Alex O'Connor Exposes The Weaknesses of Richard Dawkins. Glen Scrivener REACTS.

[@russ4moose]

24:40 So true. Richard Dawkins is S-tier in biology, and he's F-tier in theology. I think you've correctly identified how that is possible. Also, I agree that Alex O'Connor is a fantastic philosopher, and I have so much respect for him and his approach.

[@plehmann72]

@russ4moose. Dawkins is actually very highly regarded in Biology. His gene centric locus of evolution is now less favoured than Goulds approach. But he's no basement dwelling apologist who has read his own book

[@PaulVanderKlay]

This is excellent!

[@arcpizza]

I enjoy listening to your commentary during my mindless desk job! - New subscriber

[@marinusswanepoel1825]

36:25 God bless Alex. He is getting it slowly but surely. May Jesus be revealed to him openly.

[@jomae647]

Oh I wouldnt be so sure abt that. His interviews are quiet different from his debates. He doesn’t let his beliefs interferes in interviews like these. He run this interview like a simulation test and its actually quite impressive.

[@marinusswanepoel1825]

@@jomae647 Fair enough - but I would still take solace in the fact that he at least "gets it". I suppose what will matter in the end is whether or not his understanding of the complexities of the design argument can trump his problems with divine hiddenness.

[@elnoruego6854]

Im glad i read the comments before watching it to see what it was about. Goddamn christian echo chamber in here. I hope you guys will get it slowly too.

[@marinusswanepoel1825]

@@elnoruego6854 Just make sure you stick around until the time stamp. God bless.

[@elnoruego6854]

@@marinusswanepoel1825 Im allergic to bullshit, i don't really want to have a reaction.

[@carlingtonme]

John Lennox in his debate with Dawkins pointed out that laws explain,not create.....

[@hj925]

Dawkins is a victim of his own hubris to the extent that he often comes across as genuinely deluded. Lennox for one ran rings around him

[@curiositypiqued6573]

Alex not lennox

[@hj925]

@@curiositypiqued6573 You misunderstood the point completely. Completely. I was referring to Dawkin's arrogant dismissal of those he debated. If you look at his debate with John Lennox you may see what I was referring to.

[@tomaszjanik858]

@@hj925 If he is right or wrong, it doesn't make your god real.

[@hj925]

@@tomaszjanik858 Your problem is , and it is a potentially a very serious one. That you definitely aren't God so have no idea what you are talking about - still less any kind of power except denial and whistling in the dark. There is plenty of evidence for those who don't blind themselves from looking with an open mind (like you probably are?)

[@tomaszjanik858]

@@hj925 "That you definitely aren't God" so you are not too. Do you know what I mean?

[@Adaerus]

Couple of points: 1: Alex O'Connor's ability to formulate questions better than Christians can be considered evidence that the atheistic thinking outperforms theistic thinking. 2: To say that the existence of good and beauty imply the existence of Christian God is like saying that colors (which form as a result of interaction of the brain with the environment) imply the existence of God. These quick jumping to conclusions by theists are a "feature" of the religious thinking which emphasizes belief over skepticism and a preference of the mind to be settling on the answer rather than the question. That would make a theist underperform at the task of asking the question because skepticism sharpens the instinct of asking the question. 3: The evolution of religion is always contingent on asking the question. Everyone's new understanding of religion is through the scientific filter of whatever notions permeated society from cognitive sciences. The new understanding of the Bible is informed by the scientific discoveries especially in cognitive sciences. This was never available to people before. Your Christianity is not the same Christianity as of the past generations, atheism killed it and skepticism birthed a new one.

[@richardhasting6046]

1. All of these questions have been asked before, by Christians, and since they were asked by Christians, Dawkins evades and deflects, and says things like, "We should ridicule faith!" When an atheists asks, he is kind of forced to answer, only for him to discover that there is no real answer without including the divine. 2. As a Christian, I question everything. Dawkins only questions those things which are inconquent to his world-view. If the question were asked, "What would make you believe?" I am sure that our good Dr. would say, "Nothing!". So it isn't in the facts category, it is in the faith category. 3. For too long, faith was unquestioned, it just was. My parents, my grandparents, and through the generations backwards, believed, without much understanding, and without questioning. In fact, in the end, it was a relatively weak level of faith, because it was just taken for granted. Today, as a result of years of study, contemplation, and God ambushing me (In a good way) I know why I believe, I know what I believe, and I do so from both supernatural and natural understanding of the world around me. It isn't about intelligence being for the atheists, and religion for the rubes. I'm an engineer, I made an A'ss in Physics, Econ, Calc 3, and Diff E. I'll stack my scientific and mathematic capacity against most. I am not one of the lower educated folks. Implying that Atheists are smarter than non-atheists is just plain ignorant and offensive. I hope you will keep an open mind and look at the discussion as a back and forth, and whatever side has the best arguments, in your estimation, go with it.

[@Adaerus]

@@richardhasting6046 1: please define "divine". But do it in such a way that is not in the domain of religious fiction. Religious fiction is similar to when in DC comics, people created situations where Batman (a mortal) defeated Superman (a super human alien), and it was all in cannon with the DC universe and the writing. I just want to make sure that I do not compare DC comics and the Bible as far as the depth of meaning but there are narrative processes in the religious thought that is defining the devine or the supernatural in similar manners where things can sound logical as long as they are untethered from reality. 2: I did not say "atheists" I said "skeptic" because these are two different notions. Some atheists believe there is no God but other atheists are skeptic about that too. So let's not conflate atheism with skepticism. Even yourself might be a skeptic if you like to pose questions. 3: That is awesome. Good for you. While I shall not argument against the freedom of having your own beliefs I will have to mention that whatever belief in supranatural or divine is (see point nr 1) is not informed by the notions in those fields you studied but rather by the complex psychology of the human mind which is prone to self deception. The psychological "machinery" that makes use excellent at picking the relevant data we want to focus and excel in is the same "machinery" responsible for ignoring other data that might contradict our best assumptions. We don't know when we self deceive ourselves because we cannot be aware of it so it will always feel as if we're right. Many times we conclude things based on intuition but reality often is counter intuitive. This happens to everyone no matter the belief. However, there is a process that people are developing to recognize and counteract self deception as much as possible. Check out the work of Dr John Vervaeke and others in the field of cognitive sciences.

[@name_fully]

Your first point is just born out of sheer ignorance, the questions have been asked by lots of Christians, Dawkins just doesn't respect them enough to actually engage or respond he biasedly considers everything about them as "bullshit" His lack of respect is what prevents him listening.

[@Adaerus]

@@name_fully lol, you did not even watch the clip. Please pay attention at 0:14 what did Glen says.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@Adaerus Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities and transcendental categories such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” and preaching about the dangers of “FICTION” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Our Heir Alex thank you for attending unto our OWN! Love you too! Without shame but with boldness! Keep the sincere conversations going!

[@nathanv247]

Was hoping this video would exist. That interview was solid gold - and this video the hallmark. Brilliant 😂

[@paulcreber8261]

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but my understanding was that a person becomes a Christian when they have been convicted and repented of their sin and believed in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as their saviour. Nowhere in Ayan Hirsi Ali's testimony have I read that she has done any of this. Yet Glen Scrivener appears content to welcome her into the fellowship of believers. Is he privy to information about Ayan Hirsi Ali about which the rest of us are ignorant? Or is he prepared to accept the loosest and vaguest definition of the word "Christian" if it serves his purpose in his crusade against atheism?

[@JohnCamacho]

"Yet Glen Scrivener appears content to welcome her into the fellowship of believers" Yes because critical thinking has gone out the window

[@LePédantSémantique]

I was never happier than after I found Jesus. He was behind the couch the whole time!

[@jeremyvall2917]

I was tempted to stop this sooner to share some thoughts. There are so many things wrong with this guy's commentary but I had to stop it at ~ 32:30 mins when this guy says that Dawkins is "appealing to mystery" when speculating of the potential for life in a vast universe. In doing so it is actually he who is appealing to a God of the gaps style argument. As scientific knowledge of the universe continues to grow we will continue to learn truths about the universe that were previously unknown and attributed to God. Contrary to a theist position, an atheist position does not make any truth claims. He ends the video with saying "we do need goodness, we do need beauty,". Fair enough, we can agree that these are positive values to aspire to. He continues, "and we need the personal reality of a god who can unite these things in himself rather than these abstract values to which we assent." Why? We can acknowledge there are good ways to live and there are bad ways to live. Just like there are healthy ways to live, and unhealthy ways to live. Whether God is real or not, it is not necessary to believe in him to live a virtuous life.

[@smabe7]

you have such an extraordinary mind. How you can explain the motives and the underlying frameworks of each debater, make it very clear and have me see the glory of the revelation we have as Christians! This is only my second video of you, I think I have never been impressed by so much intelligence, and I listen to a lot of debates and commentators. This channel needs a x100 or a x1000

[@MsBob314]

Your god murdered every man, woman and child on earth except for a few during an alleged great flood, ordered genocide and outlined rules for slavery, aside from other heinous acts. That god would be worse than all despotic rulers that have ever lived - combined. Skeptical atheism is growing, and will keep growing.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Dawkins tends to dismiss anything or anyone he disagrees with. Often he refuses to even engage with evidence, argument or logic.

[@jonathanreichert6322]

Thank you Glen for your comments on the video. Very helpful! As Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, the Egyptian intellectual, had commented last year: “Ayan Hirsi Alis announcement of embracing Christianity is one of the biggest pivotal moments culturally since 9/11 and I don't know how many people actually realize that.” - If the church will stay silent, the rocks will cry out!

[@barslars6038]

So you think one person converting is a big an event as 9/11

[@alainstasse4602]

It was Aboubakr Mansour who made that statement. And yes, one person converting to Christianity can be as big an event as 9/11. Saul, later to become Paul is a good example.Time will tell regarding Ayan. @@barslars6038

[@PaulVanderKlay]

woo hoo! Can't wait for this.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Alex's interview is a GOLDMINE

[@alttiakujarvi]

@@SpeakLifeMedia Glens point on the three transcendentals and how people elevate one over the others to their peril is spot on. Here we saw a case, where a Good-seeking atheist, who rejects faith because the does not find the Bible Good enough, tears down the argumentation of a Truth-seeking atheist because his argumentation completely dismisses the transcendental nature of God, especially His Goodness. And he does this by pointing out that transcendental Good as the source of meaning cannot be explained away even with a full understanding of all natural Truth.

[@sebastiangaete7479]

Also Darwin has not closed the question concerning complexity in life. Just ask David Berlinski.

[@tdvcyt2534]

As an atheist, I appreciate your video. Great job at pointing out the logical fallacies.

[@davidscott5859]

Brilliant response to this. Alex did an excellent job with the questions. Dawkins was embarrassing here. He has no understanding of the Christian faith or what the Bible teaches, no desire to know, and is unwilling to listen and engage seriously with Christian apologists.

[@oliverjamito9902]

My beloved Comes with love with patience! And being mindful unto one another! Why? Students will say what is a Man that God of the Living so mindful of Him? Some will say created a little lower than the Angels BUT can COMMAND Angels who persevere upon HIS FOOTSTOOL and the Fowl of the Air will say and HEAVEN ABOVE! Remember look at all Thy feet resting upon...? Shared Feet from the "i" AM. Many little "i" with the AM Feet resting upon HIS FOOTSTOOL. Come let me wash thy feet to be given New feet! Mileage from thy feet is recognize! Now New Feet! WHO ARE YE ALL? THY SHARED I AM WHO LOVE WITH PATIENCE, MERCY, AND GRACE! JUDGMENT AND JUSTICE IS THY THRONE! Therefore remind and comes with comfort unto all the Who am I in front! Heirs Hosts will say while space and from here grows and came with time given from Thee! How can tolerance nor tolerable can exist in front? Without...! Gratitude and Honor my Heirs!

[@codynunez5246]

exactly. Dawkins is a horrible apologist for Atheism bc he doesn't take his opponents arguments seriously or with respect. Alex does on the other hand.

[@hauskalainen]

I could not disagree more with these viewpoints. If religious belief has survival value, that does not make it either true or a validation of religion. It simply doesn't.

[@Admin-hn6tg]

@@hauskalainen Like Dawkins, you did not engage. You made a statement that only really serves to reveal your personal feelings. You could also say. “If Atheist belief has survival value, that does not make it either true or a validation of atheism”. Or switch the word “Atheism” to anything you personally don’t like. The only thing the statement serves to "validate" is your feelings.

[@David34981]

@@codynunez5246 There is no such thing as apologism for atheism. Atheism is a single stance (that of non-acceptance) on a single claim. It has no burden nor does it need to be defended in itself.

[@ronnieking2753]

Really enjoying the video! Nice take, and I agree, Alex did a great job here. I'm an atheist in much the same way Alex is (just getting that out there before asking my question). Between around 10 and 12 minutes (and I could be misunderstanding your point here), you seem to be fully backing the point that Christianity "works" in the sense that it helps us out compete other societies and religions etc and because of that, it must be true. I think this is the issue I have with KZbin channels of people of faith. This means nothing in my opinion. It just means that it works better than other civilisations. The Mongols once ruled most of the planet without being Christians but that doesn't mean what they believed in terms of religion was the correct thing to believe. We are where we are as a society, partly because of Christianity but more so because in the last 2000 years, it just so happens that the Christians have had the strongest and well organised armies. I wish God did exist but even though I watch hours and hours of Christian KZbin videos and read/listen to the bible, the lack of actual evidence always wins for me. I completely agree that Christianity has lead to the freedoms we hold today and is subjectively the best way to live in large societies but I think it's just a way to explain why things are the way they are without actually being true. This is the point I think Dawkins tries to make. It can be valuable and has got us to where we are, but it doesn't mean it's true. Someone can gaslight me in work to believe I am the best employee in that company, and that could lead to me believing it and negotiating a brilliant salary raise but it doesn't mean I am actually the best employee in the company even though believing it did benefit me

[@danix8538]

Yeah, he seems to be OK with the fact that he essentially considers Christinity the best lie because it helped us outcompete other civilizations so far. And so far is the key word as there are widespread issues right now in the whole Christian based civilization. The point he misses about truth and Dawkins does a poor job of explaining is that it orients you toward reality so that you can adapt better to it, i.e. survive. For example, depending on the time horizon chosen, Japan's policy of isolation was great or disastrous.

[@mcgragor1]

I'm a skeptical Christian who also thinks Alex does a very good job. He clearly sees now that there are some good arguments for God, which shows his honesty. I've thought about this a bit as I play devils advocate in my own mind watching Alex and other atheist channels and have come to the conclusion that there will never be enough evidence to be sure there is a God, but there will always be enough to take that leap of faith. Not blind faith, as there is evidence, but similar to how Dawkins thinks eventually everything will be figured out by science (that is a faith statement), the Christian believes its already explained by God. As far as Christianity being the best way to live in societies being subjective, one has to look at how these "subjective" beliefs came about. One thing about scripture, it does not support our natural tendencies, but lays a foundation to deny self and seek the needs of others, thus why anything from hospitals to universities were largely pushed from a Christian worldview, it gives reason and purpose. I think the last 5 years of woke should be enough to inform anyone that if man makes the decision, things go so far off, even many atheist have been shocked.

[@ronnieking2753]

@mcgragor5042 completely agree. It sounds to me that we're on the same page, although I'm a sceptical atheist, and you vice versa. I've been more drawn to the idea of the divine more through the obvious displays of pure debauchery and what some might call demonic things going on around us the last few years. Almost as if my mentality is, if there's clearly a yang, there must be a yin. I have the idea that scripture is a collection of pieces of advice (in story form) from ancient civilisations who knew what to do in order to avoid or combat the "devil's work" in the best way possible based on their own experiences of failing societies. I do actually pray for the people I love and thank a God (that I'm not sure exists) for the things that I have and the life I've been given. I recently went to Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and was very moved by the beauty of the interior (and often am when I visit catherdrals and grand churches) in a way that I don't think was purely architectural but I still don't know if that is a yearning for something bigger than myself as part of natural human desire and evolution to do so, or if this is the "power of the divine". I almost feel a bit silly writing this haha, but I assume as a sceptical Christian, the things I am saying might make sense to you, and it's nice to be able to clearly write my thoughts. I hope so anyway, and I hope you have a lovely day too

[@mcgragor1]

@@ronnieking2753 It's refreshing to see someone else more toward the middle and willing to admit it. I think both sides cave to the pressures of this culture (the debate itself), rather than truly searching for truth. Alex strikes me (at least in the last few years) as truly being open to there being a God and I might be wrong, but there is a sense where I think he if found Him, he would have no problem being a Theist, he seems to be just that honest in his quest, which is refreshing. I see both Christians and atheist who are far from being that open. I've been doing a deep dive watching these sort of things as well as the Christian side of it and its getting to the point where I am realizing that both sides have evidence and in the end, both sides must make a leap of faith. I do think Theism has more explanatory power, but in order for me to get there, I must accept the reality of the super natural, if one cannot find that tenable, then naturalism seems to make sense, but then at least to me, you're still left with what seems to be an astounding miracle that we're all a part of, thus, it also involves a leap of faith. (just my opinion, I know many atheist get upset at that notion.) From the Christian perspective what you said about the world and its debauchery has also helped me to maintain my faith. It just seems clear to me that if people are left to themselves--especially in countries where they have a lot of freedom, there is no end to what can be imagined, much of which would contradict even the naturalist view. Its also clear to me that the morality that is generally debated amongst believers and non believers is grounded in the Judeo/Christian tradition. That of course does not prove there is a God that gave us all of that, but it is an evidence. Well, I better stop before I write a book lol, thanks for the comment, its great to have these types of conversations.

[@paularrowsmith9980]

​@@ronnieking2753 Just a quick thought. In the Bible, God says that if we seek Him with all our heart, we will find Him.

[@g07denslicer]

27:20 Lol if you ever even thought for a second Alex is a secret Christian, look up his debate with Trent Horn, or any debate with a theologian, really. He will tell you. No, what Alex is doing is he is being a good interviewer. He asks challenging questions. And since his interviewee is an atheist then it's obvious you would think Alex's questions are those a Christian would ask. That's precisely why he's asking them.

[@luisbarbosa8136]

ya, but he is the few ones that does that

[@michaelvout7813]

I am saddened by this response video and by what only can be termed the dishonesty, ignorance and projection of Glen. The video is in fact an example of the integrity and honesty of people who are not afraid to question religion and Christianity and the pursuit of truth. In addition Glen repeatedly straw mans Dawkins and blatantly misrepresents Darwin’s The Origin of the Species.

[@tommywillywatson]

Was watching this interview earlier and thought, 'Glen should see this!'. I guess the algorithms work a bit quicker than I do... Any signs of an Alex O'Connor discussion with Glen on the horizon?

[@summumesse1303]

I doubt this fella would debate Alex, for fear of ending up looking stupid with his magical and baseless beliefs.

[@paularrowsmith9980]

​@@summumesse1303 Or maybe you weren't listening to Glen very well?

[@carsandsports123]

​@@summumesse1303I see you comment without watching, how for informed of you

[@stu4umybru777]

The best Christian Christian reaction to this video. Excellent job and thank you

[@DAH55100]

Religion is a cultural relic of human evolution......whose relevance, in the modern world, needs to be actively challenged. Grown ups don't need to believe in Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny....in order to live decent, compassionate lives.

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

Please watch and share with others my four brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible; facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by God. And today's scientists agree with those facts! Thank you!

[@jameshogan6142]

Exactly. In the same way they don't need to believe in science in order to enjoy it's benefits.

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

@@jameshogan6142 Please watch and share with others my four brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible; facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by God. And today's scientists agree with those facts! Thank you!

[@scottharrison812]

Tom Holland’s “Dominion” similarity explores how the modern critical mind and moral-ethical character emerges from Christianity. Worth reading.

[@ftg3183]

I am an Atheist but this is well analyzed....its always good to hear an opposing view on these matters

[@ftg3183]

@@angelobalbi i totally agree with you....but I'm honest enough intellectually to hear an opposing view yes all the questions he asked can easily be answered and I personally think they rule out the possibility of God .or at least reduce the need for God as an explanation...for things.. Yes and your right religion is a man made concept...and we can easily answer those questions posed and the answers Do more damage to the God hypothesis than he realised

[@DrWrapperband]

What makes me think you're not an Ashiest??? Us "Ashiests" get labbeled, we don't go around saying "I'm an Athiest"?? That would be like an African going round saying, hello "I'm Black".

[@ftg3183]

@@DrWrapperband Fair enough

[@jonjensen8985]

Richard dawkins didn't row anything back. He's always said exactly what he says here. I know because i watched him say this often.

[@paularrowsmith9980]

Seems to me that he did.

[@jonjensen8985]

​@paularrowsmith9980 of course you would say that. But if you've watched every dawkins interview. You wouldn't be saying that. This video is very misleading and tries to paint a narrative that is entirely inaccurate in regards to what richard always has said

[@evertvdb000]

correct

[@englishdogs]

I'm not a Christian, but I appreciate this critique of Dawkins.

[@daveg-j1866]

Shows what a great interviewer and KZbinr Alex is. Enjoying your commentary too

[@daveg-j1866]

The author/story analogy is so powerful as an apologetic. Gavin Ortlund's new book is brilliant on it. Fascinating to see Alex pick it up and give it respect

[@rupertcaney]

Completely agree. I thought exactly the same thing watching that podcast... Dawkins would cleverly divert and dismiss arguments that he clearly had no answer for

[@brianzembruski5485]

You just keep telling yourself that.

[@rupertcaney]

@@brianzembruski5485 sounds like you're projecting there mate haha

[@ThinkAboutIt-xr1le]

Diversity of life only seems like a smaller question now because we've known the answer our whole lives. We may never get to a natural explanation to all of our "big questions" and some of the answers we do get may make us uncomfortable. This is not permission to invent a supernatural one. The track record of religious etiologies withstanding the test of time is pretty poor. Meanwhile, I can't think of a single scientifically understood phenomenon that was later supplanted in the consensus view by the supernatural.

[@williampelerin8515]

Exactly! Having said that, although I reject theists beliefs, Atheists will never displace the social structures historically based on theological principles.

[@williampelerin8515]

P.S. This is my first exposure to Mr. Scrivener. This performance is all I need to know it will be the last.

[@BobDingus-bh3pd]

It’s hard to supplant something when you’re the original fundamental principle. The hypothesis of a divinely endowed “soul” or “spirit” separate from the material and abstract has existed since the beginning of intellectual thought. It has never supplanted nor been supplanted by any other theory. Which is why the question still stands thousands of years later. It was only in recent generations that atheists got comfortable pretending they solved the big question definitively. Dawkins likes to pretend that Darwin’s origin of species is a theory of everything…when even Darwin believed in an “ultimate lawgiver.”

[@Jason_xofilos]

Religion is not evil but humans can use religion and dogma for greedy, dark, or evil purposes. Also fanatic followers in existing established religions or cults can be an issue by blindly following a charismatic leader. Dune by Frank Herbert is a good example of a cautionary fictional story.

[@jamesmulvey1386]

It becomes very tricky when you paint yourself into a corner--- One might run out of time before it dries ---- Having said that--- the Crucifixion and the Resurrection---- covers all of mankind without exception. Worth reflecting on ----

[@sparxhub3379]

The way Glen is unable to seperate the metophor of sherlock homes from what darwins origin of theory proves shows why he is unable to understand the athiest view point. The fact is that the origin of species proves that humans weren't designed (were not created by god on the sixth day of existence and probably because it might have been too hot six days after the big bang😂). Nearly all of Glens points exist in poorly constructed metaphor, you can use this to make a point but then it has to be backed up with a truth about reality.

[@FarWanderer81]

7:10 You misunderstand the interest of memes. Dawkins called his book “The selfish gene” for a reason, and that is to say that genes operate to perpetuate themselves. The same goes for memes. They don’t operate to serve us, but to serve themselves. Of course, the fate of a meme is tied up with the fate of its biological host, and to that extent genes and memes are in alignment. But the alignment is not absolute. A meme could have some level of detrimental effect on the biological host, which would in turn have a detrimental effect on the meme’s survival, but if the meme that causes a detrimental effect on the host also gives a sufficiently significant advantage over other memes (say, self reinforcing logic that blocks its own host from belief of other memes), then the meme with the detrimental effect on its host may still outcompete other memes overall.

[@g07denslicer]

0:45 "This might be the death rattle of New Atheism" Right, suddenly people stopped leaving the Church and are miraculously coming back. Except that's not the reality we live in.

[@johnhoran9840]

I think what truly exposes the weakness of anti-theists such as Richard Dawkins is the fact that they can't simply quietly, contentedly live their lives. They feel the need to spend all of their time and energy "debunking" Christianity.

[@someonesomeone25]

I think it's because they view religion as causing harm and thus want to help eradicate it.

[@Nicole-kc1vx]

Misery loves company

[@johnhoran9840]

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't spend my life trying to convince OTHER people that Santa isn't real.@@Nicole-kc1vx

[@jomae647]

I believe the same could be sd abt many Christians who arrogantly tries to impose their personal beliefs on anyone that comes in sight. I guess perhaps u can say it’s a human behavior and not exclusive to any anti theist group.

[@ArtemMalian]

What do you think the maker of the Video is doing?

[@R0nge]

I am not sure you watched the same conversation I did. But then you started with a conclusion, and then Cherry picked the facts of their conversation to fit your conclusion. No change there then…

[@andreasstavrinides6980]

I thought exactly the same thing.

[@arthuroldale-ki2ev]

INDOCTRINATION!!! I still have my school report from 1952 when I was aged 7. Under religious instruction, It states, that Arthur (me) shows no interest. the report also states that I am strong willed a good mixer and loveable (I don`t think I am now) . My Mother told me before she died, that my Teacher at that time, told her that she was worried about me and thought me backward. I have never changed my mind over the years about having NO interest only these days I see it as a force for evil. Indoctrinated Catholicism stopped my Mother from leaving a man that was to spoil her life.

[@andrewhaywood3853]

So sorry to hear that Arthur. I understand as my Aunt picked a man who ruined her life, thus proving there’s nothing sacred about marriage. It’s horrible seeing someone you love trapped because of religious indoctrination, and seeing a beautiful person’s life go to waste, and them unable to bloom like they should. I can’t understand this video and it’s comments - everyone saying Glenn is clever! And they all think Alex is a Christian! Glenn can’t see any point in truth, and thinks truth is what humans say it is, and that’s in our genetics therefore it’s evolutionary to be delusional! And everyone on here applauds!!! WTF is he trying to get at? Is his only point to get Dawkins to rename his book “The Beautiful God Delusion”?

[@milesmungo]

@@andrewhaywood3853 I think the sacredness of marriage comes from the vows, and the importance an individual places on it. In the Christian worldview, the couple makes vows in public such that their friends and family can keep them accountable, and a vow before God. I'm not a catholic, but when the Bible says "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave His life for it", I don't hear in that "feel free to abuse and ruin your wife's life". While it is tragic that abuse occurs in marriage, that's not what Christ exemplifies. Sacredness isn't magical, but if two men agree a handshake is sacred, then it is indeed sacred and binding. Same for marriage. I think the point with regard to Alex is not that he is a Christian, but that he does a good job of articulating the Christian perspective with regard to these questions. Glenn's point about truth seems to be to me that Darwin acknowledges the power of memes, but still rejects Christianity. Does he then reject all other elements of evolution? Why does Dr. Dawkins hold truth to be the highest virtue, the most important thing? If our brains, the world around us, and even our culture have all evolved for our survival and fitness, where does truth come in, and why at the top? Dawkins appeals to truth, but can't use science to justify it.

[@MetaphorUB]

@@milesmungoSurely you don’t believe there is no survival benefit to knowing true things instead of false things. And evolution is better attested by more lines of disparate science than even something like our theory of gravity, but the only people who deny gravity are flat earthers. You’re not a flat earther, right?

[@nateswain4633]

Your teacher may have been on to something

[@chrish5184]

I completely agree with the general gist of the video, and especially the idea that the transcendental value of truth is often focused on to the neglect and detriment of goodness and beauty. But I do have to be honest and point out that religion being a meme does not contradict Dawkins view that religion is maladaptive. In the Selfish gene Dawkins is very clear that memes can be maladaptive and that meme and bits of information that have a tendency to be repeated. These bits of info can be helpful or harmful. Not every meme that has a tendency to be repeated will be adaptive, just look at "trans women are women' or any of the maladaptive religions. But the idea that Christianity is a maladaptive meme is looking like a much harder case to make these days. And I think even Dawkins knows this which is why his tone is softening even if he is trying to 'stick to his guns'.

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

Your voice and love of Jesus is a blessing Glen. Thank you!

[@jeanbrown4736]

I agree

[@quasarsupernova9643]

No. Truth is absolute. Delusionary beliefs can be useful for survival but Dawkins says truth can be even more beneficial if all of us decide to overcome the comfort of this local minimum (delusionary beliefs) and plunge into a more comfortable and deeper global minimum (Truth).

[@philippbrogli779]

To me it seems like evolution beyond species is a theory that can't work for various reasons. But even if we assume that evolution happened like it is described in the textbook, all that does is push the question one step back. After all the evolution works because the laws of physics are set up in a way that carbon based molecules are complex enough that they can create self replicating organisms. Of course a hopeful atheist can make the speculation that we can push the laws of physics a step further back into the realm of philosophy, where the laws of physics are necessary to come into existence in a way that it requires biological life to occur. I mean theoretically this may be possible, but that is a faith claim if I ever heard one.

[@jameshogan6142]

That is what I think. If evolution can produce such a complex organism as a human being why cannot scientists who are based on knowledge replace lost limbs or organs. Nature gives us a perfect human limb. Science can give us only a pathetic plastic and steel prosthetic.

[@sammason2300]

Glen's flappy bit of hair bothered me almost as much as Richard's missing button

[@mrrolandlawrence]

if alex can debate richard better than any christian with supposedly the most powerful book at their disposal for backup - woah that is christians throwing other christians under the bus as it were..

[@henrylopez7721]

Why does no one call Dawkins in his double speak? "Darwin solved", "you're right he didnt". "We know", "actually we dont know" Bruh....

[@LourensBrink]

People have called him out for contradicting himself. His supporters just tend to turn a blind eye.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Yes, and it was the gentlest pushback from Alex-"calling it the big one might be a step too far"-and within seconds Dawkins is rowing back till he says it's completely beyond Darwinism and we may never know the answer 😯

[@henrylopez7721]

@@SpeakLifeMedia foundation build on sand man Keep up the good work

[@jameshogan6142]

He knew very little about genetics, He was unaware that the same gene is responsible for different characteristics such as the same gene being responsible for white or purple flowers as in peas. These were later determined to be alleles.

[@paulharrisonadventuregearm5457]

All religious roots have given the same morally divided and horrific outcomes as the next. A few select people seem to think Christianity has a greater strangle hold on morality than other religions...it simply doesn't.

[@marca9955]

You've misunderstood. When asked a question about God, Dawkins doesn't even accept the premise. It's like asking if the tooth fairy's wand gets power from its composition or structure. There is no sensible answer. Nor should he try to give one. His job as a scientist is to deal with facts that can be falsified, not mythologies. As a Christian you probably will never get that.

[@Stigtoes]

OK, you may have made a good case for religious truth but which religion. They can't all be true. High praise for Alex O'Connor and yet despite it all, he is still an atheist. He is clearly not persuaded by any of these arguments. To say that this analysis marks the death throws of atheism is fanciful. Just look at the polls.

[@tomaszjanik858]

"The grand daddy of new atheism" it makes me laugh. Atheism is not philosophy nor religion. It's simple answer to the question: do you believe in god? The answer is no. Just like that.

[@AH-ml4vi]

Shakespeare was not the starting point. Shakespeare did not invent the alphabet or the rules that say sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. He didn't even invent story writing. You could say these things "evolved" (in quotes because not the scientific use of evolved) and they evolved from simple beginnings, grunts and snarls eventually becoming words, then more words joined into sentences. The origin of the species explains this, that we are not asking where did complex life come from (Shakespeares book) we have moved the question back to instead ask how did the first simple cells replicate.

[@jameshogan6142]

Simple cells replicated in the same way simple letters and sounds came into being.

[@hauskalainen]

Take the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill. The Bible tells you that this command came from a God that created everything. But that command re nterpersonal behaviour does not require that a supranatural being commanded it. Human made laws would have ordered it. The man who collected firewood on the Sabbath was ordered by God to be put to death. HUMAN made laws would NOT have so commanded. I am with Dawkins 100%

[@HearGodsWord]

Which verse are you referring to?

[@walterclaycooke]

Truth claims have had a great impact on us. Countless thousands were killed and are being killed in religious wars between people claiming Islam is true and Christianity is true, for example.

[@ernietollar407]

It's better if the really articulate are left to.. articulate rather than get help from those who are.... well, less articulate

[@vincentmcnabb939]

Unless you’re talking about Dawkins, I disagree.

[@JohnCamacho]

To be fair, something that comes out of evolution can have its importance in early species but is no longer needed in modern iterations of the species. Why can't religion be similar? Or at least, why wouldn't religion evolve into something different in the coming decades?

[@jed666007]

You missed some other Christian memes. Slavery, clergy child abuse, witch hunts, the blood libel, genocide, human sacrifices etc etc

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

Tom Holland (agnostic historian) "When we condemn what Charlemagne’s soldiers did to the Saxons, or what the Spanish Conquistadors did in the New World, or what English slavers did when they were taking people from Africa to the New World - when we see that, by our standards, these are all crimes, we are judging them as Christians would. Earlier civilisations would have seen nothing wrong with this behaviour. People in the West, even those who may imagine that they have emancipated themselves from Christian belief, in fact, are shot through with Christian assumptions about almost everything. . . All of us in the West are a goldfish, and the water that we swim in is Christianity"

[@jed666007]

​@@Rocky-ur9mn W T F are you talking about?

[@BigPapiCapone]

@@jed666007 look up the historian, Tom Holland.

[@ilpezkato]

@@Rocky-ur9mn Fully agreed with @jed666007 WTF are you talking about?

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

@@ilpezkato let me dumb it down for you you condemn Christianity using Christian reasoning. You find things like slavery is bad or all humans are equal to be true because of the influence of the Christian tradition. This is a fact that many historians like Tom Holland or Rodney Stark etc have noted. Even anti Christian thinkers like Nietzsche also recognize this influence

[@ogochukwuodii5840]

Any time stamps?

[@Euphoftoday]

Religion itself is not evil, only humans make it so.

[@SergTTL]

humans made religions and human made them evil

[@ryanjosephlock]

11:30 "What stands above survival in truth?" Firstly, survival doesn't speak to truth claims, so if religion aids survival, it lends credence to the idea that it is a helpful adaptation at most. As we culturally evolve away the need for religious dogmatism, much the way we did with tribal spiritualism, religiosity becomes less adept in the environment.

[@TheApprentice007]

Paul says we're born in sin. It's almost like sin are memes, and we inherit those too. How do you not see that Dawkins!?

[@302indian]

Absolutely..

[@302indian]

Even Dawkins will point out that we need to rise above the evil impulses in our genes.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

have to admit i had not heard of betty the botanist and her lab assistant. alex did a remarkable job using language that is not offensive and as such, dawkins kept his composure, which is a rare occasion.

[@curiositypiqued6573]

That's...bs Wtf u on about I've never even seen him lose it

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@curiositypiqued6573 you have not watched many such debates then where dawkins becomes dismissively rude.

[@papsmirnoff101]

Ya him and sam Harris just loose there cool all the time they need to take a chill pill.

[@ldpauls]

No, no, no. Memes don't have to benefit the host. The selection of the meme is due to the benefit to the meme. Memes that are good at spreading are the ones that spread. Part of that is of course having a pool of host brains to spread to. This is the main point of his book the Selfish Gene, and the principle applies to memes just as much as to genes.

[@mokeboi3328]

When Dawky resorts to adhominen slurs against WL Craig he shows his bankrupt worldview. Shame on him. Great work O Connor. Thanks Glen. Loving your work fella.

[@shaunclubberlang2887]

WL Craig is a moron

[@Svankmajer]

Where life comes from doesn't really have that much "oomph" if you truly accept evolution the way Darwin and most modern science accepts it, because evolution takes all life back to the stage of the first self-replicating molecule, and doesn't need God guiding it after that at all. So it's true as Dawkins says that Darwin solved the "big one". The theory of mind can also be explained by emergence through evolutionary means. As for where the first molecule come from is more a technical question. I admit being an atheist here, but I didn't find this video very charitable. Your mocking arguments also seems kind of forced sometimes.

[@andrewofaiur]

Alex has been building himself a reputation among the Christian community as a fair and intelligent deep-thinker but his main work of arguments against God are completely ignored by the Christians. Alex presents even graver a threat to the Christian/religious world because unlike the new age atheists, he truly understands Christian apologetics.

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

Jesus is the stumbling block for Alex. Nothing else. He seems to be trapped in his brilliant intellect. But the Kingdom of God is revealed unto babes.

[@alttiakujarvi]

It is true, that Christian commentators have not commented much on Alex's most original arguments, which are variations on the problem of evil. I think the weakness of his argumentation is inconsistency with worldview and it was best displayed with his debate with Ben Shapiro, where he made the case that as God should have been able to clearly ban slavery already in the Torah, as Torah also bans crimes that are "totally imaginary, like witchcraft". (I have not watched the whole conversation, this was one of Alex's shorts in my feed) The first problem is, that he insists the creation account has to be an accurate account of the creation and as such should be inerring. However, he does not actually belief this to be the case as his argument on the suffering being integral part of creation as a driver the darwinian evolution shows. If there is a God that has created this world with the process that Alex believes happened and also revealed himself in the Bible, then it would stand to perfect reason that also the knowledge of God did not start with a perfect revelation. So he believes one worldview regarding the origin of the universe, but argues for the origin of the Bible from a different worldview. The same inconsistency is present in Alex's notion, that witchcraft is an "imaginary crime". If Bible is revelation from God, then clearly the supernatural realm exists and witchcraft is not an "imaginary crime". This is personally insulting being a Sámi and having living relatives that have experienced supernatural events. How am I supposed to take seriously a person who not only denies the existence of anything supernatural, but to whom this naturalism is so natural (pun unavoidable) that he argues that Gods supernatural revelation should reveal a purely naturalist world ?!?

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

@@MrDarkgreen the hope of Christianity is in Christ Jesus alone, not man or his intellect. The Lord may well be using Alex (and Jordan Peterson) to steer discourse and plant seeds. But we place our hope and faith in Jesus Christ alone. He has risen! The work is finished! Praise God!

[@markrichter2053]

Alex O’Connor hardly endorses Christianity!😂

[@HearGodsWord]

This has certainly brought a lot of different people to the channel to complain in the comments 😂

[@MKD371]

Pursuing truth does not automatically exclude perusing the good in life and having a clear moral compass.

[@user-ch4ex3yy4l]

Well done!

[@TAEYYO]

I've been a fan of Alex for a long time. You have a very charitable view of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[@trapperhewitt6478]

Your rose example is so telling. There is a reality and then there is human thought. A rose is simply a rose and then you have your own meaning to it and a symbol of love but that is just human thinking. Same way the universe is simply reality and your human thinking imagines it as a symbol of a creators design through it’s just your own human thinking.

[@patrickryan4927]

Same way we imagine a coin we might find on a beach is manufactured and not just a natural object?

[@russellsharpe288]

The insight that religion appears to be a human universal and so (by Dawkins' own understanding of the evolutionary function of memes) must have some evolutionary benefit, and so, at least pragmatically speaking, justify religion, can only serve to justify Christianity if Christianity is considered as a species of religion. But is Christianity a religion? A number of Christian thinkers, from Barth to Girard, have found it important to insist that Christianity is rather a repudiation of religion.

[@sanjivjhangiani3243]

For what it's worth, I think that those thinkers you mentioned were all Protestants and the idea that Christianity is not a religion is very much a Protestant/ low-church perspective. For the "high " Christian churches, e.g., Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Christianity is a religion in the sense of other religions.

[@russellsharpe288]

@@sanjivjhangiani3243 Actually René Girard was a practising Catholic. But you are probably right that the idea of Christianity as having at the very least an ambivalent relation to the supposedly broader category 'religion', and even having a historical mission to liberate humankind from religions rather than to add to them, is more self-consciously promoted among Protestants, perhaps stemming from a keener awareness of the way that traditional religious forms, especially when these are taken up into a community's self-image, can occlude and even betray the Christian kerygma, understood as a salvific relation offered to each individual. In a sense of course every proselytising religion has a conception of itself as special and singular as compared to all others (else why would it proselytise?), and certainly the early Christian Church did not see itself as offering one more god to weave into the Roman Empire's rich tapestry of religious observance, but as the unique truth before which man-made religions must finally crumble and fall.

[@jephrivers5040]

Well said!

[@Genarii]

Sure, Dawkins didn't really follow the idea that he could understand everything about his world/universe and yet still be living in a simulation. Whatever creator that there may be "outside" our existence is unfalsifiable, and so perhaps the question is not a particularly interesting one to ponder for Dawkins. Why would an unexplorable area be of interest to a scientist? Making up a few thousand answers (religions) with no way to adjudicate the truth or likelihood of any of them (relative likelihood aside) would seem like a pointless waste of time to someone like Dawkins.

[@Daz19]

If have to disagree, Dawkins is much more likely referencing the very commonly used correspondence theory of truth, as especially practiced in the sciences.

[@barslars6038]

There is proof of Shakespeare, there is no proof of God.

[@tomgreene1843]

Faith and Reason by John Paul II gives good insights on philosophy /faith interface. Christianity is not a compendium of utility to survive temporal enemies. I think Alex exposes a certain limitation in the Dawkinsian corpus . Dawkins has faith in the futiure.

[@TroyLeavitt]

4:00 The reason scientific truth is privileged is because it works. Christianity didn't do that.

[@DanielRiesner]

Thanks for this insightful review!

[@alexcullen7055]

Such a great video. While Alex does a great job within the interview of pushing back on some of Dawkins' inconsistencies, your analysis of the underlying ideas at play and relating them back to Christianity is so clear. Excellent stuff

[@arthuroldale-ki2ev]

I`m not sad, I enjoy life, and when I die, I will no longer exist. It will be just like , when I did not exist, before I was born. I`m not greedy!

[@1969cmp]

Lennox v Dawkins at Birmingham Alabama was a good debate and John had to put Richard into line about the historical reality of Jesus.

[@misterocain]

21:37 "Big" questions are not big when they are malformed and infer part of the answer being embedded in the question. 1. I don't know anybody but the religious who think something came from nothing. 2. We have both order (from natural laws) and chaos from those laws. 3. We don't yet know how we got life (non complex) from non life. We have some idea but it is true that Darwin didn't even attempt to address this but that doesn't mean a god or gods is the default. 4. how we got minds from mindless matter is similar to 3. The fossil record does tell us that minds are an evolved consequence of simple on/off cells (see evolution of the eye.).

[@brigwood7658]

I too likes Alex's questions; its the best you can hope battling RD. But 'my God' ... your review, the comments, inferences etc you make; your logic is all over the world. I think every single sentence you uttered (before I bailed) was just 'wrong' (or 'really 'shonky'). From your first response to the vid (carrying the tree metaphor 'too far', as if it protects you from the genetic fallacy), to saying RW is contradicting himself (not at all ... or only if you put words in his mouth he never said, or you draw inferences from cherry picked premises), confusing truth with pragmatism (or if not 'confusing', it was really muddled); inferring 'oughts from as is' (naturalist fallacy), conflating issues/categories. And that was just at a glance on high speed. Gave up after the 12 min mark after realising it's just one big projection of what you want to see. Christians eh?

[@chrish5184]

What Ayan Hirsi Ali has shown is that one can accept a great many of the common priors of the new atheists (that religion is psychological, cultural and a personal way of finding meaning) and still say 'you know what, I am going to become a Christian'. And that there is actually nothing wrong or contradictory with that.

[@jephrivers5040]

If one "accepts" the "common priors", becoming a christian on those grounds redefines it, so that it's meaning is lost

[@The_Other_Ghost]

Alex asked who Dawkins has the most respect for. You claimed dawkins has no respect for any... You might rewatch the first 15 seconds of your video a couple times.

[@annapobst]

Highly appreciate your work!! Thank you 🙏🙏

[@MissBlennerhassett876]

Why are you performing "nodding along" to the video as if it's the first time you've watched it?

[@j.whisper2379]

The only important thing in this conversation is that both conversants are atheists, not theists or deists.

[@UnbiasOP]

Great channel, my man. Glad to have found it.

[@paulharrisonadventuregearm5457]

People on average are so easily convinced by cultural norms and stick to it like glue throughout evolution even though it falls incredibly short in every conceivable measure of morality and ethics and behaviour. It's only when someone that actually thinks in depth ..such as a Dawkins that some conscious sensibility is awakened on reality when it comes to truth and morality

[@g07denslicer]

33:03 "If you have enough planets and enough time, then at some point the impossible becomes possible. An again, this sounds incrdibly theological to me." ??? if I have a six-sided die and I roll it every second from no until infinity, there WILL be an instance at some point where I will have rolled 100 sixes in a row, givn enough time. Is that theological? No, that's probability.

[@scotthutson8683]

Don't forget Dr. Keith Ward was another one of the first Philosophers to show the weaknesses in Richard Dawkin's arguments. Him, McGrath and Lennox are some of the best, Dawkins even interviewed McGrath at one point and specifically said his book rightly criticized some of his ideas from the God Delusion. Alex is a great and fair interviewer, I had the pleasure of meeting him in Houston a few years ago and he is a very kind, friendly and patient person. I continue to pray for him as often as I can.

[@TaxEvasi0n]

The first who came to mind was Lennox. Personally I'm not a fan of WLC, so it was a chuckle for me when Richard mentioned him. However Lennox takes a more intellectual approach in my opinion, and is not afraid to lean in to Richards arguments.

[@mattyblakeman863]

"Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” Rupert Sheldrake

[@MetaphorUB]

Yeah, that’s not what science is based on, bruh. Why is it so hard to just say we don’t know how the universe started? We know a lot more now than we did a couple hundred years ago. And lastly, Dawkins is kind of a trash human being and the atheists I know have all largely disowned him. Including me.

[@trapperhewitt6478]

I could watch this video over and over just to laugh at how silly your arguments are. Just claim it to be true and it is like how you keep accusing them of “theological” thinking

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

The debate between atheism and science versus religion and creationism often centers on the origin of life and the role of religion in human society. From the atheistic and scientific perspective, life’s origin is a subject of rigorous inquiry, grounded in empirical evidence and evolutionary theory. This approach encourages relentless questioning and exploration, fostering scientific advancement and a deeper understanding of the natural world. However, the absence of religious belief can lead to existential angst for some, as it removes a source of hope, structure, and community that religion traditionally provides. On the other hand, religious creationism offers comfort and meaning through established narratives about life's origins, which can foster a strong sense of community and personal solace. However, this adherence can sometimes discourage critical inquiry and acceptance of scientific discoveries that challenge these beliefs. This dichotomy highlights the struggle: while religion can provide immediate psychological and social benefits, it may also hinder the pursuit of knowledge by promoting acceptance over curiosity. Balancing these perspectives involves acknowledging the comfort religion can offer while advocating for the importance of questioning and understanding the complexities of existence through a scientific lens.

[@j.whisper2379]

Survival of the fittest is not a random mindless process. Any more than the process of dog breeding is not. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of many who are religious.

[@j.whisper2379]

And if the Chixlub asteroid had not wiped out the Dinosaurs. We might be a very different species contemplating our origins!

[@arthuroldale-ki2ev]

Thank you Andrew!

[@JohnAlamina]

Alex O' Connor is the most controversial atheist I have ever seen. The only way I can explain Alex as a Christian is that Alex is a 21st-century Cyrus that God is raising for a purpose. I love God for the way he picks his servants. I have sincerely and honestly stopped trying to convince atheists but rather trying to understand their psychology. Well, may God continue to raise atheists to convince atheists.