Is New Atheism Dead? Justin Brierly on the "Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Justin Brierley was, for 17 years, the host of "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio. He is a broadcaster, author, and Christian apologist whose latest book is "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why new atheism grew old and secular thinkers are considering Christianity again".
- LINKS
Get Justin's book: justinbrierley.com/the-surpri...
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 What is the book about?
5:30 Why would God allow religion to decline?
7:17 What is/was new atheism?
19:39 Are modern ethics based on Christianity?
39:06 Will religion always be replaced by something?
49:29 Secular thinkers don't think religion is bad anymore
1:02:52 Jordan Peterson and "belief" in God
1:09:52 C.S. Lewis and conversion to Christianity
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
I'm a South African athiest. It's interesting to listen to Justin talk about how religion/christianity is growing outside western culture. To some extent I think he's right. For a long time in SA there's been a stalemate between christianity and African spirituality, but over the last ten years or so, christianity has been growing and overpowering traditional African spirituality and beliefs. I don't know the statistics but if someone told me that christianity is the fastest growing religion in SA, I wouldn't be surprised. Christian churches are popping up like zits on a teenager's face in my community. However, if I were Justin I wouldn't be jumping for joy just yet,beacuse if I took Justin to the church my parents are attending and gave him a platform to preach his version of Christianity, they would lump him in with me!! . The christianity that is growing outside of western culture is not this new, philosophical, diluted version of Christianity that we see in the west, it's a fundamentalist religion that still asserts that Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden, that homosexuality is wrong and should be punished, that women should be subservient to their husbands and so forth. I also believe that the rise of Justin's new and philosophcal christianity is fueling the rise of fundamentalism outside the west. Preachers in my town point to someone like Justin and say to their congregation, "don't be like this guy. Look at how his faith has fallen. This is not what a Christian looks like. This is not how a Christian speaks". If you accused an African Christian of being anti-science, they would take it as a bedge of honor. Accuse Justin of the same and he gets offended. So Justin, before you start celebrating the rise of religion/christianity beyond the west, it would do you a great deal of good to first realise and acknowledge that it's not your version of Christianity.
You obviously don't know Justin's beliefs and he isn't the progressive Christian you think he is : having nonfundamental interpretations doesn't mean you can't believe Adam and Eve weren't authentic people or the YEC is the only right interpretation and you're H.sexually is still not acceptable in nonfundamental Evangelical circles : only the most progressive and liberal churches accept H.sexuals.
Ham and Hovind R the ignorant fundamentals that many intelligent and Christian University trained Christians would reject :
You obviously have read people like Dr.Michael S.Heiser PhD in O.T languages.
Dr Hugh Ross astrophysicist.
Dr Joel Duff .
Dr. David Faik Egyptologist
Dr. William Lane Craig.
You're so right. Most western Christians have no idea how this new fundamentalism is affecting communities outside the west, especially in Africa. Every week i hear the saddest stories of people caught up in literal cults, burned to death and exploited and the missionaries responsible have no care for the people whose lives they've ruined after they fuck off back to the west.
Be careful, to them you are a heretic and fair game 🥺
This comment it based and nuance pulled, bump
This is such an important point. The Christianity that's growing, even in the USA, is a fire and brimstone fundamentalism untethered from philosophy or historical perspective. Even the Catholic Church is being overrun by evangelicalism. Its marriage to authoritarian government is a necessary element for it's survival, not an accidental mistake as most Christians want to believe.
This is such a beautiful example of 2 people of drastically different beliefs coming together in good faith.
It's only because they've both studied each others subjects properly
Previously, the new atheists simply shot their mouth off despite not knowing the first thing about religious belief and religious arguments and religious scholars which never lead to good discussions, only rhetoric. I think time has shown that it was primarily a reaction to 9/11 rather than any intellectual rigour.
Christopher Hitchens was the prime example of this. People loved watching him but never learned anything from his shows.
Alex o conner has studied and has a degree in theology. I think every so called atheist should have atleast studied religion to that level before you should be allowed to comment or engage in a public debate with it.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Brierly here. On one hand sure, we could say that the conversation has shifted more into the social utility of religion, but it certainly hasn't changed anything about the problems religious practices have with their magical foundations. I'd also point out that we're only a couple of years out of a pandemic, and in the midst of that kind of full-scale psychological disruption it's pretty reasonable to see folks picking their rosaries back up for a while. No, I don't think the "new atheism" is dead at all; I just think that atheism offers little to wrap "community commonality" around. I also think Brierly is rather transparent in his soft-selling of Christianity; you know, that kind of "well, ignore all those problematic bits and just pick what feels good." I think there's a bit of a blind spot there about the fundamentals of actual Christian teaching, and I think you did a good job gently sussing that out.
Well said.
agree and disagree. I would actually separate "new atheism" and just "atheism" as two different things. I think the former speaks more to a culture that made atheism sexy, mainstream and edgy. I do think that has now past and "new atheism" is pretty much dead but that's not to say atheism has diminished, its just not being touted with the same glory and cultural influence it once had.
In these past few years there has been a strong rise in right wing cultural sentiments which comes hand in hand with religious belief, and guys like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate or Daily Wire are flying the religious flag with that same edginess and glory that New atheism once had, making it more culturally attractive.
To me though its all just a reactionary movement against modern ideals, western cultural shifts and identity, rather than the actual teachings, rituals and practices somehow demonstrating new merit, which is why it will eventually die down. That's just my perception anyway.
@@sum8601 agreed. I think we need to distinguish between 'new atheism', which was a specific movement in the mid to late noughties (though some have rejected the categorisation) with just a general lack of belief. In regard to that specific movement, I think Brierly has some decent points.
Thank you for your insightful and well made comments. I'm an atheist also a Humanist. Humanism provides community, being good without god is true altruism. Religions thrive in adversity. The goal of eternal life in return for dogmatically controlled behaviour, replaces empathy with obedience. Religion is clearly the early (worst) efforts of humanity to create community, Humanism is a better.
So why didn't people turn to the good news of atheism in the pandemic - why did they 'pick-up the rosaries' as you say? Why not pick up the hope, peace and truth that atheism brings??
Alex man your channel and interviews are just the best. The vibes in this interview and even in the comments section is so drastically different than almost anywhere else on the internet (and even off the internet these days). To get to watch a calm interview between two people with such different opinions, form my own thoughts/opinions/questions throughout, then to scroll down and read others' well thought out responses to Justin's or your words it so fun. It's very inspiring, definitely helps me feel good on bad days and makes me want to dig into these kinds of topics forever :)
Im really glad that you challenged the Tom Holland rhetoric. As an atheist, I have no quarrel with admitting that a lot of our culture's understanding of morality was pioneered by Christianity, but to say that all of it was conceptualized by Christianity is a blatant ignorance of several other traditions and lineages of information. I think it's true that Christianity itself attempts to describe reality, including the very real realities of the human experiences of virtue and morality. However, I don't think that effectively describing virtue and morality makes those experiences in any way contingent upon Christianity itself. I also don't see any reason as to why they can't be reflected back on Christianity to support the atheist case. The internal contradictions of the Bible's moral theories were one of the reasons I deconstructed my faith to begin with. I could never bring myself to imagine that Jesus Christ himself would command us to stone, conquer, or enslave anyone and that Christ-like virtue was the very crack in the foundation that I needed to free myself through deconstruction.
I don't think that Christians realize that deconstruction isn't centered on Christianity, but rather our entire conceptualization of identities. Christianity is merely one of the most influential identities in a diverse list of sociocultural relations that people have and for most atheists, once the religion falls, so too do the rest of the dominos (political, national, ego, etc) that were entrenched in that Christian foundation. Learning our sociocultural history, the various influences of different ideas and how they've interacted with each other such that we could emerge as we are today is one of the most important things we can do to reconstruct ourselves in the wake of our atheism. Outside of the chains of dogma, we can be free to use different perspectives as they effectively apply and one of the reasons that we are so caught up in the Christian perspective on values is that we are often trying to demonstrate that very same internal moral inconsistency that severed our ties to begin with. We are trying to engage with you by speaking your own language.
At the end of the day, we are very aware that we use the same selfless love that you find in Jesus to challenge the hate and the violence and the bigotry that most of the rest of the religious frame is chained to, and if that weren't the case, we probably wouldn't have had a reason to deconvert to begin with.
There's also a case to be made about pre-existing cultures in general. Would Christianity not then owe its values to Zoroastrianism, Greek and Egyptian polytheism, even Canaanite polytheism, or other pagan religious traditions and philosophies? It's not like Jesus or Moses were the inventors of selflessness, but surely Christians don't then argue that their understanding wasn't also afforded to them by their predecessors. The potential for love isn't just Christian, it's human.
These people are misinformed. They have this ahistorical view that Christianity just fell from the sky. Christianity was influenced by its surroundings. You find all the same morals in ancient Near Eastern Wisdom texts.
Christianity borrows many of its moral and ethical assertions from older cultures and religions.
@@_____case it's words like "borrows" or "steals from" that I am objecting to. It implies that there is an ability to own/monopolize facts about reality
@@justinthillens2853"MyCulture Inc. Trade marked. All rights reserved. Patented. Do not redistribute or pirate MyCulture without implicit consent."
😂😂😂
And even *if* there was a case to be made for this argument, the facts themselves are that "christian" scientists were usually christian either because (like Alex said) there wasn't a reasonable alternative yet, or they were christians because otherwise they would be lynched by the church. Most things Christians credit to Christianity were things they made all manner of efforts to eliminate before pretending to have championed all along (e.g. gay marriage). It's historical revisionism at its most insidious.
The surprising thing about "rebirth of belief in God" is it is ironically explained by the way it is stated.
*BIRTH RATES*
Simply put, you see religious families having religious children. The birth rate among the non-religious is much lower and thus the propagating of lack of religion isn't happening. Religion hasn't become any more convincing with better arguments. Religious people know they can teach their kids religion at a young age and make it a core part of their worldview. From then on, it's more likely they'll remain religious.
From the most recent polls I've seen, religious adherence has shifted downward significantly in the past decade alone. I can understand contemporary atheists examining Christian theology as a humanistic anthropological reality of life on Earth... but I'm not sure that translates to "Rebirth" as he argues. There's also no guarantee that children raised in a religious household will remain religious in adulthood.
@@rabd3721It’s actually not only the Christian birth rate. It’s also the Muslim birth rate. While being born to a religious family doesn’t mean you’ll be religious, it does vastly increase the probability and is the most associated aspect of someone you could know the predict their religion.
@@rabd3721 Take a look at the countries with the highest birthrates and look at the religion relationship:
Somalia is a Muslim state and prohibits conversion.
Angola is described as "overwhelming Christian"
Now let's look at the countries with the lowest birthrates and the relationship with religion.
Hong Kong has over 50% with no religion and 10% total Muslim/Christian
South Korea has over 60% with no religion
@@rabd3721 The increase in percentage of religious individuals is directly connected to birthrates of countries where religion is central to that country. Religion hasn't become any more convincing.
Many people in the modern world have decided to focus on their own lives and not procreating. However, religious individuals differ in that they still see the need to procreate since many religions teach to do this. This is literally how religions have survived.
Think of a religion like a nation. If the nation doesn't have a high enough birthrate, it goes away. Religions literally work the same way. The biggest way to get people in the religion is to raise someone in the religion.
@@malirk I understand, you're talking about non-Western countries. My focus is on nations who have prospered/progressed enough to achieve the highest benchmarks of human rights and privileges. When human beings have the liberty to be themselves, you end up with dwindling religious faith. Many "religious" countries who mandate religious belief are authoritarian and fascist. I'm not particularly impressed with religious adherence in these countries, because it appears to be under threat of criminal liability.
Great conversation. As a Christian I would love to press him on where these ideas of equality come from and what the overlap is between that and post enlightenment ideology. To me, that was his weakest point. If we value equality then why stop at just some equality? It seems there is a disjunct there between his faith and his values that he hasn't thought all the way through yet. I find this is true for probably most Christians. Ironically, they have internalized post enlightenment values just as thoroughly as they say the new atheists have internalized Christian values. And to me, it's just as big of a blind spot that demands its own reckoning.
There is no equality under god; bible nor quran. All state that the female is inferior to men.
Any religious nut that claims otherwise is cherry picking from his own supposed "holy book".
As an atheist, I suspect he might point to where Jesus talks about the greatest, and second greatest commandments. I think Justin is very good at finding a reason to think what he wants to think. He could teach courses on post hoc rationalisation.
100% agree , Christianity does teach compassion and charity , but I'm pressed to find anything in scripture promoting equality ,freedom, or self determination if anything the opposite
Read Historian Tom Holland's work in dominion. He clearly portrays Christian influence in values of the west being thoughly Christian in origin
@@faustzxc Generally, the benefits of organized religion is compliance and control. Free thinking and self determination could lead to atheisms or at least questioning doctrine.
The idea that something like compassion is rooted specifically in Christianity is wild. And attributing things to Christianity because they were developed by Christians in a time and place where everybody was Christian (at least publicly) is also wild. We don't know how the world would look now had Christianity not become the official religion of the Roman Empire, but it would take a brave person to insist that we wouldn't have arrived at a lot of the same social liberal values without it.
@@_hs.edjw-._du Cool. Those are definitely words.
Romanes Eunt Domus
I like to think we arrived at what liberal social value we have (or the few still left in some cases like the US), despite Christianity trying to hold us back, not because of it!
@@Leszek.Rzepecki YES!! They seem to blank out ever Christian atrocity and the iron boot they used to keep women as second class citizens
Compassion™️
I'm confused by the way "New Atheism" is cast in this conversation. Yes, it was relatively novel that a group of guys suddenly started making money being publicly atheist in the English-speaking world, but it's not like they were advancing revolutionary philosophical concepts.
You can only sell so many books refuting the same old arguments for theism before anyone who's interested in buying them notices that they've heard all this before and/or otherwise loses interest In public figures being aggressively opposed to theism.
But it seems to me the way they're talking about it is meant to suggest that the loss of interest in this particular moment signals a loss of interest in atheism or, perhaps, even a renewed interest in theism?
Seems a bit nonsequitur to me.
I think the openness with which religion was being debunked by these people is amazing in itself because in many parts of the world it is illegal or majorly socially shunned to have these kinds of conversations.
Hold my beer.
"New-neo Catholic" and "Post-Sputtering Protestant".
No clue what either means, but I am ready to label any and all cherry picking christian strangers I meet with these newfound terms. 😂
@@JEDUBBELLEThe fact that this is exactly how the term new atheism was created lmao
@@JEDUBBELLEwhat would you consider "cherry picking"?
Actually, I think it's that none of those writers are respected as philosophers by anybody outside of a particular brand of atheist. Dennet left religious polemic and went back to his actual field, nobody I know--religious or secular--takes Dawkins seriously as a philosopher.
Hitchens was only ever the hero of angry teenage / early 20s atheists and even Alex has made videos subject Hitchens' logic to scrutiny and finding it wanting (as did serious philosophers back when Hitch was making the arguments). That doesn't take away that Hitch was wildly entertaining, though, and was better with his social/political commentary (the fields where he made his actual reputation).
And finally, Harris has fallen into irrelevance as his brand of atheist has led him into Islamophobic, even genocidal tirades. One can even detect outright misanthropy in Harris's tones, and Chomsky really put a dent in any view of Harris as a particularly informed or enlightened commentator.
About me: DPhil in Philosophy from Oxford.
As an athiest who was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, I find these conversations cathartic. I wanted Christianity to be true for many years, but I find its core claims and apologetic explanations wanting. I can't force myself to believe in a god, but loyalty to my family keeps me chasing the tail of comparative theology. This channel helps me feel less alone.
No offence, but why would you want it to be true.
Even without the risk of eternal damnation everlasting life sounds like a monkey's paw wish that is bound to backfire.
@@bdnnijs192 When everyone you love has made it their their entire identity and purpose in life, not being on the same page creates a painful rift. That's really the crux of why I wanted it to be true in my young adult years.
If you were talking about some other youtuber's opinion, then you could say, "Well, I think..." But we are talking about the ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe. Who says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to give us over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until a about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. And what is your authority? Why should we believe you? You say things like, "Why didn't God do this or that. And, I FEEL like He should have done it this way, or that way." Look, if I decided someone should die and then carried that out, I would be a murderer fit for jail or execution. BUT, if God decides a person has come to the end of his days, He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to HIs only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.
@Mike-qt7jp I've spent decades searching out the kinds of claims you are making here, and I there always end up being too many holes, paradoxes, and logical fallacies to the claims. You can assert the claims with as much confidence as you want, but that doesn't make them true. There are too many conflicting ideas within the canonical books for them to be inspired by a perfect god. No matter what interpretational methodology you choose, you will always end up with a puzzle missing pieces and extra pieces that don't fit.
@@Mike-qt7jp Cooly story bro 🤡
@15:25 "It's like saying that the people inventing weightlifting weren't jacked.. Well off course they weren't, they hadn't invented weightlifting yet!" -That made me laugh out loud and must be one of the more quote worthy things Alex has said in a little while. Thoroughly enjoyed this nuanced and civilized conversation ❤
@@NinjaJay_Arashikage I hope you realize this was a tongue in cheek example and not something intended to have teeth to exemplify his point. Odd you took this personally enough to make a jab at Alex's physique as if he was taking an antagonistic position against weightlighting. In fact, I find the accusation Alex is "wrong" amusing and possibly ironic since it seems to me you don't understand what he would even be wrong about [in original context]. Anyhoot, back to my superior weighted calisthenics routine ;)
@@zacharyshort384 ml
Considering that comment and the relationship between Christianity and science, I don't think you can say so dismissably that science didn't exist yet to refute the religious thinking to cut the two apart. The relationship is closer than that. Before Christianity religion was preoccupied with the creation of victims to appease the gods, the rituals of sacrifice, both animal and human, existed everywhere in all societies and cultures but it is within the Christian world view that we all of a sudden gained the ability to distinguish an innocent victim which we now refer to as a scapegoat. Before Christianity there was no such thing and the concept opened our minds to forms of frivolous blaming and violence which were ultimately recognised as ineffectual and revealed something very ugly about our behaviour towards our fellow community. It is in this context that it can be said that we did not stop burning witches because of science, we invented science because we stopped burning witches, which is a huge achievement on the part of society which was operating within the moral landscape of the Christian faith.
@@chadh9457 Yep, plus Christianity instilled the value of truth seeking, and freedom of speech (and therefore thought). The idea that all humans are created in the image of God meant they wouldn't be executed for the wrong beliefs, unlike in the Roman Empire.
And scientists saw studying the universe as a way to worship the creator of it.
It's not safe to assume that any pagan culture or any different religious culture would have figured out the scientific method. We can look to the Islamic world and compare the fruits there, for example.
By the way, I'm sensing some Rene Girard influence in your comment. I loved his reflections too lol.
but do you think Alex missed the point that science in the main wasn't birthed in non christian cultures. It was the christian worldview, that reality is constant and the universe had a beginning and is moving to an end rather than say the cyclical worldview of buddhism or hinduism that rendered reality amenable to the scientific method.
Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?
"Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?"
It depends how you manipulate the numbers!
E.g. Some christians say that RC's are 'not real christians' and then in the same debate that christianity is the largest religion!
But w/o the 'RC group ' they are NOT the largest religion..
In the west yes, in the world as a whole religious believe is growing due too religious people getting more kids
Lowest it has ever been in America I think, but most people trying to promote religion like to ignore that
In the West, Europe, North America, religious belief is declining, but in other areas in the world it’s on the rise.
@@WerstoftheWorst Well, I bet it was lower in the first 100 yrs ;) but besides that, you're right
Fantastic interview Alex. I'm a 67 yr old Male in US. I was born and raised a Christian and deconverted approx 20 yrs ago. It's funny but I see things in just the opposite way as Justin. To me, yes there is more constructive conversation about God these days than in the past. However, I see more people deconstructing and leaving Christianity rather than atheists starting to be interested in or actually becoming Christians. Love your you tube videos.
Carry on.
Mark in Michigan
I'm a 69 yr. old Christian believer in Florida ( tomorrow's my birthday, I turn 70 ! )
Anyhow I appreciate your comments. I don't feel qualified to respond to the observation that Christianity is growing. That's because I've been kind of a "Christian hermit" the last 16 years for heath reasons.
Anyhow... it's still important to ponder things such as the existence of God and the ultimate meaning to life.
Respectfully.
@@johnbrzykcy3076
The problem with religion is the innate control, abuse and violence. And that it makes good people do bad things.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 There is no meaning to life. It is the result of natural processes. The wind blows sand into dunes. There is no meaning to dunes.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 What a wholesome interaction
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Why do you think its important to ponder about that which cannot be proven or even indicated to exist? Do you also ponder frequently on vampires and ghosts?
I mean, most people in life ponder about death itself, which I equate to a more fair similarity than whichever god. As people who fear death are more likely to fill in those gaps and become religious in the first place.
Alex! I just gotta say, your production quality is immaculate. The audio is well balanced and crisp. Thanks for the effort you put in behind the scenes!
As per usual Alex seems either unwilling or unable to push back on the absurd claims of these Christians
They won't come on if he pushes back at all
sad to see alex go the way of access journalism :/
I think he does a reasonably good job of formulating counter-arguments through questions. Remember, they're interviews, not debates. I would also argue that most people here are already more than familiar/in sync with Alex's arguments and views, and have the tools to dismantle those absurd claims by ourselves. The only thing to be gained from it actually happening on camera would be a sort of dialectic bloodthirst, what's the point?
@@CosmicTeapot There';s a nice middle ground between being completely passive and engaging in some bloodthirsty debate. I'm just saying Alex could push back more, especially against the on the face of it flat-out ridiculous claims that his Christian guests often make.
@@gerhitchmanI'm more concerned with the lack of pushback he showed against some of the more right wing guests he had recently. Religion is on the decline. Nationalism, racism, homophobia is on the rise. That's where the true battle waits. Of course when dealing with Christian nationalism you can battle both at the same time. But they don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Great conversation! Love Justin and Alex’s good faith interactions.
Wow, a great discussion here which does help make the case of Justin's book and current thesis.
This is more like a nice open-ended conversation between friends than the 'knock 'em down' type of confrontations that happened at the height of the New Atheist 'movement' and I'm so grateful for it!
The path towards genuine understanding of each other in our polarized society surely looks like this.
Alex's channel is one of the few places on the internet, where people of opposing worldviews can be friendly and respectful. Even though I believe in Christ, I watch some content from atheists, to challenge my views, and most often going into a video I feel a lot of fear. Fear of being ridiculed, or labeled nasty things, or misrepresented. I'm never afraid to watch Alex's channel, because I know that all his discussions are on top of a firm layer of care and love for all living beings. Thank you, Alex, for constantly reminding me, that when I feel attacked or alone, people like you are out there in the world. I hope you reap great rewards and fruitful discussions for your hard work.
I mirror your sentiment from the opposite perspective. I’m an atheist who thoroughly enjoys Alex’s channel for the same reasons. He never seems interested in scoring points or appearing the victor, more so getting to the real meat of the issue in a civilised manner.
@@Sic-Semper-Tyranniss I'm glad we get to enjoy it together without loading debate ammo immediately. Cheers!
the big mistake in Justin’s arguments for Christianity and the majority of arguments I see from others defending Christianity is that they for some reason believe that “good values” or the “values of the west” belong to Christianity. It’s as if they think that being a “good person” never entered the mind of a human being until Christianity came onto the scene which is obviously and utterly ridiculous. Morality has been in development long before the birth of Christianity…
I doubt very much if our morality would be the same today if it werent for Christian tradition. Even today, non christian nations have very different morals from christian ones. And countries that used to be christian but pandering to the woke ideology is very very different from christian countries like the Philippines, Hungary etc.
@@AthanaSus The age of reason was far more impactful than Christianity.
@@AthanaSus I am not saying Christianity has not had an influence on the way we live our lives today. All the religions/ideologies of the past have influenced the way we think and live our lives today. I am simply stating Christianity is not solely responsible for “good morals”’ There are many other factors and forces at work influencing our morality, yet when I here Christians defend Christianity it’s as if they can’t imagine how a human being can arrive at the conclusion of living a “morally decent” life without “Judea Christian values”. I think this is a very shallow and narrow minded view of the matter at hand.
I think it has more to do with the level of "good"
Religions definitely had their uses, especially in the past. I'm sure they were quite good for promulgating these ideas in an age before very much print. But to give them credit for creating our founding our morality in any way is laughable.
17 & 1/2 years of listening to atheist rebuttals to Christian apologetics, and Justin somehow didn’t manage to absorb any of it.
Ya, you're default position of nonintelligence creating the Universe is the bottom line of Atheistism: it's the most irrational thinking and totally illogical. That's why!
You mean "evolution has been observed just not when it's happening."- Dawkins.
Or how about.
"Universes are free! Maybe two bubbles hit each other!"-astrophysicist atheist.
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.
@@MichaelAChristian1 - Soooo… I guess if you cherry pick two partial quotes, robbed of their context, and ignore the hundreds of hours of additional conversations with hundreds of other atheists and non-Christians over the last nearly two decades, then you can feebly justify your desired conclusions about atheism, I guess?
@@TestMeatDollSteak
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."- Michael Ruse.
If they hear NOT Moses and the prophets neither will they hear though one rose from the dead. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Jesus Christ loves you! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.
@@MichaelAChristian1And yet I can't think of anyone who advances it the way Ruse describes. Curious!
Justin's main blindspot is that he's analyzing these issues from too religious a lens. He credits all western moral development to Christianity because it's based on compassion, and surely compassion was invented by Christianity. He looks at the obsession with wokeism as a religious impulse, instead of a outflowing of manufactured political outrage bait. People are becoming more interested in Catholicism because they're finding legitimate truth value in it all of a sudden, nevermind that all the people "realigning" on this happen to be right wing political pundits hyping "return to tradition" aesthetics and political messaging.
Concise and on point analysis. I wonder what you have to say on semi-religious "spiritual" people becoming almost brainwashed by old conspiracy theories, since Alex and other atheists seem to completely ignore this.
brierly is a two faced pond scum, spend a few minutes listening to him and his apologist mates with no atheists around, all they do is atheist bash.
And Alex accepted all the chauvinistic garbage wholesale, not s lick of pushback.
I would push back on the idea that christian morality is based on compassion. The majority of the Bible focuses more on obedience.
The thing is, Justin isn't doing this on his own - there are countless non-religious historians and sociologists who are making the same point. Quite strongly, in fact.
Listening to Justin, You'd think Christian values are birthed from thin air whereas Christianity also borrowed from the culture before it.. Even if Christianity shaped the morality of today it does not mean that we cannot rebuke it and move away from it to a better moral standard.. What even is the point of mentioning that?
It is by pure arrogance to assume another persons good graces to be your own. As if envy is a merit, or lacking as a quality. Religion is a cruel joke played upon children.
I'd argue, as a Christian who studied theology, that so-called moral Christian values were never a "moral consensus" anywhere in the world. And certainly not in any European country. Influences came from basically everywhere. Greek philosophy, Islam, the enlightenment. Heck, just today I talked with my wife about how Marquis de Sade had an influence on criminal law with his theory that murder because of lust, rage, etc should be treated differently from cold blooded murder. And that's exactly what we see in criminal law. And it's based on de Sade of all people. He also made a very good argument for the relativity of all moral values.
@@MrSeedi76 I agree with you totally.
Great conversation!
Wonderful conversation! Thank you!
The victory in this conversation is the civilized tone of the participants .
I am 70 years old. I believed in Christianity all my life. I no longer believe in the God of the Bible or that Jesus was the son of God, but I am not an atheist. I believe in a intelligence in what we see and observe. I lean heavily toward the NDE testamonies.
I'm very impressed. Lovely conversation.
A beautiful, highly interesting and honest conversation - could not take my eyes and ears off it. Well done, Alex - full respect to you for a great interview. Impressed also by Justin’s insights and fluency.
What no, Justin spins bullshit for like half the runtime.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 That is exactly the kind of graceless and ignorant remark that atheists have become well-known for, particularly since they mistakenly styled themselves as “new”.
@@benjaminjenkins2384 What a typically graceless reply from the commenting atheist. Little wonder that “new atheism” didn’t last very long.
@@superman00001 I don't appreciate word games and I don't like to beat around the bush. If that's something you have a problem with, I don't care. He constantly reiterates how Christianity is allegedly responsible for the moral character of so called "Western civilization."
Another thought: I wonder whether Justin - or any of Alex's Christian conversation partners over the years - is as genuinely open to changing their mind, as Alex is to changing his
A committed Christian can never be open to changing their mind. They can only, as Justin says, find some passages challenging, whilst still believing them as the word of God
@@paulwellings-longmore1012the word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. That claim in itself is fundamentalist. And I only see these types of strawman debates honestly.
@@MrSeedi76 are you able to expand on this a little please? Who are the strawmen and who are the real men?
the problem with religists is they have god listening to every conversation they have and they are petrified of hell, whether they admit it or not, if you believed in hell you'd be wetting your pants at the thought of annoying god, so, they can't be trusted, they would lie, cheat, steal, sacrifice a family member rather than annoy god - never trust a christian. it wasn't catholics stopped the inquisition.
@@MrSeedi76"The word of God is Jesus not the bible."
How do you know this is true?
You're making a claim with no evidence to back it up. At best you have a person who may have been a loose representation of Jesus with possibly a different name who did exist and get crucified. The evidence for that isn't very good. But let's assume this person did exist. We still have no good evidence to believe he performed supernatural acts and was what the bible claims. That's a huge leap to make.
My West African ancestors would turn in their grave if they were told that before the white man landed on their shores with the Bible, they knew nothing about human dignity and compassion.
what is your favourite greek god?
@@srrysdrthu6716 Hermes. Messenger of the gods and the patron of thieves but truth be told I've always loved the demi-gods more. Achilles is my all time favorite.
@@SkinnyGreekGod cool :D
Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe
Wouldn’t they turn in their graves to know what Africans did to Africans. Africans are the worst in this they always blame whites for slavery even though it was started by Africans and banned by whites.
It's not about "changing your mind" as you said, it's about something being changed inside of you that the mind begins to realize.
Hi Paul!
So it is about changing your mind after all.
@@niemand7811 Which is the literal definition of "repent".
It seems to me that the 'rebirth' is a new tack for Christians in the age of social media. I see so many formulaic comments along the lines of 'I can't believe I used to think Christopher Hitchens (other Atheist thinker) was right, but now I've grown up I realise Jesus is the guy for me". Strikes me as an attempted reboot.
It's the shame what they're doing to Hitch, when you have clowns like Michael Knowles going on his podcast to "debate" a dead man.
The response to the atheists attacks on Christianity has grown and had to improve on our defense of Christianity.
Also with the liberal consensus of secular Biblical Scholarship by atheists and exChristians in their attack specifically on the Bible and their attempted redaction of many interpretations has a large influence on secular society from liberal Religious studies programs on trying to debunk the Bible as only a man-made literature without any Divine authority.
I am one of them. Christopher hitches was wrong.
I just call it "Talking ill about the dead", which is most definitely a religious hobby. At least pick a guy who is still alive to rebute your idiotic nonsense.
All it shows me is that even something as rigid as religion, can still degenerate into moral bankrupcy.
@@MohitKumar-jf8lzHow?
If the decrease in faith does not matter, then the increase in faith does not matter.
Good point!
A wonderful conversation about God without the antagonism. I loved reading Dominion as well. It certainly turned on a few light bulbs for me.
Peterson gets pissed when he suspects you're telling him what he believes, yet has no problem proclaiming atheists don't really exist.
As a christian Peterson is a fraud
I don’t understand this link between Christianity and equality (for women, for races/ethnicities, whatever) when it took said Christian nations almost 2,000 years to get there and we’re still working on it. If it had been 200 years, maybe, but 2,000? I don’t see how there can even be a correlation, let alone causation.
Sure it is a subtle thing, but we may say that the whole cultural and intellectual environment that Christianity created during the centuries posed the bases (or some of the bases) for our modern conception of social and moral issues like equality etc., the core of that being the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This remains valid even if Jesus was not God and did not resurrected: his moral message was truly remarkable.
You say "the least 200 years"... well, one of the problems in the Middle Ages was that girls of noble families were often forced to get married at a very young age for the political purposes of their families. Who opposed that, saying the a girl should get married at least only when she can express a conscious consent? Some bishops. Feminists ante litteram? Who knows...
History is a complex thing, the influences of the current culture can be traced back in the centuries, but at the same time, every époque has its own problems, issues and quirks: equality was never an issue (not as we define it nowadays) before 200 years ago, so how do you expect the Church to fight for it?
I am pretty sure that apologetics are also dying right now…
The war is over… Atheism won… last year alone a million people left the church in Germany.
Atheism hasn't won. It's not even a worldview. It's a lack of one.
Fundamentalism has lost to Science because it refused to grow and adapt.
@@BaA-zz4pqWhere are you from? What are you forced to do in the mosque?
Germany isn't the world : atheistism hasn't won anything as it's a minority all over the world!
@@sabar2453Forced to glorify a pedo prophet and an inhumane scam of a religion.
@@BaA-zz4pq You have my sympathy and understanding. I once had to act like that in a super-Christian society.
I consider myself a little-a "atheist" when it comes to God, a big-A "Atheist" when it comes to the Christian God.
I appreciate that this point was touched on here, but in general i wish more discussions wouldn't automatically conflate the two
Yes, I had the same thought exactly
Neither Islam or Christianity has a coherent argument that would exclude one from the other.
Hell, they cant reasonably exclude any form of monotheism from their own nonsense without any cherry picking.
@@rp-ot6ov Good question! I think that it's possible that we humans, with our tiny material bodies and brains, can't have a handle on the everything that's in/around/outside the cosmos. It's not likely (which is the atheist in the little-a atheist) that a god or something that is remotely like a god exists, but it is likely that there's more to the cosmos than we can ever know.
Also, what is God? A human like God with a form and a will? Haha nope! But expanding the definition includes concepts like matter-from-consciousness, Brahman, etc.
So no, such a "god" isn't gonna come down and say anything 😆
@@rp-ot6ov pretty simple. There might be a being out there that is responsible for our creation and that we would label as a "god" but no one knows what its actual deal is so all these religious interpretations are man-made nonsense. Not something I personally believe but it feels perfectly plausible.
@@ZangelinBigfoot and aliens are plausible. More so than "that one exact christian god". Other than that we can float around in the realms of deism or agnosticism, or simply accept that there is no evidence for a god, by which no differentiation would be necessary.
This is a good convo.
Alex is sharp as usual. The conversation is great.
Did Brierly just claim (27:10) that countries without a history of Christianity don't come up with the same fair societal values that we currently adopt? Uhhh bro Scandinavia would like to have a word with you.
Exactly what I was thinking. And they do it better in Scandinavia as well.
@@Besthinktwice I would say that general prosperity and good living conditions allow societies the luxury of working to increase equality for it's citizens. It's hard to care about e.g. trans rights when you're in a coal mine for 16 hours a day making peanuts. Modern Japan would seem to be consistent with this hypothesis.
On the other hand, Brierly seems happy to just assert that it's "because of Christianity" and leave it at that =/
I don't understand your comment. Scandinavia was (in some form) influenced by Christian values for last 1000 years.
You need to back to Vikings and before that when violence, raping, pillaging and slavery was the norm for non-Christian Scandinavia.
@@josipkrnjic279 Read a book dude, you're fabricating shit. "Pagan" (pre-Christian) values were not at all like that.
I know it's uncomfortable for me as someone who has spent only a bit over a month total in China to challenge an actual Chinese person on Chinese philosophy, but I would quite like to know how many Chinese people agree with claim that their traditional culture would simply be unable to articulate any argument against brutal tyranny.
Traditionally, they would have said that the ruling dynasty had lost the Mandate of Heaven and the people therefore had the right to rebel.
Here in the US, Religion isn't having a resurgance, and Atheism and agnosticism, is still growing. But one thing that IS going on is that religion is working to consolidate power. They've succeeded in working their way into our government, stacked the deck in elections to favor their wins, and are going after soft targets that the general public tend not to notice or bother to vote in, such as local government, and especially school boards. They've identified a weakness in how people vote in our country and they're exploiting it to grab as much power as they can. Voter turnout for presidential elections are huge. But turnout for mid-term elections and for local elections is usually very low, and that gives them an edge in those elections. A huge problem is that the general public just doesn't seem to understand how government works and that those elections other than the presidential one are the most important ones to vote in. So there's a definite religious conservative power grab and power consolidation underway here.
I did enjoy it. Thanks Alex and Justin.
If I were to summarise Justin's input in this entire discussion I would say that his capacity for compartmentalisation is impressive, to the point where his claims are almost "Quantum" in nature !
Statistics show a decline in numbers of believers, but with a little excusagist massaging and touch of whispy fluff, we can completely flip that state of affairs !
Christianity's influence on society weakened to the degree that most prominent atheists are now concentrating on other issues! it must mean that christianity is winning!!!!!!!
By the way, the whole thing of Christianity growing outside of the west, while declining in th west, is not at all surprising as Justin says, actually it is so trivial that can be totally explained by the combination of globalization with human development index (HDI).
It is well known that religious belief is stronger in harder times, and if you look at which countries are growing in religiosity, they are all between 0.6 and 0.8 (approximately), HDI. This means developing countries. The countries that are getting irreligious are all developed (0.9 and above HDI).
Globalization gives people access to foreign religions they were never exposed to, so get your conclusions on what it is actually expected with those two premises.
Th "grim" (for Justin) conclusion to this established and recognizable pattern, is that if those countries will develop enough, they will start getting irreligious as well.
I find it quite funny that the world follows statistics so obviously, surely looks like something an omnipotent being would do! 😂
It's even more basic than that. Christianity is growing fastest where the population is growing the fastest. The dirty little secret about Christianity is that somewhere around 98-99% of all Christians were born and raised in a Christian family and/or community. By comparison, virtually nobody is converting from a different faith religion. It's all inherited. Even the vast majority of "born-again" believers were raised as Christians and merely strayed for a few years before returning.
exactly.. all the future predictions of growth of x or y religion completely ignores the reason that religion crashed in the west. Take away the desperation of people and they will find less use for religion.
I must confess that I have previously allowed myself to get a bit (sometimes more than a bit) reactionary to the content of yours which I've seen, Alex. I'm about 25 minutes into this interview, and I recognize that I was ignorant/wrong to have the rather presumptuous perception that you were primarily intent upon mocking and making a fool of Christians and Christianity. You are a wonderful discussion partner. This is very refreshing to watch.
Thank you man.
The average age of attendees at churches and mosques is rising every year.
That is false at least in the west.
@@mevan883 meh, I don't know the statistics well enough but it seems that the vast majority of churchgoers in the last few decades have been the much older population, rather than younger people, despite the fact that the US has plenty of young people who could be going to church. This seems to suggest that the church will die out assuming the younger generations dont start going to church again
Not sure I can stand another Justin interview but I'll listen at some point. It's just i can almost predict everything he says now.
Indeed, he may have hosted many non-believers, but he doesn't appear to have actually listened to anything they said.
@@EnglishMike never trust a christian, especially an apologist, two faced dog poop IMHO.
@@EnglishMikeHe listens carefully with a tightly closed mind.
I feel I've been drawn to spirituality, but it's basically just resigning to the fact of "I really don't know, and I'm at peace with it".
I was more "decidedly" atheist when I was younger but now I am as agnostic as you can be. Maybe it's sentimentality/delusion of old age but it seems as if there's something connecting all far beyond our human consciousness.
I suppose the bigger point is...how the hell could we ever know? It's all a mystery, my eyes are wide open. So for that reason I've become an "extreme agnostic" in the last few years. I've also stopped worrying about it for that very reason though.
You don’t have to be certain a God doesn’t exist to be described as an atheist, you just have to not be convinced that one does.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.
You're asking how could we ever know about a phenomenon that you just created by way of a feeling or a perception you have. If that's the premise by which you shift towards spiritual belief then its a match made in heaven.
@@MichaelAChristian1 The more I learned about Christianity, the less I believed it to be true.
@@sum8601 Something beyond this life is entirely possible, that's all I'm saying. It would be ignorant to conclusively say that this plane of consciousness is all there is.
All I'm saying is I can't conclusively state either way, and that embracing that there are mysteries beyond that the human collective will never comprehend is an entirely rational thought
Great interview! I wonder though, is Justin as open to changing his mind as Alex claims to be?
Briarly seems to think that popular non-believer TH-camrs turning away from "new atheism" in their content is a sign that people are turning back toward Christianity.
These people's incomes depend on their content. The content of New atheism isn't selling primarily because people are getting tired. Of course they're going to turn to something that generates more content consumption (often pseudo-libertarianism, anti-LGBTQ+, conspiracy theories and MAGA politics). Clearly Dawkins has done this and so have Douglas Murray and Boghossian.
Have their views changed? I don't think we can tell.
I don't think Justin's views matter much. He was listening to debates for 20 years yet he still uses the weakest arguments himself.
Cited frank turek as having "an interesting argument". Lol.
@@uninspired3583 Yea. He's a perfect example of a person who will always believe, because he just wants to. Arguments don't matter and the books are just a cash printers for him, not actual attempts to fight for his believes.
he doesn't care as long as he can feel superior, if i;m "new atheist" he's "new christian" - subs, likes, books sales, patrons, ZERO interest in what jesus was about. brierly is LOATHSOME.
That's a lot of religious apologists: virtually all have arguments that have been debunked or strongly counter-argued. Some of them have been crushed literally decades ago.
This isn't a debate, and he does have good arguments, in a conversational level atleast, and this video isn't titled "Justin's argument for belief in God" is it?
I am having a really big problem with the careless way in which religious belief, organized religion, and secularism are being treated here as all the same thing. A small portion of the population, which is not growing too fast, is the firebrand atheists which models itself quite a bit on New Atheism. It has not died out and it will not grow quickly in the near future. Another is now called the "nones", and is growing like wildfire. This is the one group that is depleting the ranks of organized religion, and it is a lot more related to secularism than to either strong atheism or organized religion. You can claim that there is a huge rebirth of belief in God because most of the nones might answer "yes" to the question of "does a god or gods exist?" but they are not rebooting religion, they are mostly organizing their lives without abiding by or thinking much about organized religions.
The people who are going to reduce every organized religion to its bones are not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, or strong atheists in general, they are the ones who say "Jesus is love, I like love, I like to believe that some higher being exists, and for everything else just don't bother me with religion".
Can you do me a solid and define these words for me, and describe in what way you set them apart from one another?
"New Atheism"
"Strong Atheism"
"Weak Atheism"
"Firebrand Atheism"
"Non religious"
"Nones"
Because to me, it seems like a very fanfic type of pokemon naming from a religious perspective, to be honest.
You gave sort of a definition of "nones", but are they not already defined as simply cherry pickers?
Weird and confusing, to say the least.
@@JEDUBBELLE The differences between the above are crucial, and are marking big issues in the changing religious landscape. Nones are not cherry pickers, they are people who have left the organized religions and may or may not be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. Non-religious are exactly that: people who don't have a place for religion in their life. They usually believe that no god or gods exist, but will not study the subject or engage in discussions with anyone on the subject. Weak atheists, also called generically agnostics by some, usually take a stand saying that they believe no gods exist, but consider the matter unprovable or unknowable. All of the categories above are similar in the position of mostly not engaging with or against any religious organization or claim.
On the other hand, firebrand atheists, strong atheists, new atheists, anti-theists, and atheists+, to name a few, are actively engaging against all of the organized religions, and against all religious claims. They will protest, they will actively make the case that religious people are wrong, and some will make the case that religion is intimately linked with many kinds of evil.
The group that you did not mention and is arguably the most important is the secularists, or people working for the separation of church and state.
You might be right in saying that some of the above are almost identical, but it would be a historical mistake to put them all in the same bag.
@@JEDUBBELLE PS. There are cherry pickers in every religion and every religious organization and every atheist group. There are Jews who eat pork, and Catholics that believe that a sacramental wafer is just bread, and strong atheists that believe in ghosts. There are even Bible literalists who believe that Noah's Ark did not literally exist. Thank God, or the Cosmos, all of us human beings are cherry pickers.
This is a great conversation 45:05
Aw yes, let's ignore the thousands of religious traditions across the globe, the thousands of years of strong moral philosophy and ethical theory from all over the globe, and the ability to construct your own framework and attitude in opposition to your surroundings... but yeah no, definitely a Christian worldview that makes us atheists "good people." Honestly the only reason why we can have conversations like this with people like this is that WE (atheists) are tired... we are tired of the same BS and western christians thinking that their shit doesn't stink. Alex, please continue your great work and how you maintain composure is beyond me - but if you ask me, let's bring the furvor back.
Apparently Christianity invented compassion. Before that all the brown savages of the world were just killing and eating eachother I guess. Its absurd that he makes that point unchallenged here.
My goodness! Justin's defense of the obvious contradictions between modern secular morality and "Biblical" morality are mental gymnastics amazing to behold!
How do you mean?
All the polling I see shows religion slowly fading in the US and it's faded away far more in Europe. There is a lot more religious stridency, intolerance, and forced conformity coming from the radical-right in the US but not greater numbers over all.
I can't speak to the developing world but that would be more of a change from one religion to another. Perhaps places like China where religious suppression makes people want to rebel against enforced conformity.
A god that wants people to know and love him seems rather needy doesn't it if he was perfect before us. He allegedly pitched the first batch of human's in the sea like so many burnt cookies despite having known when he created them that he'd do that.
The radical right is increasingly populated by non-believers too. Peter Boghossian is rethinking his hostility to Christianity only because he realizes that the Christian right are important allies in the politically driven culture war that's going on in the US. Progressives are the common enemy.
So we in the West decry murder and rape and sexual slavery and the abuse of children by virtue of inheriting Judeo-Christian values and using those values as a moral compass? Is this to suggest that those from a Buddhist or Hindu or pagan culture would be basically okay with those depredations, having been denied a Judeo-Christian culture?
Christian apologia is all well and fine, and I wish this gentlemen well with his book tour and an honest reception from all people of open minds. But I must admit, this argument is deeply specious to me.
Alex, have you read Maps of Meaning?
"Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God".
While the belief in Gods is falling world wide, not increasing.
Justin appears a nice 'happy clappy ' Christian type lad, though misses the point that the decline in religious belief has been ongoing over the last 100 years post WW1.
What like about this channel is the fact of it being a conversation, it’s not adversarial.
What a great conversation
Eventually, when you end up emotionally broken and Surrender your logic and integrity - then you're ready to become a Christian. That's the "Leap of faith" they are talking about. "Works" with any other magic solution, but the problem still remains. It gets worse.😅😉
I have no desire to surrender my "logic and integrity.". It may work for some people but I tend to question things.
Respectfully...
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think you might be utterly missing the point that I'm making here John. I'm not giving any advices here to you personally or anyone else. I'm just giving an example of how one could be lead to take the wrong path out of sheer despair. Respectfully.
All the moral values attributed to the Judeo Christian religion were recognized throughout the world thousands of years before any word of them were written in any form, Biblical or otherwise, and were adopted by many thousands of religions and attributed to many thousands of gods adopted before and since the invention of Jesus. All those thousands of gods are equally real, as human subjective creations, and none has ever required objective evidence as a prerequisite for their creators to believe in them. The subjective reality of gods is not in question, it is their objective reality that has never been demonstrated.
No it wasn’t.
Bingo!
Justin is a person who has for over 15 years seen theists fail to produce a single sound argument or evidence of the existence of god, nevertheless still continues to believe in him. I saw a recent debate where he exposed the best arguments he had, and they were extremely weak... It is very hard to really take anything that comes from him seriously.
Can't decide if Alex's interviews are all softballs or if softball is a great, honest, enlightening game and it's a stupid metaphor
Because Christians will only come on if it's a softball interview
Hardball tends to get emotional, and wind up throwing playground sand rather than working through logic.
Softball with the tension removed is more likely to produce intellectual progress.
There's a place for both, sometimes it's nice to warm my hands by a good dumpster fire.
@@uninspired3583😂😂😂😂 love this
I have very mixed thoughts and feelings about the various things said by each of you in this discussion.
There were moments where each of you were impressively thoughtful and reasonable.
There were moments where Justin gets away with some gaslighting nonsense and you (Alex) are supportive of it.
There were moments where you brilliantly negate some bit of nonsense he was trying to get away with.
But at least it was overall thought provoking and has potential to forward the discussions for others.
Agreed. Wish that Justins numerous fallacies would have been adressed.
Far too many of Justin's baseless assertions were allowed to go unchallenged.
I have so much respect for Alex for having these conversations. I've been watching his videos for about 7 years, and I've seen him grow so much in that time. The only way we can grow as people is to be able to have civil respectful discussions with those holding beliefs different than our own, and Alex does an amazing job of that. We could ALL stand to follow his example
2 likes, lol
I have visited Nigeria for business purposes working with hospitals there, and unfortunately I have to say that the Christianity I saw there has grown to become rather toxic. It has been heavily influenced by the Pentacostal form of Christianity in the U.S. The rights of LGBT people are non-existent. Grifters and fake faith healers are far too common. The "prosperity" gospel has also taken hold so imagine the worst TV evangelists from the US, but in Nigerian form. There is a tendency to treat mental illness with a religious rather than medical approach. I could go on and on about the cultural impact of Christianity there, but little of it was good from my perspective.
It is amazing to see how it seems easy to argue that everything that would be considered as progress on values (good) gets attached to Judeo-Christian values. It would be equally easy to attach Democracy, Law practice, Government structure and other as Greco_Roman Values
Ya, but I don't support democracy. so, there is that.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙️ Justin Briley hosted the "Unbelievable" show for 17 and a half years, focusing on Christian-atheist debates and discussions.
01:24 📚 Justin Briley is now working on a new book titled "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God," exploring the resurgence of interest in Christianity.
03:15 🇬🇧 Religious belief has been on the decline in the UK, with over half of people claiming no religion, but this doesn't necessarily disprove God's existence.
07:24 📢 New atheism emerged in response to religious extremism, especially after 9/11, aiming to challenge religious beliefs and promote atheism.
09:27 🤔 There's debate about the definition of atheism, whether it's a lack of belief in God or the belief that there is no God.
11:33 🧪 The new atheists argued that science contradicts religion, but this claim is based on selective, often outdated arguments.
15:20 🌎 The new atheists often portrayed religion as inherently bad, but there are counterexamples showing the value of religious contributions to culture.
20:06 📖 The new atheists criticized the Bible based on Christian values, revealing a cultural blind spot in their perspective.
20:47 🤔 Atheism's perspective can be shaped by cultural backgrounds, influencing how individuals view religious texts and morality.
23:20 📜 The critique of Old Testament morality can vary based on cultural context, with Judeo-Christian values forming a foundation for criticism.
26:32 💭 Judeo-Christian values have played a significant role in shaping Western moral frameworks, leading to ideas of equality, dignity, and human rights.
33:22 🏛️ A shift towards secularism in Western societies hasn't erased the influence of Christian ideals but has led to divergent interpretations and applications.
40:25 🙏 The decline of traditional religion has given rise to quasi-religious beliefs, such as those surrounding social justice, in contemporary culture.
42:31 🤔 People are searching for stories to make sense of their lives, but many contradict each other.
43:55 📚 The New Atheism movement has shifted its focus away from critiquing religion to other ideological concerns.
45:34 📜 Academics like Peter Boghossian have critiqued politically correct narratives in academia and their impact on academic freedom.
48:25 💡 The conversation about God and religion is changing, and some prominent atheists are recognizing the value of religion.
56:54 🙏 People like Douglas Murray and Tom Holland may not fully embrace Christianity, but they are exploring its merits and historical influence.
59:14 🧐 The shift towards recognizing the value of religion may lead to a more nuanced middle ground rather than outright conversions.
01:03:22 🤔 Jordan Peterson's idea: Jesus as the ultimate fictional character, approximating the ultimate myth.
01:04:01 🧐 The Christian myth as a foundational myth - subject to interpretation.
01:05:10 🙏 Jordan Peterson's focus on living life as if God exists, reflecting inner beliefs through actions.
01:06:36 💭 The role of surrender in faith, laying down intellectual questions in favor of belief.
01:07:31 🌟 Personal conviction and settled belief play a significant role in most Christian journeys.
01:09:51 🤝 Intellectual arguments alone may not lead to religious conversion.
01:13:44 🤔 Thought-provoking conversations and open-mindedness are contributing to the ongoing dialogue on belief in God.
Made with HARPA AI
New Atheism debates taught me man created god.
There are more to mention: Pinker, De Waal, Swaab, Atkins
Thank you for this conversation Alex. I appreciate it. Can I suggest talking to Jonathan Pageau for another interesting Christian perspective.
super nice episode
Yes, Justin, only *your* myth became fact.
So to become a Christian, do I just need to stop caring about whether or not it's actually true and just go along with it for the greater good of society?
"Greater good" is still quite a leap of a claim. Unless you'd consider slavery or witch hunts as such.
Alex has been entertaining the idea in various conversations. Maybe after a few years Alex will make a similar turn on the Monarchy. Well sure, they're a bunch of pompous billionaires that are above the law, wield undemocratic power and are overpayed with tax-money and famous for the sake of being famous. But what if there is some unknown utility to the institution you know. Can we really risk tearing the monarchy down and throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
@@JEDUBBELLE Yep, completely depends on how literally or metaphorically someone interprets the texts or which bits they choose to ignore entirely which can mean the difference between a fundamentalist and a liberal. It's a vague, ambiguous mess.
Yes, that's exactly how this works. If you care about what is actually true, you can't start with your conclusion. You start with observation, and if you do that it doesn't get you anywhere near a religion.
To end up at religion you start with feelings.
@@snoopy10411it has always been thus - vague, I mean. That's the nice thing about it. Even Jesus himself was picking and choosing from the OT.
And in essence - one might first ask what the word truth actually means in connection with religion. Does it mean a simple literal truth of an ancient text? Then I'd say, even as a Christian, no, it's not true. Do I think some kind of truth is expressed in the text? Yes. Problem is that this truth is often the truth of myths. And myths have a bad rap nowadays being basically considered man made lies. But that simply wasn't the thinking of the people who wrote it.
Just a tiny example - one could interpret the Genesis myth literally with being just a story about a piece of fruit and disobedience. Or it could be interpreted as the loss of innocence as soon as humanity developed enough intelligence to actually choose between options and not act on instinct. My cat isn't evil because she likes to play with the mouse. If my kid would have tortured mice when he was small, I'd be much more concerned.
"Despite Christianity, one area in the world at one time developed our western secular values, allowing Atheists to speak without Religion managing to fully stamp it down as before and elsewhere. Therefore Christianity doesn't just deserve credit its failure to prevent this, but for all the good that has arisen in society as a result."
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.
@@MichaelAChristian1 Ah yes. Unrelated Christian spam bot posts. Truly king of tools of conversion.
Great talk gents!!
*Only for the **_lucky few_** ;*
In a world full of people pushing false religious beliefs, _at least as far as Christians are concerned,_ it's sad to see them assert that every one else is just making it up except for them.
Well at least for their _specific version/denomination_ of Christianity.
Only that's not true. Unless you only engage in debates with fundamentalists. Even the Apostle Paul claimed that pagans are a law unto themselves when following what their conscience tells them.
@@MrSeedi76 What's "specifically not true" about my comment ?
*A law onto themselves?*
As Christianity has a long history of being the single moral authority for many countries & cultures, and enforcing laws based on their religious beliefs, I see no reason to exclude them from your assertion.
Alex, I would love to talk to you about this conversation. It appears that you're just talking past each other. I will also say it was one of the best conversations I've heard in years about the topic. I did have an epiphany as I was listening to you and Justin. We do have to transition to a new way of thinking when we talk about the morphing of religion into philosophy and ethics. We get so hung up about the labels, judeo Christian, atheist, Christian, God, and must start to look at it on a different level.
Justin is nice, yet delusional with optimism of a belief itself for which he actually concedes is second to its truthfulness. And for every “surprising conversion” he refers to, I could match him with 3-4 deconversions.
Most atheists are just tired of arguing about the same thing over and over again. this doesn't mean there's a surprise rebirth of belief in God.
Most Christians are tired too. I think the both groups should just not try to convince the other side of anything.
True, there is a limit to the number of times you can push the atheist message again and again. Richard Dawkins is still doing this by repeating old video clips and some new ones, and full videos, because he feels very passionately about it! Justin Brierley saying that atheists don't seem to care anymore, and his talking of a rebirth of a belief in God is utter rubbish. I haven't heard any famous atheists saying they have seen the light and are bowing down to god or a religion, or anything like that because it won't happen. they are too intelligent. Here is Richard Dawkins' latest short video clip!
th-cam.com/users/shorts8W7I3_ss9V0?feature=shared
Christianity has so many holes in it that arguments for me it are a non-starter. I think it's basically infinitely easier to argue that religion is wrong than it is that it's correct because of that. It's a huge uphill battle for apologists if you're trying to use reason. You basically have to throw away all of science to argue Christianity is true. The same goes for the others. I am definitely tired of apologists who use tired arguments, as if they haven't heard any of the counterarguments of the last half-century.
I think these people are better off to argue that they believe a god exists but that the religious doctrine is extremely faulty, inconsistent, and proven false in some cases. Basically arguing that "we still don't understand how the universe came to be". You lose a lot of baggage when cutting out religious doctrine.
@@daniel-panek That's not the whole picture, IMHO. I was and remained a Christian for the first 30 years of my life because until then I had never encountered serious objections to my faith. I have listened to many of the various Dawkins, Hitches, Onfray... I've always found the vast majority of their claims very weak and easily demolishable, if not false, especially when they deal with the Bible or with Ethics. It was only when I learned enough about behavioural biology, neuroscience, ethology and astrophysics, only then my faith was dismantled. But I had to dig an awful lot, and I reached that results only because of my incredible curiosity and love for the Truth. My biology professor in high school taught me nothing interesting about science, so I'm actually more angry with him than with the priests that sustained my faith during my adolescence.
All these best-sellers Atheist often cause more damages to the Atheist cause than the religion apologists. For example if you look at the thesis of Bart Ehrman, he seems to demolish some New Testament truths, until you realise the embarrassing quantity of cherry picking and omissions in his dissertations. Is he giving a good service to the anti-religious cause?
Former atheist here, saved by a stupendous intervention from what I now know to be God - it's all grace. I love Alex as the most honest atheist and Justin as a most honest Christian. Very good conversation.
Saved? From what? S'il te plaît réponds-moi en français.
Oh stop it. You know what I mean.
@@cachinnation448 well, not really actually, from a live without belief?
@@cachinnation448 No we do not know what you mean. We know some typicalochristian made claims. But that is what you belief. What you believe in does not transcribe to knowledge. It means we know what you claim to believe but not what you really mean as we do not experience your belief on our own terms.
God bless you, and welcome home ❤@@cachinnation448
The atheistic focus on the Old Testament fails it seems to appreciate that the scaffolding is not the building. The scaffolding is an otherwise useless but necessary fixture in order for the actual building to come into existence. Blaming the scaffolding for not providing a proper structure for housing human beings is a misunderstanding, possibly deliberate, of it's only function.
On what planet is his book set?
lol best comment right there
Isn't this great "growth" in global christianity, mostly just attributable to population growth.
edit: after some googling while the growth seems to be largely attributable to population growth, there are a fair number of converts especially in certain countries and regions like east and south-east Asia and sub-saharan Africa
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.
@@MichaelAChristian1
boring comment
@@MichaelAChristian1Educate yourself. Just like parts of Africa and Asia ought to do.
This is too easy.
I believe there may be a flux in religiosity when people feel like they're in a bad situation. The effects of a global pandemic, for example, would qualify. You said it was something else but I figured I'd offer that consideration if you had an interest in it.
@@JEDUBBELLE You believe you are related to an orange and cockroach. Wake up or you'll end up just like hitchens.
Justin is so polite and well spoken, that it’s easy to forget he’s full of shit…
Justin, bless him, is a bit too 'happy clappy' but means well.
@@iainrae6159 Yeah, I think he’s trying to be honest, but so much of what he says is nonsense.
He could give a master class in post hoc rationalisation
He’s really passive aggressive.
You guys were not affected at all by the intellectual arrogance and nievete of Dawkins. BTW Dawkins was the laughing stock of the academic world. It was only the popularist idea added to peoples general desire to blame God for their problems that gave him a platform - especially when God doesnt exist? How dare anyone be weak and nice like Julian - it doesnt fit into our dog eat dog NO MORALITY worldview. Pah
Justin seems to be far more comfortable responding to and discussing the very leading question about the "substitution hypothesis" and other topics after that topic. Justin stops figleafing that income generator like a barrier and initiates more symmetrical illustrating with both hands.
what does "having a lion on saturday morning" means here? 3:12 😅 (I am not a native english speaker)
not lion, "lie in" as in, sleep in
oh thanks ❤ it makes sense now😅@@elijahtaylor4698
For those who have always been Atheist, which specific god, gods, religion and denomination best represents reality and why is that the case? What are the consequences for picking the wrong one and why does religious bais mostly follow cultural and geographical norms? I don't see how someone who isn't religious because they haven't found any of the arguments for religion to be compelling can just pick a religion at random without some divine, unambiguous and abundantly clear and personal display of evidence. Or should people pretend to believe and hope that that over time they are able to delude themselves into sincere belief? For most non believers who have never been religious or raised in a religious environment, non-belief is the default position until sufficient evidence is presented to warrant belief. How does a Christian determine that there is a god and then that a very specific god exists and how would they counteract the sincere claims of another religion which has contradictory beliefs. How do they reliably demonstrate why their world view true and someone else's isn't and why don't those same things also apply to their own beliefs?
Chorons, is my favourite and I could make an argument for his existence but not quite in the way it was originally invented.
Also pantheism but if everything is god then kind of nothing is.
This post has "Which is your favorite Marvel superhero and why" type of vibes.
@@JEDUBBELLE Precisely
@@snoopy10411 How about "who cares", and stop abusing other groups of people and diddling kids.
Individuals like Justin give me the creeps.
The old gods that didn't rely on claims such as "creator of the universe" let alone the other often claimed traits, such as "all powerful, all knowing, all loving, gave us free will" which contradict reality and/or themselves. The "gods" such as Zeus, Thor, etc. I could find far more believable (Though still extremely doubtful) as the general idea isn't that far fetched. A humanoid that can control the weather? Sure, why not. At least those are both things we know to exist. This is, of course, an extremely loose view on the validity of those specific gods, and more gods of their nature, but in my defense... that's what theists do too, aside from the creationist fundamentalists etc.
The consequences of believing in things that cannot be verified experimentally, or worse can be falsified, is the breakdown of trust in science, and in objective truth. The worst part, in my opinion, is that most theists are willing to abandon most of their claims, temporarily, and still call themselves [insert religious denomination here]. It's like the opposite of the paradox Alex talks about, where if asked you'd say one of your beliefs is wrong, but with examination you'd say you believe them to be true, and yet remain convinced that one of them is wrong. Probably ties in to why anything that is ultimately accepted by religion is then considered "that religions idea".
Or, alternatively, there was a priest I read about, though have struggled to find again, who reflected and came to believe that "God" was "nothingness itself" which does kind of align with my current belief in the "origin" of the "universe".
I must confess (pun intended)…
My initial comment was made before I was even close to finishing this video. As I continued to watch, it was comical to see that no matter what positive development Alex mentioned has taken place in modern society, Justin always assumes this positive development is only possible because of Christianity. Imagine a person who every time you tell them something good has happened in the world they say, “that is because of me”. Justin is doing the same thing only projecting it onto Christianity which just so happens to be his world view. I don’t know Justin personally. He may be a good person. But his ideas are stupid…On a tots side note, I have noticed that many people seem to think that being “smart” and being a “good person” go hand and hand. Having a “Big brain” does not mean one has a “good heart” and vice versa. There are many wonderful people out there in the world who are not “book smart”, who have not taken the time or perhaps have not had the time to formulate their ideas on these “deeper” subjects. And that is okay. Not everyone needs to be a “philosopher”….
That's a really good point, glad I thought of it
Alex, ask him for a detailed description of what he means by "God" and why almost no one else who uses the label agrees with him.
Good convo. My eyes are wore out from all the eyerolling. Christianity and religion has been basically tore down over the years, and he considers it a win that atheist thinkers have moved on to being "anti woke". Big W there.
It looks like God's back on the menu boys!
This guy... I'm sorry, but the claim that all compassion stems from Christian morals is so utterly ridiculous and Alex' attempts of gently communicating the lack of coherence Justin's claims have are frustratingly patient. At some point you have to just snap. He critisizes that atheists are "chery picking" evidence to show that religion has caused religion-specific evil, but when he is shown that Christian scripture dictates homocidal homophobia as a virtue, that needs to be looked over because the bible still teaches the "impetus to do good". Ridiculous. Also: So human dignity and compassion stem from Christian morals? So every human civilisation before Christianity had no shred of morals? Who is going to believe this nonsense? What about compassion just actually being a mechanism in our fucking DNA that is based on reciprocity, a survival strategy that is btw obvservable in certain species of primate's behvaiour. Seems more reasonable to me than to weirdly choose a specific religion that you happen to believe in by chance, because you happen to have been born in this century, and because you're british. This man very obviously is desperately clinging onto his world view with sheer dishonesty towards himself.
Yup. I dont think I can sit through another "interview" like this. Terribly frustrating to see hateful nonsense to be so readily tolerated.
17 years? That long? I thought that show started like 4-5 years ago. And it is over now? Wow.
I think it was a radio show prior to the TH-cam stuff?
@@krishermstad376 ah, ok. That would make sense.
I am a Christian apologist From England Nottingham, Atheism is growing in Britain, and Christianity is falling and people claiming too be Christian, Becouse we live in a Society where wrong means right and right means wrong, we are Becoming More and More love for self as a British society and the benefits of Christianity is falling in Britain.
Why do you believe in god?
The only two questions worth asking it seems to me are a) are there genes which make you more likely to be religious? and b) does being religious increase your chances of having children? Since the answer to both is probably yes it would seem to me that a resurgence of religion in the west is quite likely.
"religion" is tradition of man and not truth. God is truth, not religion.
"Genes" do not exist. Mankind is spiritual, in a body of clay. The breath of life is given by God.
What is meant by the "resurgence" of re-legion, is the same idea behind the so-called "emerging church". Neither have anything to do with God but promote self, the ego, godless and lawlessness via the "kundalini spirit", which is of the serpent.
LOL. Keep telling yourseld that, matey. The statistics do not indicate that whatsoever.
@@blingabiaino197 Which do you deny? That the religious tend to have more kids or that religion might be impacted by genetic tendencies.?