The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ย. 2008
- Armand Nicholi, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, gives an address based upon his recent book, "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life" based on a popular seminar he has taught at Harvard for the past 35 years. [2/2005] [Show ID: 9304]
Explore More Humanities on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/humanities)
The humanities encourage us to think creatively and explore questions about our world. UCTV explores human culture through literature, history, ethics, philosophy, cinema and religion so we can better understand the human experience.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
Lewis's conversion to theism, not particularly Christianity reminds me of my own journey. A man i met used reason and logic to show me how illogical my Athiesm was. How little i really "knew", and how much "science" i had accepted purely on faith alone. When i realized that for me, the scales must balance and i must be willing to consider that God COULD be real. That inevitably led me to the cross of Jesus Christ.
0p
This is something that's been always bothering me in order to jump to believe without knowing:
There is a probability that all in the Bible is true and yet a work of superior alien race... which by the way wouldn't necessarily exclude the existence of God, but simply introduce possibility that all Bible stories were scenario play of a considerate superior alien race somewhat like our stories of Santa Clause and acts of leaving presents to kids playing the role of Santa Clause. Not a truthful stories, but yet played by us for a greater cause of moral guidance to our kids. Likewise, more advanced alien race could see our human rase as we see our kids and they could have played out the Biblically captured stories for the reason of moral guidance to our human race.
This is something that's been always bothering me in order to jump to belief without knowing:
There is a probability that all in the Bible is true and yet a work of superior alien race... which by the way wouldn't necessarily exclude the existence of God, but simply introduce possibility that all Bible stories were scenario play of a considerate superior alien race somewhat like our stories of Santa Clause and acts of leaving presents to kids playing the role of Santa Clause. Not a truthful stories, but yet played by us for a greater cause of moral guidance to our kids. Likewise, more advanced alien race could see our human rase as we see our kids and they could have played out the Biblically captured stories for the reason of moral guidance to our human race.
Thank you for posting this experience. My own journey to faith had many similarities to Lewis's story. I hope many other souls will view this presentation.
The wisdom CS Lewis wrote and spoke of was a gift from his Creator, which CS gave credit to. To those who seek the truth read the Holy Bible, start in the book of John. Mere Christianity is concentrated food for thought and the soul...a major insight which confirms many of the truths of the scriptures.
Lewis was an atheist himself before becoming a Christian. And he was an atheist while studying at Oxford in England where there were plenty of professors who shared his views. I'm sure he knew what the term "atheist" meant.
+Marcus Moody while nope. Neo atheist and "atheists" appear to be different now that we look at it.
+Marcus Moody No, it meant the same thing then as it does now. You don't get to change the meaning of a word just because it helps your argument. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
+Marcus Moody The term atheist may have changed for you, and for others who argue for atheism, but that doesn't mean it has changed for everyone else. The reason atheists have recently tried to change the traditional meaning of the word is to make it more easy to make their argument. Rather than inventing a new word which would embody the new meaning, they are seeking to replace the meaning of atheist with new content. Reflect on the Humpty Dumpty example. And I'm not saying meanings of words cannot drift over time, but not simply because a few people suddenly decide that it has. Doesn't work like that.
+Marcus Moody Well, no one is denying a person the right to define their way of belief. But the rest of the world is not obligated to abandon a perfectly good accepted definition for a word just because a small minority of others prefer it. You can of course provide the definition of your way of belief arbitrarily, however you see fit, but the word "atheist" has belonged to the human community for quite some time. Everyone should get a vote on this.
+Larry Lyü Who denies it? There is indeed a meaningful difference between a traditional Marxist and a neo-Marxist, a Darwinist and a neo-Darwinist, a Thomist and a neo-Thomist.
Hard to believe Harvard had professors like this as late as 2005.
I admit it's rather interesting lecture especially for me, I 've been studying Lewis's works for 10 years..
afaithful and profound talk on C. S. Lewis. I have read two of his books and this influenced my life and made me love being a believer.
Lewis pins Freud to the ground.
that's what your superego wants you to believe, and it should probably be better that way...
The ego sits on the chest of the id.
Gary Maccagnone a matter of perspective. Maybe Freud was experimenting with a world view Tasmanian in origin.
@@mobiditch6848
Clever.
Nurnwe are seeing the feuit of that world view now.
That world view can only collapse in on itself in the end.
And the end is nigh.
Joseph Jones please elaborate.
There is always Truth. Truth cannot be diminished simply because one does not wish to listen to it or see it.
Tell that to folks who won't listen to Richard Dawkins.
these two people are in my top 5 favorite authors of all time.. wonderful work.. and good job on the research
Fitsum, you are correct. Life with all its good, evil and questions, only makes sense through the lense of free will.
His transitional sentences: "...So much for Sigmund Freud" 😆
You have to either stand for something or fall for anything. I may only be 31yrs old, which undoubtedly says I wasnt around in the time of Jesus. But we are presented in this world with symmetry and measurements,divisions of matter,all pointing to an intelligent design. So we have the task of trying to decide which "God" is the "One" or "Ones". Using logic and what we know in comparison to reality of our world and consciousness, I think the only reasonable answer is the Judeo Christian God.
There is no other. He's the way, and the truth.
***** You know that and I know that but it wasnt meant for ones like us but ones that dont believe.
And we're getting fewer--idk-, I love God, (stallix)--on your death bed they'll all cry out for God.
Yes indeed. When you have a conviction of truth. .. go with it. Never forget it. many people forget truth they once knew, they become like a ship without a Rutter.
Forget it?-- thank your mother --if you know nothing about God -and the peace He gives
My favorite part is where CS Lewis came to believe while riding his motorcycle
This was excellent! Thank you. I’m going to ask my 83 year old father to listen to this 🙌🙌
What a superb lecture; it is so rich and I am thankful this is available to all on TH-cam. I was most surprised by the content of Freud’s personal letters; his references to God I found shocking.
This was really a riveting presentation. Thank you.
All those young people who claim to be atheist should listen to this.
Everything reason cannot solve and therefore faith.
Intelligent people have embraced Spiritual worldview. It helps.
One hour video summarizing the book by Armand Nicholi. I read the book first, taking notes, ideas that deserve more thought as well as opinions (by Lewis, Freud and Nicholi) that I found fascinating, odd, or even ridiculous.
I don't understand why some consider belief in God as "wishful thinking". What is "wishful" about believing we have a Superior to which we will someday have to give an account? It seems more wishful to believe one can live like the devil without consequence.
Read 3 books by Sigmund Freud and you will be able to write so much about that incredibly deep statement.
Beyond the pleasure principle
Totem and taboo
Civilization and its discontents
Very interesting lecture.
Faith in the dictionary
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
- on faith
: without question "took everything he said on faith"
Where can I get an audio transcript?
@wimsweden right. I was under the impression that our discussion wasn't simply about what a belief in a deity does to ones sense of morality. I thought we were simply talking about whether or not objective moral Truth exists. What do you think of the statement made at the Nuremburg trials that there exists a Law above the law
@wimsweden well fair enough (sorry for the sloppy spelling btw). If you are a pshysicalist how do develop a proper understanding of things like love, resepct, dignity, deceit etc. Do you think a physics lecture is sufficient to provide comprehensive info about such things?
Is your imagination and intelligence so unlimited that you can’t figure that out for yourself?
Lewis a good Belfast man I love it
@romikeyser I do not exactly get what your saring can you summarize? please.
Very interesting what he says at 30:00. Paraphrasing... our feelings toward God are formed by our own early experiences with our fathers.
He’s not so much saying it, but merely summarizing Freud, and Freud was correct. Our images of God, both conscious and unconscious, are heavily influenced by our fathers.
That's an excellent question. Peter Kreeft addresses it after one of his lectures which you can find here on TH-cam. It's called Peter Kreeft: The existence of God. Your question is addressed in the Q&A following, so if you go to the last part of the lecture, you can find it.
To sum up his answer: God wants to make himself evident enough that those who want to love him find him, and that those who don't, don't.
That’s as circular and as self-satisfying an argument as one could ever find. It also allows you to conveniently cavalierly dismiss everyone who disagrees with your conclusion or faith and those with whom you disagree.
Blessed be the flying spaghetti monster for he makes itself known through our love of pasta.
@upperiscope48 Have you read any of his books (besides the children's ones of course)? I agree with you that perhaps Nicholi himself may have sentimentalised C.S. Lewis' transition, but I'm sure you will find it quite different if you read Lewis' own account for yourself.
Also, Lewis is world renowned for his incredible writing and reasoning skills - so many intellectuals admire him for it and I don't think he's got them aaaall duped... if they agree on it, then
C.S.Lewis never pushed his world view on others. Lewis believed all were given free will and each must exercise that gift. One's life walk develops were one stands regarding the issue of a creator or existence from random unrelated actions of matter coalescing.
@wimsweden sorry i don't want to push you, but you seem like you possess relatively thought out arguments. Is there any way i could get a response from you about my last set of posts? If not, then Merry Christmas!
Hey, christian here, just want to say that most atheists I know (and know of) are really stand up people. The general trend seems to be that most are, in fact, quite moral and ethical. Often to the extent of putting theists to shame.
God bless youtube. Inspiring stuff.
@wimsweden you are right in saying this sir. However i think it is evident that there is an epistlemology behind every academic talk. Thus, i don't quite comprehend what it is that is so strange about this? I think talks such as these are hugely important, considering the influence someone like Freud has had on the future or understanding morality in the West.
Oh, Thanks for sharing your superior intellect on matters of Faith. I assume you also have been unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University?
RP01, to whom are you replying? The speaker or someone who has commented?
@wimsweden i don't quite understand why you keep referring to a religous account. It really is not part of what it is that we are discussing.
Enjoyed every min.of this presentation Sir ..😑🤔🤨🥹😊❤️🔥
which is?
@7:30 Speaker is very wrong. Golders Green is NOT a small village 20 miles north of London!!!! It's part of London. It's in the London Borogh of Barnet. Same way as e.g. Battery Park & Harlem are part of New York City. Golders green is 5 miles north of Charing Cross. This is easily verifiable.
Wow! That's momentous information! Thanks, my life will be so much more meaningful thanks to your "rightness".
And??
+Kiwi Italiano
It's obviously not the most important detail. But shouldn't an 'expert' on the subject get all his facts right for a presentation? Makes anyone knowledgeable about London geography wonder what other mistakes he may have made? It puts a slight stain on an otherwise good presentation.
rod dale I agree...I knew a guy that wrote a novel that began with a description of Route 66 passing through Kansas. I immediately closed the book...since it was obvious that the author couldn’t care less about setting or the actual format of a fictional world.
@wimsweden i agree, but the level at which there is a moral struggle to achieve them is found by far the most strongly in christianized nations. On a similar note, atheist Bertrand Russel stated that Gandhi's method of non-violence would not have worked an enemy whose conscience had not been christianized. I guess the question which this leads to is, do you think if one understood their conscience in a total Freudian manner, a moral struggle towards these could occur?
Not only might Bertrand Russell have been wrong about Gandhi, but he was almost certainly expressing instead his inculcated belief in the hegemony of “civilizing” British “Christian” colonial rule rather than anything having to do with the inherent nature, theology or philosophy - let alone the actual praxis/practice - of Christianity. Were Christianity a prerequisite for this moral struggle, then fascism and brutal authoritarianism would not have so easily have found welcoming homes in Germany, Spain, Russia and a host of South and Central American countries, just to name a few and Gandhi would have had little appeal or democracy a chance in overwhelmingly Hindu (80%) India. Interestingly, democracy seems to be healthiest and most vibrant in those countries possessing a robustly secular citizenry, some of which have a Christian heritage, while some do not (India, Israel, and Japan, for example). The secular Enlightenment seems to have been more a historical catalyst for this moral struggle than mere Christianity.
Consent (lack thereof, specifically).
@wimsweden i realize this is bit of a stretch. I was just alluding to the sorts of themes you find in western literature. Ideas of love, dignity, jealousy, revenge, etc. The argument that i am trying to push is that in the West these ideas have been cultivated to a much rich degree. You will not find such cultivation in Eastern mystic, communist, and Islamic tradictions for example.
Historic note: Communism was entirely a Western creation. As for the other qualities you list as unique to Christianity, this simply demonstrates your incredible ignorance of either the both the beliefs and practices (both contemporary and historic) of other religious “tradictions” [sic], including Christianity.
39:39 Today, however only the 'thin' books can be a best-seller.
What's with the commenters here? They make statements, w/ a no 'reply' ending, are they afraid of the opinions of others? Thanks to the ones who dare to comment and leave room for a reply comment. .(good video)
RIP Armand
how about feeding the sprk?
instead of ruling out those.
Have you looked up the genealogy of Noah?
The genius of Freud was his distinction between a text and a reference. What seems unimaginable to this speaker is the polysemous, ....as I’m writing it seems incredible the Lewis in a sense makes Freud’s argument. I’d like to examine this in detail yet I can’t take the amplified clicking of saliva...
Given Dr. Nicoli’s credentials and tenure, it seems unimaginable that the speaker wouldn’t appreciate or consider polysemy (which is the noun you should have used).
It’s also interesting that Freud seems to make Lewis’s argument.
@@inkyguy thanks for the attempt. Maybe you noticed the ellipsis following “polysemous” which posed it as an adjective rather than a noun.
Lacan put it succinctly: God is not dead rather God is unconscious.
@wimsweden
Although some people find some apologetics persuasive, ultimately God is not found by any intellectual means, but by spiritual awakening. "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.". He's the one who does it, and that only comes through humility.
@wimsweden i don't get why you keep resorting to a specifec deity? Anyways, i have to go, perhaps i shall respond to this again sometime soon. Have a good day!
@wimsweden hmm, i agree, societies are constructed on social contracts, but i still don't see how this answers why one contract is superior to another. On what grounds? Also, it is hard to believe that this is the perspective they were jusdged from. A law above the law needed to be invoked in order to convict them.
I must object to the inference, in the Q&A, that Freud didn't recognize childhood ambivalence (to the father) a possible source of atheism, actually closer to anti-theism. (Atheism appears to become identified with anti-theism, as C.S.Lewis probably would not have done, as this talk progressed.)
Freud believed that the childhood wish for love and nurturing, guidance and protection, was answered in adulthood by belief in a Heavenly Father. Freud believed that this was the inborn desire of all children, regardless of the actual relationship with the father. And according to Freud's psycho-dynamic model of the psyche, the unfulfilled wish of a neglected or abused child would not diminish, but would tend to be even more strongly expressed in adulthood. Perhaps, as a superstitious religious belief.
C.S. Lewis covered this territory many times in his life. I'm sure Dr. Nicholi meant no harm, but his answer was facile. And disparaging. C.S. Lewis argued for Christianity more strongly than anyone, and he never disparaged an opponent.
The thing is not whether they are allowed, is whether they want to; it's their choice, not yours.
@wimsweden i guess the point could be more accuratley phrased as: the proper way to understand thoughts of hatred is dependent on one's cultures. The idea of hatred which Hitler felt towards the Jews was in no way objectively immoral.
From a secular standpoint bigotry is based on the illogical assumptions of prejudice and therefore axiomatically immoral, unless you are suggesting that Jews were culpable for Germany’s failures and crises and “had it coming.”
@wimsweden interesting idea. So would so that human nature is not fixed then? So perhaps a stateless society, which is free of the chains of religion, is in fact possible? Possible in the sense that a utopia would be created.
Freud sees in the mass people especially the ones that go to church the destruction of using their intellect, which is for me personally is true. My experience in attending church gatherings is kind of bad. Instead of really talking deeper into the doctrine of Christianity and morality. Most of the time, they're just singing and praising which is good but i don't really see an in dept intellectual discussion. Christianity is a very deep doctrine and we must approach it as it is.
The fallacy goes like this: we understand certain phenomena in terms of certain natural causes, therefore all things must have purely natural causes, even when there is no evidence for it. To know some things is to know all things. Human beings have understood natural causality from the beginning; science simply systematized this understanding, and explained in terms of nature certain things that were previously shrouded in supernatural mysticism.
@wimsweden by so i mean say. Sorry i'm a bit of a sloppy typer; as you no doubt have already realized!
@upperiscope48 it follows that there must be some truth behind the reputation. What I'm getting at is that it may a bit rash to try and discredit a man, of such high literary repute, so readily before really getting know who he is first. Watching one video, and in part, is hardly enough to be able to decide one knows a man and what he's all about. Luckily humans are far more complex than all that :]
But, why?
@wimsweden of course, but that does not imply that everything that everyone says is right. As long as the state provides free speech, free conscience and freedom of religion, things should work out well. By the way, how come these things are discouraged in non-christian nations?
So, why do you argue that sex with animals is wrong?
@wimsweden so by appelaing to the future you do think that more knowledge of these sorts of things is plausible. Interesting idea. I however reject it enitrely. I don't think natural explanations will superseed supernatural explanations of these things. In attempt to prove my point, i would point to the literature that has been developed in Christianized cultures pertaining to them. Why is that there has not been more overlap of such themes in various cultures. Truth via the Holy Spirirt perhaps
@rockboy365987826 i find this funny every time i come back to this page. you sir a genious
Considering the more rapid advances in Science and Technology and the deterioration in Culture and Humanity it appears that the book published 13 years ago did not have a positive impact on the latter. The search for Truth is a difficult one I supposed. I wonder if more acknowledgement of Evil and how it works needs to be added to the equation. 🤔
I find it odd that modern-day Christian apologists argue that (a) the answer to every question is in the Bible. (B) The Bible is inerrant. (C) The Bible is the word of an all-knowing God. (D) The Bible explains its theology perfectly and (e) in a way that will resonate flawlessly with every reader - Sola Scriptura - all anyone needs is just this one Book.
After making these points the apologists go on to tell their flocks how they should rush out to Amazon and buy THEIR books so that they can better understand the Bible and its teachings. Hmmmm.....
To clarify, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both reject Sola Scriptura.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243, yes, both Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity reject _Sola Scriptura,_ but they both require a priestly caste to “correctly” interpret scripture and tack on 2,000 years of hidebound tradition, which is practically impervious to reasonable thought or criticism, taking the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, 400 years to admit Galileo had it right all along and lifting the church-wide ban on his writings.
, the formal inquiry into the Galileo affair was to make a formal apology and recognize a past wrong. There is a tradeoff here. If the Church never admitted they were wrong, critics would say that "the Church has never apologized for(___ )." If they do, it gives a false impression that the books were banned all this time; in practice, they were not. The whole Galileo affair was far more complex, in any case. Galileo claimed that specific hypotheses were scientifically proven; the math to prove it was not available until the 18th century. Finally, the Catholic Church only requires permission to a little cluster of defined dogmas. Many issues are up for debate, and frequently are.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 The fact that you are admitting that the Catholic Church was wrong...about anything...tells the entire story. The Catholic leadership consists of fallible mammalian members just like you and me.
@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016with respect, the fact that the Church was wrong (or rather, particular churchmen) does not tell the entire story. The Church only claims infallibility in a very narrow set of cases, with strict criteria. For an individual Catholic to be falsely convinced of heresy is unfortunate, but it doesn't involve such an infallible claim.
I watched this in the hope of an objective comparison of Lewis and Freud's views. Clearly a Lewis biased lecture but it none the less left me wondering why believers hold Lewis in such high esteem. Then it seems that the professor lacks the understanding of what to be an atheist actually means. Freud may have claimed that God does not really exist but that goes beyond what an atheist can claim. Important distinction.
+dorwood73 Jelly? :)
+dorwood73 This is incorrect. Atheists do claim that God does not exist. The effort to relax that claim while retaining the title "atheist" is a recent development. Lewis was himself an atheist for over a decade and in a highly intellectual climate (Oxford) so it's rather humorous that you think he "lacks the understanding" of what an atheist is. What baffles me is why people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are held in such high esteem by atheists, because they do not seem to understand the God that Christians believe in. They usually depict him as a being or object or being, bounded within the material universe, or perhaps like a vengeful old man angry about not getting enough praise and attention and eager to mete out punishment for those who don't keep his rules. Sigh.
Not true and a common misconception. An atheist does not say that God does not exist but merely that they don't believe in such things. This is an important distinction. Look up any credible definition of what an atheist is. I am atheistic about all monotheistic religions and superstition generally but I cannot claim to know with certainty that your God does not exist. That notion may bring some theists a sense of calm but I never understood why one's inability to disprove the existence of a non existent entity is a credible question in the first place. No sigh.
+dorwood73 The _Random House Webster's College Dictionary_ (New York, 1997) defines atheist as "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being." You may not like that definition, but it is standard. Perhaps you might be more comfortable labeling yourself as an agnostic?
If atheits' can't claim "God doesn't exist" then, they are agnostics
Faith in God is similar. It means taking the sum of all your experience and knowledge and striving to find the truth. Hard proof in the scientific sense is impossible one way or the other, mainly because scientific proof is based on repeatability and predictability, and is therefore irrelevant to the subject of historical events, which are unique. This is one hurdle that those of a scientific bent often fail to clear.
Allow me to rephrase: between human animals and non-human animals.
The idea of "loving thy neighbor" was not rare to Buddhism and Buddhism predated Christianity.
God has written His laws on our hearts. It is no mystery why so many religions have a lot of truths in common but only one got it completely right.
Yes but Buddhism offers a mind-based solution to samsara, the wheel of life dictated by karma (transcendence of dukkha, or suffering, through non-attachment to enter nirvana, or state of bliss. Christianity, by contrast, offers a heart-centered answer to suffering - to infuse everything with the perfume of God's love, the only power in the universe and bring heaven to earth. There is nothing to transcend and therefore nothing to detach from. The world is not dukkha but an opportunity to love.
@wimsweden this could be put another way: those committed the atrocities had strong empathy for those who had to make such difficult decisions, i.e: their superiors and teh creators of the law. Perhaps this sympathy was stonger than for those who lost their lives because of such said laws. How does one jusge between empathy then if their is no objective standard.
Dude, stop trolling. 1. There is a massive difference between evidence and proof, and you initially said evidence. 2. That was one subheading of a dictionary def. 3. Faith as a concept requires as much exposition as justice. None of these concepts can be understood properly with just a dictionary def. Dictionary def. describe the usage of words, not their actual meaning, especially of involved abstract concepts, which is the domain of philosophy. Stop pretending not to understand this.
@wimsweden well, i think this here is the ultimate dividing point of where you and i disagree. Our say-so is not all that is needed, or at least so i would argue. As for the constant christian remarks, i really don't think they are necesssary. As i said there is meaning in language and this is enough. Do you believe the word "I hate you" corresponds to reality? is their meaning behind this phrase? Or is it simply my subjective interpretation of reality? Hatred is dependant on culture i guess eh?
By the way, C.S. Lewis did not view evolution and Christianity as mutually exclusive.
@wimsweden so then you would hold a theory of human nature that in some way entails immoral behaviour. How does one justify such a thoery outside of the context of sin?
I also read in one of his books, he proclaims himself as an agnostic, not materialist and there is a distinction between the two, big time. Agnostic leaves room for the possibility, even probability of God's existence while materialism proclaims that matter is the only thing real, anything supernatural like God, goddeses or anything of that sort is nonsense.
Well, you don't need to go far, look it up in a dictionary and see what you find...
@wimsweden well i do not agree with this at all. I don't think a sense of justice within all of humanity can be considered to be the product of something super-subjective. Especially when the ideas pertaining to justice are so similar. I don't mean in smaller trivial cases, but in cases such as the Nuremberg trials this objective standard really seems to "come out".
Awwwaaaahh. Sorry. Dosed off for a second. But . . . very interesting.
"b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust".
Faith is belief without proof.
Davinel Ulin-Vega faith is not so much an intellectual position, as the willingness to act on what one already has determined to be true intellectually. Faith is what happens at the intersection of conviction and courage.
Neither is absurd. What is absurd is to deny that your assertion that "we are working on it" and someday we will find the equation that explains all things is an article of faith. Your faith has its own evidence and its own reasons, as has ours. But we have no hard proof either way. One of us is correct. Hopefully we can end this here.
@wimsweden i think you're rgiht here. Different people have different ideas of God in their head. This does not mean that there is not one objective reality which all our us experience equally. Some, or perhaps all of these deities, do not reflect reality. There is just one Truth for all of mankind when it comes to reality.
That's a common misconception.
I don't. I argue that sex by human animals with non-human animals is wrong.
@wimsweden duh. If he sided with Freud instead of Lewis then it would be atheistic evangelism in the guise of an academic talk. One's understanding of reality is present in any kind of articulation they present. To discourage such behaviour is the first step towards some sort of state imposed morality.
Great lecture. One big factual inaccuracy, I think though: at 47:00 minutes in, he quotes Chesterton as stating that no great moral teacher ever claimed to be God. Well, have you ever heard of Hinduism? Hinduism claims that everyone IS God, literally. Krishna, in the Gita, claims to be the primary incarnation of God, indeed more or as much God than any other conception of God - ie, exactly what is said about Jesus. Hindu guru's today continue to claim to be greater or lesser incarnations of God. Additionally, while a majority of Buddhists do not consider Buddha to be "a god", they do kind of consider him to be "God", in terms of what Buddhists would consider anything to be the foundation of reality. Buddhists believe that "Buddha nature" is the foundational reality of existence and that all beings, including whatever is God, are united in Buddha nature. An enlightened being, in Buddhism, is one who knows this and allows this truth throughout their entire being, essentially unifying themselves with God. It's important to realize that Buddhism comes out of and was a reaction against Hinduism the same way way that Christianity came out of and was a reaction against Judaism.
No, literature, art, philosophy isn't bunk, but they are nice constructs. I can't predict the movement of the star with philosophy let alone with art, but i can convey worth and feel with them, but is when art and philosophy is used to spread lai like religion is where it worst used, and don't relate.
@romikeyser Yeah, it's so shallow to think of God as being all pissed off and sending us to hell. Hell is the result of a lack of God.
Belief without evidence is illogical.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Faith is illogical.
No such thing as a logical faith.
Marcara081 I’m not up for getting into a debate at the moment but I will say that sufficient evidence when it comes to the supernatural is a relative concept. Is it logical to conclude that someone is lying when they have no real motive? Probably not. But when they are claiming to be the son of God then logic takes a different route. You can define sufficient evidence in any way you want really bc it is a made up construct anyways.
Is anyone else picking up on the bias towards CS Lewis or is it just me? Even the questions echoed unenlightened cheerleadering for Lewis and NOMA. Philosophy be damned, the question of God's existence is one divided by evidence, not by what made Lewis less anxious!!!
If you believe Jesus did not claim to be God, for what reason do you think he was crucified?
Nope. I do, however, concede that the culture in which their parents grew up in was largely influenced by Christian values. I believe it is of paramount importance that we do not judge atheists, to do so is only to push them further away from Christ. How would you feel if someone called you disgusting?
You posted your comment in a way that makes it impossible to know to whom you are responding. Nonetheless, I’m glad you can at least behave respectfully and encourage others to do so, though rather than our shared humanity your hegemonic reason for doing so is as offensive as if you were replacing the word “atheist” with “Jew.”
@@inkyguy My comment was made almost a decade ago, what a blast from the past. Would never have remembered it if not for your reply. A lot can change in that time, I’m now an atheist myself, have been for about 8 years. I suspect the original comment was deleted, or I’d misused the reply feature. It’s strange looking back at one’s comments from an entirely different perspective. Looking back, it is a grossly presumptions, ‘better-than-though’ motivation, I agree. It had a degree of good intention (in that in a Christian worldview the most loving thing one could do is to ‘bring people to Christ’), but was entirely misguided. Very clearly so as you point out. Apologies friend, especially so if my views of old have harmed you or others.
@wimsweden if they were causing increbible suffering they would be violating the moral law, and thus should be punished. If they are not, then i would leave them alone. These arguments are premised upon an objective interpretation of reality.
Nice Ending. Hopefully all of the mindless humans that finally feel "Awake", will do something with it and "Grow" into a being fit for Heaven ....instead of just feeling "Done" while they make-up stories of how they are instantly "Saved", "Born Again", and somehow now "Heavenbound". Possibly feeling like you have it all figured out, and are finished ...is even dumber than staying asleep. ....God bless.
Thank you. That is a very good summation of my reaction to many - actually, nearly all - of the comments I’ve found here. They reflect insecure and defensive Christians giving the finger to what they perceive to be the rest of the world, boasting themselves wise but showing themselves fools.*
__________________
*Romans 1:22
... Saying the Christian worldview is painful and would not be wished for is a straw-man of sorts, because it is logically premised on a priori wishful fulfillment, namely the fulfillment of the belief that one, even if life is painful, is protected in the end.
@wimsweden i agreee with your take on empathy, but i don't think it really connects to the point of mine which you are trying to refute. If there is no law that is above the law of a particular society, would you argue then that the judges at the Nuremberg trials had no right to sentence the convicted nazi's? Their appeal was that they were simply following orders.
What is weird is Freud ( being Jewish) anti- God , while C.S.Lewis ( the Gentile) believed in God. Talking about "chosen people" 😢 I am a Jew and believe in God ! 🫣
@wimsweden i'm not talking about his theories. I'm talking about his method. The appeal to the spiritual world which Lewis makes, cannot in Freudian terms, be understood to be representive of reality. It is the creation of the mind. Or in dawkins terms, the result of a delusion. I'm talking about materialist psycology in general. The kind that is presented in first year unviersity courses.
@romikeyser Not meaning a lack of A God, but lack of God in your life. Clarification*