Dave Rubin: The intolerance of tolerance (and why I like Christians)

Dave Rubin explains why he feels more comfortable talking with Christians than many in the secular space.
Watch in full Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconve...
This is an extract from Dave Rubin and Prof John Lennox in dialogue. Episode 5 | Season 2 of The Big Conversation.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. Dave Rubin & John Lennox Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
5. Tom Holland & AC Grayling • Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
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.thebigconv...
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...

[@andrewcorbell7216]

Why is it when John Lennox speaks he always seems to make sense.

[@gr8god4u]

English accent sound very authoritative.

[@madmartigan1634]

Because you are a sensible person.

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

because he says what you want to hear .... he confirms your biases

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

@Sticky Steve exactly

[@andrewcorbell7216]

Bernardo Fitzpatrick. That's too simplistic. I listen and watch many people of differing convictions. Sometimes their rationale appears to have shallow foundations. The difference with John Lennox as I've said is his ideas and wisdom resonate somewhere deep inside us. Only those of closed minds will not see this.

[@autoimmuneencephalitisawar2475]

Justin absolutely swamped and destroyed rationality rules

[@jarrod5179]

"All you believers are tolerant, gives yourselves a round of applause for your tolerance". Believers erupt in applause. "The most intolerant people are the people who are always talking about how tolerant they are". ...and not a soul seems to recognize the piercing, damning irony there.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Does Dave think that intolerant ideologies somehow are worthy of being tolerated? And that other older guy was saying is simply untrue. Why is it that so many religious people seek to conflate, miscontrue, and misunderstand so fervently and passionately?

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

WhatWeCall Life: religious people are afraid of dying .... hence their fervent and passionate defence of what they believe

[@TimberWulfIsHere]

Because you are calling it intolerant, yet you didn't set a premise on what to base what should or should not be tolerated or why. If I say there are 2 genders unless you are talking about gendered language, and you say that is intolerant, I don't give a fuck. Why? Because logically, I am correct and there is science to back that up. So if you call reality intolerant, I will laugh because you indirectly stated that you are delusional or chose to believe a lie voluntarily. Thats the issue.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@@TimberWulfIsHere Gender is a social construct. There can be many genders. Funny enough when you actually study the chromosomes that determine sex in humas, there can be many sexes as well even though the most commonly *perceived* are male/female. However for this post, that can be shelfed. Here's what I mean: Rhetoric, laws, and behaviour that demonizes, and discriminates against non hetero people. Rhetoric and behaviour that demonizes and discriminates against people who dont believe the same mythology as you, or any at all. Rhetoric, laws, and behaviour that racially or ethnically discriminates against people. Rhetoric and behaviour that demonizes and discriminates against people who do not conform to traditional societal norms, which are relative to where you live.

[@dmenace2003]

My gender pronoun is King prawn.. Coz I feel crabby today..

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

In order to be effective, tolerance must be intolerant only of intolerance. Speech is free to the point that it becomes overt threats, prejudice has no place in the public square of a free society. To say that "generally, believers right now are the most tolerant. They are, it's just the reality," (2:10) is true only because most people on the planet want to get along with other people, and most people on the planet are also believers. But correlation is not causation, and I doubt that people want to get along just because of whatever faith they have. People are tolerant of others because empathy has helped civilization and most of us evolve into decent human beings, despite the ambiguity and inherent divisiveness of faith. It is equally true that believers right now are the most intolerant. The NIFB, most white supremacists, Salafi's, etc. Hell, just last week I learned about the Black Hebrew Israelites and now look what happened (Jersey City). As for the gender thing, get over it and let people be themselves. We can make things fair and safe for everyone. The irony, the bizarre flip, is that when called out for intolerance, the intolerant applaud their own bigotry and pat themselves on the back. "Look at how intolerant those nasty atheists are. They won't even let me discriminate against someone because of their religion or chosen gender!" Shame on believers for blindly supporting or tacitly endorsing oppression against people they make little effort to understand.

[@davidoran123]

some people are different than hetero norm. why is that so upsetting to christians

[@machintelligence]

Could they really have burst out with enlightenment arguments and win the day? Big news, they DID!

[@UltraAar]

John Lennox didnt seem to enthused by Dave

The Enlightenment is built on Christian values, minus the disciplinary rules and the miracles of the Bible. It's built on the value of human life which comes from the New Testament, and that empirical evidence should be put first alongside reason.

[@JL0007]

hendrix3081 the enlightenment was based on reason not Christianity. It was a direct rejection of Christianity. Nowhere in Christianity do equal rights exist for men and women. Nowhere does the Bible grant us the right to free speech. Nowhere does it promote democracy. None of our modern western values came from Christianity at all. They all came from reason and science.

[@grzesiekzdomeyko9707]

Enlightenment was not exclusively anti-religious. In some European countries it was actually led by clergymen, like in Denmark or Poland. In Christianity men and women are equal when it comes to salvation: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3, 28]. This is actually a very powerful verse - it introduces an idea that from a certain point of reference your nationality, sex or social status are irrelevant. Such idea is not a legacy of Greeks or Romans. Democracy and free speech are rather Greek legacy, but in early Christianity bishop was often elected by congregation [Didache XV, 1]. So it was somewhat promotion of democracy. Values don't come from science. Science is describing how the world works, not what is good or what should be done in the world.

[@JL0007]

@@grzesiekzdomeyko9707 I didn't say the enlightenment was exclusively non religious. But it's principles didn't come from religion directly. Most people were religious back then period, and the church initiated most development. So even the sewers were likely designed by Christians, but that doesn't make their design based on Christian principles. In Christianity men and women are not equal in the law. The law doesn't provide salvation and never has claimed to, so I don't see the connection at all. I also don't understand how it follows that early Christian bishops being elected has anything to do with democracy when democracy predated early Christianity. Could women be elected in that democracy? And what of free speech and the other rights that we see as American? Freedom of religion is blatant non Christian. Science has never claimed to prescribe values. It can only describe where our values come from, which is our ability to cooperate as a species, much like a lot of other species do. We're seemingly unique in that we can cooperate in large groups in a variety of complex tasks. So we've been able to organize ourselves into stronger societies than other animals. So those are the values that our laws are ultimately based on. And there's not one value we hold currently as Americans that's exclusively found in Christianity.

[@JL0007]

@@grzesiekzdomeyko9707 also, given that the Crusades and Inquisition and evangelism happened after Galatians was written, I think it's hard to argue that Christians in practice think nationality or religion are irrelevant. So I'm not convinced that you have the correct interpretation of that verse. But they're are over 1000 denominations of your religion, so who's to say what the correct interpretation is?

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Dave lives on another planet - why is the USA stuck with Trump?

[@20july1944]

I take it you're an atheist. Do you feel you know enough to know there is no God, or you just don't believe it?

[@MrGifty44]

Subjective morals are still subjective given the presence of a god like figure. By moving forward we are just shifting the burden of explanation for values and edicts from one of "because I say so" (fallacious argument from authority) to one where rational arguments can be made to determine behavior for the wellbeing of all. It's not necessarily "wiping the slate clean" its finally working out the reasons and honing pur collective moral code to fit with our growing knowledge.

[@20july1944]

I take it you're an atheist. Do you feel you know enough to know there is no God, or you just don't believe it?

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Subjectivism, moral relativism, all such philosophies are cancer and self undermining the second you try to argue one view over another. There just preferences and opinions, you don’t need to think reasonably or have any values at all to carry around a preference. It’s not that God points to an objective morality it’s that an objective morality points to God.

[@CoreVin975]

So your saying that we can shape reality in our own image. Interesting considering the philosophy of the anime Evangelion from a person who doesn’t even identify as Christian is that you cannot shape reality to your own will. If you even try doing so, you’ll cause more harm than good.

[@DjTrax78]

Religion and tolerance... WTF, let's just forget history and applaud ourselves! :( They all agree as long as they don't have to discuss and dissect their own believe. What is happening in society right now is people believing in them selves instead on some written fairy tale.