I have to say, I like hearing Randall talk to atheists. It reminds me of Rhett (Good Mythical Morning) and his description of himself as "hopeful agnostic". The forms of Christianity he puts forth are kinds that I can hope for even as an atheist.
That was a great discussion. I came across Randal on Pine Creek's forum. The kind of discussion you guys had certainly does not work there. What I liked about this one is, on the assumption that religion (Christianity in this case) will always be with us, Randal showed how Christianity can be saved from its own worst elements. I don't mind 'God talk' that is sensible and through provoking. I just might buy his book and have a read.
Re the interpretation of Romans 1... I think there may well be Christians who see their slightest doubt in themselves as evidence of their own sinful nature and thus something to be suppressed. The discussion about the relationship of belief to conscious thought processes is interesting and clearly important but so is the role of the unconscious.
Some of those who genuinely call themselves Christians go through (temporary or permanent) crises of faith, yet they keep praying for their faith to get stronger. It's their will to believe (rekindled by their own cognitive-behavioral exercises and peer pressure) that keeps them attached to Christianity, rather than their (weak or non-existent) faith. Even if we can't choose what we believe, or what we want to believe (or what we want to want...), there's a distinction to be made between the Christian and the sceptical attitude.
Why should someone desire to be Christian is a strange question, especially when it is justified by defining Christianity as an idealized form of Christianity that is most compatible with your own presuppositions. If that is the case, the real question is why prefer idealized Christianity over idealized Islam or Judaism? In that instance, the only possible reason to prefer one idealized belief over another is for personal reasons like identity with your tribe or solidarity with family, but not for any doctrinal reasons.
Maybe I am right but I don't think many agnostic people has ever had a supernatural experience whether it be good or evil. This would make it harder for me to believe too.
I don't understand Randal's point about soteriology. Yes, on most versions of Christianity, a life of goodness follows from a life of proper alignment with God. But since he holds that faith and not works grants salvation, the issue is that the Muslim's faith is not a faith in the salvific work of Christ, so he cannot be saved by faith in the Christian sense. Is he saying faith in "the good" is basically faith in Christ by another name, and thus advocating a type of religious inclusivism?
At 31:18 on the question "Do you want Christianity to be true?" you say "If you want some certain form of Christianity to be true but would dislike it if some other form was true then 'yes' is still the appropriate answer. ... If you want any form of Christianity to be true, then you *do* want Christianity to be true." This strikes me as silly and reductive. There's no essence of 'Christianity' floating around out there in platonic heaven, so it makes sense to respond to your question by specifying precisely which species of Christianity we might wish true and which false. It'd be like asking me "Do you like Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans?" I dunno... I like the chocolate ones but not the earwax ones. I'm not gonna commit to saying I like them full stop because you might get the wrong idea.
Like Randal said, if you want to be married to anyone, then the right answer to “Do you want to be married?” is yes, even if you don’t want to be married to the vast majority of people. When I asked the question on twitter, like a dozen people never got around to actually answering the question because they were so hung up on the forms they didn’t want to be true.
@@EmersonGreen I get that that may have been frustrating. I think the trouble is there's a tricky conversational implicature here. As an example, I'm trying to get my partner to watch "The Last of Us" with me, so I regularly ask questions like "Hey, do you want to watch an HBO original series that gets a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes?" But obviously she understands what's going on and appropriately responds with "I don't want to watch your damn zombie show." Since I value my life, I don't respond by saying "Ah ha! But that wasn't my question! I just asked about HBO originals with high RT scores, and so long as that sounds appealing in some form technically the correct answer is 'yes'" I'd be more frustrated by waffley answers if your question had said "Is there any form of Christianity that you would want to be true?" In that case, going off on all the forms one *wouldn't* want to be true would be obnoxious and tribal. But as written (iirc) the question set off a bunch of alarm bells for me. I have to think about the pragmatics of answering one way or another. Do I say "yes" and risk leaving your christian viewers with the impression that I'm fine with their fundie baptist views, or do I say "no" and risk fueling the fire of the non-resistant non-belief truthers out there? Better to say more and risk less, in my opinion.
Plus, as someone who spent lots of time as a christian universalist, I can't help but read that question in light of all the "but that's not *really* christianity" accusations that were hurled in my direction. I may not believe there's some platonic essence of christianity, but lots of people do, and some of them read your posts.
@@mf_hume I should’ve just asked the question that way. And for the record I fully support your efforts to get your partner to watch the damn zombie show. It’s fucking great, they don’t know what they’re missing
@@EmersonGreen Hi! What do you think of the detailed "Nature"-praised (!) debunking of the resurrection of Jesus, called "The Gospel of Afranius", that recently came out in English? I have tested it on some professional apologists (Matt Bilyeu and Tim Bayless from Reasonable Faith) and they don't know what to say!!
Randall reminds me of the little duckling that has imprinted on a human as its parent. He experienced a profound imprinting in his formative years from religious indoctrination that he is unable to break from. He will forever follow this imprinting and contort his cognition to it.
@@EmersonGreen Unless I'm mistaken... I think the original comment was meant to say that Randall seems so connected/maybe dependent on his religious belief/Christianity...that he is willing, or Needs, to make it as easy, palatable, less restrictive as possible.
Randal is such an underrated apologist. He asks the hard questions and gives helpful, reasonable answers.
I have to say, I like hearing Randall talk to atheists. It reminds me of Rhett (Good Mythical Morning) and his description of himself as "hopeful agnostic". The forms of Christianity he puts forth are kinds that I can hope for even as an atheist.
I’m really enjoying this conversation. Randal is a very chill theist
Randal always is so quick on the draw with a fun analogy. Always enjoy discussions with him.
That was a great discussion.
I came across Randal on Pine Creek's forum. The kind of discussion you guys had certainly does not work there. What I liked about this one is, on the assumption that religion (Christianity in this case) will always be with us, Randal showed how Christianity can be saved from its own worst elements.
I don't mind 'God talk' that is sensible and through provoking. I just might buy his book and have a read.
Re the interpretation of Romans 1... I think there may well be Christians who see their slightest doubt in themselves as evidence of their own sinful nature and thus something to be suppressed. The discussion about the relationship of belief to conscious thought processes is interesting and clearly important but so is the role of the unconscious.
Some of those who genuinely call themselves Christians go through (temporary or permanent) crises of faith, yet they keep praying for their faith to get stronger. It's their will to believe (rekindled by their own cognitive-behavioral exercises and peer pressure) that keeps them attached to Christianity, rather than their (weak or non-existent) faith.
Even if we can't choose what we believe, or what we want to believe (or what we want to want...), there's a distinction to be made between the Christian and the sceptical attitude.
Why should someone desire to be Christian is a strange question, especially when it is justified by defining Christianity as an idealized form of Christianity that is most compatible with your own presuppositions. If that is the case, the real question is why prefer idealized Christianity over idealized Islam or Judaism? In that instance, the only possible reason to prefer one idealized belief over another is for personal reasons like identity with your tribe or solidarity with family, but not for any doctrinal reasons.
My idealized Christianity would be pretty much the opposite of Christianity.
Great interview Emerson!
Maybe I am right but I don't think many agnostic people has ever had a supernatural experience whether it be good or evil. This would make it harder for me to believe too.
I don't understand Randal's point about soteriology. Yes, on most versions of Christianity, a life of goodness follows from a life of proper alignment with God. But since he holds that faith and not works grants salvation, the issue is that the Muslim's faith is not a faith in the salvific work of Christ, so he cannot be saved by faith in the Christian sense. Is he saying faith in "the good" is basically faith in Christ by another name, and thus advocating a type of religious inclusivism?
Yeah, at some point talking about C. S. Lewis it was like believing in _anything_ is better than atheism. How arbitrary and condescending!
This should be fun.🤭👍
At 31:18 on the question "Do you want Christianity to be true?" you say "If you want some certain form of Christianity to be true but would dislike it if some other form was true then 'yes' is still the appropriate answer. ... If you want any form of Christianity to be true, then you *do* want Christianity to be true."
This strikes me as silly and reductive. There's no essence of 'Christianity' floating around out there in platonic heaven, so it makes sense to respond to your question by specifying precisely which species of Christianity we might wish true and which false. It'd be like asking me "Do you like Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans?" I dunno... I like the chocolate ones but not the earwax ones. I'm not gonna commit to saying I like them full stop because you might get the wrong idea.
Like Randal said, if you want to be married to anyone, then the right answer to “Do you want to be married?” is yes, even if you don’t want to be married to the vast majority of people. When I asked the question on twitter, like a dozen people never got around to actually answering the question because they were so hung up on the forms they didn’t want to be true.
@@EmersonGreen I get that that may have been frustrating. I think the trouble is there's a tricky conversational implicature here. As an example, I'm trying to get my partner to watch "The Last of Us" with me, so I regularly ask questions like "Hey, do you want to watch an HBO original series that gets a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes?" But obviously she understands what's going on and appropriately responds with "I don't want to watch your damn zombie show." Since I value my life, I don't respond by saying "Ah ha! But that wasn't my question! I just asked about HBO originals with high RT scores, and so long as that sounds appealing in some form technically the correct answer is 'yes'"
I'd be more frustrated by waffley answers if your question had said "Is there any form of Christianity that you would want to be true?" In that case, going off on all the forms one *wouldn't* want to be true would be obnoxious and tribal. But as written (iirc) the question set off a bunch of alarm bells for me. I have to think about the pragmatics of answering one way or another. Do I say "yes" and risk leaving your christian viewers with the impression that I'm fine with their fundie baptist views, or do I say "no" and risk fueling the fire of the non-resistant non-belief truthers out there? Better to say more and risk less, in my opinion.
Plus, as someone who spent lots of time as a christian universalist, I can't help but read that question in light of all the "but that's not *really* christianity" accusations that were hurled in my direction. I may not believe there's some platonic essence of christianity, but lots of people do, and some of them read your posts.
@@mf_hume I should’ve just asked the question that way. And for the record I fully support your efforts to get your partner to watch the damn zombie show. It’s fucking great, they don’t know what they’re missing
@@EmersonGreen Hi! What do you think of the detailed "Nature"-praised (!) debunking of the resurrection of Jesus, called "The Gospel of Afranius", that recently came out in English? I have tested it on some professional apologists (Matt Bilyeu and Tim Bayless from Reasonable Faith) and they don't know what to say!!
Randall reminds me of the little duckling that has imprinted on a human as its parent. He experienced a profound imprinting in his formative years from religious indoctrination that he is unable to break from. He will forever follow this imprinting and contort his cognition to it.
Wow, what an incredibly condescending and pointless comment!
Cringe
@@EmersonGreen Unless I'm mistaken... I think the original comment was meant to say that Randall seems so connected/maybe dependent on his religious belief/Christianity...that he is willing, or Needs, to make it as easy, palatable, less restrictive as possible.
@@EmersonGreen Why not condescending and pointful?