuts down all possibility of rational discourse, when all the atheists says is “NO EVIDENCE!!!!!“, despite the theist’s best efforts to share findings and advancements in natural theology (philosophical arguments for the existence of God), setting aside whether it’s ultimately right or not, which isn’t the highlight of this comment, but rather to draw attention to the fact that no matter how good, true, or logically airtight, setting all those aside, to the biased reprobate mind, all he’s instinctively going to respond with is “NO EVIDENCE!!!!!”
I leave it up to the reader to decide whether such an approach is what rational adults should be engaged in.
I've always been amazed at how many non-christians have helped my Christian faith.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 They were Jewish. It's impossible that they were vegetarians.
Where are you getting this stuff from?
No you haven't, you just wrote that to feel smart and take a petty dig. This comment exposed you more than anything else.
Oh yes I have. And on multiple occasions.
Looks like I hit a nerve with you. This comment exposed how insecure you are.@@TheGlobuleReturns
Ohhh noooo you haven't! This reply exposed how the nerve that took the hit was actually yours. In fact, I would be willing to bet money that you didn't even listen to the video. I bet you go around copy/pasting that into random youtube videos. @@astaboy
I would say to the ending question about what Christianity offered the world that no other religion had, is the loving of one's enemy. That is a completely new way of thinking and treating each other.
I was waiting exactly for a comment on that from Tom, and and then from any of you. Does Dominion make such distinction?
It seems this is yet to be practiced though for a lot of Christians. Egyptians also usually made friends with their enemies (as a way to advance relationships throughout the Mediterranean) so it's not totally new.
@@LaLaLonna Your example of Egyptians making friends with their enemies is what many countries have done for political reasons, but it's not the same as the Christian idea of loving your enemy.
@@LaLaLonna Uh, LaLa, the Egyptians enslaved their enemies.
Na hi verena verani
sammantidha kudacanam
averena ca sammanti
esa dhammo sanantano.1
Verse 5: Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.
Loving ur enemy is not just coming from Christianity, even in buddhism and jainism have similar things but if you look at the bible there is many bible verses condone and justify violence against non believers and idoltary but in buddhism and jainism doesn't even encourage violence. Eg in pali canon
Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching.
- Kakacūpama Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya 28 at MN i 128-29[6
“Our hearts are restless, until they can find rest in you.”
Augustine of Hippo (354-430), in Confessions.
Have you frauds liars and self-deceivers*No* Shame, and *Nothing of-your-own?
What do you cal a building full of lying shameless sel f-deceivers?
A A Church
It's a jolly good thing there Are_ No* christians in s world wherein those that have tried to be christians have failed for want of the necessary ingredients , or as the tale goes, went away sorrowing, for they are so rich in dreams, lies and self-deception
As much as I generally prefer discussions about the big-picture of religion, I loved how nerdily specific and meticulous this was.
History is like that
I have come to believe truth is in the details!
@@Inharmonics Grayling is an anti-Christian propagandists working for WEF. Look it up. There's a detail that doesn't show up in this "debate."
David Bentley Hart helpfully points out that “religion” in the abstract, as an umbrella category, deracinated from any local and regional context, doesn’t exist, and the concept of “religion” is an accretion of the analytic and materialist supremacist Western hegemonies upon the myriad religions of the global east and south. What Western colonialism calls “religion” is just the life and practice, the warp and woof, of peoples who had no concept of “religion” per se. It’s like how there’s no such thing as Christianity, but rather many christianities.
@Good Grief it’s peppered throughout his work, but I would read Atheist Delusions and Being, Consciousness, Bliss, these are the two most pointed criticisms of modernity as Western supremacy. Excellent books.
Brilliant! Tom Holland totally conveys the unique contribution that Christianity has constantly made to the world.
My favourite contribution is the dark ages and burning women and free thinkers at the stake , just a few personal faves of mine !!
@@deanodog3667 dark ages are a myth. Please read Tim Oneill's blog.
@Cliff Hanley Listen to what he says... and read Dominion.
@Cliff Hanley There's no doubt that modern Western liberal values and ideals are mostly premised on Christian beliefs; they are all historically speaking, heretical derivations that evolved and trace back to Christianity.
deano dog What a red herring. Women had no power what so ever before Christianity not even in Judaism in which the covenant was through the man. You can trace women rights back to baptism in which she becomes a Child of God with all the graces that comes from it. The Christian marriage ceremony for example demands the approval of the bride to be valid. This simple never happend anywhere before Christianity.
Like Tom says in the debate, your attitude itself depends on Christianity
It's amazing how committed to the Gibbonian myths Grayling is.
What difference does it make?
@@piesho Because truth matters
@F. Bev. What revisionist history are you referring to? Do you have any evidence for your statement?
@F. Bev. Sure, but also to those who are not committed to myths.
Yes, though it did seem a bit like in the debate he was told he was either repeating Gibbon or that he was repeating christian thinking without knowing it, not an original thought though.
"the cross was physically excruciating"
That's where the word comes from, lol.
Wow, you're right, if I had ever known that, I'd long forgotten, so thank you for pointing it out!!!
Imagine being singled out for a mode of torture which would define torture !
that's why we gotta bring it back.
@@IRGhost0 Good luck with that thought .
How do you mean?
Regardless of which side you favour, can we all at least agree that the way in which this conversation/debate was conducted was exemplary?
“Exemplary”
Good but not exemplary. Great debate among the sharp and honest finds agreement on the historical facts and plays off differing conclusions. Grayling just wanders around denying everything. ‘Yeah lots of historic figures like Christ’ is historic sophistry.
@@Nill757 I found Holland's answers weak and evasive. When asked to name some things given to west from christianity, his answer is probably the most stupid thing I ve heard in my life. His intellectual honest is that of an evangelist preacher of the bible belt.
Monogamous lifetime matrimony has existed since mesolithic and chalcolithic age. For crying out loud multiple pagan cultures all over the world had this instititution. The ancient greeks not only had 2 goddesses for that ( Hestia and hera) but one of the god damn delphic maxims urged men to marry to one woman for their whole life.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality and their nuances has absolutely nothing to do with christianity ( apart from stoning the former to death). Eastern cultures or pre-abrahamic religions had a far more sophisticated approach to this.
The idea of secularism/of being religions ..... is he having a stroke ?
The concept of science ? ( are we talking about the same christianism which still describes the universe creation in genesis, the one that burned bruno giordano and persecuted galileo while still opposing darwin , the one that burned the classic world ?)
The idea of "humans are created to the image of god" ? Every single anthropomorphic religion is based on this notion. The gods of e.g the pagan nordics were not insects or centipede like. They were humans because it is man who wants their creators to look like them, not the other way around. So ofc....our god created us to his image. Babies make little humans out of playdoh and clay
In short this illiterate thing that self identifies as historian ( lol ) needs to think more before uttering such baffling stupidities, especially with this absolutely irritating pitch and lisp.nd
Meh, I can agree that it was fascinating and could have been a lot worse but exemplary? I guess the bar is so very low these days that congenial gentlemanly debate is something extraordinary.
@@Nill757 It was a very polished and sophisticated version of Matt Dilahunty plus actual knowledge of philosophy. But the historical analysis is equally pathetic and entirely unfounded by ACG.
An interesting debate. But I am surprised Tom didn't call out AC's poor paraphrasing of the gospel. Jesus actually said that you should love your neighbour as I have loved you... Which goes beyond any other humanistic morality. Not to just love your neighbour as you love yourself, but love your neighbour as Jesus loved you that he died on the cross for us. This is what truely sets Christianity apart from any other religion or philosophy.
“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12
The golden rule seems to be paraphrased correctly. I will note to your overall point, that what Jesus said was a positive act rather than a negative which came prior. I.E. “Don’t do to others as you wouldn’t want done to you…etc” (paraphrasing earlier sources). The key difference being “do good” instead of “don’t do harm.”
Wow. That was one of the best conversations I’ve heard on unbelievable - and it was between two non-religious people! I will definitely be buying Tom’s book!
Bought the audiobook. It’s very good so far. Extremely objective, and presents as much of the whole historical picture as possible.
Chapter 14 on the history of the Chinese realizing their star charts were wrong...very interesting.
Alexander Hamilton, its obvious Tom is a closet christian.
Only AC Grayling was the atheist. And that is the real reason why christians here have not appreciated his academic contribution to this debate. Such is the bias of religiosity. Bane of our lives.
So the only way you can dismiss what Tom is saying is by using the appeal to bias fallacy (when you are only guessing he's a Christian)?
@@eliasarches2575 im doing neither. Both are exemplary academics.
A closet christian, like a closet mystic is unaware of their biases, they only 'believe' they are irreligious. But its easy for those trained to see, the religious mind dismisses historical information (often with a huge grin) in order to retain the beliefs they hold dear. Same happens when the desire to be right trumps facts. Thats why i suggested watching the vid twice. Both offered excellent information.
Its simple, beliefs are not facts and nurturing them causes blind spots (biases). But thats nothing, compared to suggesting human intelligence can function even more sensibly without any beliefs whatsoever. Whoa! that brings on an even worse tanty, but its worth checking out.
Making an appeal to bias is an informal fallacy though... no use pointing out perceived bias, try pointing our errors of fact.
Most of these debates are excellent and this is no exception. Well chaired too.
One of the most important philosophical aproaching methods I've learned as a layman, is that there is very rearly a simple 'just so' explanations to complex issues. Specially regarding our history. However to Grayling allmost everything seems to presents itself as 'it's just this or just that' -stories... I find that interesting
Tom Holland is my favourite historian. Thank you. He is definitely clearer and more convincing in his argument.
Not necessarily. He's a bit more aggressive in his arguing. He likes togas and dominion. That's all. But as Christianity showed: it is not the most aggressive or the most dominant who is necessarily the one who is right. I see value in the arguments of both men. Tom certainly seems to lack knowledge of eastern philosophies, who DO have a lot in common with humanism - and Christianity, for that matter. There is an innate tendency towards goodness in all peoples (even within primates). To have that tendency come to the fore in complex societies requires development. In the west, we do have Christianity and its deep roots to thank for it. Christianity further voiced ancient ideas and built upon them. Perhaps we could have done it without Christianity, but it did galvanize us around those particular ideas, in a society transforming way, even if the ideas were not originally christian or not exclusively so. Christianity did hold us back and had to evolve in certain ways. Tom should recognise this more. But we were able to build on Christianity, as we were able to build on the classics.
Other parts of the world have their traditions leading them to very similar ideas and values. That is not cherry picking. It is quite striking. That does not diminish christian tradition.
You would, you being that sort of liar and self-deceiver that believes what he *wants* to believe and what is it that they are called?
Ah yes, pseudo or soi-disant christians and that is why there a*Are_No* christians.
How could a dreaming machine and slave of his function possibly justifiably lay claim to being able to be able to be a christian which is seemingly meaningless and just more of the fakery to which men(human beings/ dreaming machines) are so mechanically-automatically predisposed.
Can you love or hate someone to
order?
He's a primarily a fiction writer, not a historian. He started with vampire stories. He makes bold and rather fanciful claims here - but no real evidence - just some collated opinions.
Tom Holland's arguments is very convincing.
I heard his first argument, and I immediately thought ‘wait, so if Christianity smashed every in antiquity, but was basically inspired and filled with nothing but ideas of antiquity, then what’s the loss if we then still possess those ideas of antiquity?’
Christianity overcame those ideas.
@@mimm091285 Nah, it just corrupted them into superstition.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 No man. Christianity is true. The miracles of the catholic church give testimony of that. A few days ago the Pope healed a deaf boy that started talking after receiving the blessing of the pope and her mother cried and cried. Christianity is true my friend. We have so many miracles during the history of christianity that cannot be refuted. Of course you can disbelieve but that doesn't change the truth.
@@mimm091285 Its cool if you believe in miracles and all sorts of magic, just dont say stuff like ''overcame ideas'' nonchalantly. Superstition doesnt overcome logic no matter which god demands it.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 Who said Christianity "overcame logic"? There's nothing illogical in it, and it has never claimed to "overcome logic"
Interesting, John Wesley, George Whitfield, John Woolman, Olaudah Equiano, William Wilberforce, John Newton - all lived in the 18th century - all opposed and worked to abolish slavery - all were Christian.
That’s a story the atheists won’t tell you
And no Christians supported slavery? Christians even today are using the Bible to support or justify slavery.
@@redmed10 whats so different from being a modern worker bro, it definitely feels like slavery only you get to go "home" by the end of the day. lol.
@@jesuscorona3562
Is your boss entitled to treat you like slave owners are allowed to treat slaves in the Bible? No? Thought not. FFS.
@@redmed10I was making a funny comparison not a serious one to begin with, but for the sake of your argument, give me an example, and give me the verse #
(At 58.01) AC Grayling points to Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man" as a moment in which the paradigm shifts, the medieval emphasis on divine will is decentered and the human will affirmed.
Whilst Pico's "Oration" is most certainly an affirmation of the human - the argument he presents is thoroughly and explicitly grounded in Christian theology and assumptions.
This seems to be simply the wrong text to invoke in support of the thesis Grayling wants to pursue - namely, that Humanism did not emerge out of Christian tradition.
In fact, I would suggest, a close reading of the "Oration", the so-called 'Manifesto of the Renaissance', leads one to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Consider, for example, the following excerpt from the text:
"But upon man, at the moment of his creation,
God bestowed seeds pregnant with all possibilities,
the germs of every form of life.
Whichever of these a man shall cultivate,
the same will mature and bear fruit in him.
If vegetative, he will become a plant;
if sensual, he will become brutish;
if rational, he will reveal himself a heavenly being;
if intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God.
And if, dissatisfied with the lot of all creatures,
he should recollect himself into the centre of his own unity,
he will there, become one spirit with God,
in the solitary darkness of the Father,
Who is set above all."
Yes, I think I understand. Brilliantly put. I am reminded of the Creation of Adam in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, which avoids blasphemy by sheer artistic genius and immense sensitivity: Adam reclines in glorious physicality while a somewhat aged God the Father, supported by angels, stretches forth to create him. The mindblowing paradox of Humanism, in light of the purely secular version, which by no means destroys the paradox, is that man is the very image of God, and of course nothing presents this paradox more poignantly than the narrative of Jesus.
Tom is a historian of the classical age.
I love philosophy but philosophers rarely lack the hubris to disregard experts when arguing with the expert in their own field
hehe history without philosophy feels like information without wisdom.
Staggered Potato : Perhaps. But philosophy without history is every generation thinking they’ll finally do socialism the right way. Government only works when it serves the people governed - now who was it that said something about those who would lead should seek to serve in the same way he did?
expert? he is a bachelor
@@henpines The statement holds: philosophers regularly preach science to top=flight scientists. Sometimes they have a point, but often the hubris is just hilarious.
Anyone is capable of reading the classics 10 times each
When speaking about the "love" of the Jains and the fact that they respect all life, and comparing it to Christianity, AC Grayling is making a big mistake, especially for a philosopher. Indeed, the Jains do not want to kill any living thing, so much so that they sweep the ground before they walk on it so that they don't crush or kill any life form, but they do this in order to break the karma cycle they are in so that they never have to be reincarnated. The impulse they have to do these things, is not altruism, it is egotism. This is reflected by how they beg for their food, they cannot kill plant form either, but they do not mind if someone else does so (therefore condemning themselves to another cycle of reincarnation) and they do not mind eating this plant form so long as they did not kill. I do not find this to be love for one another, but love for one's self, and only thinking about one's self. Buddhism works a bit in the same manner. It's not really altruistic, it's centered on one's self.
Interesting. Many years ago I had a friend who was very into meditation and Eastern spiritual stuff. I recall one time saying something to her about helping others, which I rather assumed would be her sort of thing, and she came back very quickly with "I'm not doing this to help anyone else. This is just about me" and she laughed. Despite not being then or now a supremely kind and compassionate type, I was suitably surprised, nay shocked.
Christianity has the ultimate egotist carrot and stick, with it's older version, Judaism, offering earthly rewards. All religions have to do this. I'd still say Jainism is the most altruistic
@@ThePalePrince There is no altruism in Jainism. Sure they wear masks and some have a broom so as to never ever kill any time of life form, as in their view this is bad and would continue the cycle of reincarnation, which in their view is bad. They also believe that plants should not be killed either, as they are also a form of living entity. But then how can they live? Well they let other people kill animals and plants for them to eat. They don't really see these living entities as worth saving from death, it's just that they themselves don't kill. They don't have a problem with eating the death life forms and they don't have a problem with others doing it for them. It's all about them and how they are going to stop their reincarnation cycle. Not about others. They don't have any thoughts about feeding or educating the poor. What matters is to stop your reincarnation cycle; it's all centered on themselves.
Nerd Analog I agree with you.
@@nerdanalog1707 Couldn't you also in turn argue, maybe not to the same degree, that a decent amount of Christian ethics is centered on self serving altruism? I think a large distinction between ancient Jewish beliefs and Christian beliefs is of dualistic after lives. For Ancient jews, what awaited after death was Sheol, an endless sleep, oblivion. The modern view of the afterlife is very much post biblical. And the idea that you will be rewarded in heaven and punished in hell based on how you follow scripture is in one way dangling a carrot on the stick.
Even in today's society it's still up for debate on how to be saved, because it's such an important aspect of the faith, and many would argue the most important. Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is undoubtedly one of the most altruistic symbols in human history, but it is still represented in a mythological sense, how much we champion our own salvation. So isn't ultimately the good you do in the name of Christian values and ethics, rooted in getting the best afterlife possible?
What lacks on the philosopher Grayling in his analysis over these coalescing philosophies regarding love our brother/neighbours are two things:
1.) Historical Outcome
Where's Mozi now? Where are the Jains now? I'm more familiar with East Asian philosophy so here goes: Ultimately, Mozi's position was untenable and was ultimately crushed by the Legalists and then Confucians. It was untenable because Mozi's philosophy ultimately prolonged the Warring States Period ("everyone's a brother therefore we gotta help all the Warring States out" which created a stalemate situation among the states, and prolonged the war even further). Meanwhile Legalists and Confucians, recognized that reality is built upon a hierarchy of values, that there must be a ONE that must rule ALL. Both acknowledged that society must be stratified precisely because reality is built upon a hierarchy, and with the latter ultimately submitting to the "God of one's ancestors". They managed to ultimately end the war through the State of Qin, which was a primarily a Legalist state, but was then usurped the Han, who were primarily Confucians.
Mozi's devised philosophy "love your neighbors" in itself did not work out. Confucianism, nor Legalism do not focus on that. Confucianism focused more on Virtue, which in the end ultimately devolved to a sort of Legalism in itself as the scholars of Confucius set out to remove any meditations on Ultimate Reality/metaphysics.
2.) Missing one component on who to love: Love your enemies
Sure, everyone says to love your brothers and neighbours, that much is obvious, but not one of them said to love your enemies also, except the Christians. So what do we do with enemies without Christ? Since they don't belong to the category of neighbour, nor brother, then all their rights as human are forfeited because they're not part of the in-group at all. They're enemies for goodness sake!
Overall, Grayling bringing up these philosophies from other cultures proves to show how he lacks historical insights about them. If those philosophies were worth a dime, they would've continued to exist, and created unity among the nations the philosophies were bred in, and were able to in fact rise up to the same level of moral, and techological advancement as the Christian West when isolated from them. But did the Industrial Revolution, Science, etc. started in China, Japan, etc? LMao, They were extremely lagging behind when the West found them. Likewise, if you talk to an Asian bred in a non-Christian manner, ask them whether each and every person has worth and dignity of their own. They would look at you puzzled. That concept is very much foreign to them because you cannot draw that out in their own philosophies.
I'm saying this as an Asian, and I've come to the same conclusion as Tom Holland. It had to be backed by a Christian understanding of the world.
The only thing proving in this conversion about Grayling is how much he hates Christianity, for whatever reason that maybe.
Philosophy without a thorough understanding of history is very much detached from reality. Really.
Insofar as any reliance can be placed on a tellybox thing there are Jains merrily sweeping the ground and places where they propose to walk or sit in India -seemingly Gandhi's mum was a Jain which I take to be a flavour of Hinduism. " Is it not all one to the poor flies if they are killed by the waft of an angel's wing or a kick of the hoof of o a devil?"
Well said
Wholeheartedly concur 👏
The most interesting video I’ve ever seen on TH-cam! Thanks! I’ve upheld Tom’s ideas about Christianity and the West for more than a decade and I couldn’t be happier to see that a rather more knowledgeable man supports, with better arguments than me, what is evident to anyone who has some sensitivity to how ideas work and how we share and believe in so many things that are not natural or universal even though we tend to believe they are (e.g. human rights).
Grayling failed to make a persuasive case. Well done Mr Holland, I'm convinced and intrigued.
Nice to see a debate where participants allow each other time to develop a point as opposed to the current party political so called debates.
hear hear
Some fallacies and errors I think are committed by mr. Grayling:
- Fallacy: moving the goal post. He asks for one example of something specific to Christians then, instead of arguing if true or false insists that the examples are not significant enough which is unfalsifiable.
- Fallacy: red herring . As an argument for Christians systematically destroying classical works, he insists that Muslim scribes translated writings and are the main cause for classical writings surviving. Also, he does this in a discussion on the Theodosian period where Islam is due to appear more than 200 years later and the early Islamic expansion another hundred after that (Arabs were tribal and polytheistic and Persians zoroastrian for centuries even after muslim conquest in the 7th century).
- Raises the argument that humans would reach the same conclusions without stories, metaphors and religious teachings but ignores the fact that humans abstract empirical observations in ANY domain as a main method of solving problems. Mathematics itself relies on different levels of abstractions and the ability to move between different domains (ex: geometrical proof to algebraically formulated problems) and view points to solve problems.
- Ignores empirical evidence, i.e. history, where all societies evolved theistic beliefs first, which led to the stabilization of society that was necessary before actual enlightenment could occur. And how many other religious systems managed to create a stable enough secular component that enlightenment could occur and science could thrive, contest and replace religious assumptions ?
- Ignores the current situation where purely atheistic/humanistic approaches prove badly suited to integrating new cultures (true, not obvious at the point of the interview) that are religion-centered and start leaning towards censorship, retreating behind taboo labels and repressing open discussions and free speech (i.e. what the church was also previously using :) ).
You are spot on Hod bless you brother.
It would be so good have subtitles in the videos. Especially for me that are just a beginner in English. I like so much the discussions that happens on this channel.
Push the CC button under the video.
Aother excellent conversation.
I thought Grayling was at his weakest - and showing just how thoroughly Christian he is - when he was claiming that human reason can arrive at a concept of equality; that reason can deliver the human rights tradition of western culture. I most fully appreciated this issue when for a several years I taught a course on Nietzsche including a study of "Beyond Good And Evil". Human reason, engaging with the most simple empirical evidence, can easily identify that humans are very far from equal. Choose any feature - size, strength, intellligence, wisdom - and what is completely obvious is that humans are radically different and unequal. Human equality is based entirely on a theological concept of 'made in the image of God' granting a fundamental equality despite the obvious for all to see INEQUALITY. Nietzsche claims that it is entirely natural, right and proper for the strong to dominate and use the weak - a view clearly shared by many in the classical world and elsewhere throughout human history.
Thank you! Those are extremely well put points, especially your contrast of the obviousness of human inequality to the unique declaration of fundamental equality that is only truly given in the Judeo-Christian teaching.
excellently put.
_"Human reason, engaging with the most simple empirical evidence, can easily identify that humans are very far from equal."_
WOW!! Really? You think AC was referring to "equality" in the sense of being physically/mentally "equal"? Sorry, but that just makes you look really ignorant and/or desperate. He's talking about humans being "equally" human.
@@asix9178 that's not what he said.
We are talking about equality in the sense of being human beings.
Tom Holland (and the vast majority of ancient historians) recognizes that the idea of equality come from Paul not the Greeks and the idea of universal human value comes from Genesis and the theological interpretation not the Greeks.
Anyone who believes in universal human values and equality is because they are thinking like a Christian, since the entire western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian values.
@@Hylianamused uh yes.
Whatever Mr Holland’s personal relations with Jesus , he gives an excellent defence & argument for the Christian faith .
He is an atheist. He calles himself a cultural christian. And thats right. He has come out of a christian culture.
Ihate to be the bearer of bad news, but the jesus chap was - for himself, destroyed forever quite some time ago which is to say as one eumelanite put it,"he dead".
That has got to be one of the best debates I have ever heard...exceptional. And very well moderated.
Holland is a historian. Grayling is a philosopher. It shows in this debate.
I know, Tom fails at simple critical thinking.
Two movies one screen.
@@george17perris I know, Grayling fails at simple philosophy.
Theology Insights Tom is not a historian. He only has an undergraduate education.
@@george17perris I think critical thinking on non-factual data is worse.
A unique contribution of Christian thought which Tom missed: "Love your enemy, and pray for those that persecute you", from the Sermon on the Mount.
... arguably the most powerful contribution.
Well Tom said at 21 minutes, the God who loves the jews now loves every body else. That is his point, that love is power.
Which NOT A SINGLE CHRISTIAN HAS EVER FOLLOWED... all Christians have done all the way to the 20th Century is killing their enemies every single time they have had a chance.... so what are we talking about here? and at the end of it all, the one thing Christianity has brought up in humans is HYPOCRISY.
@@robertbruce1552 with all due respect to Tom, this expression of his is very wrong in light of the truth of Scripture. The truth is, God had always loved all people, but the world had rejected Him. He chose Israel to serve as a type of “guide” to show the world the way back, which has always been through faith. But Israel rebelled countless times and at several points was even far worse than the pagan nations around her. When Christ came, He brought the way for all people, and His birth was through Israel. This was and had always been the promise.
@@kingdomsoldierarmory oh dear 😳
Buying "Dominion." Very good discussion.
I'm gonna buy both Dominion and A History of Philosophy. Very interesting discussion indeed.
Don't be an idiot
Just downloaded Dominion. Can't wait to read it.
AC Grayling did in fact get DESTROYED in all possible ways here.
How engrossing......I really enjoy listening to this conversation.
These are two first-rate scholars. Thank you for sharing them with us. There is no way that 1500 years (or so) of Christian authoritarian rule in Europe would not leave profound effects on its History and thought. The rediscovery of Greek thought sparked the end of the Middle Ages, but it could not have simply replaced Christianity. What we got was a fusion of those cultures, the Reformation and the invention of modernity. We have both to thank.
Afterthought: Paul’s contribution was central. He upgraded Jewish Christianity to incorporate aspects of Greek thought, especially abstract concepts. Thus the Greeks influenced modern Europe both through and around Christianity.
Of course Christianity played a (massive) role in Europe's history. I think they were talking a bit past each other. Holland insists in describing everything in terms of Christianity, which of course can be done, but it is a miopic endeavor. Grayling, while not outright denying the influence of this religion, insists that Christianity rehashes much of the philosophical thought, religious myths and traditions that predate it. Neither of them are entirely right or wrong, it's just that they focus on different things.
How did Paul incorporate Greek thought into christianity? It's not as if he was Greek. He was Jewish and a Roman citizen.
Also what about the islamic scholars in golden age of Islam.
Without modernity we'd still be burning witches
It was in modernity that witch burning was brought back. In middle ages believe that witch had real magic power was heresy.
As a secular historian I have enjoyed reading histories of philosophy. I’ve enjoyed reading books by both Holland the Historian and Grayling the Philosopher. Both know history, and I’m glad they both take a secular perspective on history. I’ve enjoyed your channel. Bravado, dear lad.
Holland is amazing, his honest person and an example for every christian.
He's an atheist. He'll burn in hell.
@@unicyclist97 no he wont. He will become dust just as all of us.
Oh Joel - return to me with all your heart
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 Oh Ben - get ready to turn to dust
There*Are_No* Chriatians.
Unbelievable genuinely hosts some of the best discussions, not just in terms of Christianity, but just in general! I've gained so much insight into Christian history and theology from these podcasts and videos, keep up the good work!
These conversations should be longer still: there was so much both had left to say.
Excellent debate on a very critical topic. Thank you "Unbelievable" once again for maintaining such a high standard for civilized discussion on the important issues of our day.
Possibly the best discussion I've ever watched - great stuff! 👍
I found this a really well argued and passionate discussion. As an atheist I am interested to know how much we give up in terms of loss of ethical framework for the functioning of individuals and societies in the post Christian world. Whether this morality came from Christianity or antiquity, some of it remained within Christian teaching and transmitted in particular to childhood learning. I can certainly feel the absence of some ethical framework in many of the children i work with. That said I have the feeling Tom Holland is defending a very tea-and-a-bun Anglicanism which was certainly not my experience of Christianity growing up under repressive irish Catholicism, which practiced a gender based slavery in the Magdalene laundries up until 1980. Also neither man engages with whether humans have a natural morality which seems patently obvious in the anthropogical study of Hunter gatherer groups. Perhaps the emergence of contemporary ideas of what a good life looks like in the 5th and 4th centuries BC happened because of the emergence of urban societies and the need for ethics in dealing with many people including some who were quite different from oneself. And perhaps the codifying of these ethics into a Christian canon enforced by an all seeing all knowing God was necessary for the functioning of even larger societies.
After society has already internalized those positive things Christianity has to teach (and 2000 years was long enough to internalize these), orthodox Christian institutions no longer serve any pedagogical function. They have little to teach that society doesn't already know *better* than then, because society is capable of learning and has acquired practical experience implementing their ideas whilst these Christianity is still chained to its traditions and insulted by the suggestion that it needs to learn. At this point, orthodox Christianity no longer stands out for anything other than those negative influences that society has rightly learned to reject.
I very much appreciate both Holland’s and AC Grayling’s temperaments - so much more civil and instructional than watching Dawkins or Farina and their cynical ad hominem attacks towards their opponents. I believe Holland makes the stronger (more evident) argument than Grayling, but overall a great discussion to hear.
In the 1950s we had Copleston vs Bertrand Russell. Today we have the likes of Holland and AC Grayling tackling similar religious issues. Wonderful stuff and an excellent discussion from both sides. Very much enjoyed.
Comparing Holland to either of these 2 names you mentioned is comparing a turd to gold
I'm an atheist with a life long interest in classical history, I agree 100% with Tom Holland on how Christianity has shaped the west, you can't spend a 1000 years living by a single ideology and not have it completely infect your culture, morals and beliefs, you can see this if you live in cultures that have never had Christianity (or Islam which is a spin off) .as for how Christianity was formed, on that point I agree with Mr Grayling.
Stupendous clash of the titans. Wonderful. Thank you.
Tom Holland undoubtedly won the conversation!
How come?
Because he showed that the Christian monks preserved the work of the ancients, Grayling didn't have a good come back on that.. did the Christians borrow from the ancients? Absolutely!
He showed that it has been the continuing reforming of the church that has led to human rights and values as we know it. It's true that the anti-slavery movement was predominantly Christian.
I agree with Grayling in that enlightenment is good and needed but enlightenment _alone_ doesn't make a good society. It's faith seeking understanding. It's having a Bible in your hand and learning as much history, philosophy, and science on the other hand :)
@@fraserdaniel3999 l would just add that even enlightenment itself is a ripple effect from Christianity.
Paul-> papal revolution -> reformation-> enlightenment.
@@joelrodriguez1232, true, but I think the Christmas community needs to realize the importance of enlightenment. In America at least, there's a lot of fundamentalism that denies a lot of science and is unwilling to progress with the society in terms of empowering women.
@@fraserdaniel3999 yeah that's definitely true.
This was an excellent debate! Recognising our views are shaped by our cultural inheritance is not the same as agreeing with the truth of those doctrines. The effect of Christianity on the western mind cannot be overstated. But it is for each age to use reason to decide what to make of its cultural inheritance.
To make the link obvious - the first western humanists like Erasmus where Christian humanist scholars who were fusing ideas from the ancient Greek world with Christian ideas to create humanism.
If Alexander had not hellenized the ancient world to the extent that he did, do you think Christianity could’ve formed? It essentially would’ve had to be formed in a vacuum
What's your take on the cultural inheritance of Japanese society? Is it Christian too?
@@careneh33 Japan is highly westernized in a secular sense, ever since the Meiji restoration, so yeah. But with China, I would agree that it has it's own inheritance of laws and morals. And so with Sri Lanka, India, and every other nation there is really.
If it wasn't for modernity, we'd still be burning witches
Well argued, Tom! Reading Dominion at the moment - eye-opening, great work!
Tom is brilliant. Finally a historian who actually knows history and tells the truth about it. AC is full of ..it and should be laughed out of the room.
equality has no value in your comment , what a biast veiw , Disgracefull mister ed
@@stephengreen2813 it's not a matter of opinion when it comes to history, there's only right or wrong. And since Tom has all the facts and AC mostly talkes out his rear end, it would be quite illogical to treat both views equally. In any case you can't believe both. You can either believe the enlightenment, the human rights movement and so on owe something to Christianity and not just because they all originated in Christian and Christianity influenced countries. Or you can pretend with Grayling that Christianity had nothing to do with it and it just came out of the blue and that it might as well have come from anywhere including themiddle east, give or take a thousand years or so of course. What I really don't get is the idea some people seem to have that if Christianity hadn't been there everything would have been better..like the ancient Romans or Greeks would have gone straight from paganism to the the enlightenment and to the human rights movement if it weren't for Christianity..and so would the Vikings and all the others, right?.. In Graylings view it's just a coincidence that the human values and human rights movement originated in europe and that Christianity had nothing to do with it. Only a biased person could argue that and to simply nod and agree with that nonsense would be disgracefull indeed mr green
@@mistered4783 Point taken , im only making an oberservation based on my own interpretation moving from monotheism to humanism ,whilst gatthering a different prosepective through phylosiphy instead of what ive been used to for the last two decades , i owe you an apolagy for misenturprenting two different view points , it would seem i have to have a better perspective in the future .
@@mistered4783 Christianity gave us the motivation to correct the thing it got wrong like, take joy in bashing the infants head on the rocks. Stoning disrespectful children to death...Yep, Christianity did that quite well.
@@willmeariver7079 I would put it this way, "Christianity gave us the motivation to correct the things OTHERS got wrong.." such as any religion and systems that came before Christianity and some that came after, that are actually trying to undo the progress Christianity made and to return to a more archaic, barbaric conduct..
I love Holland's introduction, because that's essentially where our youths today. Indeed, it is true, the Truth we discovered in the Bible can change you in so many uncomfortable ways, simply because Salvation in Christ does NOT promise comfortable life, but Eternal Life after this life. Instead, we'll be persecuted in different ways. Because a true child of God will be constantly tempted by the Devil to get the "Life" that is in us. And ONLY the "armor of God" that we need to always have on can overcome such endeavors .
star fish - How should that happen in a majority Christians society as in the US where Christians constantly demand even more special treatment?
Ironically, the exchange between Grayling and Holland reminded me of the scene from "Life of Brian" with Grayling asking the equivalent of Cheese's "What did the Romans ever do for us?" "Well, they built the aqueducts. and then there's the roads...and sanitation!"
Cheeses? it's not Cheeses
it's *all* dairy products!
@@fukpoeslaw3613 - But its just a Cheesy Comedy Mate.
I have so much respect for Tom!
Superb conversation in every way. Learned a lot from both sides.
This podcast it´s absolutely brilliant, thank you.
Excellent Dialogue. I am curious now about the book, Dominion!
The observation that the three great men - Buddha, Confucius, and Socrates - were part of almost the same generation is wonderful.
One of my favourite debates of all time.
I study the history of Christianity at University. I am also a humanist, atheist and a reader of Grayling’s work.
Grayling is a brilliant thinker and philosopher. Holland is a brilliant writer and historian (though he is quite narrative in his approach).
Holland won this history-centred debate. But I feel like if the motion was simply ‘God exists’, Grayling would have had the edge.
Fantastic debate
JontySpeaks What’s the naturalist model? Deism?
@@jontyspeaks4037 🤣🤣🤣
If that was the motion the conversation would be over quickly as neither believe God exists.
This was fantastic, Holland is such a good scholar and I am very confused why Grayling even has a job
Daily reminder to a few of my Christian brothers and sisters here: the validity of the historical contributions of a religion does not validate its revelation claim. Mr Holland is not forming an apologetic for the truth of the Christian world-view; he's simply acknowledging that it plays an indispensable role in history, with an impact that has lasted till our present day.
It is fascinating that we have to have debates about how our culture is based on Christian moral and history. This is such a matter of course for other parts of the world and other cultures. Of course there was religion. Were else shall our values come from? Why do we have to convince ourselves that they actually have an origin? We are not better or different than other cultures. Of course our values derive from somewhere. By kicking out the church and embracing science, humanities and rational thought we still cannot receive our values from a historical and cultural vacuum. Brilliant debate, Mr Holland!
What do you think where did religions get their values from? :)
Culture is not just religion. :)
Culture are many things this is true :) religion can be part of it.
And as with almost everything, you cannot pin point outcomes to one single cause. But religion over centuries was a big part of culture and big part of shaping values. Naturally, there are also factors of survival, biological and social reproduction, society building etc that contribute to creating certain values. My point barely was just to say that in the Christian Global North we often underestimate the importance of religion in it - part also is, that we do not like to engage with our own history very much.
Jürgen Habermas. a famous contempory agnostic Philosoph, has also stated that western values are essentially based on christian values. According to him, to postulate anything other is just postmodern gibberish.
Nice appeal to authority
@@donovanc4213 I aggree, but somehow you depend on authority if you are not an expert yourself, don't you?
@@piushalg8175 Not if you have read any philosophy. I mean any philosophy at all. Since most modern philosophers are NOT theists, an appeal to authority would work against you.
This is a serious misquote that has appeared in many blogs and even published outlets. In short, Habermas actually said that we have no alternative to the legacy of Christianity and not we have no alternative to Christianity:
The "quotation" has appeared in a number of books (see below), in Wall Street Journal ("In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead") and in Christian Science Monitor ("Germans reconsider religion"), and you can find it on a large number of blogs in America on Christianity.
But this is a misquotation! The right quotation is this:
"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." (Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).
The misquote rewrites Habermas's statement and changes its meaning:
(1) Habermas talks about the historical origin of universalistic egalitarianism - not the foundation of human rights today.
(2) Habermas mentions both Judaism and Christianity - not only Christianity.
(3) Habermas says that there is no alternative to this legacy ("Erbe" in German) - not that we have no alternative to Christianity.
Pius Hälg like Grayling, Habermas is an atheist, but he is a far greater philosopher.
Great conversation!
Tom h
Holland is just all too nice a man.
Great many thanks
Wow, thank you so much for this.
I think in the conclusion, Tom missed a little strike, in that he forgot to delineate the difference between philosophies like buddha's, and Taoism, and Christ, and that is that the latter enacted His beliefs to the fullest expression. While buddha talked about Love and sat to meditate, to later die peacefully surrounded by his followers.
So true! It is what makes Him worthy of worship.
@@larrylee8157 AMEN!
Remember proselyte Buddha or Paul were long gone before Emperors like Ashoka or Constantine converted to faiths after being arch Expansionists who massacred as pillaged Territory of other People's as old Civilizations, Therefore God's ambit over Mankind needs distinctly overview of History..
Loved this! Thanks! Have to say, I don't think Grayling got quite the drubbing I'd been led to expect.
Grayling condemns the sexual exploitation of slaves by Roman masters, even though the slaves themselves didn't think it was wrong. Grayling is somehow able to magically create a morality that is identical to that of Christianity, yet claims it owes nothing at all to Christianity.
All with a straight face.
There's no magic involved.
I think it's the other way around. People have an inbuilt moral compass, and Christianity just takes credit for it.
@@knowthycell nah....there are people who've never come into contact with Christianity but they still have morals.
@@knowthycell no it shows how indoctrinated you are that you think people wouldn't have morals without religion.
@@knowthycell ok then just so we're on the same page....what do you mean by "morals"
This is a wonderful discussion with interesting counterpoints and interpretation of essentially the same data.
Tom's point about who kept the Greek texts alive was interesting, especially his claim that there is an underlying Protestant bias behind the modern enlightenment.
Highly interesting discussion. Thank you.
I used to call myself an atheist, I find myself far closer to tom's side of this argument these days
It often takes someone from outside Christian cultures to recognize how fundamentally Christian the West's values are. Sadhu Sundar Singh, an Indian Sikh who became a Christian missionary in the early 1900s said that Europeans have been so immersed in Christian morality that they no longer even recognize them as being Christian. In Indian tradition, upper and lower castes of human beings are certainly not equal-those of upper castes are being rewarded for good deeds in their past lives while those from lower castes are being punished, and so in their worldview, both deserve what they are getting. How does that square with the idea of universal humanist views? When the Jesuits first arrived in Japan there was mass conversion by the peasants to Christianity, and one man upon being asked what the appeal of Christianity was to them was that it "gave them souls." In the pre-existing traditions of Japan, the peasants were not seen as equals to the nobility, and the emperors were viewed as divine, even up until the 20th century. How does that square with the idea of all human beings being created equal? The same was the case in the Roman world prior to Christianity, hence why the first converts to Christianity were women, slaves, the poor, and the oppressed. There is no doubt that philosophical ideas circulating in the Roman world at the time expressed similar moral precepts as the Christians, but what did they do about it? While Christians went out in the world to feed the hungry, care for the lepers, visit those in prisons, rescue abandoned orphans, what were philosophers doing? Sure maybe they had some good ideas, but as Christ said "faith without works is dead." The Christians went out into the world to make a difference. Even during the time when humanism was on the rise, it was largely Christians who went out in the world founding hospitals and schools, inventing scripts for languages that didn't have them, and struggling to bring about a change for the better in the world. The idea that the world can be made better is itself a Christian idea. Progress is a Christian idea. In most other civilizations history is seen as circular, repeating in an endless cycle of creation and destruction. Many cultures didn't even have a concept of time at all. The idea that the world, that humanity, is progressing toward something better is fundamentally Christian and comes from the idea of the Second Coming and bringing about Heaven on Earth. The idea that there are even universal values at all is a fundamentally Christian one. Christianity teaches that there is an absolute good and evil, and that the laws of God are written on the hearts of men.
I watched this discussion not so long after it was first posted online. I’ve now watched it for a second time and still think it is a wonderful conversation by two intellectual giants, both experts in their respective fields of history and philosophy. I really enjoyed watching it (again!).
Well-played gentlemen! All three of you. 👍
Absolutely amazing debate, I give the nod to Tom Holland. Dominion is an extremely well written work as well.
Justin very unsure and hesitantly: "Handshake...?"
Good intelligent argument and evidence on both sides. Both emphasise and amplify the points which support their position and highlight the weaknesses of the other. This is typical of all debates. Let’s just accept that both positions contain both weaknesses and valuable material.
Grayling has a conclusion and is trying to find premises. So many leaps of faith on his part, It's staggering.
Indeed. He avoids facts re copying texts that Holland insists on making central.
AC Graylin: give me one thing! Can’t think of one.
Also AC Graylin: you’ve given me so little
Tom: Lists 10 things plus more ...
AC Graylin: I said one ...
When did this happen in the debate please?
Actually, he was give nothing. "Long lasting matrimony"? Pf! If you don't get along with your spouse anymore, get a divorce. Why take the risk of killing each other one day?
The problem was that the ideas Tom was giving could so easily be attributed to cultures before and outside of Christianity, and also that even if one were to grant that these things were uniquely Christian, they were hardly good things, which you would expect would come from the true religion
@@braden_m "Could Attribute" vs. "Causal Link"
@25:00 - I appreciate so much of what professor Grayling has to say in other conversations, hard to watch him miss the boat completely here. Aquinas adopted classical philosophy. Likewise, what remains of classical philosophy is mainly due to what Christians found useful and/or sympatico- who needs aristotles poetics? Who needs any alternative record or original work by socrates when Plato seeking the good and truth seems to work so well with church purpose? There was a synthesis preserving much of the classical tradition but not all, not an antithetical destruction. Latin is latin, and Ciciro abides.
To be fair, tom holland isn't the first person I'd go to for an explanation of difference re Wittgenstein's tractatus and investigations. Dont think Holland would offer a strong opinion on that, philosophers do have trouble seeing their own limitations, historians start with finding people more interesting than themselves and trying to be half as good as the subject with full knowledge they are just a sketch artist. Healthier intellectual pursuit.
Tom Holland-what a great guy!
wish this was twice as long
Tom Holland said nothing about Christianity that makes it stand out as exceptional. The same human rights and value of humanity can be found in many, many non and pre-Christian societies all over the world including in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Native American peoples, aborigines of Australia etc. For example, this Native American Ojibwa prayer:
'Teach us love, compassion, and honor that we may heal the earth and heal each other.'
Tom Holland's ideas are deeply insulting to the people of many other religions and beliefs, especially given the legacy of the 'Christian' colonisers who committed genocide against native peoples world-wide and spread Christianity, along with colonisation, occupation, apartheid and slavery.
I would recommend checking out Tim O'Neill's "History for Atheists" blog. O'Neill is a nonbeliever, but he absolutely savages the shoddy history and dishonesty displayed by Grayling in this debate.
What you call" history is in practice little more than a set of beliefs pertaining to the non-existent or past, of which nothing can be directly immediately personally experience or known, so the only things on the menu for that are supposition belief or inference, and guesswork or various psychological postures short of direct immediate personal experience or knowledge; history*Can_Only amount to little more than a set of beliefs - no more, it being axiomatic that the non-existent cannot be directly immediately personally experience or known, and of what else can you think that consists largely of beliefs assumption presumptions and inferences cum guesswork? History is merely a set of stories based on what is little more than gossip and hearsay, the word coming from histoire- the French for story, because that is what history*Is* a set of stories(based on little more than gossip or hearsay) about what can *-at_best-*- only be believed to have taken place in the past ; stories about the past of which nothing can be directly immediate personal experienced-*as* directly immediately and personally as pain -anything short of that can only be that form of dreaming that is called belief. At best people can believe or otherwisesrories about the past they cannot(know(as defined)*Anything* about the past; the best that can be done with the past is somethin*Short_of* direct immediate personal experience(as direct immediate an personal as pain).
It is a matter of interest psychologically speaking, what sensible distinction can be made as between knowledge(as defined) and belief , which is clearly species of dreaming, or whatever monkey business goes o in the dreaming/associstive function processor or mechanism but call-it-what-you-will, knowledge belief is Not*, but where knowledge ends and belief begins, *that* would be a study in its own right, not forgetting that for men(human beings/dreaming machines) they can go in for that species of lying and self-deception that is believing what they*want*) which the wretched creatures will do wholly unconsciously-mechanically automatically*Passively* or as-is-said, in .... their...... sleep, or whatever you want to call the state they re in when completely hypnotised by one or another of their functions processors or mechanisms, of which there are how many? History is not so much bunk but the next best thing, namely belief; *what_other* posture can be adopted towards the non-existent or unexperienceable(pace Daphne Dumaurier)?
Professor Grayling calmly demolishes Holland’s arguments here. A joy to watch a seasoned professor take on a writer of “popular history”. It’s as if Holland hasn’t heard of Confucius, Mozi, Ashoka, Santideva. The Hindu Vedas (long predating Christianity) call for charity, Ashoka called for secularism and religious tolerance and care for non-human animals (writing in the first animal welfare laws), Mozi called for concern for the general welfare of the population, Islamic Córdoba was a hotbed of science and tolerance, Akbar’s India was an exemplar of religious pluralism while millions perished in the French Wars of Religion and Catholics were being hunted down in Elizabethan England.
Yeah . . . I think I remember reading about that huge wave of conversions to Confucianism sweeping all of western civilization . . . It's true that many Christian ideas and values aren't unique to Christianity when one is looking at the global history of philosophy, but if we're talking about the intellectual roots of western culture . . . There's a big difference between a new idea coming out of a tradition and actually spreading and instilling that idea in flesh and blood people. Many Christian ideas certainly weren't unique to Christianity in the absolute sense, but when it comes to how those ideas actually made it into the minds of western culture that's a very different thing. I didn't think Grayling really demolished much of anything other than a straw-man of Holland's Thesis.
Confucius taught absolute obedience to state, parents and authority figure. I don’t know whether I would call that “modern values” at least not western values. Mozi was only really influential in the warring states period before it was subsumed by confucianism in the Qin and Han dynasties. It didn’t really have a huge impact in the world. Honestly, I am an ethnic chinese myself but modern values like equality under the law are ultimately from paul in the end. I am not too familiar with the Indian figures you mentioned but the indian texts have a caste system, which is definitely not “modern” values. One of the major points Tom Holland made is that slave and free are the same before the eyes of god in the christian worldview, which I do not think the vedas have. Even with the caste system being more fluid in the early stages, the caste system still exists, something that is not “human” or “modern”. Secularism is also not really “modern” or “human”. because most of the world is still religious, christianity being the number one and Islam being the second (and its not the eastern way of dharma, it is a separate thing all together). In fact, I would make the case that spirituality and finding metaphysical meaning is something that all humans share, even among the eastern religions. Harming non human animals is not really a “human” values because we were hunter gatherers in the past and we still harm animals to this day (we only protect some animals, not things like lizards, insects, rats etc). Tolerance is the shadow of love because tolerance is only agreeing to disagree with other people belief. “Love thy enemy” means that you must give your unselfish love to them and help them in need even if you disagree with them completely. Pacifism is also the shadow of love because love is uncompromising. Love means protecting one’s brother and sister, and when push comes to shove, we must protect our love ones even if we have to use violence, something that is innate among social animals. Lastly, italy was the hotbed of science with the renaissance kicking on. The roman catholic church is kind of sketchy with their track record, but scientists like Newton was not shaken in his belief in his discovery of gravity. Science and christianity can exist alongside each other. We must compare apples to apples, islamic science and christian science at its best both helped further the world, but the christian worldview gave rise to the current moral paradigm of science to keep discovering what nature is and how it works.
I bought Tom's book and can't wait to read it this summer!
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Tom got home and said “historical facts aren’t relevant to those that wish something is true “
Can there be such a thing as an " historical" fact, and for whom can it be whatever you mean by- but have no idea, a fact? How is an historical fact distinguishable from any other kind of fact or just a fact simpliciter?