Shouldn't evolutionary biology be a s subject for an evolutionary biologist with a PhD in evolutionary biology and with papers (on evolutionary biology) published in peer reviewed journals?
I am an average guy with average intelligence and I recently posited if hell is real then abortion is the most humane thing that could ever happen to any potential human being ever! I asked Christians about their cognitive dissonance on this subject. Dr. Sean McDowell is a professor at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University who is a leading apologist, replied with the following "Sounds like Thanos-type reasoning." Did one of the leaders of Christian apologetics really just use a fictional character to dismiss my reasoning? What am I missing? The comparison isn't even in the same realm of equation even if Thanos wasn't a fictional character. Ending physical suffering vs. ending eternal suffering can never be compared. I don't think Christians can comprehend eternal suffering or are in denial about it. I would appreciate any thoughts on McDowell's response.
As a Christian, I’m going to acknowledge something that a lot of Christians will not. Your logic is sound in my opinion. That’s not to say there isn’t a satisfying pro life answer to the quandary, but I personally don’t know what it could be. It does trouble me that an infant could die either through abortion or other causes and presumably go to heaven, but someone else could live long enough to perform actions that would send them to hell. This is why my stance on abortion isn’t strong. I’m conflicted about it and see it as situational. Our human logic does have limits, so it’s possible there is something we can’t comprehend that would make sense of it all, but an apologist being dismissive of a legitimate question is him being disingenuous.
@@josephbrown9685 Thank you for acknowledging that. I've grown so tired of the platitudes and sanctimony of most Christians...I thought there was a unified cabal. While I do believe forcing women and little girls to give birth will never be the answer on abortion...I do believe we can create a world that's worth living in and make it one that women would want to bring life into it.
@@royhiggins7270 I hesitate to say most Christians are sanctimonious and full of platitudes. Keep in mind that you are primarily seeing the opinions of prominent apologists and some others than you personally know. There are millions of Christians who are humble, loving, and caring that would disapprove of any of their behavior that is not Christlike.
Very important and interesting discussion. Dawkins has always been a rabid neo Darwinist but the late Stephen J Gould (punctuated equilibrium)model although not a religious was far more eclectic in his understanding of literature and religious texts. Sociologists use the model of punctuated equilibrium to understand the periods of stasis in hierarchical systems . How does Andrew Gosler view the changes in society outlined in Hebrew Bible (e.g Judges) and in 1st C Christianity (e.g. Paul’s epistles) in view of the transformative action of HS and cooperative change?
This show wants to push the narrative that people like Dawkins became irrelevant, but his name is ironically brought up more than Jesus or Yahweh recently. Dawkins' work does not promote racism and eugenics even in the slightest, unlike the Bible. I understand that the decline of Christianity in the West (especially in the UK) is a concerning issue for the producers of this show, but do they really have to go this far?
The Bible doesn’t promote racism or eugenics. And don’t throw verses at me. I’m a person who knows it all in its full context. Also, rational people don’t take the Bible literally. They take it allegorically, as a means to decipher lessons that are taught within the word. Anyway, Dawkins is perfectly fine outside of his anti-theological rants. But he’s human, and like all human, he’s subject to biases which lead to forming theories centered around a set of assumptions. Take evolution - If genetic change were random, what could endure that enough favorable phenotypic variation had taken place for selection to have produced the adaptations and variety we see on earth today? Anyway, despite the randomness of mutation (with respect to selective conditions), phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves modifications of what already exist. So there’s a teleological gap within evolutionary theory. Simple to complex is a big evolutionary jump. And even biology has no explanation for it. Physical science is one of this human point of view, but it can exist side by side with the other aspects, without subsuming them. This pluralistic method is what P.F. Strawson calls "descriptive metaphysics," and it has much in common with Wittgenstein's antimetaphysical conception of the proper task of philosophy.
@@dfwherbie8814 Whatever gap you see in evolutionary theory is flat-out irrelevant to my comment. Apart from your first paragraph, none of your objections are relevant to what I actually said, and you just copy and pasted your 3rd and 4th paragraph from the book 'The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma' by M. Kirschner and J. Gerhart as if they're your own arguments. More importantly, if you're the type of person who smugly proclaims to be "a person who knows it all" from the get-go, then I genuinely have no interest discussing anything with you, let alone Bible verses. Take care.
I mean... he IS a human being 👀 of course he has flaws. But I'm assuming you mean in his rhetoric towards religion? Well... let's just say, after the last interview he did where he was asked about islam and religion and he declined to answer through a clear fear of retribution, I think the fact he feels scared to speak should tell you all you need to know about how "flawed" his ideals are regarding such people. 🫡👍 the only thing flawed about Richard is that he doesn't go hard ENOUGH. He has been right all along and continues to be proven right daily.
@@theteslatsunami3896 "Apparently I’m accused of advocating panspermia. Confused with Fred Hoyle? How did that start? I’ve always expressed my strong scepticism of panspermia. It’s only slightly more plausible than divine creation." - Richard Dawkins
Shouldn't evolutionary biology be a s subject for an evolutionary biologist with a PhD in evolutionary biology and with papers (on evolutionary biology) published in peer reviewed journals?
Appeal to authority fallacy. Also, you don’t feel comfortable discussing biology?
Fantastic interview! Thank you.
I am an average guy with average intelligence and I recently posited if hell is real then abortion is the most humane thing that could ever happen to any potential human being ever! I asked Christians about their cognitive dissonance on this subject. Dr. Sean McDowell is a professor at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University who is a leading apologist, replied with the following "Sounds like Thanos-type reasoning." Did one of the leaders of Christian apologetics really just use a fictional character to dismiss my reasoning? What am I missing? The comparison isn't even in the same realm of equation even if Thanos wasn't a fictional character. Ending physical suffering vs. ending eternal suffering can never be compared. I don't think Christians can comprehend eternal suffering or are in denial about it. I would appreciate any thoughts on McDowell's response.
As a Christian, I’m going to acknowledge something that a lot of Christians will not. Your logic is sound in my opinion. That’s not to say there isn’t a satisfying pro life answer to the quandary, but I personally don’t know what it could be. It does trouble me that an infant could die either through abortion or other causes and presumably go to heaven, but someone else could live long enough to perform actions that would send them to hell. This is why my stance on abortion isn’t strong. I’m conflicted about it and see it as situational. Our human logic does have limits, so it’s possible there is something we can’t comprehend that would make sense of it all, but an apologist being dismissive of a legitimate question is him being disingenuous.
@@josephbrown9685 Thank you for acknowledging that. I've grown so tired of the platitudes and sanctimony of most Christians...I thought there was a unified cabal. While I do believe forcing women and little girls to give birth will never be the answer on abortion...I do believe we can create a world that's worth living in and make it one that women would want to bring life into it.
@@royhiggins7270 I hesitate to say most Christians are sanctimonious and full of platitudes. Keep in mind that you are primarily seeing the opinions of prominent apologists and some others than you personally know. There are millions of Christians who are humble, loving, and caring that would disapprove of any of their behavior that is not Christlike.
@@josephbrown9685funny enough, there’s no legitimate on the stance of abortion. Jesus never spoke of it. So I don’t know where this comes from
Very important and interesting discussion. Dawkins has always been a rabid neo Darwinist but the late Stephen J Gould (punctuated equilibrium)model although not a religious was far more eclectic in his understanding of literature and religious texts. Sociologists use the model of punctuated equilibrium to understand the periods of stasis in hierarchical systems . How does Andrew Gosler view the changes in society outlined in Hebrew Bible (e.g Judges) and in 1st C Christianity (e.g. Paul’s epistles) in view of the transformative action of HS and cooperative change?
He would not be human if he was not, but he is no fool!
This show wants to push the narrative that people like Dawkins became irrelevant, but his name is ironically brought up more than Jesus or Yahweh recently. Dawkins' work does not promote racism and eugenics even in the slightest, unlike the Bible. I understand that the decline of Christianity in the West (especially in the UK) is a concerning issue for the producers of this show, but do they really have to go this far?
The Bible doesn’t promote racism or eugenics. And don’t throw verses at me. I’m a person who knows it all in its full context. Also, rational people don’t take the Bible literally. They take it allegorically, as a means to decipher lessons that are taught within the word.
Anyway, Dawkins is perfectly fine outside of his anti-theological rants. But he’s human, and like all human, he’s subject to biases which lead to forming theories centered around a set of assumptions.
Take evolution - If genetic change were random, what could endure that enough favorable phenotypic variation had taken place for selection to have produced the adaptations and variety we see on earth today? Anyway, despite the randomness of mutation (with respect to selective conditions), phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves modifications of what already exist. So there’s a teleological gap within evolutionary theory. Simple to complex is a big evolutionary jump. And even biology has no explanation for it.
Physical science is one of this human point of view, but it can exist side by side with the other aspects, without subsuming them. This pluralistic method is what P.F. Strawson calls "descriptive metaphysics," and it has much in common with Wittgenstein's antimetaphysical conception of the proper task of philosophy.
@@dfwherbie8814 Whatever gap you see in evolutionary theory is flat-out irrelevant to my comment. Apart from your first paragraph, none of your objections are relevant to what I actually said, and you just copy and pasted your 3rd and 4th paragraph from the book 'The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma' by M. Kirschner and J. Gerhart as if they're your own arguments. More importantly, if you're the type of person who smugly proclaims to be "a person who knows it all" from the get-go, then I genuinely have no interest discussing anything with you, let alone Bible verses. Take care.
Oh, this is anti-evolution crap. I thought it was going to be something else entirely!
Thank you for this! You can’t have natural symbiosis through a competitive system.
Disappointed
That was a whole lot of nonsense, almost as bad as praying for bird
This was a big waste of time.
I mean... he IS a human being 👀 of course he has flaws. But I'm assuming you mean in his rhetoric towards religion? Well... let's just say, after the last interview he did where he was asked about islam and religion and he declined to answer through a clear fear of retribution, I think the fact he feels scared to speak should tell you all you need to know about how "flawed" his ideals are regarding such people. 🫡👍 the only thing flawed about Richard is that he doesn't go hard ENOUGH. He has been right all along and continues to be proven right daily.
Do you mean that like Dawkins you believe that life may have come from another planet?
@@theteslatsunami3896 "Apparently I’m accused of advocating panspermia. Confused with Fred Hoyle? How did that start? I’ve always expressed my strong scepticism of panspermia. It’s only slightly more plausible than divine creation." - Richard Dawkins
@@theteslatsunami3896 He literally never said that 👀