"Believers in Biology" are Still Believers: JK Rowling, Louise Perry, Tom Holland
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ต.ค. 2024
- Glen Scrivener reacts to the phenomenon of gender-critical feminists writing 'believer in biology' in the Scotland 2022 Census. Featuring JK Rowling, Louise Perry, Tom Holland, Richard Dawkins and Yuval Noah Harari.
Do the 321 course now, it's completely free. Sign up at 321course.com/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @speaklifemedia
LINKS//
Subscribe to this channel for videos that see all of life with Jesus at the centre:
www.youtube.co...
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...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Amazon: music.amazon.c...
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....
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....
Social Media:
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
"Obvious convictions are in rare supply nowadays." words of wisdom, my friend.
Excellent, clearly reasoned and to the point as usual
What is the meaning of Meaning? .... take material science and find value and get back to me... believer in biology? How do you respond to Being as a bio-liever? What is the telos? Utter tosh....
Thumbs up. You argued your point well with good reasons, resources, and examples. This video really spoke to me because I’ve been noticing a lot of these things ever since I started to look at Christianity’s historicity as well as Christianity vs Atheist/Evolutionist debates last year. After a lot of videos, research, and convos/arguments with atheists, it is very clear to me one thing about their mindset: they take many things about the world, and existence, for granted.
If you explain to them the infinitesimally low chance that the universe somehow came into existence and fine tuned itself by chance, they say, “Well we’re here now, so it doesn’t matter. It happened and it was always going to happen because….well we’re here.” Completely taking for granted how we could in fact not be here. It’s not guaranteed even with your supposed billions of years.
They rail against God in the Old Testament and the decisions He made or punishments he dealt. They exclaim, “It doesn’t take a God to know that _______ is wrong! Look at ______ He did! HE’S A MONSTER!” No. No. No. You have the benefit of thousands of years worth of 20/20 hindsight, so of course now you know what’s blatantly right or wrong against a world that was still figuring it out. And Christianity set the record straight, finally. The irony that you steal from Christianity and bash it simultaneously is too much.
Same goes for human rights. The fact you think it would have dawned on somebody one day because of some mutation, eureka moment, or sheer inherent human goodness that humans should all be equal and have worth regardless of class or birth……just stop. The Romans were one of the more “affluent” early civilization empires and see how discriminating and perverse it was. Ensuring the elite stayed that way without much regard for the lesser or promoting pedophilia among the rich. You sure as an atheist, since you’re absent religion and more rational, would have just knew that this was wrong back then? Or was it right then because the majority of that society deemed it so? You guys use society’s agreed upon constructs as the backbone of your argument for morality or rights, so you tell me. “Of course, that was all wrong because….” Because you’ve internalized part of the Christian message, but refuse to acknowledge it. Christianity is/was the major force of equal, humane treatment and people’s right to it.
A good portion of things atheists hold to whether it’s a particular moral or a part of western society likely had a trickle down effect over the centuries from Christianity. It’s been so long that you don’t realize it. You’ve absorbed it and think you’re doing something by criticizing the Bible when you yourself are a borrower. It’d be better if you had the intellectual honesty like based Tom Holland to admit how influential Christianity has been in fundamental human issues and thinking. You can’t escape it! But, of course, the militant-type atheists will STILL resist. This video doesn’t prove a thing to them.
This is why I have grown to have issues with census taking or just surveys in general and the medias reaction to it. 1:40
"My religious belief is biology" my mind immediately went to Romans 1:25 lol
I hear the Christianization argument.
However, I worked in auto repair, and joked about how seriously many shinto people took "Thou shalt not steal." I consider the acts of the Chrysler T&C automatic transmission factory and GM V6 gasket factory to be theft.
The tricky word is belief. Is belief blind faith, or is it a combination of the physical world combined with the interior world, with a side helping of culture that has had a net benefit for society as a whole? For a determinist like Dr D, it's biology "all the way down". Which, if followed through logically, would empty the prisons as those individuals were also acting to biological imperatives. No one gets to say what is objective because everything is sparks and chemistry in the skull. In reality, there's as much magical thinking involved in physicalism as any religion.
Absolutely! The way it hit me was, "I know all the reasons that I don't trust your (physical/materialism) worldview, but what I don't understand is why you DO trust it." You can't get away from what you believe, therefore what you attend to, therefore what you think and feel. I personally think it's an act of God to change that on some level. :)
@@danatowne5498 On purely utilitarian grounds, if religious believers suffer less mental illness and are more reproductive, there is no higher appeal according to materialism. Genes/ memes are passed on and numinous thinking should be encouraged. Of course it doesn't work that way because materialism is indistinguishable from the polemics, personal advancement and club-ability of lifestyle scepticism.
@@borderlands6606 , I think it is somewhat distinguishable, but your point is well taken. I think it is distinguishable in the things that arise from those worldviews as a whole. Have you seen any of Mike Levin's work in experimental biology? "The Central Dogma" in biology (the field's name for it -not mine) has gotten in the way of work like his for YEARS. Yes, it is eventually changing, but religious belief in things is strong even in those who don't think they have any. IMO, anyway.
That Scotland census is wild. I didn't know Jedi Knight was such a popular religion or "no religion" Whichever... The census seems to say both. 🤔 Makes me wonder if these were serious responses. Heavy Metal?
I figured people did it because they opposed governments asking such questions. They might be arguing that having a census is legitimate but other questions are not.
I honestly thought this was a joke. I never knew that was an actual question in a census. It's like asking, do you believe in gravity?
It wasn't a question in the census, per se, rather people were asked an open question about religion and some people answered 'I believe in biology' to object to trans ideology being expressed in the census (what gender do you SAY that you are, rather than what sex are you)
@@silvanaturalis Ah okay. Yes, well I suppose that's the problem with that question (What gender are you?) There are philosophically speaking over 7 billion different answers. It would make for a long multiple choice, that's for sure. ;)
Right 😂
The writers of the Declaration of Independence refer to Spinoza’s God, not the Christian one. Nature’s God, not Yahweh.
Supernature? What bunk. Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is not equivalent to the belief that it will not.
You can believe in human rights in the sense that they make life for humans better - but they are certainly not objective or supernatural. They are principles that Humans agree produce desirable outcomes.
They certainly are objective
@@HearGodsWord Certainly not. Please quote an objective human right and the source of it's objectivity. There is no such thing as an objective moral statement.
@StudentDad-mc3pu if not objective then what? You've given a lot of opinions here but not proved anything
I don't believe in water.
Does that bank lend and charge interest on the loan?
So much ignorance is one spot. Probably why the church is shrinking so drastically
Beliefs mean you don't know enough to know. There are 5 level of knowing. Someone tol me. I have seen it. I have tried it. I have learned it. I have mastered it. It takes 3 years to grow the brain that makes complex concepts simply true
I disagree. Roman citizens had rights which were based on legal consensus not the supernatural, and they understood this made their society better. That was before Christianity. Those Romans were perceptive people, and it isn't a stretch to imagine the principle spreading. And we are those Roman citizens today in the North Atlantic world. We call it the Christian world, which it is, but it doesn't closely conform to the philosophy of Jesus. Read "Jesus of the Edges" by W. Thomas.
Roman CITIZENS had privileges, not rights - and most of the empire served those citizens. Which is still a lot like today, but that isn't Christian. What isn't like today in the west is military leadership blatantly running things, or Dick Cheney would have made himself an emperor in the US, just to name one example. I totally agree that we don't conform to the philosophy of Jesus though. I think many of us try and a lot of "little" changes is what changes the world. I'll look up that book - thanks for the tip. :)
I don't see a lot of love your neighbour, love your enemy doctrine in the Roman Empire or doctrine that says that in Gods eyes man and woman, slave and free, Jew and gentile are of equal value.
A Roman man was superior to all and everyone under his authority could be exploited as he saw fit.
So, incorrect, Roman Empire was absolutely worlds apart from Christianity.
Tom Holland looked over the influence of Christianity from a neutral perspective and what he found, as a professional and educated historian, is far different to what you said.
@@nkotsiop1 There were plenty of philantropists in the Roman Empire like Pliny the Younger, Herodes Atticus etc. Christians didn't and don't believe all people are equal. Tom Holland is not a professional historian nor does is he educated as one.
Is that JK Rowling's natural, God-given hair color?
How about human rights in Buddhism? Maybe not in the exact form as the Christian ones, but they are certainly present. You are right in arguing that the present most widely used form of human rights stems from Christianity, however it is not the only source of noble morality.
Actually, no. The present most widely used form of human rights is in stark defiance of the views expressed in the Bible. Human rights, as they are generally viewed even by Christians stem from secular humanism.
If you tried to practice "morality" as set out in the Bible, you'd be arrested and would probably spend the rest of your life in prison.
don't believe me. Actually read the Bible
Christianity has had a huge effect in UK. Human rights are not in the Bible, it's about what Gd decides, he decides if one goes to heaven or not, if they exist.
Females / women do not get much of a mention in the Bible.
You base this on imperical evidence after a year of pouring through history, like Tom Holland did? How many verses in the bible have you read... you'll have to forgive us for looking to biblical scholars for trained and professional commentary.
Give us a case study on how ethics came from the fittest survive...pour over history and show us just like Tom Holland did with Christianity. Again, forgive us for taking him seriously.
You choose to hang onto your rebellion of God... you choose to reject him and go to hell. You merely posting on here is evidence of God working in your heart...why even raise any argument if its all a myth. In fact, why raise any argument when all that's going on in your head is random chemical reactions!
Females were the first witnesses to the resurrection. That's a prominent place for women to be mentioned.
i have read the whole Bible, i know there is history, poetry, over 600 laws, most are aimed at Israel. Females hardly get a mention in the 66 books.
i did not claim anything about the survival of the fitest, I said Christianity had a huge effect in UK.
The chemical reactions in our brains are truly amazing but that does not prove that the bible is fact, some of it is MEANT to be allegory.
The god of the bible that you think I am rebelling against, is the god of the Bible and there are hundreds more. The word hell was not in the original documents, the original words are Hades, Tartarus and Sheol. The word Hell comes from the female goddess of the afterlife Hel.
So maybe I will go to Hades, maybe i will be reincarnated, maybe i go to Anoyo (Shinto)?
@@nkotsiop1 i have read the whole Bible, i know in 66 books there few mentions of women. There are over 600 laws mainly aimed at the jewish people.
I did not mention the survival of the fittest, i said that Christianity has influenced UK greatly.
The god of the Bible is the god of the Bible, there are hundreds more.
The human mind is amazing, but it does not prove the Bible is factual, in fact some of it is MEANT to be allegory.
The word Hell wasn't in the original documents, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus were, Hell / Hel is the goddess of the afterlife in Norse myth.
So maybe i go to Hel, Hades, or Yomi (Shinto)?
Just for clarification, here is the meaning of belief:
"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
That last part of the definition, the "especially one without proof," sort of kills any attempt to equate religious beliefs with science!! Utter nonsense!!
So through the James Webb telescope, what they discovered was so unexpected that they have to once again (like has happened in multiple disciplines, multiple times before) recalibrate their theories.
The point is we all have beliefs, not just theists.
No-one was there when the universe and then life emerged and ideas around this are fantastical and equate to belief...not science!
Keep searching my friend.
God bless ❤
Cut a person open you don't find love either but it's real. Rights can be refuted but this strikes me as a childish argument. He should read Burke again.
How is any concept from the "woke" not best explained by Dawkins' meme theory? Wokeness can be seen as a collection of memes circulating within society, and to claim that it contradicts biology is misguided. The transcendent authority of God, as the foundation of chemistry and biology, has historically enabled societies to reject such woke memes or trends that reflect the spirit of the age.
Without God Morality is and can only be embraced as a means to an end which fails to describe what Morality Actually is...Morality is NOT merely what human beings think is Right...Morality is what Actually is Right...Like the Laws of Logic or the Laws of Mathematics. Morality is a Transcendental Reality that reflects the Nature of God...God is Love...Praise the Lord Jesus Christ...Amen...
A lot of God actions in the Bible do not qualify as transcendantal Morality as you describe it.
@@deguilhemcorinne418that's the classical "do as I say not as I do" - one of the tenets of good parenting 😊.
But I agree - the thing is however that God changes quite a lot even within the old testament when starting with Genesis and up to the prophets. Fundamentalists ignore that change however. But when reading the Bible as a narrative it becomes quite obvious. Simply the story of the flood exemplifies this. God destroys the flood because people were wicked. After the flood, God seems to accept they are and still vows to never destroy the earth again. There's lots of stories like this in which God seems surprised by the humans he made who don't act like they should. I think James Miles explained all of that quite nicely in "God. A biography". And he's a believer himself BTW. But the "character arc" of God in the Bible cannot be ignored.
So, you mean that what is morally right is what is dictated by the monster described in the Bible who endorsed slavery, genocide, misogyny, child s3x trafficking, and killing people for working on a Saturday?
i call BS.
Morality and ethics stem from the fact that we are a social species and that we survive better as a group, and therefore have a better chance of reproduction if we are part of such a group. The principle is simple - that which enhances overall well-being is good. That which detracts from it is evil.
Morality is not "transcendental". Also, the laws of mathematics and logic (and physics, by the way) are not "transcendental. They are DESCRIPTIVE, not prescriptive.
Without a god, mortality is - at least to a degree- somewhat subjective, We may not agree on exactly which course of action results in the greatest well-being.
But WITH God, morality is purely the subjective opinion of one supremely powerful - and demonstrably EVIL - being. - or rather of the powerful people who claim to speak for this God. It's fundamentally "Might makes right", which, last time I looked, is the morality of fascism
The irritating false equivalence between two really different kinds of human rationality, both labelled "belief" but based on quite different cognitive processes is really dishonest.
lol, that is just the position that one takes when ONE of those kinds of human rationality is your own. :)
@@danatowne5498 it would appear that it's actually studentdad being dishonest.
@@danatowne5498 Lol, that's a content free statement that simply attacks the speaker not the idea - have you got any actual contribution? Explain how 'belief' based on faith and 'belief' based on experiment, repetition and research are the same. Just to help you, they are not in the least the same.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu , I did not mean that as an attack, just an observation. It would apply to either side of the debate as well (which does not make it "content free", just nuanced), so I don't see how you took it that way but I am sorry for hurting you.
@@danatowne5498 Both you comments are still content free. You have not provided any evidence that I was "dishonest" and your comment about "the position someone takes" is a motivational fallacy. You have not even begun to answer my point. It is a mistake to equate belief in a religion with belief in science. Prove me wrong.
I absolutely agree with this!
'Maiden, mother, matriarch' is a far better way to define a woman than 'adult human female'; and vice versa.
Absolutely not
@StudentDad-mc3pu wow, such a detailed comeback. Must have taken ages to create such a compelling case to prove Thomas wrong.
@@HearGodsWord Limiting people according to their gender, no matter how generous you think you are being is a moral evil.
@StudentDad-mc3pu no-one is being limited. There clearly are roles that are suited more to one gender than the other. That's just a fact.
Do Believers in Biology believe in evolution?
The entire animal kingdom displays a remarkable spectrum of consciousness, highlighting the value of sacrifice and selfless protection, while competition fosters a beautiful, conscious connection among all organisms. Every creature within God's spectrum of consciousness is expected to act in line with the image God has placed within them. However, humans distinctly possess a unique form of consciousness that most fully reflects God's image, especially when redeemed through Jesus Christ.
God does not exist so that argument fails.
@StudentDad-mc3pu you failed to show the failure.
@@HearGodsWord Even you statement "The entire animal kingdom displays a remarkable spectrum of consciousness, highlighting the value of sacrifice and selfless protection." Is false. Waspes whose lava eat the eyes of children, worms that burrow into their brains, snakes whose venom kills instantly.
If the creation in any way reflects God, that God is a savage. But, as I say, there are no Gods.
Human rights are a part of human morality and human ethics.
Human morality and ethics come from the fact that, as social animals, we evolved to exist as a group. Having ethics, and , by extension, morality, is essential in a group in order to get along with the other members of the group. As a group, we survive better and therefore have a greater chance of reproducing.
Thus, ethics, morality and human rights are a result of millions of years of primate evolution. Human rights, morality and ethics are therefore biological.
Please TRY to think these things through before claiming I believe in something supernatural when I obviously don't.
I believe that everyone should be afforded human rights because I don't want MY human rights to be infringed. Notice how there's not magical man in the sky to enforce this and how I come to it without reference to anything supernatural?
The rights that I don't want infringed include the right to be as I feel I am and to behave as I want, on the proviso that what I do does not harm others - as that would infringe upon THEIR human rights in the same way that I don't want my rights infringed upon. Hope you're still with me, because ...
The evidence shows very strongly that affirming the gender that a trans person feels they have results in dramatically better outcomes for the trans person. When their chosen gender is accepted, there is less likelihood of extreme depression and they are far, far less likely to unalive themselves. On the other hand, affirming the gender choice of a trans person has absolutely no effect on MY life whatsoever.
So, why would I want to be an ars*hole about it?
BTW I do not "believe" in biology. Biology is, like any other science, not something that requires belief. Science is true no matter what you believe. I ACCEPT the findings of science, with the proviso that I know those findings will change over time as we learn more. Notice how no faith is required?
Ok, it seems that this vid wants to make any ideological thinking the equivalent of a religion (focusing on the "woke" ideologists, here more or less assimilated to pro transgender activists). To "believe" in biology (meaning in this case that you believe that only two genders can be biologically identified with no possibility of real biological transition from one to another) would hence be acceptable as a religion. Well, I am sure that any ideology can be turned into a religion, because I "believe" that religion is a subset of ideology. You can turn anything into an ideology, and call it a religion.
Tom Holland at 21:26 is great. Human rights do hang in the aether. But it may interest you to google, "Does the Aether Exist?" It appears that human rights on naturalism are as real as natural aether, which at one time was a serious scientific assertion.
So seriously (Sam Harris) are you suggesting that human rights are real? As real as aether?
Tom Holland makes a great Spider-Man.
This other Tom Holland, however, is more grating than great.
See my comment in the main thread to understand how human rights are the product of evolution
@@IanM-id8or
The question is not what human rights are the product of.
The question is are they real.
@@IanM-id8or
Actually, I'll alter that. I'll leave it there to show that I'm working on it.
It is not that the question of "What are human rights the product of?" will never arise. It is just not the first question. The first question will be, "Are they real?" Meaning, are they binding upon me? Do they obligate me to acknowledge them? Or can you define them for yourself, and Nazis define them for themselves, and the KKK for themselves.
Once I conclude that they are real and binding on more than the individual that espouses them, then I'm ready to ask, "What would it take to render them so?"
@@IanM-id8or
I'm samdg1234, just using a different account.
TH-cam is a difficult place to try and hold a conversation.
I posted a comment 10 minutes after the one that is visible here,
*"The question is not what human rights are the product of.
The question is are they real."*
but the latter one doesn't appear, so I'll see if I can repost it in this account. This is what I said,
I'll alter that. I'll leave it there to show that I'm working on it. It is not that the question of "What are human rights the product of?" will never arise. It is just not the first question. The first question will be, "Are they real?" Meaning, are they binding upon me? Do they obligate me to acknowledge them? Or can you define them for yourself, and Nazis define them for themselves, and the KKK for themselves. Once I conclude that they are real and binding on more than the individual that espouses them, then I'm ready to ask, "What would it take to render them so?"
And, I'd add to that, the question of objective value. Is there such a thing.
As an analogy, take gold and silver. Is one more valuable than the other. Sure one has properties not found in the other, but how does that make it more valuable? If humans didn't exist would one be more valuable than the other? If atheists are correct and there is no God, there is merely an accidental amalgam of atoms and their constituents. Value? Hard to see how. Hard to see, that if God does not exist how Dawkins isn't correct in his assertion that there isn't any good or any evil.
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
- Richard Dawkins
JESUS WOT IS THAT ??? ' SOUNDS MADE UP
Don't be silly, Biology isn't a religion it's a science.
Not for woke scientists 😅
@@ruisantos5588there's no such thing. Just like there's no such thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" Christian. There's only biblical and unbiblical Christianity and the latter isn't Christian at all. But how the texts should be interpreted is determined by the preconceived assumptions of a "liberal" or "conservative". I can find proof texts for many different positions, even contradictory ones, in the Bible quite easily.
Paul for example states that nothing is in itself sinful but only for the person who considers it sinful. That's quite similar to Jesus saying, "with whatever mete you measure, it shall be measured to you." Which makes Christian ethics ultimately far from objective.
Science is a tool. It takes religion to use it wisely.
It's silly to think science "stands above it all". That very philosophy allows mass murder in a dispassionate and guilt free way.
Excactly
Scientism is a "cultish" behaviour.
This is bullshit. It's not a bellieve. It's an undeniable FACT. Get real for once. 😂
God isn’t real though.
He is though.
Scrivener.- " Do you believe in human rights? Then you don't believe in biology, you believe in the supernatural."
What kind of nonsense is this?
Also in the clip, Harari says something like " "Like heaven and god that we've invented and spread around, human rights is a fictional story." He definitely did NOT say that all three are supernatural elements, which is what Scrivener says he said. If something is theologically founded, that does not mean it is supernatural.
Glen is saying that people who claim to believe only in biology (that is, they are physicalists) tend to implicitly and unconsciously appeal to something beyond nature when they are talking about morality. That is because no one has been able to convincingly derive morality from biology. Why would one arrangement of molecules be morally better than another? If you claim you can derive morality from biology alone, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
@@dgphi"Why would one arrangement of molecules be morally better than another?" Where a biological lifeform has preferences, one arrangement can be subjectively better than another. Biology has explained morality as inter-subjective preferences.
@@dgphi "If you claim you can derive morality from biology alone, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it."
Id NEVER suggest morality can come from biology alone (and who does?). But what about kin selection, and Peter Singer's Expanding Circle where he shows how altruism is derived from a genetically based drive to protect one's kin and has expanded towards the larger world.
Of course Christianity has played a huge role in shaping our morality here in the West. But not Christianity alone.
You lost me at "we like to see all things through the lens of Jesus"
You prefer a channel’s priors are hidden?
@@SpeakLifeMedia No. I'm glad that you said it. It allowed me to stop watching. I'm not big on people who in the 21st century believe in a mythical figure.