Dawkins: Religion Is Still Evil - Part One | Reasonable Faith Podcast

A recent interview with Richard Dawkins that includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali and evolutionary theory.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@TDL-xg5nn]

Odd coming from the guy who said there is no right and wrong just pitiless indifference and we dance to the strings of our DNA.

[@rwleif]

That inconsistency plagues Cosmic Skeptic as well. Seems to be a big blind spot.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

Dawking says, that there is only indifference in the universe as a whole, but this does not say anything about the things that we say are important for us and our societies and those things do change all the time. Also when Christians claim that there is objective morality, they always mean the highly subjective current interpretation of their holy book. 300 years ago for instance slavery was moral, cause the Bible says it is. Nowerdays it is immoral cause it goes against biblical values (the Bible still says Slavery is fine, but who cares what the Bible says). So who can that be, cause people decide what is moral and no one else. Evolution also plays a part and of course social norms, but thats it.

[@jeffbezos3501]

@@TgfkaTrichterRichard Dawkins: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133 Also Richard Dawkins: “Religion is evil”

[@ryanprosper88]

​@@TgfkaTrichter nope, you misinterpreted Dawkins for the sake of your witless argument

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@ryanprosper88 I don't. The core of Dawkins statement is that there is no reason for us humans in the universe. That says nothing about reasons and causes we humans create for ourselves.

[@boxingboxingboxing99]

Always great to listen to Craig! Thankyou for your service in defending Christianity 🙏

[@dherichsen]

I am surprised that WLC did not cite Meyer's books which systematically demonstrate that Neo-Darwinism provides no answer to the origin of the first living cell (Signature in the Cell), the abrupt explosion of complex life forms in the Cambrian era without ancestral vestiges in the fossil record (Darwin's Doubt) and the origin and fine tuning of the universe and the astounding complexity of the information encoded in, and the mechanisms active in the human cell (Return of the God Hypothesis). While WLC does an excellent job here showing how RD oversimplifies everything (not mentioned though is that RD is highly moralistic in a way which contradicts his assertion that there is no transcendent moral principle), Meyer does this far more specifically and thoroughly. So I am surprised he did not refer to him here, especially as WLC is associated with the Discovery Institute in which Meyer is a leading figure.

[@KsJudas]

Can you translate your creationism to an european? Like in Europe most people know that evolution is real, even catholic church and protestant churches accept that. What went wrong in your case?

[@RobLewis3]

I'm finding it hard to listen to Dawkins anymore.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

It's interesting to see a man like WLC critique someone like Richard Dawkins considering Craig's absolute fear of debating Jeffery Jay Lowder. Lowder is by far the best atheist debater there is. Lowder already absolutely destroyed Frank Turek and Phil Fernandes in a debate. Given how great Lowder is at debating, I can see why WLC has been ducking a debate with him since the late 1990s.

[@iwonderhmmm]

Can't wait for Craig to analyze Dawkins' "I'm a cultural Christian" comments.

[@tomasrocha6139]

It's nothing new, Dawkins has always said that

[@MadameRobinson]

Thank you!

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

Religious authority didn't always sit well with the Manifested One either.

[@anthonyramos8951]

Am I wrong for being bothered by Dawkins’ shirt button not being buttoned…hahahahaha

[@DoctorLazertron]

Even if you buy evolution by natural selection, it just describes a physical process, it explains nothing about why we're designed the way we are, and doesn't address the telos of evolution in general or for specific species.

[@somerandom3247]

Where did Dawkins say that she is a sincere believer? Seems he was saying the opposite.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

Why is Dawkins mansplaining Ayaan's beliefs in the first place? Alex needs to interview Ayaan in order to understand her conversion from Islam to Skeptic to Christian. Let Dawkins stick to spinning evolutionary biology.

[@coolumesque]

God makes me watch as He uses His light to create universes in His ocean that is teeming with life forms. Then God takes me to walk on the new earths that He has created & shows me how life from His own ocean passes through into the oceans of the new earths & evolves. God sometimes makes me swim through His ocean to our earth & walk ashore. And I have held in my hands many life forms from God's ocean & some of them are like octopi, jellyfish & starfish etc. God's realm & ocean are on deeper dimensions that humans cannot perceive with their senses. Humans must open their minds to the spiritual realm during meditation or even when they are relaxed in bed, & they will discover that spiritual beings begin speaking to them & taking them into the spiritual realm. God has demonstrated for years how He controls time & space & He takes me to multiple parallel universes where one day is equal to a billion years or so on our earth. And God appears in my home & walks into me as if I was an open door & instantly I find myself floating above the universe & I am larger than the universe. What I have told you so far is 0.01% of what God has shown & taught me. God visited me just a few hours ago & I can go into the spiritual realm & see God face to face this minute if I want to. Life doesn't actually begin in full until you meet God.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

and now please demonstrate that those things have really happened to you and that they were no delusions... I wait, probably forever.

[@bany512]

the simplicity of life 😂😂😂, like for example 3.1 billion base pairs of specifically organized letters in your DNA, yes, very simple indeed

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

The problem for theism is "life"? Life is a contradiction to a universe that is, for all intensive purposes, not alive

[@billmartin3561]

That is exactly why theism is correct. Because we ARE special, we ARE unique, created in the image of God.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

It's interesting to see a man like WLC critique someone like Richard Dawkins considering Craig's absolute fear of debating Jeffery Jay Lowder. Lowder is by far the best atheist debater there is. Lowder already absolutely destroyed Frank Turek and Phil Fernandes in a debate. Given how great Lowder is at debating, I can see why WLC has been ducking a debate with him since the late 1990s.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Waiting for your review of Dr. Craig being interviewed by Alex O Connor for the third time concerning the slaughter of the Canaanites

[@garywalker447]

As faith is belief without evidence I will argue that faith cannot be reaonable as the only good reason to believe any claim is when that claim is supported with evidence.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

That is a false definition of faith. There is blind faith, which is what you mean by faith, and evidenced-based faith - the kind of faith true Christianity calls for.

[@garywalker447]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 Sorry but the only "evidence" of christianity is the bible and it is self contradictory, not supported by external evidence and is mainly fairy tales and barbaric "morality". Christianity is based on blind faith.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

There are several philosophical lines of evidence for God which require logic and rationality. There is historical evidence for people and places in the Torah, and historical evidence for the life of Jesus and the sudden growth of Christianity. My faith is not blind as you suggest. It's based on my own proper experiences plus the evidences I mentioned. It may be that you find there is not enough evidence, but I find it is sufficient. All people live by faith in something, including Dawkins who puts his faith in apparent magic. Magic that created a universe including Earth; and that Life sprung up out of lifeless chemicals by sheer chance. Dawkins' position takes enormous faith without evidence.

[@tedgrant2]

I could not follow Christ because I don't hate my family. (Luke 14:26)

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

The phrasing Christ used would have been well known to his listeners. It is about loving him above all else not actually hating your family. The law of Moses, that Jesus and his listeners would have known inside out, clearly teaches love and respect amongst family members. He uses similar imagery elsewhere. Fir example Jesus called his followers to take up their crosses, but he clearly wasn't asking them to go and be crucified. If this is, as you say, the reason you could never follow Christ then perhaps you might rethink.

[@tedgrant2]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 I've got a nice house, a car and a robot vacuum cleaner. I've got a beautiful wife, two sons, a cat and a dog.. (Matthew 19:29)

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

​​​​@@tedgrant2Matthew 19:29 talks about the reward waiting for people who leave their possessions to follow Jesus because they have been forced into that choice. In other words they love Christ more than their worldly goods. That is Jesus' point. Hopefully we won't be forced to choose between Christ and our possessions (though some Christians, in places where there is persecution, are) but this verse is not condemning owning nice things in and of itself. I too have a nice house, car, family etc and am very grateful for them.

[@tedgrant2]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 But don't you want the reward that Jesus promised ?

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

@tedgrant2 Jesus didn't promise a reward to those who neglect their family or who choose a life of hardship for it's own sake. If ever God calls me to make that decision then I will have to endure the hardship and leave any reward to his own judgement. For example one could conceive of a situation where their spouse might offer an ultimatum: Renounce Christ or I'm out of here. I know of someone personally whose wife gave him that very choice when he became a believer. However, to take these verses and apply them by saying you have to hate your family or get rid of all the nice things in your life is to miss what Jesus is saying.

[@somerandom3247]

The moral argument fails because it incorrectly assumes that morality is objective. The conclusion of the ontological argument simply doesnt follow. Just because you imagine something as existing foesnt mean that it actually does. There is no need for a god to exist for math to be aplicable. You claim there are good argument for god, what are they? These example.sure aint it.

[@DrDemolition97]

Regarding morality, you can certainly reject God and therefore reject the idea that morality has any objective grounding. What I would then ask you however, is are you willing to accept and embrace the implications that come along with refusing any objective grounding for morality

[@somerandom3247]

@@DrDemolition97 What implications?

[@DrDemolition97]

@@somerandom3247 Well the first one that comes to mind is that without objective standards of right/wrong, then the Holocaust was just a difference of opinion. Since the allies won, the Holocaust was evil. If the Axis powers had won, it'd be considered a triumph to have exterminated the Jews. Without objective morality you can't objectively say the Holocaust was evil

[@DrDemolition97]

@@somerandom3247 Well if morality has no objective grounding then you have no authority to say the Holocaust was evil outside of your own opinion. When the skinhead comes along and says the Holocaust was a good thing, what are you going to appeal to to prove him wrong?

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Regarding the ontological argument, I agree. Regarding the other two, all you have done is make assertions. Assertion 1: Morality is not objective Assertion 2: God is not needed for the applicability of mathematics. Perhaps you're right, perhaps not. But unless you present an actual argument you give us no reason to accept your conclusions.

[@williamwallace3257]

So Lane craig a man with zero training or knowledge on evolutionary biology and who is a theolgian knows more about evolutionary science than Dawkins! You must be having a laugh! I haven't seen many scientific papers on evolution written by Craig! Why dont you start to study the subject Bill then you might learn something!

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Can you explain where he is wrong? And, having done so, provide your own credentials please?

[@lars2323]

That is why WLC is quoting from biologists, including Dawkins himself. What is wrong about pointing out the uncertainties in evolution? Also notice how WLC is careful on this subject, since he is not himself a biologist.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

WLC doesn't claim to be a biologist, however he is extremely well versed and articulate on the subject and no one denies that. You may be interested to know that Dawkins refuses to debate WLC. It's obvious why he won't. WLC has debated Sir Roger Penrose, Lawrence Krauss, C. Hitchens, Sam Harris and many other top scientists. None of them consider him someone to laugh at.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

It's interesting to see a man like WLC critique someone like Richard Dawkins considering Craig's absolute fear of debating Jeffery Jay Lowder. Lowder is by far the best atheist debater there is. Lowder already absolutely destroyed Frank Turek and Phil Fernandes in a debate. Given how great Lowder is at debating, I can see why WLC has been ducking a debate with him since the late 1990s.