Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Audience Q&A on religion and evolution PART 2

Episode 1 | Season 2 of The Big Conversation
For more debate videos, updates and exclusive content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
For Part 1 of the conversation: • Alister McGrath & Bret...
Bret Weinstein and Alister McGrath take questions from a live London audience following their debate on 'Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth'. Is evolutionary theory stuck in the 1970s? Is God a 'hack' for morality? Was being a Christian in the 1st Century an adaptive advantage?
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Hosted by Justin Brierley, the shows explore science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Hope you enjoy the 1st episode of The Big Conversation Season 2. More shows with big thinkers land this Autumn. Sign up at www.thebigconversation.show to be notified and for exclusive content

[@hiawathasbrother]

@Dylan I have to agree with this -- McGrath himself had no interesting questions and no interesting answers either.

[@myopenmind527]

Jononomo isn’t that the way with theism. Whilst internally consistent it’s now found out not to be consistent with the world we know in the 21st century.

[@myopenmind527]

Dylan Jononomo what is there about theism that we can know is true? Whilst internally consistent it’s now found out not to be consistent with the world we know in the 21st century.

[@paulkevinvideo]

It amazed me that McGrath didn't point out the obvious, that God's moral law and the nature of sin are essential and eternal principles that answer all questions of morality for everyone, including mad scientists. The gift of free will comes with a cost when men and women operate unrestrained by the moral law. McGrath blew a fine opportunity to outdo Weinstein on this point. And I didn't hear a single specific argument disproving God or the Bible. Zzzzzzzzzz

[@myopenmind527]

paulkevin god’s moral law?? We haven’t been able to prove gods are real. We have primitive attempts at morality written down millennia ago but these were written by men. Where is this moral law you are talking about?

[@josephjohnston7499]

I appreciate Alister McGrath‘s sense of continuity with Brett Weinstein which highlights a Reformed Theology but I wish that he had been more vocal of the discontinuity that exist between Brett’s point of view and the Christian worldview, especially when it comes understanding eschatology. Brett is right to worry about man’s future and was surprised that Alister did not pick up on that and introduced Rene Girard’s meta ethic of a world built around Jesus’ sacrifice. It seems that McGrath has the answer for Weinstein’s concern but sadly failed to make it known. All in all I do appreciate what you are doing in bringing these discussions to the public. Thank you so much.

[@jec222]

The verbosity of these religious scholars is glaring in conversation with Bret.

[@kameelffarag]

Fantastic program with the highest level of intellectuality. Both speakers are erudite and of the best composure , Bret is a man to reckon with.

[@flaze3]

everything for McGrath was a "very interesting question" and "a very important question to explore", but he was pretty short on answers or explanations throughout!

[@bigfan1041]

One can accuse them both of that

[@theyatter]

@@bigfan1041 But one would have lots of explaining to do if one did...

[@bigfan1041]

@@theyatter Why

[@theyatter]

@@bigfan1041 Because if you rewatch you'll clearly hear Alister saying again and again how interested he is in the question as if by script before rehashing the same non-points he always does eg "there's something there but more needs to be said" or "I agree with almost everything my opponent said but I still think humans are something more" etc. Wishy washy way of saying "I like it and don't like the idea of giving it up".

[@flaze3]

@islanti I think it's more likely that he didn't have a good response. If he had, he would have answered a la Lane Craig.

[@stevedresser83]

Fantastic conversation. This is a step beyond the Peterson Harris conversations from my perspective. Thanks for facilitating this and bringing it to the internet Justin. I see where you get it from too, pops had some great questions.

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Steve Dresser thanks ;-)

[@raymk]

For me, the Bible doesn't change, it only has some different contexts in which the principle can be truly applied correctly. Many rules in the Old Testament have purposes only for Israel in their specific era, compared with the New Testament which is targeted to a wider audience across the world. To put it more clearly, one of the reason why Israel must obey God's specific laws is to differentiate themselves with the other nations (most of them are considered wicked, extremely broken and immoral), and to proclaim themselves to be the example to the other nation in how to live corectly according to God. Perhaps that's why killing a sinner was considered correct and justified to prevent any nation to keep their wicked way of living. On the other hand, through Jesus, the New Testament is now open to the gentiles, which means some of the purposes of the old rules do not serve any function any more since Israel is no longer the only main attraction. However, having said that, the basic rules remain the same, including the golden rule of love from which the other rules come from. I think this basic rules are the ones that Alister is talking about. The basic rules are the foundation on which the extended version of it can be applied in today's society. The extended version may expire one day, but the foundation of it remains. In other words, there are basic rules and contextual rules in the Bible. Don't confuse them. The contextual rules are not basic rules that can be applied everywhere anytime, and there are also the basic rules can be translated into the contextual one. That's my view. ;)

[@myopenmind527]

Ray M. K. The Bible is the basis of Christianity a narrative which superficially internally coherent and which allows many to make sense of the world. Unfortunately he utility of Christianity as a belief which serves the latter purpose is undermined by our scientific knowledge of the world. We now know more and our reliance on Christianity and also the remaining religions of the world is in rapid decline.

[@raymk]

@@myopenmind527 I agree that now we know more than we used to. but in science, we haven't figured out many important questions about life and its origin. Perhaps the idea of moral is the one I concern the most. If atheist can't make a good foundation of their moral, the society could end up in chaos with barbaric way of life.

[@upsbear]

@@myopenmind527 Amen

[@myopenmind527]

Ray M. K. The Bible has changed a lot, less so in recent times. Of course the individual books were never written to be included in a collection. Pity that have no evidence to support the historicity of most of its characters.

[@andrewritts184]

@@myopenmind527 There is evidence of many characters in the Bible since Abraham. There is more evidence that Jesus lived than that Alexander the Great lived, and yet very few people question the existence of Alexander the Great.

[@jenniferbate9682]

So enjoyed this and the questions from the audience.

[@kameelffarag]

This is the program which should be seen by millions. And if not it is because we are superficial society, and immature.

[@davidmahlum6233]

So impressed with Bret's humility and generous-heartedness and patience and earnest whole-heartedness and genuine engagement here! Thank you for embodying the sort of disposition you pointed out those in these discussions need!

[@zgobermn6895]

Wow, high caliber conversation. Bret and Alistair have set the bar high. This is an excellent model on how theists and non theists should dialogue.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

From sacred to shamanistic? Did I hear an endorsement for psychedelic drugs?

[@whitneywofford5780]

What makes humans different? Bret- Language John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Lennox would've loved to have chimed in on this section of the conversation and take it for a lap around the block. Thank you, Alister, Bret & Justin for the conversation.

[@shookreeseeree4]

Language is a method of communication between humans..dolphins use whistles sounds to communicate..other animals hv other ways to communicate..

[@donnadeau7619]

Then what is the difference between word and god?

[@donaldmcronald8989]

Water running free, is not free, a deer running free in the wild, is not free... The only way we can have a free-will is for us to agree that the word free will continue to be used to describe the movement of water and the joy that we witness in the prancing of an animal we do not have in chains. Free in this sense, does not mean unconstrained, but instead describes a level or degree of freedom that we construe to be at a very high or maximal level. Free is not free, but constrained. Minimally.

[@TheMeaningCode]

Donald McRonald The minimal constraints are essential for existence at every level of reality.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

@@TheMeaningCode Free=constrained. Agreed.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

@Doctor Drywell Hey Doc. I have decades of philosophy behind me also. I'm happy to chat if you'd like to outline your position.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

@Doctor Drywell Straw man. Contradiction and straw man. Why are you speaking as if I'm only referring to philosophers? We have 7 billion+ individuals, most of them religious, the majority of _those_ are followers of an Abrahamic religion... These people are 'free' as far as they are concerned. Their ideology requires such a thing to be true for a modicum of sense to be made of their moral and ethical demands. It has nothing to do with the ability to fly, nor begin to breathe underwater etc. And I'm sure you are more than capable of finding examples of philosophers since the 1600's right up until today that speak of a freedom completely apart from the causal nature of things, had you only Googled such a thing before replying.

[@richardfulop9044]

Hmm kinda disappointed in Alister's answers. He was speaking like a politician and ended up not saying much.

[@daveyofyeshua]

I thought this, very frustrating sadly in his part. Poor performance and please get off that fence.

[@myopenmind527]

Richard Fulop isn’t that because Christianity has little to say in the context of an educated an scientifically literate society.

[@tool-vj7ig]

@@myopenmind527 no

[@johncommers9597]

Could not agree more with you Richard, I give Alister high marks for diplomacy, however as you pointed out he was much more politician than Theologian, we needed him to press Weinstein’s ideas. I found Weinstein’s assertions unsatisfying, Christianity’s survival not to mention its propagation whilst being sandwiched between the Roman Empire and the Jews doesn’t seem very probable as one questioner pointed out; of course Weinstein invokes the cautionary Survival bias or aka survivorship bias, which is good advice but it doesn’t prove anything one way or another and one cannot help but ponder why did the budding Christian faith survive when it had so many reasons not to? To the open minded individual on this thread, Science can’t tell us which ethic to uphold, that takes moral law, where does morality come from in a scientific molecules to man discussion? In some cultures the people are taught to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. The Scientific method is based on observation forming theories and designing experiments to test those theories. Some believe by eliminating the competition their life is better i.e., survival of the fittest, others of us believe in the sanctity of all life. Science is great, but it can’t answer everything.

[@upsbear]

That's because he's stupid and he doesn't know much

[@philosopher2king]

What a great debate! 16:45 So cool to see Brett reference this book. It is based on a true story but it is so well written that it reads like fiction. It even has a surprise ending for American history buffs. Highly recommended!

[@FourDogs1111]

He's so smart I bet his brother is a mathematician!

[@hiawathasbrother]

It was fun to watch Bret's entire theory about the evolution of religion dismantled by the fellow who pointed out that early Christians in the Roman Empire were thrown to the lions. The laughter from the audience when Bret tried to explain that one should serve as a warning to him. It is still good-natured.

[@crowfeedreactions]

Not quite. Christianity was wildly successful by any measure. Taking over an entire empire, one that formerly persecuted the religion, in just a few centuries is admirable. The fact that some Christians were persecuted and some Christians were killed do not detract from Christianity's success or Brett's theory. There were many more people who were becoming Christians than there were Christians being thrown to lions and that's why Christianity eventually triumphed (and, in fact, throwing people to lions probably convinced a lot of people that the pagan way was NOT morally defensible and made Christianity even more attractive as an alternative).

[@hiawathasbrother]

@@crowfeedreactions Bret's theory is unfalsifiable, as the questioner proved.

[@ChrisOgunlowo]

Epic conversation.

[@ElCharroDesafinado]

One basic, critical question - where (in London) and when did this debate take place? I cannot find this crucial information anywhere.

[@TrotterG]

Just curious - why do you consider this information critical?

[@karolinasz.141]

It was 9th May I think.

[@unuxon884]

I believe it would make for a better Q&A if Alister and Bret answered the questions directly from the audience.

[@sbwetherbe]

Bret is a true agnostic. I appreciate hearing the open mindedness that position engenders.

[@quinnishappy5309]

is life about being open minded, how do you know that truth?

[@marysheilds9966]

Yes he is an agnostic by his own admission. Starting to be honest. He is ADMITTING he does not know.

[@benjaminschooley3108]

It sounded to me like he said he didnt go by a label, but that others would consider him an atheist. I dont recall hearing the word agnostic mentioned, why do you think that?

[@myopenmind527]

StubW he’s an agnostic atheist. He’s not a strong anti theist , I’ll give you that.

[@sbwetherbe]

@@benjaminschooley3108 There is a lot of overlap in how people identify themselves and are identified by others. Some identify one way in one context and the other in a different context. I use the agnostic label here since he seems to have openness to some kind of numenistic influence. So this is definitely my interpretation and definition.

[@rickknight5872]

The paradigm of Catastrophism. Let’s have more debates about the evidence and anomalies concerning geological theories.

[@TrotterG]

Bret's understanding of the story of the Bible and its admonitions on believers seems to be simplistic and inaccurate. The Bible does not fit the pattern of a manual for annihilating and displacing other tribal groups as he says. - It tells the story of a tribe which God formed for the primary purpose of _blessing_ all nations on Earth. (e.g. Genesis 22:18) - It teaches that we are here to tend to the earth and bring the best out of it. (Genesis 1:15) - It has an uncompromising emphasis on conquering the evil in the human heart and correcting our inability to act righteously. (Ezekiel 11:19-20) - One of the main points of the Church is to transcend tribal/ethnic boundaries and create a unified new humanity. (Ephesians 2:14-22) - It teaches self-sacrificial love for those outside the group of believers. (Matthew 5:38-48) - It teaches that cessation of war between heterogeneous groups is part of the ultimate goal and destination for humanity. (Isaiah 2:4) The overarching story of the Bible and its admonitions on believers very much address and correct the human propensities that Bret (understandably) fears will destroy us. Given all of this, I find it dissatisfactory that Bret and some of the questioners mis-characterize Christianity as a means of annihilating and displacing other tribal groups. Yes, parts of the Bible don't obviously fit into this framework without a fair amount of research and insight into the context and meaning. Even after a fair amount of research, some parts remain puzzling and troubling. But in my opinion, having done my best to study the Bible with an open mind over the past 12 years, those are the exceptions.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

The Bible need not outright declare annihilation of 'the other' for it to compete in a larger landscape of differing ideas. But it does shape a structure and a wall/border that is only somewhat permeable.

[@TrotterG]

@@donaldmcronald8989 Agreed. Have I misunderstood Brett's point?

[@blisteredvision]

@@TrotterG To the extent that it has a boundary, it excludes. And so is a passive annihilation of the other ideas. Not to mention there's obviously a degree of cherry-picking that supports your position and a selection of verses that do not.

[@TrotterG]

@@blisteredvision If the primary mode of a religion is to try to win over outsiders rather than take them out, is that annihilation? I suppose so in a sense, but the connotation seems off. Here's something I'm not clear on: Is Bret claiming that religions are extensions of the genes (i.e. ethnicities) whereby the genes duke it out, or is he simply making the obvious point that religions compete amongst each other in the marketplace of religions? I agree that there are passages that do not easily lend themselves to my interpretation. I'm trying to speak to where the "center of mass" is after one has done the legwork to understand the ancient near east contexts where/when the books were written and what the authors were up to. I picked those verses out because they represent some of the most prominent threads that drive the story of the Bible as I understand it. For each of them I could have picked out a dozen different verses. To your point, I also could have just as easily listed off a dozen passages that I find troubling.

[@TrotterG]

@@louiscyfer6944 This is very disappointing for me to learn. If even my lifelong attempts at intellectual honesty are dishonest, how hopeless am I? But, don't kill the messenger, right? Thank you for informing me of this. I will go try to straighten my life out.

[@HM-vj5ll]

Another Big Conversation or (Debate) with a couple of nice chairs... Justin Brierley and James White?

[@jjccarpentry]

37:00 I wish Bret would have offered his deffinition of free will, so we could know specifically why he takes issue with Harris' use of the term.

[@nicholasveridiculity91]

If I remember correctly (I could be wrong), Bret and I share the same opinion on this: Although you can reasonably and justifiably reduce our consciousness to genetic predispositions and how they're shaped by our environment, ultimately this definition of 'free will' has emerged from that process regardless of how it was misunderstood by non-neuroscientific perspectives; and so what Sam contends with is not truly whether 'free will' exists, but how people are misunderstanding its roots. This inevitably sounds like semantics, but that's precisely my point: Sam and others are talking about the same thing, regardless of how deep they understand it, and so claiming that 'free will does not exist' is like claiming that wetness does not exist because it is simply an emergent property of many individual molecules and how they are influenced within a system.

[@jjccarpentry]

@@nicholasveridiculity91 That was super helpful, I wish Brett could have offered something like that. I have observed the term 'free will' being defined in a number of different ways, so I think it's best for anyone using the term to clearly define the necessary properties of the concept they are talking about.

[@nicholasveridiculity91]

@@jjccarpentry Thanks for the compliment--glad I could help! I think I heard Bret say something similar, but I can't remember where. So, I can't quite claim to speak for him, but I think he basically said the same thing.

[@nanakwame3]

If what we write today will be useless tomorrow, then what is the point of trying to update or create anything 🤔

[@SamuelKarani]

Bret "Christianity was a long shot bet that worked out" Weinstein

[@myopenmind527]

.....for a while. It’s now being found out.

[@m1nty99]

@@myopenmind527 rationalism and material reductionism are the only things being 'found out' in the 21st century bud.

[@johncommers9597]

Could not agree more with you Richard, I give Alister high marks for diplomacy, however as you pointed out he was much more politician than Theologian, we needed him to press Weinstein’s ideas. I found Weinstein’s assertions unsatisfying, Christianity’s survival not to mention its propagation whilst being sandwiched between the Roman Empire and the Jews doesn’t seem very probable as one questioner pointed out; of course Weinstein invokes the cautionary Survival bias or aka survivorship bias, which is good advice but it doesn’t prove anything one way or another and one cannot help but ponder why did the budding Christian faith survive when it had so many reasons not to? To the open minded individual on this thread, Science can’t tell us which ethic to uphold, that takes moral law, where does morality come from in a scientific molecules to man discussion? In some cultures the people are taught to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. The Scientific method is based on observation forming theories and designing experiments to test those theories. Some believe by eliminating the competition their life is better i.e., survival of the fittest, others of us believe in the sanctity of all life. Science is great, but it can’t answer everything.

[@katiemiaana]

Great conversation, far more thought provoking than atheist versus christian because the speakers understood nuance. I am more with Brett because I understand that I cannot divorce myself from my culture which is founded on Judeo Christian values, but I also feel divorced from the Christian story. I suppose Brett sees heaven and hell as consequences for good and bad decisions in the here and now, whereas many religious people believe these are places that exists that only a selection of people will go to. It just doesn't make sense to me logistically.

[@arrangedmirage274]

Did anyone else hear Brett say “In the beginning was the word”?!?!?

[@s3cr3tandwh1sp3r]

I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed in a lot of the answers given by Alistair, he don't think he did justice to the real anthithesis between the Christian and non-Christian worldviews or challenge the hermeneutical assumptions behind Brett's interpretation of the biblical text. Someone like Michael Horton (one of Alistair's old doctoral students) would have been better suited to this discussion and made it much more interesting.

[@GerardPerry]

Agreed. I was very dissatisfied with his answers. Particularly his lack of a defense of the Christology present in the Old Testament. Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the Theory of Natural Selection can be reconciled with the creation account of Genesis, I felt that he punted on some of the most basic arguments against a wholly naturalistic explanation for human existence and the universe, e.g. the overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence for Scripture-including the presumed meteorological destruction of a town that corresponds to the ancient city of Sodom and artifacts testifying to the Davidic kingdom, Gath, the royal personage of Jezebel, etc.-the conversion experiences and subsequent ministries of former skeptics like Saul of Tarsus and Jesus's brothers, the existence of the early Church itself. I felt that Professor Weinstein could have faced a much more challenging opponent.

[@s3cr3tandwh1sp3r]

Yeah, on the one hand I feel for him. Perhaps he didn't think the format gave him room to go into those things (he often said something to the effect of "it raises very interesting questions" or "and that needs to be explored much further"). Or perhaps he is just a very polite man an avoids making conflict. However, there are polite and gentle ways in which you can show the inconsistencies in someones position. Weinstein himself pretty much made Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against atheism, that the evolutionary framework is concerned with adaptive behavior and does not necessarily select for true beliefs because the mechanism of natural selection is blind to truth or falsity, it only cares about behavior that allows the organism to survive. Weinstein made essentially that argument against religion, all you have to do is point out that according to his worldview his "rational" brain was formed with the same mechanism so he has no grounds for trusting its reliability.

[@upsbear]

McGrath is to stupid to do any better

[@s3cr3tandwh1sp3r]

I don't at all think he's stupid, a quick look at his qualifications and academic record show that he is incredibly intelligent.

[@kbeetles]

Loved the question about the usefulness of becoming a follower of Jesus and later becoming a Christian (knowing that prosecution is awaiting you). A great thought on this, I heard, is pointing out the revolutionary nature of Jesus' teachings regarding the cognitive leap needed towards a meta-meaning. This requires a "new man" who understands spirituality in a new way - it requires a total transformation, a personal participation in the spiritual worldview on offer. This is an eye-opening experience, filling people with awe, giving them answers and meaning. This is so inspiring that people are willing to risk their lives for adopting this new perspective. The usefulness is a usefulness on a different level than anything else before.

[@myopenmind527]

Jesus converted authoritative an Judaism of the Hebrew Bible to a more tolerant form. Of course the fact that the Hebrew Bible lives on in the OT means that much if his radical work was undone. Fundamentalist can use the intolerant verses in the OT to justify their bigotry. Poor Yeshua must be turning I his grave.

[@foodforthought8308]

I loved the question too. But i would answer it differently than what you spelled out. The simple answer and my intellectually honest conviction is that Yeshua actually was who He claimed to be. He actually walked out the grave.

[@timothyhilditch]

I feel like the finally broke the ice between each other in the final few minutes.

[@MrJamesdryable]

12:23 I like how Justin went to reword the question like he always does but Alister wasn't having any of it.

[@theyatter]

Brett, I completely agree that there are things that we'd regret throwing out if we threw out religion wholesale...but are any of them supernatural or unexplainable by evolution?

[@alishoghi6391]

Any successful step taken naturally in the evolution of a species will address an issue but also will open it up in that aspect to many other potential issues. The big leap of self awareness in humans helped us understand and manage our basic sense of fear for example, but it also opened us up to many other dilemmas such as the meaning of life. The inherent logic that comes with self awareness dictates that there must be a set reason for each action and phenomenon in this universe. this premise causes us to actively search for the biggest reason of all which is the reason for life. Just like every need in our society there were and are people who try to answer that need. The same way that the existence of a demand will dictate the amount and flow of the supply. this is the primary cause of religion and the popularity of it. Ironically logic asked for an answer to life and our answer; religion, unintentionally (at least at the beginning) tried to drive logic away. This ANSWER for our life, our behavior and the main idea of good and evil later became the REASON in our mind to those behaviors and values. So much so that we normally recognize the values in our lives, the evil and the saint by religion. This system is fine in theory where the results is a society that functions well and without self sabotage.but in reality there is a big problem with this believe system which is the aspect of humanity. Humanity that bases its self evaluation on its social rank will abuse the system of non logical believe to increase this evaluation. In other words exploiting the beliefs of the rest of the community for self gain. In our modern society the cultures that thrive are the ones that put religion aside. We should finally come to the fact that our lives and the sense of reality doesn't demand a cause or reason. The laws of our universe allow for a biological being such as us to exist so we exist. Searching for meaning in a meaningless world has one of to outcomes. Nihilism or illogicality. Both lead to dead ends and should not be pursued anymore if each individual wants to reach a satisfying conclusion about life and relief about existence. We are here cause it was possible and we feel cause we can feel within the limits of our universe. Questioning which does not have an answer will not benefit the curiosity.

[@rkbroger6327]

The biggest question is what is consciousness?

[@TrotterG]

4:50 - Why did Alister use the exact answer that the questioner provided a counter-argument for without addressing the counter-argument that had just been provided?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

McGrath is a terrible "apologist" and I wish Christians would stop asking him to speak during these sorts of events. It's painful to listen to. WLC, Ed Feser, David Bentley Hart, Alexander Pruss, Eric Reitan, and many others would have been much better here.

[@johnlinden7398]

THE " GREAT CONFLAGRATIONS " MIGHT BE A MORE SUITABLE TITLE FOR THE PROGRAM !

[@bruceylwang]

The "Truth" is the answer. Religion is following the "truth". Evolution is following the "truth. Science is following the "truth.

[@isaacbrotherson]

Do you know anyone that's not a sinner? And the golden rule is to treat others as you would like them to treat you!

[@GerardPerry]

I think someone alluded to this down-thread, but Alistair's response to the standard atheist canard, re: Levitical dietary laws, leaves a lot to be desired. As Islam critic and atheist Ibn Warraq pointed out in Why I Am Not A Muslim, there's nothing particularly unhealthy about consuming pork-or camel meat-for that matter. So the notion that these commandments were instituted for salutary health benefits is ridiculous. They were implemented-like the rest of the Law-for the benefit of its recipients, but not because eating pork or camel meat or shellfish is inherently risky, comparatively speaking.

[@JohnHake]

Great point, Gerard. The atheist canard re:shellfish reveals their poor reading comprehension. The OT itself, with no NT input, reveals a divide between universal natural laws by which God judged other nations (Lev. 20.22-23 "the land vomit you out"), and the culturally distinguishing laws for Israel alone (Lev. 20.24-26 "I have set apart as unclean FOR YOU"). God's pivot at the end of Lev. 20 shows a distinction between a universal "natural law" morality for everyone, and a cultural-separation code for Israel.

[@benjaminschooley3108]

I think the point is that following the rule is beneficial..in some manner. It may not necessarily be to avoid contagion. The Hindu practice of not eating cows likely provided the benefit of maintaining traction for greater crop yields, especially through lean periods.

[@CoranceLChandler]

Well fancy meeting you here, brother

[@TimoNaaro]

how do you ask a question?

[@SleeplessWhite]

To Alister or Bret? I don't think you can. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like these are pre-recorded, not live. "Watch and chat live with other viewers as this upload is shown for the very first time." Edit: Reading the description confirms this also. "Filmed in front of a live audience in London, Bret Weinstein and Alister McGrath address the relationship between religion, evolution, morality and culture. These two videos include the main conversation and subsequent audience Q&A."

[@MrJamesdryable]

You just did it.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

"Usefull fiction". - this is way better and accurate than "metaphorical truth"

[@tonym6566]

32:00 ish

[@jeffrourke2322]

I’m such a fan of Bret Weinstein. He is at least intellectually honest enough to admit that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not the cure-all to every scientific inquiry under the sun.

[@benjaminschooley3108]

Has anyone ever said that it was?

[@piushalg8175]

I believe that a lot depends on how one defines what holy scriptures are and therefore what kind of authority they have apart from the fact that interpretation of any text is bound to be loaded with one's bias and cultural and personal background.

[@hiawathasbrother]

Please have Bret Weinstein on again. He operates at a high level. The irony for him is that it is evolution that is the useful fiction. It is an instrumental theory, but when Francis Crick demonstrated that DNA is a code he proved the existence of God. Obviously God works in an incremental process and builds life in a symbiotic fashion, so a theory of evolution can approximate the process, and it has served us well. Weinstein also put his finger on exactly what makes human special -- language. Obviously, that is the sense in which we are created in the image of God, since God uses language -- as DNA makes clear.

[@myopenmind527]

Jononomo a code isn’t proof of a deity just evidence of 4 billion years of biochemical evolution.

[@hiawathasbrother]

@@myopenmind527 LOL

[@myopenmind527]

Jononomo last time I checked you made a claim but did not need your burden of proof. I think we can reject your “god did it claim” without evidence to support it.

[@hiawathasbrother]

@Dirk Knight I was being dead serious

[@rickknight5872]

The topic of uniformitarianism versus catastrophism needs to be addressed in detail. If any person critiques the anomalies of Uniformitarianism they are forced to accept the possibility of a catastrophic global flood and not just a bunch of hurricanes and typhoons.

[@kameelfarag1981]

Bret is a delightful scientist to listen to and like. Whatever you want to say this is a great unbelievable video. Bret’s knowledge and serene exposition of complex subject is absolutely superb. A rare intellectual to be envied by any educational liberal system.

[@TPLKlein]

I think the moderator should’ve taken more of a step back from the conversation, not having to summarise ABSOLUTELY everything

[@Jeremiah6071]

Haha yea I have noticed that he does that quite often. I think it's just a personality quirk and his summaries are at least brief so it doesn't bother me. I also recognize that during a Q&A, many people cannot articulate their question in a way that makes much sense and it is absolutely necessary to have someone "translate" the question. He may just be so used to having that happen that he does it even when unnecessary.

[@CoranceLChandler]

I don't know, I find his summaries quite helpful

[@psusac]

Alister is so freaking smarmy. I can't understand why anyone cares what he says. He works so HARD to protect his blind spots, it's really his only area of expertese as far as I can tell.

[@FanOMisery]

The Christian apologetic for old testament morality is truly baffling. Alister seemed to be saying that Christian morality fits the culture of the time. How would this be objective, and why would the omnipotent God allow his law to change according to social norms? Earlier in part 1 Alister makes the case that we have to dig dealer for a more general understanding. This would surely open the door, and legitimise misinterpretation.

[@Jeremiah6071]

I don't think God so much teaches morality as he guides humanity toward morality while working within the cultural framework of the time with the ultimate goal being love and fair treatment of others. When I read passages about slavery I don't see the immorality of owning slaves in those passages. Slaves were owned, it's just how it was, I see guidance in how to treat those slaves, not as mere property, but as fellow humans. It wasn't perfect of course, but a step in the right direction, one that eventually lead the majority of humanity to abolish it. You can't teach a person calculus in a day and you can't change the world in a generation.

[@FanOMisery]

@@Jeremiah6071You see no guidance? Really? There definitely is rules for keeping slaves. If the Bible is merely a product of the culture in which it is written, I see no reason to place special significance on its author, it is almost as of written by a fallible hand. If morals as you say are a gradual progression depending on the situation. Where does objectivity fit in to that?

[@andrewphoenix3609]

What doesn't seem to be addressed, is that even with its deity structure religion fails to prevent paedophiles, inquisitions and holy wars that still bubble beneath the surface today. This for me reflects it's contradictions and the false prophets that it's structure depends on, but also how easy man is able to turn a blind eye in the service of an ideology. The urgency though that needs to be addressed is how can we as a species stop the terrible crimes against humanity being played out by the most religious groups on the planet. I fear that any system born out of the sociopathic minds of our current leaders would degenerate to a state of psychosis, unless we can evolve as a species we will continue the madness. It's time to rethink the big question, all religions and science aim to offer the truth of the paradox of our existence. It's time that religion and science accepted the literal lie and metaphoric truth of their scriptures, time to realise that we are all prophets. There are no chosen people or leaders that should be held on a pedestal and we all have the capacity to experience the space beyond our senses, to bear witness to the collective consciousness. We need to stop thinking about it and just be it. It's only personal experience that shows you the way and new hacks are being discovered all the time.

[@Jeremiah6071]

I think if you really look beneath the surface of so called holy wars and crazy jihadists you will find that their real motivation is and always was motivated by political reasons rather than religious ones. Within Christianity there is absolutely no justification for violence. At it's center you have a man who willingly endured torture and death rather than harm another and the one time his followers took up a sword, he condemned the man and the healed the injured party only to later pray for forgiveness for those who had him tortured and killed. Islam is another story of course, but even with them I think the underlying issue is a political one rather than a religious one.

[@jamesnativeenglish7581]

Alistair might address the fact that perhaps there are human additions to the Old Testament - it is in this book that we find several explicit condemnations of homosexual practices, and it is striking that Christ does not once offer any condemnation of it, only Paul. But Paul was just a man, and not God. I would expect professors at their level to have done more in the way of exploring these important issues if they want to continue to provide really sound Christian apologetics.

[@0TDIedits0]

The other man is more logic and direct when his idea are being delivered. And he is right because the truth not comes from the 1st but it comes from the right time that had a fact and proven to what human intelligent being evolved.

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

You might as well have had Al Gore debate McGrath.

[@upsbear]

Could he have made McGrath look any more stupid ?

[@coachmath3]

Bret Weinstein sounds just like Tim Keller -- humor, mannerisms, and all!

[@jeremytuggy9]

😂 i was just thinking that earlier!

[@danieljohnston3708]

Question from the humanist doesn't seem to know what the bible actually teaches: that we are all sinners, and are commanded to love each other, including our enemies.

[@brando3342]

@rewertzyy 1 No man, love everyone.

[@brando3342]

@rewertzyy 1 I'm guessing you haven't read it. What does Jesus teach? "Hate your enemies"? No. "Hate your neighbours as yourself"? Lol

[@albertpurification985]

Without being perfect Christian,answering to any question could be hard.The most difficult subject is Christianity,it will be easy if you love it.

[@ThePinsa42]

Albert Purification sane with atheism or agnosticism

[@quinnishappy5309]

palestine wasnt around in the 1st century or even the 10th, named in the 12th but only really conveyed in the 20th century.

[@johnlinden7398]

JUST KIDDING, JUST LIKE FIRES FIGHTING FIRES TO WHICH ONE SIDE DOES NOT " MATCH UP " TO REALITY ! GUESS WHICH SIDE ?

[@JeremyHelm]

Folder of time

[@JeremyHelm]

1:48 it says something about our technological evolution that he’s communicating this perspective in the form of a sort of informal survey, rather than a form or regularity observable inside the publishing activity inside the context of scientific journals

[@JeremyHelm]

2:12 Self congratulate much, Dawkins? I mean, who can blame him, he’s become a celebrity. He’s adapted to how he’s being treated

[@JeremyHelm]

2:40 There’s the indictment: 2:52 In sense-making, 3:14 “we’ve lost the thread of the conversation” - diagnosis in my terminology: we don’t have a modern existence-system for our inquiries

[@piushalg8175]

I wonder what Bret Weinstein means by free will.

[@abpgrace]

Alister, we do treat LBGTQ kindly with love, while disagreeing with their choice of identity. Will you please stand for something? Finding common ground with respect is a brilliant strategy, but you need to add some backbone.

[@danieljohnston3708]

Brett is full of contradictions. He's rightly frightened by the increased rate of change in our modern society, so proposes the solution may be - more change.

[@simonskinner1450]

I like your comment and must agree, as it is always the answer of the Liberal that things are not Liberal enough. But the more Liberal things are, the more things spiral out of control, hence religions. Religion provide limits. Religions are often chosen for their values. Western women are becoming Muslim to get respect, without any understanding of Islam. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury said once that a third of his clergy did not believe in God, but did believe in the morality of Christianity. We probably both suspect Bret simply wants to remove Gods from the equation, that proposes a Utopia of Atheism which is liberal and intolerant compared to Christainity. The Liberal rulebook has one rule, that is there are no rules, and consequently survival of the fittest. That is why cultural Darwinism is so dangerous. I think the answer for Bret is to find a religion with a God that suits him. Mine is Judaeo-Christianity as the law of liberty suits me.

[@danieljohnston3708]

@rewertzyy 1 Simon's comment was intelligent, reasonable, and furthered the conversation. Yours was not.

[@paulschwanz]

On the issue of God being necessary or superfluous to the utility of a particular wisdom, I didn't find Bret's answer particularly convincing. I thought the question deserved a much better answer. For me, Bret's answer seemed to pass too glibly over the utility of what Arthur Leff called "the unjudged judge." *Consider the normative proposition, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Under what circumstances, if any, would one conclude that it is wrong to commit adultery? Maybe it helps to put the question another way: when would it be impermissible to make the formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in barrooms and schoolyards as "the grand sez who"? Putting it that way makes it clear that if we are looking for an evaluation, we must actually be looking for an evaluator: some machine for the generation of judgments on states of affairs. If the evaluation is to be beyond question, then the evaluator and its evaluative processes must be similarly insulated. If it is to fulfill its role, the evaluator must be the unjudged judge, the unruled legislator, the premise maker who rests on no premises, the uncreated creator of values."* --Arthur Leff There is a utility to the transcendent that should not be dismissed so blithely, in my opinion.

[@sierrabianca]

Paul Schwanz Being able to point to a transcendent standard/authority would of course simplify the whole process but until you can demonstrate the objective existence of such an entity, all you actually have are subjective human interpretations of what that standard might be. It's nothing more than a language game that takes on the guise of the 'insulated evaluator' in rendering pronouncements on intuitions you find compelling. There is no interaction or communication with or from an actual transcendent standard occurring, at least none that can be demonstrated, only the human concept of such a thing which is obviously vulnerable to error, so you've not succeeded in getting 'outside' the game here. This is why I think Bret's observation of a deity (or evaluator in this case) being a psychological 'hack' is accurate. You could only make reference to this entity as an ideal or a hypothetical, not an absolute, and doing so in spite of this will inevitably lead to irreconcilable gaps between wisdom traditions (as observed), both of whom claim an existential and infallible 'unjudged judge' as their guide. Will we then require a supra-transcendent evaluator that someone else has invented to sort it out?...and on into absurdity.

[@paulschwanz]

@Doctor Drywell The evaluator doesn't have to be God, per se, but it must transcend the system in which the evaluation occurs. Unfortunately, brilliant thinker, Constitutional scholar, and Duke Law professor Arthur Leff has passed on. But I don't doubt he would have found your recommendations regarding rudimentary logic quite amusing.

[@paulschwanz]

@@sierrabianca When you talk about the unevaluated evaluator as an invention, you are merely begging the question. It is true that we have no way of getting 'outside' the game, but what is not as certain is that one outside the game has no way of getting in. We do not know enough about the unknown to know what is unknowable and what is not (to paraphrase GK Chesterton). Further, there is a difference between what can be demonstrated and what will convince each individual to their satisfaction. I think it is a perfectly rational position to take that one has not been convinced. I also think it is perfectly rational for someone else to suppose that life, the universe, sentience, history, moral sensibilities, fine tuning, logical arguments, etc. - taken all together - convince them that it is more likely that an unevaluated evaluator exists than that he does not. And IF an unevaluated evaluator exists outside of the system, but with the capability to exert (even subtle) influence on the system, then it may be that our moral intuitions are founded on something objective rather than merely suspended above an abyss of subjective nothingness.

[@sierrabianca]

@@paulschwanz Thanks for the reply but I'm afraid you haven't escaped the "abyss of subjective nothingness" by suggesting that some people, even most people, may find it (subjectively) convincing that an unevaluated evaluator may exist. Their conclusion is necessarily speculative and by extension wholly subjective because we don't currently have any avenues by which to investigate what was the controlling factor in how the universe came to be. I agree that people can and will come to the conclusions they find most satisfying, it doesn't change a thing, nor does it say anything about the actual facts of the matter. An objective standard cannot be said to exist until the source of that standard can be objectively demonstrated to exist and further be shown to be infallible in said standard. We're a million miles from this and so, by your own words, remain in the abyss whether we like it or not. I would suggest the leveraging of subjective opinions into broad based consensus is our only option here and is in fact the only thing that ever happens.

[@paulschwanz]

@@sierrabianca *"Thanks for the reply but I'm afraid you haven't escaped the "abyss of subjective nothingness" by suggesting that some people, even most people, may find it (subjectively) convincing that an unevaluated evaluator may exist."* Of course not, and I don't think I suggested that. What would be necessary to escape the abyss of subjective nothingness would be the actual ontological existence of an unevaluated evaluator who was actually capable of and interested in intervening and inserting morality into the subjective morass. Such an evaluator may exist. Or not. However, the way we instinctively treat morality (especially when it comes to something like human rights) is much more in keeping with the existence of the transcendent than its absence. Perhaps this is just a pragmatic approach based on an illusion that is helpful, though false. Or, it may be that the reason the approach is so helpful is that it actually reflects a deeper reality in a way that isn't merely pragmatic. That is, something transcendent may actually exist.

[@dunk_law]

Labelling the OT laws as dietary completely misses the point of them. They evolved between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are not about our digestive habits, but rather ecological constraints that enabled a people to persist in a land with limited resources.

[@tkenglander6226]

Geeez, how many times did Alister denigrate Dawkins and his writing?? What's up with that!!??

[@theyatter]

Justin, how do you square god's apparent hatred for homosexuals with the comfort your faith gives you personally?

[@TheWorldsStage]

0:58 "Hey, don't tell me what to do, son. I'll come right up there and whoop that ass like i did when yous was a young boy!"

[@xeoncat]

Look to early Hellenization and Roman culture, don't just look to religion. Culture wasn't just made of religious ideas. The only problem is the lack of data from the things that didn't survive

[@danieljohnston3708]

You nailed it Brett, evolution is wrong, there is only one God who made all things, praise Him. Amen

[@upsbear]

anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid

[@brando3342]

@rewertzyy 1 The God of the Bible, Jesus is not the Islamic Allah. Try again.

[@upsbear]

@@brando3342 Wait, I thought there was only supposed to be one god ! Too many gods. I can't keep track

[@brando3342]

@reweetzyy 1 Not according to science.

[@brando3342]

@upsbear Nobody said there aren't false gods. Are you sure you're using your God given brain?

[@robertvarner5827]

Debates on whether religion is practical are interesting, but there not as entertaining as the debates on whether a religion is true.

[@scotthedges5449]

I completely understand the meta-narrative discussion, but how does it become personal? I've listened to hours of these types of discussion, with the correct emphasis, I would say, on recognizing the problem and somehow fixing it at the individual level. Which seems to never occur. In their conversation, Alister brings up the "updating" of the dietary law. An incredibly poor choice of "updated" rules to show the difference between the old and new testaments. Alister may have been better to use just two examples. Jesus said, "you have heard it said" (old testament law), don't commit murder or adultery (I've combined two here for brevity), but I tell you, to look at another person with hate or to look on another person with lust; you've already committed murder or adultery in your heart. Talk about the "update" that Brett desires to deal with rapid change. How about the highest ethic of loving your neighbor as yourself?

[@simonskinner1450]

Everyone wants to know what you can get away with. Even Christians. That is why there is the law of liberty in Christianity. Be blameless and harmless. That is no physical, financial or psychological harm, and a judge to verify that.

[@painandpyro]

Somewhere Jonathan Pageau is screaming as Brett whittles down the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament to being rough tools for not getting sick 😄

[@dionysis_]

Spot on. Unbelievable should seriously get these two together for a discussion!

[@CandidDate]

Let there be light, and there was Lucifer.

[@DavidJioo]

Alister McGrath comes across as a somewhat fundamentalistic Christian here.

[@candeffect]

Both Alister and Bret define God down. I define God up with, 'God can', because who am I to define God down?

[@johncook19]

Bret made it difficult for the two theoists, his arguments were somewhat stronger and more convincing. I would like the arguments for the résurrection by the theoist more convincingly defended, at the moment it seems unconvincing and weak. The arguments for the résurrection by William Lane Craig et al are pathetic, give me a probability facture and then defend it by your strongest arguments. After all if its important demonstrate the arguments are worth listening too. The supernatural argument we don't comprehend, the "natural arguments are much better explained.

[@laleydelamor1327]

As christian, I belive Jesus was predestinated perfect genetic mutation who wasn’t living by His own will. I belive He was pure love in pure human body. So, what I question myself, how would the brain function when someone is in love not with one person, but with all humans? What parts of brain are more activated in love? What emotions? Is it love when we hold dying person on our hands? Is it love when we make our child cry when we don’t give him all he wants? What do 7 virtues and 7 sins do to our brain? What about ego, hate, jelaousy, envy.. Mind, soul, heart (core).. Is really the God who punish us or do we do it to ourselfs, to our brain, mind, soul? I want to know what coctail of emotions when we say Love, is lottery ticket for humans? What is Love?❤️

[@marchyman5061]

16:30 I wish I could count (and had a dollar for) every time an Atheist has said “we got very lucky” seems almost equivalent to our saying “God did it”

[@marchyman5061]

rewertzyy 1 If you don’t see it for yourself, then probably nothing I say will help you see it. If life on earth is just the result a cosmic lottery, the we “just got lucky” millions of times. That’s a LOT of Faith right there my friend!!

[@marchyman5061]

rewertzyy 1 I definitely understand the point you are making. But consider my point. In the Cosmic Lottery analogy, you’re saying that “the universe” had 1 chance the throw a million dice and got lucky enough to hit the 1 combination that produced life on 1 planet (that we know of) and then once that life got started, the life got lucky with millions of sequential beneficial mutations that finally led to “us”. That sure is a lot of luck. For me, it makes a lot more sense to think there’s a Super Intelligence guiding it all.

[@marchyman5061]

rewertzyy 1 In a sense, you’re right, and in a sense, I agree with you. No matter what “form” we ended up in, look at how many coincidences it took to get us here. And if some of those coincidences had happened slightly differently, then we might not even be having this conversation. I for one think it’s pretty amazing.

[@marchyman5061]

rewertzyy 1 Now you’re getting it! Nah, just kid’n, but when you think about it, any random combination that would never be repeated isn’t very spectacular, but to get the one out of billions that would produce life, of any form, is pretty amazing. Hey, if you’re cool with believing that random chance created everything, who am I to disrupt your illusion, they say Ignorance is Bliss, and if you think I’m the one under an illusion (delusion), that’s ok too. You must have doubts though; why else would you be listening to a talk like this. My reason is to try to get through to people who think like you, because if your right, then neither of us have anything to worry about, but if I’m right, you have a big problem.

[@frankwhelan1715]

@@marchyman5061 No ,theists get it the wrong way round ,the world was the way it is ,we evolved/adapted to fit the word ,not the other way round,no need for these 'cosmic lotteries'

[@lexw.4467]

Please get people who navigate the old testament better. The old testament and new testament both address all the things that Brett has brought up. People always fall into trap that the old testament is irrelevant or immoral because its only discussed from a superficial level. And the Christian never really addresses the questions he just talks and is noncommittal.

[@johnstonclark5412]

Clearly analyzing Christianity from a pragmatic and temporal position (Example: "how does it help the world to be a better place") is a dead end. Bret knows this and demonstrates it.The point of Christianity is that you are a sinner and need a sacrifice and that sacrifice is a person, Jesus Christ, the God-Man (aka The Gospel). Take it or leave it but don't pretend the faith is merely useful in this life. It only makes sense in the larger context. Christian Bible makes this point! 1 Cor 15:19

[@brycemannn4847]

Brett Weinstein is the shit

[@fergusologhlen8426]

evolutionary biologists overall seem to have so much more to give in terms of balanced knowledge. Contrary to what was said here the science of evolution has gained ground in 40 years - look now at the research and better understanding of the human body adapting to fight disease - bacteria mutating so becoming immune to some antibiotics. Evidence that evolution is still occurring in smaller timescales. Brett’s most poignant part came ten minutes before the end of talk, where the discussion about protecting humanity on our small fragile planet and all of us finding common ground - and Alastair comparing it to totalitarianism just seemed to detract from Brett’s best point of the initial talk. No Alistair, Brett did not mean another religion !? Let’s not draw divisions let’s come together and survive long in to the future - as religion will be a big contributor to destroying us in the end.

[@Jeremiah6071]

Cool story, but religion didn't enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, or pollute the air, water, and food supply. Science did all that. I'm not saying science hasn't helped humanity as well or that I don't benefit from it, but if we are talking about mass extinction/planetary destruction, that is all on science, not religion.

[@matthewstokes1608]

Christians have Hope. That's the thing. Christ is just too amazing - it's just a thing of having love for God above love of self. You are nothing.... Look at the sky and stop questioning, ... less of the how and more of the wow. Just chill out, be quiet, and put your trust in Providence.

[@MrLou948]

How do you listen to McGrath’s answer about how the bible stays relevant 2,000 years later and think he’s right? He compares to a book written by a god against a book written by Dawkins.

[@crowfeedreactions]

The Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by men inspired by God. There's a large difference. As to comparing what is in the Bible to what Richard Dawkins' is recommending, well, are they not competing ideas and philosophies? Is Dawkins not saying "This way that I'm showing you is better than that old, musty Christ stuff?"

[@crowfeedreactions]

@Dirk Knight And they're still vastly wiser than you.

[@samuelarthur887]

I think Brett said a lot of what Dr McGrath was thinking, rendering it unnecessary for him to say them. And he didn't.

[@machtnichtsseimann]

That's what I was wondering as well. Many in the Comments here are frustrated over his not challenging Bret more, but maybe he actually agreed much more than not and finds team-building and strategizing with gracious and open-minded Atheists/Agnostics palatable.

[@kennyehm2004]

Brett Weinstein is the man!

[@mayaclay]

I said the same exact thing lol

[@candeffect]

He is the man to help you to live to ensure your trashed eternity as Brett is doing by defining God down to justify his lifestyle.

[@kennyehm2004]

CauseAndEffect Someone threatening your afterlife may terrify you, I don’t have any reason to believe such an eternal realm exists. Jesus definitely didn’t rise from the dead. Once you die that’s it. Appreciate this life!

[@thefishinthemirage]

Surrealistic lady Will we resurrect the mystic maybe Ignoring forces or just unaware Paradox sits in the velvet chair So real surrealistic (Bret conjures the false prophet as the way to salvation)

[@gulanhem9495]

Wow, Brett Weinstein believes in free will? 36:50

[@DerekHowden]

The theory of evolution has moved on with genetics and DNA. It's now understood that we did not evolve from species to species as Darwin predicted. It turns out we are locked into our species for five hundred and forty million years. So the current understanding is that during the Cambrian explosion all species and complex parts were genetically and completely there. Darwin was right in that we will change and adapt to selection and circumstances but we only change size and how we look but we never changed species and that goes for all species. There is no missing link.

[@jenniferjoyner112]

The Book of Ecclesiastics says: God has made us "simple " but we have made ourselves "complex". Yesterday,, Today , Forever Jesus is the same. The problem is we have gone astray like sheep to be slaughtered. The frightening thing is , out of our own given " free will' we can go further astray as far as free will allows🤔...And All material n non- material things can only be reconciled in Jesus. The only reconciler and reconciling being God who became human and continues to bring love , hope and forgiveness to the human race. Evolution and its branches cannot do that for us.

[@kevinfox6097]

🤣

[@redmed10]

We didn't choose to come into this world so we don't have free will right from the start. Partially joking. I'm trying to understand where Sam Harris is coming from. But I get intimidated by his neuroscience background. I worry I am thinking about free choice when he is talking about free will.

[@yoyo-lf3ld]

1st century palestine? Such a place never existed in that time. The Romans were in control of that area after eliminating the kingdom of judea. And then named the land 'Palestinia' as an insult to Jews because there enemy at the time were the Greek people known as the phillistines.

[@vic7066]

Beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

[@gerhardg8101]

Fear is not a sign of wisdom. The beginning of wisdom is to love God, the end of wisdom is the declaration of having outgrown God :-)

[@gerhardg8101]

@Dirk Knight considering your religiophobia you must be a "bright". As you think of yourself of yourself as so studious please explain to me why you think the divorce rate amongst theists is especially high. Sure you must have the evidence to make such a claim

[@gerhardg8101]

@Dirk Knight So you are so clever that you understand statistics. Where are your data - or do you regurgitate something you heard but did not understand. That would be intellectually lazy and that can't be what you do as you have outgrown all those people. Sounds a bit like you are Marshmelow man

[@gerhardg8101]

@Dirk Knight I am simply saying that its very funny that those brighter than thou perform so poorly in the evidence and statistics department. I am sorry if that bothers you. May be you should consider growing up, becoming a thinker and focus on the human ability for critical thinking. That would make it better :-)