Meaning, Religion and Truth - A Christian Reacts (to Alex O'Connor on Triggernometry)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 เม.ย. 2024
- Glen Scrivener reacts to Alex O'Connor being interviewed by Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster on Triggernometry.
Do the 321 course now, it's completely free. Sign up at 321course.com/
Original video: • Can We Live Without Re...
Jordan Peterson on the Power of the Easter Message:
• Jordan Peterson on the...
Brad Wilcox image by Nick Leaver - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
LINKS//
Subscribe to this channel for videos that see all of life with Jesus at the centre:
th-cam.com/users/SpeakLifeMedi...
Subscribe to our other TH-cam channel, Reformed Mythologist, to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:
/ @reformedmythologist
The Speak Life Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts:
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6RTY21m...
Amazon: music.amazon.com/podcasts/e03...
Speak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.
Learn more about us here: speaklife.org.uk/
CONNECT//
Are you a creative Christian? Would you like to join us for a day, a week or 10 months? Find out more here:
speaklife.org.uk/foundry
Discord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There’s bonus content and creative/theological discussion. You can join our Discord here:
speaklife.org.uk/give/
Social Media:
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
Appreciate you, man. Been an agnostic for years but recently started to see the real value of Christianity. Your videos are a big help.
Bless you. Just stopped to pray for you 🙏
Same case here, brother. It has been an enlightening path to rediscover Christianity.
May the Lord continue to bless you and help you in your journey.
I'm curios, what is the real value of christianity?
@@bugzyhardrada3168 Of recent, I’ve started to see people online and close to me struggle with meaning in their life. I’ve noticed a distinct decline in peoples values and this seems to be related to that lack of meaning and tied to a materialist viewpoint.
Christianity has provided me with a framework that aligns with what seems to me “the right thing to do”. It makes it easier to make sense of where we came from and where we’re going.
I was also blown away by the insight in the “Books of Wisdom” - Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. What’s more, I was generally taken back by just how impressive the Bible stories were and the complexity of how the stories are interwoven. Having last touched on Christianity in my childhood - I was use to basic stories from Sunday School of Noah’s Ark etc.
I’m still learning - but it’s been an eye opening experience for me.
1:04:27 Amen and Amen
"There is a story in which the highest figure descended to the deepest depths to have the greatest impact on the most number of people for the longest duration.
There is a maximally great story.
And it's true, and it's good, it's beautiful, it's compelling. You will find in this story freedom. You will find in this story hope. You will find in this story purpose and significance.
You can suffer well in this story. Even when you are not active. Even when you are utterly passive you can still suffer well - you can even die well... in this story.
And still have meaning and purpose and significance and hope.
It is the ultimate story."
- Glen Scrivener 2024
So inspiring and thought provoking. Thank you!
A necessary (=non-contingent) reason for my action cannot exist apart from a context to make sense of it, myself and my actions (=meaning within a story). Alex's analysis stops too soon.
I rate Glen as perhaps the best commentator on issues like this. A very sharp analysis of Jordan, Alex, Konstantin, and all others Glen comments on.
What is meaning?: "The greater story into which you can plug your life that makes sense of it" 🙏
Why does it need to make sense?
@slipstreammonkey nonsense is incoherent.
MEANING in Life is based on *Coherence, Significance, and Progress
Guys, he is talking about plugging ourselves in God's story for humanity. It's your choice to see that reality or not, but once you chose to follow this story your life becomes nothing less but meaningful instantly.
@@debbiekim8189 Do believers of other religions have that same instantaneous meaning injected into their lives?
@slipstreammonkey When it comes to meaning in life, I do believe that other world religions do give much meaning to a believer's life.
Thanks Glen. I just purchased your book after watching this clip. I was very impressed and touched by your observations. I look forward to reading and hearing more from you.
I am pleased Glen picked up on Petersons and Konstantines none commital to Jesus. Christianity could not survive for long if it only had cultural Christians and not believers in the physical resurrection of Jesus. I really don't think Peterson, Konstantine and others understand this, they seem to think their intelectualising of Christianity is sufficient to keep Christian values going. They are a good back up but that is all.
It's actually just not ment for you. You dont need these ideas rationalised to you because you have accepted them.
Some who has been completely disconnected from this narrative, whether by the culture, family, or figures like Dawkins, repel ideas of the transcendent and sacred. They live in a completely material world in which everything is explainable in principle. In effect this means things that are not explainable through a rational materialist lense can be disregarded as super natural nonsense.
Figures like Peterson unpack the bible and the christian ethos in ways that breaks down the walls of rational materialism. My own partner is a recovering new athiest, who would have never accepted anything about Christianity if not for Peterson.
He may only lead them to the river, though nothing is stopping thoughtful and motivated Christians from being there ready to baptise them if they decide to walk in.
@@emeraldtier1750 But nobody has validated that there is such a thing as the supernatural. Can you explain why made-up things we don't know are real aren't nonsense that can be disregarded?
Peterson is an atheist who believes Christianity is a fascinating story and that it holds some societal value. I don't see how his ramblings would convince anyone to move away from atheism.
@@emeraldtier1750 I understand and accept it helpful that " He may only lead them to the river" and then it is up to them which already is better than hardcore materialism. I have heard Jonathon Pageau and some other prominent Christians say as much.
However I personally doubt leading people to the physical resurrection of Jesus is what Peterson intends. I think he has his own ideas of what God is and that is the message that he is trying to get across.
It should not only never be taboo but also the duty of Christians to ask questions about his ideas. He could distort and weaken Christianity if left unchallenged. The Church has always and will always have to defend itself.
As an atheist Alex Oconnor openly questions the orthodox view of Christianity but in my oppinion he sounds less impressed with the Peterson view. I think he is more honest than Peterson who never explicitly says what he believes but shrouds it in ten thousand words.
I am starting to view Peterson as a Pelegian. I don't know about Konstantin, but he is probably not as rigorous as Jordan and, therefore not prone to the same problems (= Pelaganism) as Peterson.
@@Reclaimer77 Nobody has invalidated the supernatural either. They dismiss it or sneer at the notion-this isn't very scientific. A good example is the response by many to NDEs. It's clear they have already rejected the possibility that these experiences are what the experiencers purport them to be. Again, this is unscientific.
You did exactly the same with your comment: " Can you explain why made-up things we don't know are real aren't nonsense that can be disregarded?" You called the suggestion of the supernatural "made-up things."
Great commentary on this triggernometry episode - thanks Glen. Jesus rules!
I love this. A great description of “meaning” - knowing Jesus
This is great, thank you, I'm going to have to spend some time thinking about this.
Excellent video Glen! I especially liked your argument for how secularism can't exist in the absence of Christianity. New idea for me
Based on what you said, Sebjuliussen, this is probably another new question for you to entertain: In a theoretical absence of Christianity (and by Glenn's argument secularism too) what would there be? And if you can stretch your imagination back to a pre-Christian world we can dispense with the hypothetical and ask: what do you think there was?
This video deserves more likes
The comment “I won’t teach them about God, but let them find their own way” is like saying “I’m not going to teach them about what foods are good and better than other foods. I’m going to let them find their own way“. We can only imagine what kind of diet that might lead to.
@Apriluser. It seems to me that you would at least teach them that there is an inexplicable pragmatism to becoming a believer. That for civilization to remain civilized almost demands belief.
Very poor form from KK. That's why I don't rate the boys from Triggernometry AT ALL.
@@hanssvineklev648
Of course!
@@hanssvineklev648 the word 'almost' there is intriguing. Would the idea you are wanting to convey change if you excluded it?
@@charliedewirtz8579. Good question. It depends to some extent on one’s definition of “civilization.” When is mankind civilized, as opposed to simply structured of stable or at peace?
I tend to think that civilization demands faith or a heritage of faith. How long it can sustain itself exclusively on the latter is the question at hand.
Another gem. Fantastic.
Agnostic here -such a thought provoking video that unpacks issues that I’ve wrestled with (and surely a huge portion of my generation). We’re noticing a higher number of spiritual but not religious types, which strongly suggests an innate inclination to connect with something beyond ourselves, yet resist the submission to a religious figure (and institutionalized religion in general). I’m curious about what you make of this. I wonder if it may be at odds with secular society’s placing of freedom as the ultimate thing to aspire towards and feel, yet people are still left paradoxically unfulfilled.
I think that's exactly right. Jesus told a famous story about a freedom-loving son who ran away from home with dad's money. He pursued freedom and got lost in the process. At the end of the story though he found a different kind of freedom - not in independence but in the arms of his father. It turns out freedom is not found in pursuing your individual whims but in getting swept up in something larger than you, something you're not in control of actually, but something that you're made for. Ultimately the love of God is that context. Check out the story in Luke 15:11-32, I think it describes perfectly the last 300 years of western history (and the meaning crisis we find ourselves in today).
@@SpeakLifeMedia Fantastic explanation!
Where did you get the idea that a 'secular' societies place freedom as it's ultimate aspiration? I'm also what most would consider atheist/agnostic.
As I see it, there's truth in the sentiment Christians say of atheists, "They replace God with government." Not as precise as I'd put it, but true enough.
I'd say freedom is the ultimate aspiration, and it's Christianity that lead the way. Doing so with a heavy dose of personal responsibility. We need that, because we are responsible for our cultures freedom, or more specifically our neighbors freedom.
We thrive when our masses hold to a moral authority that supercedes the state. Both God, and old school John Locke, basic human rights do just that... It is colloquially synonymous with "God given rights."
The major thing that went south for atheists with "atheism plus", is that even though before that, your average atheist held to basic human rights. But for sounding 'secular', instead of 'sacred', the authoritarian thought reform tactics used in marxist brainwashing, those melted most atheists brains. They were simply no match for the tactics. Decades ago Yuri Besmenov said the one thing we could do to avoid our current fate is "Believe in God." He was saying that would be resistant to what he called "ideological subversion" aka, brainwashing.
Basic human rights are for all, the secular are all about their own freedom, not others. "Free health care", the right to an abortion. That's both privilege and extreme authoritarianism.
Ffs, we just watched the 'secular' go all out authoritarian. Supporting the new version of the 1930s German ahnenpass. Supporting and cheering on obvious Nuremberg code violations. That's precisely what happens when our masses no longer hold to a moral authority that supercedes the state.
The FDA, CDC, WHO, OCEA, and Fauci became God. Sam Harris loves all our corrupt, authoritarian institutions, especially our lying media, and our delusional marxist academia. He doesn't even care about free speech. Corruption is now sacred to him.
Freedom is the same as what Peter Parkers uncle told him, "with great freedom comes great responsibility.
Definitely we need to aspire to it, but the secular is in complete opposition to it.
Thanks for this Glen, and God bless you.
Fantastic video, real love the way you lay out the meaning of the greatest story, the truest story.
I just love these reaction videos. I learn so much from them
Good analysis thanks
“Institutional retreat of Christianity from the public sphere.” Wow what a perfect summation of the issue. This is going to be good. I’m subbing today. What a sentence!
I genuinely have no idea whether this is adoring flattery or entirely appropriate sarcasm.
This is great - PS remember Erasmus and Luther's great debate on Free Will, and Luther's marvellous 'On the Bondage of the Will'
Psychologically, in order to engage the benefits of gratitude practice, you can also imagine a story about one person being kind to someone that you like.
My overriding thought as I watched this episode of Triggernometry a few days ago was, "Ooh this would give Glen a lot to say! I hope he analyses this." Great job with the philosophical tooth comb.
I’d love to see you in conversation with Alex
Me too :)
lauraingalls, where are you? I can't find your question to me on here. Can you direct me or ask it again?
Excellent analysis and a hopeful end.
So with all those meta studies, would you grant that any religion primarily will be a benefit for one life regardless of afterlife?
I suspect that's true, but there's more to it than just having your best life now. There's your future to think about, and for that you need the truth and true religion.
@@alan-muscat why do you suspect after 2000 years the majority of people still do not know the truth or true religion?
You do a good job of looking at this respectfully and with no frothing at the mount. Applause for that I see too much frothing on all sides! Personally, I think you got a few things wrong but I’m an atheist, so not surprising.
Do you think the reason Jordan Peterson doesn't want to be pinned down is because he wants to present the Gospel from a "non-religious" perspective? Pinning him down would put in the camp of a religious leader. A label that would likely alienate him in his "professionally established" expertise. Thank you for your commentary!
The bit about emotion and freewill is such a wierd contracdiction in his Metanarrative. But true in terms of true reality.
Hi Glen,
I don't know if you'll read this, but I'd like to talk to you sometime. My hometown is Eastbourne and you know my mother - Mary de Wirtz. I made a couple of comments on the original Triggernometry video. From what I've seen here and from your debate with Matt Dillahunty a while back, you and I breathe very different air.
Hi Charlie, your mother has my contacts. Be glad to meet up. Glen
From my POV, a great many are already cultural Christians, in that they follow the herd, believing or not.
I don’t see many that are Christ-like, but that’s another conversation.
Why should I be Christ-like, look where it got him!
@@jamesmcmann8536 Indeed. Look where it got him. Where is he now?
@@CMA418 At the right hand of God?
You can't say he didn't make an impact.
Anyhow, I was joking. If he chose to die on principle, then his was a transpersonal decision, the kind of thing that inspires others. Which he obviously did.
emotivism is interesting because i argue the thinking is the comparison and contrast of feelings.
we feel first and then think.
feeling in the Jungian sense.
but i haven’t considered emotivism since my undergrad phoophy classes..hmmmm.
i’m and integralist so i seek to integrate feeling and thinking, intuiting and sensing.
so ethics has all 4 elements.
there’s a real unethical outcome for which you are judge regardless of your feeling (intention).
also, i see the Trinity of feeling as
I feeling - I am
We feeling - I Will
All Feeling - Truth
but not enough time to lay out my Elemental Integral Theory here.
so stimulating this video is!
I'm cheering before even watching because, finally, someone else is riding my hobby horse. The imago not only provides a telos generating meaning. It confers an obligation generating an objective morality. Why does a non theist understand this and almost no one in the church does? In our zeal to proclaim God's judgment and forgiveness we've completely missed the point of the whole story.
The Bible tells us that patience is a Christian virtue. Give Peterson some space and let him come to the Lord on his own terms.
I was an atheist for 40 years, but then I decided to actually read the Bible, just to prove to myself that it's nonsense. I discovered that everything they said was a lie, I read the Bible almost every night and I'm working on being a Christian. The Bible is the most beautiful book I've ever read.
I can't understand why this channel doesn't seem to get many views -it should be way more popular.
I participate in Interfaith meditation. Silence is the dominant language of our meeting. My prayer always is that each person explore their religious tradition and be the best person they can be. I believe that Christ is the Alpha and Omega of existence
(8.20) but he didnt say if its true why would is exist, he said if its untrue.
Proposed definition of truth: truth is that which appropriately orients one to reality.
it's what still exist even if you stop believing in it's existence (a bit too harsh but this will do the trick )
@@planteruines5619 without conscious minds the is no truth, only brute fact.
@@michaelkistner6286 good point
Hey it's the first time I clicked your channel but I quickly left. Christianity is a moral compass but as student of religion I have found many religions and paths are moral as well.
You could have substituted Christ for religion ,a non sectarian way and attracted IMO more people.Being a religion channel for Christ is as said a religion channel. I am sure you meant well.
How could Alex in the same sentence say that religion is “unambiguously harmful” to society but is also an obvious evolutionary advantage?
Because survival also has a cost
Alex is extremely overrated. Because he is polite, people are fooled into thinking he is more thoughtful, good faith, and respectful than he actually is
He said this thing (religion) has two marks against it; it’s not true and it’s harmful. He’s saying if that’s the case, then there has to be a reason it (religion) exists…and it providing societal benefits IS the reason.
You don’t have to agree with his two priors to see his logic.
@@innovationatwork199 I just think there is a contradiction to say that it it isn’t surprising that it has social benefits because that evolutionarily explains its existence, but it is also harmful.
I like ‘homo-imago’ because of our nature to take on the image of whatever we serve. But also speaks to our nature of being the only creature created in the image of God
Glen...in the recent interview with EWTN, Jordan Peterson did not say he exists at the "fringes" of things. He said “I exist on the borders of things”. I can see why you remembered it as “fringe” but that’s not what he said. Peterson is as careful as anyone on word choice and while fringe and border could be similar in some ways, there is a reason he said one and not the other.
The fringe is the outer edge of something. The border is at the outer edge but it's also a door between two things. He believes it’s his job to be a door right now. If he moves off the border, he loses the ability to be a door for people.
You have a commitment to bring people into Christ's story. I share that commitment. And I think we agree with Lewis that people should not stay in the hallway; they need to pick a door. But I agree with Paul VanderKlay that Peterson is the unauthorized exorcist from Mark 9.
How does Glen explain the problem of evil when his central message in support of his faith is compassion?
Ask him
what is the problem of evil?
Wondering about two things: if rationality is an illusion and the ultimate reality is your DNA induced compulsions, why spend your life debating about what is true or false (religion)? Second, if it is all ultimately arbitrary, why not choose the more beautiful story, even if that attraction to beauty can't be justified other than in purely compulsive terms? The commitment to truth certainly seems to be the big giveaway for the insufficiency of grounding his conception of the human being on ultimate emotionalism.
the crux for me... is that i cannot make an argument for any human rights without the concept of 'made in his image'.
Maybe that's a failure of imagination on your part.
@@skeptcode. Or on your part.
But Christian teaching is that women aren't made in the image of God
1 Corinthians 11:7
7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection[a] of God, but woman is the reflection[b] of man.
"Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one."
Saint Augustine (354-430)
On the Trinity
Book XII
Chapter 7
@@hanssvineklev648 Cookies are ready, Hans. Mom is calling.
@@hanssvineklev648 human rights can't be man made? How about animal rights?
Replying to John Wheeler's last response to me:
All you write only casts doubt on the orthodox view of Christianity and offers no beliefs of your own but only what "if".
Two points: 1. Our exchange began because you replied to a belief statement that I made. 2. Jesus is one of many good examples from history of people who understood the need to challenge orthodox views.
You don't need me to tell you that your own beliefs can't come under the same scrutiny unless you explicitly offer them.
My beliefs and ideas, like everybody’s, are constantly under scrutiny. New discoveries in academic fields, new things we learn, personal experience and reflection are among the things that ensure this. That is not dependent in any way on them being explicitly offered. It’s up to us to do the honest and rigorous work.
this makes a lot of more sense than Alex emotivism lol. away more sense. thanks for de video. keep going
I´m agonostic, very good video.
(*⌒３⌒*) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
We seem to have developed meaning through our evolutionary development because we had to engage with a hostile environment and other people. We had to develop interpersonal values in order to make social life possible.
Vegans are well known for their sense of humor.
Been wrestling against militant atheism since the god delusion came out. It is wonderful to see these developments of late and people such as yourself defending faith. Thank you! A universe without meaning, needless to say, is not one of my experience.
I would take militant atheism to militant christianity any day.
Think about why faith needs 'defending'.
@@charliedewirtz8579 Why do you feel the need for me to do this?
@@charliedewirtz8579 Because it's outwardly antagonistic to views that aren't it's own?
@@Councilhouseontheprairie-1 To consider the nature of 'faith' and its inherent dangers. It's helpful to think about something that we don't need to 'defend', in order to provide a contrast. Like the principles of flight - weight, thrust, drag and lift. These do not need defending, we can safely live by them, and can know that when people die in aviation accidents it's never because any of these principles were compromised. Put simply, faith can mislead, and the results of that can be devastating.
It's telling that the major proponents of atheism are always talking about truth and criticizing faith, but rarely talk about love.
What about love? Does it factor in to their discussions about Christianity and other religions somehow? It might be something mentioned in passing vis a vis those discussions. What exactly is it you want to hear from atheists regarding love?
Is saying "religion is good for your mental health" not just an example of "ignorance is bliss"?
@mikeshivak. Actually, I think it’s the other way around. Enlightened man is ignorant of a transcendence that is essential to his remaining enlightened. We must discover (or rediscover) what makes us human or sink into a new Dark Ages.
@@hanssvineklev648 Discover or rediscover? Which is it?
No
See: James Tabor
I think that Jordan Peterson refuses to be pinned down publicly because he knows that would dramatically affect the reach of his message. He would be pigeonholed, and alienate everyone not in that pigeonhole. He would immediately be responsible for taking on all of the baggage associated with whatever tradition he commits to.
No, I think Peterson can't get his belief in the incarnation/resurrection above 50%, he's very much constrained by his rational/scientific mind.
Alex mentioned those studies to Sam Harris.
Sam Harris questioned if religion was the only way. After all, same effects are found in other religions as well.
And spirituality (not meaning anything supernatural here, but there is a lack of a better world) may be more useful than religion. Something like meditation, etc
Also, is it cause or effect? Starting with the fact many atheists were born religious.
How many were disillusioned with the world while STILL religious and thus the path to atheism did not mean becoming more or less happy.
There is also the question of what means to be religious. You may not be religious but believe in god.
Anyway, we need only to remember the subject was New Atheists who try to convince everybody to become atheists.
In itself, even if it makes people happier, believing in Santa also makes kids happier. But we don't consider people should keep believing in it at adulthood
I think you are drastically oversimplifying these studies. The majority of them do seek to differentiate genuine committed believers of a established religion (mostly Christianity), versus a vague spirituality or spiritual practices such as meditation.
You seem to have already decided that you don't like their outcome, and so you're rationalizing them away. Implying their research methodology is faulty without even having looked into what they are actually about. This is the same type of confirmation bias, or prejudice that Sam Harris filters every argument or thought that does not support his view.
This is what I find so refreshing about Alex, he is not the atheist equivalent of a fundamentalist like Harris is, he seems to have very open mind, and is genuinely interested in the truth.
@@longllamas I haven´t decided anything. Quite the contrary, I made a lot of questions because the video is not clear about the studies.
I even asked if the studies were differentiating religious people from atheists or very religious people from mildly religious, or non religious but god believers.
"There is also the question of what means to be religious. You may not be religious but believe in god."
You can choose any meaning you want in this life. You can even be more creative than embracing an old oppressive mythology
I agree, Greek paganism was really oppressive.
I can demonstrate the issue with removing meaning and going "create your own meaning" really easily.
Go and buy a Games Workshop miniature, preferably a named character, and only that mini.
That character has a paint scheme set out by GW. Build the model. Look at the box. Bin the box.
Congratulations, now you have removed from yourself the GW religion.
Now try and come up with a paint scheme, go buy the paints, now paint the model in your own way.
I once worked with a guy who went to a Godless church. I felt sorry for him.
A good commentary however I think we should brush up on our theology about the Heart. The heart does not correspond to the emotions. The source of the emotions biblically speaking is the guts as demonstrated by Elihu (Job 32:19) and also the Greek etymology of the verb splagchnizomai = moved in the guts. etc. The guts comprise of the stomach, bowls, bladder and womb and these are all regions which build up and demand release just like the emotions.
However, the Heart, in a biblical sense, is the centre of the human being. It is up near the lungs, close to the breath of life, and is near the breasts which nurture and give life. The heart is all about relationship. It is the place of covenant. It is the Altar, not the Pulpit. Learning to see with the eyes of the heart is related to a balanced relational intuition between head and guts. The guts is about emotions and has no relational interest.
And while we are here what of the head? Well, it is the pulpit. The head is like an echo chamber of the senses and bouncing around inside it are all what you have seen, heard, smelt and thought (because thought is connected to speaking) and remembered.
Protestants are often caught up in their heads. Some people are caught up in their emotions but the heart is equal distance between head and bowls, it is the place of balance and relationship.
Cheers and let’s get back to the Heart and this is not the emotions!
Great insights, thank you. Yes I wasn't trying to say that heart = emotions, merely that the head is not the centre.
Thanks for your reply and thanks again for your great content. Cheers
Glen argues that we all adhere to a few assumptions that can't be logically proven, and I agree. However, I don't understand how God or Christianity addresses this issue when those narratives also lack logical proof and even defy reason and known scientific laws.
Doubt is a constitutive element in all of our sets of convictions. We are left with a version of Pascal’s Wager whether we like it or not. Alex has the choice of pretending theism is true…or of PRETENDING that atheism is true. But the one outshines the other in almost every way imaginable.
We don't derive a compassion-ethic (for instance) from logic. But that doesn't make it less sound or reasonable to live by such an ethic. Moral values are different kinds of things to logical arguments. Not everything can be logically proven in that way - in fact few things that you live by every day fall into the category of logical proof. Love doesn't. Interpersonal trust is *related* to evidence but goes well beyond it. Historical facts aren't logically or scientifically provable.
And Christianity comes along as a historical announcement about Jesus of Nazareth combined with the claim that this Jesus is who he claimed to be: the Son of God. And Christians trust him. And love him. And live out his compassion ethic. And it's caught on in the world, and in turn, it's transformed the way we all see life - including ethics.
And all of this goes way beyond purely rational argumentation or scientific experimentation. But so does most of life!
(By the way I don't think Christianity defies reason. It is, instead, the very grounds for our ability to trust our minds. Being made in the image of a rational God is a FAR better grounds for reason than Alex's 'emotivism.' It's Alex's atheism that radically undermines rationality. It's Christianity that is your best shot at upholding it!)
Christianity is a historic religion. It is possible to present "a rational case" for the resurrection of Jesus. You may disagree, but that is what I believe together with so many Christians who have studied the evidence. That is the starting point for a 'rational faith'. This is the foundation for *everything* - and we build our "system" on top of this.
@@mortensimonsen1645 I've observed attempts to present rational arguments, and all of them appeared significantly flawed from an epistemological standpoint. Demonstrating the suspension of the laws of physics requires more than texts that are not independent, being copies of copies of translations of copies, influenced by political and religious agendas, and based on the accounts of non-contemporary eyewitnesses and hearsay from people 2000 years ago who had limited literacy and almost no understanding of the natural world. I believe many Christians have not thoroughly examined the evidence without the influence of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, and other well-documented human psychological flaws. Otherwise, we would see peer-reviewed papers supporting these claims, making it difficult for me to remain skeptical of the entire set of extraordinary claims. By the way, I was raised Catholic by a father who is a practicing scientist. He admits there's not enough evidence to meet scientific standards and, in the end, it's a matter of faith. I've also seen him contradict himself many times when trying to defend his faith and have observed many of the psychological flaws I mentioned above manifested in him.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I'm not opposed to the ethics of humanism and compassion, and I agree that values cannot be derived solely from logic, recognizing that we all need a philosophical foundation for our lives. However, this does not mean we should accept foundations that significantly contradict what our most rigorous tool for acquiring knowledge (i.e., modern science) enables us to understand.
I don't see how adopting extraordinarily complex ontological assumptions helps us trust our own minds. In fact, I believe we should be cautious in simply trusting our minds. If you need something more convoluted to explain phenomena, you're not truly explaining anything. That is what God represents: a complex personal catch-all used as a universal solution to justify any philosophical foundation, including rationality. To me, this feels like cheating.
I appreciate Alex's honesty in acknowledging what he knows and what he doesn't, and his openness to discover more solid foundations (that might even change in the future!) We all rely on fundamental beliefs to base our understanding; for some, this is God. I question why we shouldn't adopt the most parsimonious assumptions (emotions,
reason and a shared reality), avoid adding more information than what we really have, and forgo God altogether.
hate the sin not the sinner. because the sinner has no choice. there’s no free will. forgive.
Since he doesn’t believe in free will, Alex should change the name of his show from Within Reason to Within Programming.
Mereological Nihilism, Radical Emotivism, Compatibilism….
Some ideas are so absurd only a philosopher could believe them.
"We are religious animals" - yup, but nowhere is written in the 200 thousand years of human existence that we have to remain Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Jewish. Monotheism is only a blip in that long history.
When agriculture was discovered, as a technology had a great impact on the religiousness of the human species. You can see how it evolved and how sophisticated it became after that. A hunter-gatherer religion would not be fit for an agrarian-sheep-herder society. Now we have technological advancements that will make huge changes in how we manifest our religiousness because an agrarian-sheep-herder religion is not fit for a civilization that is about to birth a new sentient entity: AI. So the meaning crisis is not just a loss of religiousness but rather it's also the fact that traditional religion does not fit with the current civilizational paradigm the same way hunter-gatherer religion was not fit for an agrarian society.
great metaPodCast!
Christianity makes both a physical and metaphysical claim. you can’t separate them.
it’s the same problem of denying the historical Jesus and replacing him with Christ Consciousness.
there’s no Christ without a Hebrew culture and prophecy and all the rituals of the Torah.
it is in the particularity of Jesus that a universal Christ image is possible.
So.... you believe in god because you believe you are safer if I believe in god.
No sound
Sound
@@timrozday6623 How about now?
Where does Jesus finish and the collective self- glorifying religious man begin - or vice versa?
Goodness and freedom don't exist. This makes me rejoice since we can create our own meaning.
Yeah I am sure. The history of the world shows amazing results with people try to find their meaning themselves.
Not even Alex thinks that. He does a great job of debunking that idea in the original Triggernometry video (from around the 42 minute mark).
Glen…I am happy to support you but please stop trying to sell me your book. Explain the ideas of the book and I will buy it.
Glen, you misquote Alex, suggesting he said, *"He said if something is true, why the hell would it evolve?"* when in fact what Alex said at ~ 8;07, *"If you've got this thing that isn't true and is unambiguously harmful for society then why the hell would it evolve?"*
Yes you're right. I should have said "if something is NOT true, why the hell should it evolve." I failed to say the NOT. But I then do respond to Alex's thought the way he says it. Just a slip of the tongue in that moment.
@@SpeakLifeMedia
Thank you for your reply.
I very much enjoy your interaction with the material Alex has produced.
I'd love to suggest a few other instances where your commentary on his videos would be of value. How can I do that? A couple that come to mind are one (I think the first one) with Bishop Barron and another with Graham Oppy
Sure! I've reacted to half a dozen AOC videos and always find him stimulating. (info@speaklife.org.uk)
@@SpeakLifeMedia
I'm aware of a few of them. Please keep an eye out for an email then. The address will be shf... and the subject line will have Alex. I'll compose something and try to get it to you before the end of tomorrow.
I think you may have met our pastor at a Gafcon event.
Blessings.
A great summary of the flaws of non religious secular values.
What the video fails to account for is how living into a narrative structure can collapse in on itself. The I’m right because I feel/interpret God’s presence correctly ends up splitting Christianity into denomination after denomination which have only been able to come back together because of the prominence of the greater atheist/pluralist enemies. Human nature seems to be like the Futurama episode where atheism wins out but the two remaining sects of atheism continue to fight one another because there is always a way to reframe those who do not fit your vision of divinity via narrative justification as an enemy. Christianity historically doesn’t seem to be able to answer how to avoid this trauma. In teaching you can make a Christian argument for it. In practice, I don’t think you will find agreement.
That is the so called strength of the scientific view teaching. You don’t have to believe in the “narrative sky wizard”. Unfortunately, it seems they failed in practice rather than teaching as well.
Resolved: If one thinks deeply and critically about any subject in the curriculum, one encounters Jesus. "He is before all things, and in him all things _sunesteken_" ("continue, endure, exist, consist, be composed"--F. Wilbur Gingrich 1957, 1965. _Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, pp. 209 _sunestos_, 210 _sunistemi_. "All truth is God's truth." --Augustine and Dr. Arthur F. Holmes.
"When we say there's a way
To the living God,
And say Jesus is the One,
We're not picking a color
From the rainbow;
We're looking at the sun."
--Dan Eumurian, after Austin Farrer.
Maybe the hungry judges' severe sentences were actually MORE just, and were more just because the judges were further away from mere animalistic, bodily satiation. The basic assumption of the study could be completely false.
Very good point. And the assumption that compassion (to perpetrators) is the more just outcome is perhaps testimony to some more Christian(ish) influences on Alex (and Sapowlsky) than they'd like.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Yes, very good point on your part as well. It's rather amusing how atheists hijack and distort Christian-based morality and then turn around and attempt to use it to attack Christianity.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Very good point on your part as well. It's rather amusing how atheists hijack and distort Christian values, and then attempt to use them to attack Christianity.
“People are religious animals” is from paragraph 44 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The 4000 current faiths differ in the stories they embody and it’s hard to see that one is correct and all the others in error. The human mind creates these stories and bequeathes them to succeeding generations by telling children what is true before they are capable of engaging with abstract ideas.
It's not hard.
People are finding meaning outside the church. That is a real crisis of meaning... for the church.
No, they are not. They’re moving out of their proper homes and “playing house.”
Not really
th-cam.com/video/BM1fW2q9xdM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=woH7Ch7ySl78VT4p&t=2486
"There is a non-contingent reason to act. A reason to act or to be that doesn't depend on something else." Did Alex just describe the meaning of life as God??? God is the only non-contingent being! 😎 Or did he say the only way for us to have meaning is to be "God" (the one who has no contingency on anything else)?
If your only and complete definition for "god" is "something else"
Just like WLC saying it is good to kill babies sometimes because he defines "good" as and only as "what God tells you to do"
Do you have anything to support your premise that "your God exists AND is the only contingent being" ??
@@mikeshivak That is the classic definition of God. He is pure "being", and all other being is dependent on him. In orthodox Christian belief this is called God's aseity, the independence of God or the Creator/Creature Distinction. Everything in the created world is dependent on him for its existence. From the Bible we see this in Genesis 1, when God creates all things by his word alone. He speaks and things come into existence. He didn't need to appeal to anyone, fight anyone, dominate any other deity in order to create (which was commonly the case in ancient origin mythologies such as Norse, Greek, Roman, et al.). And also in Exodus 3, when Moses asks God by what name should he refer to God when he goes into Egypt to liberate the Israelites. God says "I am who I am". The understanding of God's non-contingency has always been a staple of the historic Christian faith, from the Bible, to the Church Fathers, Medieval Theologians, the Reformation, on through to the modern day. To quote a more recent theologian who was trying to encapsulate the heritage of Christian teaching on this point, Herman Bavinck, "God is absolute being, the fullness of being, and therefore also eternally and absolutely independent in his existence, in his perfections, in all his works the first and the last, the sole cause and final goal of all things." (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, pg. 152).
My comment here was mostly that I was tickled by Alex's reasoning that the meaning of life comes from a non-contingent state, when in the Christian heritage that is exactly the belief; its just that we aren't the non-contingent ones, God is. Our meaning and life comes from him.
Great books that talk about this:
Biblical Critical Theory, Christopher Watkins
All That is In God, James Dolezal
The Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til
Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, Herman Bavinck
Let me know your thoughts! 8)
Because you are so important that a God needs your help to speak on its behalf and do lots of other very useful works for that Omni* God.
So there you are, he gives us meaning right from the word go involving us in the work that he is doing.
@@alan-muscat
As I said, the over-inflated ego tells to some, how full of their own importance they are.
@@ianosgnatiuc seems that actually applies to you. How ironic 😂
@@HearGodsWord
How? I don't pretend to help an Omni* God.
@ianosgnatiuc ah, so you're here with a fallacy then. Good to know you didn't have a serious point to make and we're just triggered 🤣
Atheists sound like my friends and I in ou teens when we were really high. Maybe, what if..nonsense.
Then we grew up.
Replying to John Wheeler's last response to me continued:
You say " Your first sentence depends on a very 'excluding' definition of Christianity." All the major branches of Christianity believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. If you do not believe in the physical resurrection and I do (and I do) then your belief is as excluding as mine.
Not even remotely. Believers in a literal resurrection like yourself sit in harmony alongside those that don’t or remain undecided under a single umbrella. I don’t advocate a need to re-label anybody. My whole point - which seems to have bypassed you - is that the question of literal v metaphorical doesn’t have to be a bone of contention at all. Maybe it can be clarified like this: Do you think God cares if people believe that he literally raised Jesus from the dead? If someone answers that question in the affirmative, then there’s going to be an in-group/out-group dynamic that results. If someone like me thinks that God doesn’t give a flying monkeys whether people take a literal or symbolic view of the resurrection, then there’s no division at all. Our positions are nothing like each other’s.
None of us are victims for simply having different beliefs. We become victims only if you or I persecute each other for having different beliefs.
Victimhood is self-made, and from where I sit it rests on not doing what is in our highest self-interest.
You say " Among the tens of thousands of doctrinal and moral issues that 'Christians' fail to agree on is the question of whether the resurrection is literal or symbolic." There are different interpretations of scripture but the resurrection isn't one of them.
A literal versus non-literal interpretation of the resurrection has always been a prevalent disagreement, and its importance (or not) a point of debate.
Even if we say only 99% of those that call themselves Christian believe in the physical resurrection it is laughable to put it in the same category as other disagreements.
The question of why there are any disagreements at all is, for me at least, the interesting one. But yes, you are right, the majority of Christians do believe in a literal resurrection.
(^^)／＼(^^) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
Christianity is a such a beautiful, beguiling thing. But Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.
Check out our short series on the ways resurrection is a deep pattern to reality. The 4th and final video especially might give some pause for thought about whether Christ's resurrection is the inner logic explaining why we live in an Easter-like universe: th-cam.com/video/gREPbX8k_60/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6Yfc-gI31aLvKXAU
Paul invented Christianity
Many have refuted the reality of the Resurrection, and the depth of apologetics in this area is massive. One of the best modern apologetics books is J. Warner Wallace's "Cold Case Christianity." I suggest you give it a read. Blessings to you.
@@Fr_Mitchthanks for recommendation.
I find nothing beautiful in it, although I fully acknowledge its beguiling nature.
8:57 "truth is a fairytale if it is not geared toward survival" So the act of Jesus sacrificing himself is presumably not truth :)
Read to the end of the story :-)
Will reading it aid my physical survival? If not, it can't be true
Isn't Alex doing a fallacy somewhere in here?
_If Religion is beneficial then Evolution would develop religion and we would expect religion._
After all all he knows is the endresult. It sounds to me as if I say my algorithm is made to predict any result correctly. And when new data comes in I conclude that my algorithm must have caused this result and since we have some form of result it is a confirmation of my algorithm.
How does it actually feel to lecture to a camera in absence of social interaction?
''The hungry judges'' story is utterly unlikely to be true. And since Truth comes from God is it surprising that atheists lie when it comes to proving the thing they are into as their truth at the time.
The irony here is you’re promoting all these different sources for why religion/christianity is good for us, but Christianity itself teaches that only the Bible is the true source of Gods word, but when we read that we get all confused about what’s true, real, and beneficial and even find gods morals to be highly questionable. Let me know if you don’t see the problem there.
Sounds like a you problem.
The Bible is a very complex book, all sitting in rich history. It's very foreign for our modern eyes and mind, very hard to understand. You should look for some guidance in your readings if you are really interested. Proverbs is a great place to start for real wisdom that is still true now. John is one of my favorite books of the New Testament.
@@HearGodsWord I’m open to what’s true and you can’t deny the fact that many people across history have had different interpretations of the Bible that has only lead to confusion between all the denominations, unless you prescribe to specific interpretation that you’re convinced is the ‘right’ interpretation. But I find if one thinks they’ve got the truth all figured out, they haven’t lived enough life yet. It’s a complex world out there!
@@Chriliman it might be complex for you, but it's pretty simple really.
@@debbiekim8189 I’m one of those people who has read the Bible deeply and thoroughly and believed all it has to offer, but has come out on the other end unable to reconcile the issues I’ve found with it. It has beauty to it for sure, but also clearly borrows from older non-Christian mythologies and has glaring contradictions. With all due respect, do your own research if you’re ignorant of these things. :)
Glen’s certainty is so well-rehearsed that the word salad he spins has an air of desperation despite his appearing so self assured.
It's not a word salad. 😂
This comment does not make sense
I beg to differ. He is so well defended against any challenge to the divinity of Christ that there’s not the slightest vestige of uncertainty. How is it possible to believe that the laws of nature were suspended for an Iron Age peasant and for no other person ever since- If you believe that then you’ll likely believe anything.
Honestly I'd probably agree with a lot of the book you're shilling, but I simply strongly disagree with every bit of it that you advertize!
Since when is equality a virtue?! And all the other feminine virtues you listed have their place, but they're far down the list of things that are far higher virtues.
Where tf is courage, and having a spine? Where's freedom? Where's responsibility? Where's reciprocity?
I hope all the women buy it, I guess? And equality can definitely piss off. Nothing more antithetical to morality than that.
Here’s where you really start to go off the rails: 16:38
You claim that that any non-theistic moral framework is a contradiction, and then you claim Christianity isn't itself filled to gills with contradictions? What do you think apologetics and harmonization are for my friends? The actual words of the Bible are overflowing with factual inaccuracies, scientific absurdities, internal contradictions, and horrific moral repugnancies - along with all the good stuff. How do you get around this? You endlessly twist yourselves into elaborate mental pretzels in order to cherrypick the shiny nuggets and reconcile the ugly nonsense. "Oh, this part is meant to be read literally, but that part is metaphorical. This part is descriptive, and that part is prescriptive. This part is a product of its times, but that part totally applies today... on and on, ad infinitum." And of course, none of you have ever been able to agree on which of these apologetics does or doesn't apply.
We secularists, on the other hand, try our best to align our beliefs with the natural world as it presents itself. We don’t want or need to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile bronze and iron age fables with science. That's why there's no American Science, Russian Science, or Chinese Science. There is just science. Of course, morals and ethics don’t lend themselves well to scientific investigation. They are extraordinarily complex functions of human biology, psychology, culture, history, available resources, etc. The myriad of intricacies, conflicting interests, and unintended consequences naturally lead to inconsistencies and paradoxes. All we can do is deal with them as best we can, given the limited information we have, and try to evolve moral and ethical frameworks that, hopefully, lead to more and more optimal outcomes. Does this require mental gymnastics? Yes. But it's not as if you Chrisitan don't face very similar dilemmas and evolve your moral standards over time as well. You clearly do. You develop ever-changing cherry-picking techniques. The only fundamental difference between us is this: we secularists don’t need to apologize our way into believing that our ever-updating moral standards are timeless, perfect, and unchanging.
the natural world doesn't Say anything about morals , you are a sentimentalist
I deny Jesus !
Only a temporary position.
Yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion man
I'd agree stories are key. However atheism has much better stories than theism. If theism were true there would be no meaning or significance, just biological machines running programs. If atheism is true then humans write their own stories, create their own meaning and significance. This is far more spiritual than anything theism has to offer.
Stories are at the top of the hierarchy, notions like a 'god' are not only a subset of character in stories, but mostly a not very significant character.
Pratchett Cohen and Stewart dubbed humans Pan Narrans (the storytelling ape). Which makes a whole lot more sense than homo sapiens, cos one could hardly call humans 'wise' based on their history. Inventing 'gods' being sufficient evidence of this alone.
Meaning could be defined as something I cannot create...that is actually how I validate it as meaningful...it comes from outside me. If it comes from inside, isn't it just navel gazing? I suppose you could call it "spiritual" but don't we question people who are so wrapped up in their own thing that they disregard others?
@@JasonBryan-jw5xh I can't see how. That would just be running a program as I previously noted.
I have no idea why you would imagine it 'navel gazing'... Which would be creating meaning only about oneself, which would frankly be pretty meaningless.
And as far as 'spiritual' is concerned: that would depend somewhat, on what we imagine 'spirit' to be. The rather trivial notion of a ghost that survives death? Or a symbol of the sum total of an individual existence? Which seems far more interesting.
So we have to pretend that Christianity is real. Like it's a placebo.
You don't have to pretend. Jesus is real.
I find it fascinating that though Alex O’Connor is arguably more intelligent than Glen Scrivener, he sounds like a child in comparison.
Religion is the doctrine that drives a person's moral compass, regardless of whether one believes in God or not.
A Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ Jesus from where the word Christian comes from.
Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us a definition of God in his gospels John 4:24 that God is the spirit of truth, he also says in his gospels that God is also our heavenly father of all creation.
So I don't know why a lot of literal extremists/creationists try to come up with their own definition of God, its crazy!!!! Obviously they're not paying attention to our Lord Jesus 🙄
5:40 I think this will be a good video.
It terms of meaning they discussed that it isn’t good enough to be certain of what you believe your meaning is, it’s got to lead to a way of life that leads to something that we would agree is ‘the good life, or a fulfilling life’.
For example it is easier to show this negatively, gambling leads to terrible material outcomes for those that become addicted and spend all their money on it. This can become so bad that the individual sort of recognises it but can’t change and drives away all other sources of happiness. So any religion or theory that held gambling was the meaning of life wouldn’t work to improve humanity.
6:43 so these studies might say that different religions provide different levels of benefits to adherents. Further I completely accept that a refined, ancient and popular religion would likely be better to provide meaning that something I invented (or say I had a convincing vision about). It’s the rules, community and way of life that gives the meaning not the truth of the supernatural beliefs.
I agree that community could bring meaning into people's lives, but the story of Jesus who loved us so much he suffered and died on the cross for our sins and defeated death by resurrecting on the 3rd day sounds like a crazy story, but it's one that millions throughout history have willlingly suffered and died for. Jesus has been a beacon of hope during difficult times for people of faith. So respectfully, whether you believe in Jesus or not, I don't think you could take away from the faith community how much our faith in Jesus has brought meaning and hope in our lives.
@@debbiekim8189. Thank you for the fine reply. Have a fab day.