The Case for God? (Part 1 of 2)

[@Bigbencher]

Such a shame the Rabbi has passed...obviously a great man

[@benthejrporter]

Jews are very different indeed from Christians. I find their religious natures more mature and easy-going, more intellectual. Another thing I like about Jews is that they don't keep knocking on my door asking me if I want to become a Jew and how I'll go to Hell if I don't! In fact if you want to be accepted as a Jew it can be quite hard work; you have to prove you have Jewish family roots etc.

[@MatRix0rk]

The problem of evil and suffering is not a hard one in the general sense. It gets hard when you point out that there is no limit to the cruelty that takes place.

[@slawagumuchian9146]

Great

[@m.bernal9540]

Claire Khaw , no longer. Today, law is for sale. G-d has set the limits of immorality and we should follow them for our own good.

[@ubermons]

How you can manage to gather a more mediocre bunch of skeptics baffles me.

[@lemaafg]

my problem with all religions is ; it gaves you wrong comfort it stops you for searching for real answer to hard questions it devides us as one single humanity family stops you for finding out the real state of nature and life and univers as it is it makes you hostage to a set of beliefs and rules which no one dares to change or chalange all this leads to wrong decesion making to solve real problems of our world regards ex musli atheist from afghanistan

[@wrinkleypp]

I like the idea that he takes responsibility for everyone as "they are all part of the script" Every one of us faces people who are different from us, who are outside our in-group, taking responsibility for your behavior towards the out-group is a noble effort. Something missing in many people's behavior.

[@TheXtdesign]

The best conversation I have ever heard (2nd time I listen to it) of faith by Rabbi Sacks, how he enlightens a person with a simple speech and real faith. The God is in the detail originally, not the Devil, false quotation.

[@bayreuth79]

I was responding to someone who suggested that the case for God had been abandoned and I did this by pointing out that there are contemporary thinkers who think that a very good case for God can still be made. This is why I mentioned contemporary thinkers such as Swinburne (Oxford Uni) Plantinga (Notre Dame) etc. I wouldn't mention Descartes and Kant because they are not contemporaries and therefore not relevant to the response I wanted to make.

[@Braglemaster123]

Brilliant and " Spot on " Rabbi Sacks. My HaShem keep you close to him. Rick ( Melich Ben Baruch a Kohan )from America .

[@bayreuth79]

... and that what we mean by "creation" is "the radical causing of existence of whatever exists". This means that God is not a cause within the world- and therefore a rival explanation competing with scientific explanation- but the radical cause of existence (or being) itself. Science answers questions regarding physical processes within the world; and religion answers the question as to why there are any physical processes whatsoever. This is why we oppose "Creationism" & "Intelligent Design"

[@1RadicalOne]

The twitching the Rabbi makes at 3:09 - does he not look like he is trying to refrain from showing fury, especially considering the previous comment?

[@radimsirl]

Is there anywhere on youtube the dialogue between Sacks and Dawkins?

[@robertomarquez9493]

If as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said a religious text will demand from you and a book of literature will not, which of the hundreds sacred text in worlds religion will make the demand and the claim of TRUTH?

[@marshawoods9078]

okay this was part 1 I can't find part 2 Gary. Love Rabbi Jonathan sacks

[@bayreuth79]

It is depressing to continually encounter people who have an outmoded epistemology which thinks that the only valid form of knowledge is scientific. This is the outmoded philosophy of logical positivism; and it has been shown to be too narrow and constrictive, as well as self-refuting. I am claiming that science cannot answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing", because science by its very nature answers questions related physical processes within the world.

[@bjornfinkelburgensteinski4629]

Is there going to be a 2014?

[@bayreuth79]

I also think that you have misunderstood the question. Even if the universe had always existed the question "why is there being rather than non-being" would still be a valid question. It is a question related to being qua being. A universe that has always existed can still be a created universe. "Creation" refers to ontological dependence upon God; and is only secondarily concerned with weather it was created in time or not.

[@ChrisStreet]

alain de botton made no mention of 'The Golden Rule' the classical example of a belief shared by many theists of all religions and atheists or humanists. Or was this edited out?

[@TheMarcQ]

3:10 his lips are trembling with rage

[@MrAbdelrahman444]

We in islam we don't get bored listening to the same verses for weeks! Indeed The Holy Quraan contains the things we seek to know in this life, it is intrepreting all of whats happening in the real life.. Evidence, each friday, Muslims are advised to read Surat AlKahf each time we read it, we feel we wanna repeat it, because it discuss 4 major things we face in life... And pls know that, with Islam there are no mystery... all explained in Holy Quraan...

[@boliussa]

I didn't say thugs aren't theologians, I said they don't know their religion well and can't debate it. People with "what would jesus do" bracelets aren't theologians either but they know their religion better and would defeat any gangster in a debate. Thugs do not do what they do under some faulty conception of increasing the well-being of humanity/minimising human suffering, they are out for their own ends. They are doing what they think is good for them and they may be right.

[@wildhias]

they show only 5 probably heavily edited minutes of talks - where we don't know how long they actually took

[@ChrisStreet]

"EACH (and every) year the BBC invites Lord Sacks to make a film on the anniversary of the Jewish New Year". The BBC should invite Richard Dawkins to make a film EACH year on the anniversary of Charles Darwins birth.

[@Therion63]

@goldragon988 Part 2 with Colin Blakemore is sort of worth watching. He's a brilliant man, but you can tell they've cut much of the interview out.

[@robopoet]

3:09 - hilarious facial reaction

[@itsatallworld]

Lol that was funny. Sacks' voice and manner was so intriguing

[@radimsirl]

thank you!

[@RicoAbdulProject]

That ball head dude is soooo stoned!!!! LOL!

[@DeborahFRothenberg]

Think that the writers of getting over Sarah Marshall talked of heresisy when Sarah Marshall says to Russell Brand, acting as... Russell Brand when she says that having tattoos from world religions doesn't make a universal citizen but somewhat confused...

[@rogerlephoque3661]

"The devil is in the details." Gratuitous attack from Jacobson

[@liamstrain]

Ok - Rabbi - but taking your musical analogy - you wouldn't try to mix Beethoven and Miles Davis willy nilly (that's not to say you could not blend them harmoniously) - but you wouldn't say only ONE of them represented true music.

[@SagaciousNJ]

I'd go a step further; any concept of human life failing to reaffirm the worth of thriving and the abhorrence of suffering would be incoherent. With this in mind various human crimes against one another become both morally wrong and logically unsound. The reason for their commission arising from unexamined beliefs in the mind's of their perpetrators. What I am decrying as "faith" is the approval for unexamined beliefs and the stance that not examining beliefs is permissible or praiseworthy

[@melese1988]

It doesn't matter what I agree with (anyway, I didn't suggest that murder etc are good or not). Before going to extremes, slavery is about owning as property another human being. There's also a difference between a Hebrew slave to a non-Hebrew one. I brought up the prayer as an echo to the treatment of woman (of "she'lo asani isah" is rabbinical).

[@boliussa]

The reason there is something rather than nothing, is not known to man, it's a gap. So to say God is the reason , -is- a God of the gaps argument! (also we can't really have any idea what nothing would look/be like, no space, no time).

[@boliussa]

There are a few different answers to that.Scientists do sometimes come out firmly against bad science.Also,no method comes close to science,in determining how the world works.Also, a scientist is welcome,to have a philosophy of scientific skepticism,which even many religious people do in some areas of their lives.If they think a particular God claim or all fitting definitions people use are implausible, then they could say they believe it's extremely unlikely (as good as believing it's false).

[@SagaciousNJ]

You say that thugs are wholly selfish in their motivations, I will say that very, very few see themselves this way. All too often I hear of how some harm is justified in order to protect or support kin&kine with the others being the collateral damage in some otherwise morally defensible effort. If you make any attempt to get them to consider the matter in detail the usual response, is defensive anger or stark and fearful refusal to think about it. The truly selfish are called sociopaths.

[@finausis]

A 'sin' is going against any commandment that G-d gave us to follow from Mt Sinai. For instance...there is a list of what we are allowed to eat and what we are not It is a sin if we disobey them and we then pay the consequences. He formed us, he knows what is good for us. The 10 Commandments are for all mankind.

[@boliussa]

You don't find Sack's faith hideous, What percentage of peoples' "faith" do you find hideous? and in what location? What percentage have a faith that is not hideous?

[@bayreuth79]

I am increasingly surprised by the reverence and respect that is given to the anti-religious tirades of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" received good reviews from people who have never seriously studied the philosophy of religion or theology, but was received very badly by people who have (including non-believers). Dawkins' anti-religious rants are on an intellectual par with Brown's anti-Catholic diatribes in "The Da Vinci Code". Please be more serious!

[@rstdot]

@slipcurve To answer your charge of immorality specifically, often it is impossible to make amends to those you've wronged. Psychology kinda gives us the same options as religious confessional: admit what you've done; be accountable; make amends with good acts to other humans; forgive yourself (aka "God forgives you"). All the feelings religious people feel are real. Atheists just disagree with the source, saying it's not a god but the brain that gives feelings of rapture, ecstacy, peace, etc

[@boliussa]

What harm comes from a criminal that doesn't get caught? Suppose they steal a million dollars from MS and get away with it? We don't live in a world where evil necessarily leads to bad things for a person. Look at Bullies, some of them bully others because they(the bully) don't(doesn't) look tough and if they bully others it can prevent them from getting bullied themselves. If they don't get suspended it may well be of benefit to them and save them some misery.

[@bayreuth79]

Christopher Hitchens was a polemicist and sophist, but he certainly wasn't a competant philosopher of religion. All of his "arguments" against religion were borrowed from 19th century thinkers, such as Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and they do not perturb any serious religious thinkers. Goodness only knows why people like you took Hitchens seriously as a religious (or anti-religious) thinker!

[@LongshanMusic]

it means nothing, but i couldn't help but notice that the music for this video is beethoven's piano concerto #3 in c minor [1st mov't]. beethoven was certainly not a believer. again, that means nothing, but i had to point it out. by the way, i had a bacon sandwich for breakfast and then i coveted my neighbour's wife. . .

[@bayreuth79]

I have a good deal of respect for Nietzsche and Satre. It seems to me that what they have written against Christian faith has to be taken seriously. In fact, some theologians have taken on board their critiques; and actually utilise them apophaticially in order to "purify" theological discourse of extraneous elements. However, Dawkins and Hitchens, et al, are not serious thinkers when it comes to religion. The objections they have are neither new nor interesting; and they're easily answered.

[@topbluffa1]

i hate all this talk of "jews who do not follow judaism" the guy he was talking to isnt a jew but he refuses to let go of his jewish identity

[@topbluffa1]

Howard Jacobson for example might be of Jewish descent but he is not Jewish and if you say he is that is blasphemy

[@MexxPowers]

This documentary is made from the rabbi's point of view, so is the bias. No CH.Hitchens or R.Dawkins can undo that bias. Alain made a strong argument that debunked religion as a whole. Glade to hear Alan saying to be an Atheïst.

[@MartinWoad]

But why understand something that is optional to understand. Religion is just: I think, I believe, but no proof.

[@rstdot]

@slipcurve But if you look at history and philosophical evolution as a pick and mix, you see the connection between confession and psychoanalysis/therapy. Let's not hate everything that was ever religious. Both religion and philosophy (which I define as the same except one claims a supernatural source and the other claims a human source) come from man, and they can influence one another. The good that is in humans is also often in religion.

[@bayreuth79]

Proof is something you only really have in mathematics. Scientists believe all kinds of things not because they have proof bur because they have good reasons for believing what they do. Paradigm shifts in science occur all the time (read the histiry of science). Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, for instance. Before "Big Bang" cosmology scientists used to believe in the "steady state" theory; but no one believes that now. The question is not proof but having well motivated beliefs.

[@melese1988]

If I allow myself to be rude: keep the 10 commandments for yourself. The 10 commandments clearly didn't prevent pressing issues like slavery and... the perhaps the most blindingly obvious issue: the treatment of women. Relate to that. There's a "wonderful pearl of prayer" said every morning: she'lo asani isah

[@justinwesleyhenry]

The analogy of religion to a Mozart symphony or any other great work of art is a very poor one. A religious tradition, like Judaism, is something inherited from thousands of years of transformation and compromise. A piece of scripture, much less an entire "religious tradition" is not the work of an individual author with singular intentions. You need only to look at a single book of the bible to see examples of contradiction within the tradition, evidence of multiple authorship, and revision.

[@bayreuth79]

Besides, if religion "is just a piece of imagination" then you need to produce some kind of evidence/argument for this bold claim. You cannot respond by saying that there is no evidence for religion because (1) there is evidence (look at the philosophers of religion, etc) (2) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you would have to be agnostic regarding religion, rather than making bold truth claims.

[@unfad1ng]

he wouldnt be able to stand a minute against them

[@MrOrange121]

@truthinjesus1 Christian here, nobody takes you seriously when you quote random scripture. You need to form a well articulated and open-minded argument if you want to plant the seeds of the LORD in them. Brothers like yourself are the reasons our non-believer brothers and sisters think we are ignorant and uneducated lacking the capacity for abstract thought.

[@halflifeproductionz]

they just at the top of the list.

[@boliussa]

(contd), You are also wrong about the torah. There are different interpretations and understandings of Judaism. Each has its proof texts and arguments against the other. You are familiar with none of it. As for that text you don't know that you say forbids it, it is in a book of texts, some of which contradict each other, so one can accept what he wants, it is also full of metaphorical texts, and that text conflicts with the fact of the Hasmoneans ruling(religious jewish govt) there (contd)

[@Krommak]

@JackyB92 So just because you use the words "to be fair", what you say is true? Where is the reasoning behind this? Why are they hardly intellectual heavyweights? By saying "to be fair" you place yourself in a position where it's presumed that you are somehow knowledgeable on the subject and people can just take your word for it. I take it you are not, otherwise you'd have taken the effort of typing one or two more sentences with a clarification of/bringing evidence of what you mean.

[@boliussa]

I'm no fan of faith, but whatever the foundation for "moral turpitude"(being a jerk?) is, it's generally not faith. I don't know what school you went to, or what streets you've seen, or what people are like where you work, but thugs tend not to be religious christians with "what would jesus do" bracelets.

[@arondev1]

Where is Dawkins

[@boliussa]

It's a valid question but while philosophy could speculate I suppose on "qua being" of existence (if tha'ts how you say it). what attributes existence must have . Science may be able to find actual answers and without speculating. Phlosophical speculation can tell us about ethics(science can't really), (so i'm not a logical positivist), philosophy tells us about man made things very well, and it tells usabout thinking, but only science has told us a lot about how things work in reality.

[@rstdot]

No, religion is not the repository of the wisdom of a population, the LAW is. Secular law is just that-the picking and mixing of what a population considers to be the good parts of its various religions and philosophies. The ideas and rituals of this pick-and-mix is enshrined in law so that everyone will know them, and they will be passed to our children.

[@boliussa]

The mainstream ultra orthodox position is not exactly the neturei karta one Ultra orthodox rabbis tend not to shout through loud speakers and go to demonstrations and crucially, they hate neturei karta and in britain the main ultra orthodox group banned neturei karta from synagogues. But anyhow, A)What is your source for Rabbi Weiss getting caught supporting "the illegal occupation"? B)NK might say HJ isn't Jewish but do you have a quote?

[@topbluffa1]

I will wait for your apology

[@RaminHonary]

It seems like he took the most indecisive and meaningless bits of each of his debates and edited them together, that or these opponents of his are just really bad at making a point. - He should have tried Christopher Hitchens (if only his health was better at the moment). In a single eloquent statement Hitchens can put to rest any nonsensical "argument" for religion, which inevitably forces the debater to change subject -- god forbid a religious person ever admits they were wrong.

[@topbluffa1]

funny because he had Richard Dawkins crying Amen and he barley put forward any decent arguments, somone like Alan Watts would send Christopher Hitchens away in a straight jacket.

[@firasjawjad436]

2:18

[@erik-forsstrom]

Leading critics? So where's Dawkins or Hitchens?

[@burlatsdemontaigne6147]

Erik Forsström _____ Making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ baiting Christians in the US.

[@SagaciousNJ]

While you denounce me for overgeneralization I find your understanding narrow. Where one finds believing without sound evidence the moral turpitude I spoke of follows. Gang members tend to believe that they only have one realistic career path, that theirs is the correct side of any conflict, that whatever harm they do is forgivable or just; these are beliefs lacking evidence that go on to fuel murder. P.S I don't know what gangsters you know but I all I've ever met were highly religious.

[@myopenmind527]

There is no such thing as a "sacred text". Just words written, typically by meant from a primitive time in our ancestry.

[@boliussa]

Yes genius, so are you going to say there's no such thing as a religious text too? You need a fucking dictionary driven into your head. You can be an Atheist without getting flawed by the term "sacred text".

[@myopenmind527]

I'm just pointing out that religious people make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. There is no veracity to these claims that the Torah, Bible or the Quran are sacred. Thats my point. If you want to call them "Claimed Sacred" thats would be intellectually honest. To call them anything else is deliberately misleading.

[@boliussa]

My OpenMind He believes his religion, are you having a laugh, do you want to police the language of religious people.. So do you think they shouldn't say God anymore they should say the God they claim exists. And texts that they believe are sacred and are thus sacred to them. You're like a SJW. Perhaps you're just trying to say you're an atheist and religion is wrong, well done for figuring that one out, join the long train of people that figured that out, you fucking useless shit. You should move your open mind to other things before your brain falls out

[@azmanabdula]

@lemaafg ex muslim from afghanistan???? dude....please tell me whats its like there.......because so far ive never met anyone from there........ how did you lose your faith? peace mate.... : )

[@philhellenes]

Like watching a man who never learned how stop playing "pretend".

[@boliussa]

Jews are a religio-nation, back from an ancient time. And what determines if somebody is a member of the Jewish nation, is either they were born into it or converted. Which is similar to citizenship of a country.. either you're born in or you are naturalized. Jews were a nation ruling Israel long ago, and are now ruling Israel again. The Jewish people, in the Jewish land. Not all keep the Jewish religion but that's not everything.

[@JohnnyAguirreTV]

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen would be a great Rabbi to show any Atheist that by using common sense one knows who the true G-d is. Check out Simple to remember dot com to discover the truth if you seek the truth with no bias. Also if you like comedy please subscribe to my channel if you enjoy my videos!

[@bayreuth79]

Your comment makes no sense. Let us suppose that religion amounts to nothing more than mere imagination/fiction: does it mean that something imaginative, such as a work of art, cannot be understood merely because it is imaginative? No, clearly not. If religion is a fiction, then it still needs to be understood properly; and the new atheists do not understand it. You contradict yourself anyway, for you say that we cannot understand religion; and yet you understand it (i.e., its mere fiction).

[@HeyHeey]

when the guy says the devil is in the detail the jew get really upset 03:09

[@SagaciousNJ]

At any rate you miss the real point. you say they may be right to imagine that brutality and predation are personally beneficial. I'm saying that the most basic lesson of history is that they are wrong. I'm saying they could correct themselves if not for the tendency of people to make themselves immune to correction by a refusal to think, which I have labeled faith. Evil is not merely unpleasant it's mistaken, it use leads to harm for the user. I'll just start making videos after this

[@Blingy98]

Putting your faith on the line, my ass. Get the four horsemen in there.

[@Yevhen123]

@TheStrangerInTheRye Christopher Hitchens would have made him run away crying.

[@SagaciousNJ]

I don't see how the fact that thugs aren't theologians could be relevant. You say (clearly enough) that you don't think gullibility is the root of all evil and I'm saying it is. All human beings (barring rare congenital sociopaths) prefer good to evil; some people commit atrocities, the reason being that they have a differing notion of what qualifies as good. Any concept of human life that reaffirms thriving and decries suffering is logically countermanded by what we think of as crime.

[@boliussa]

Do you know that science won't produce theories for the answer? Scientists might see outside space-time., or discover that "nothing" cannot exist. But let's suppose science cannot ever produce a theory for that. Nor can academic philosophy. And if it doesn't fit your definition of god of the gaps, that's semantics, and the same kind of problem remains with it, as it's still an argument from ignorance where there's a gap in our knowledge and you're plugging god into that gap.

[@truthinjesus1]

According to Jesus there is only one way. Jews, Pseudo Christians, Catholics,Muslims - All need to know this. (Acts 4:12 “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”(John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.(1Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Our choice! Believe or not. Eternal life or death.

[@melese1988]

Just on the point of scientific knowledge. It's a common narrative for the religious to attribute "divine" knowledge to ancient people. It's funny that those things are not clearly, let alone literally, stated. Here's an alternative, if some piece of science is know, then a credit to be given for the people who figured it up. (or that "knowledge" is simply the common practice of the day) Conversely, crazy verses are drained from meaning, fortunately. Like stoning people for various "crimes".

[@TheStrangerInTheRye]

Who are those four bums? The guests should have been: Richard Dawkins Christopher Hitchens Sam Harris And the icing on the cake, Morrissey

[@paulpixel]

I'm not too keen on bacon.

[@boliussa]

You are completely confused and ignorant. The are westerners called Palestine was taken from the Ottoman muslim turks after WW1(they backed the germans and lost), This is around 1919, and the allies said it was to be the Jewish homeland, this was at San Remo This was at the same time as many other states were also carved out including Lebanon,and modern syria and iraq. This was long before Nazis.Then the British Mandate 1919 or so, long before Nazis. BTW the arabs attacked british all over(cont)

[@1RadicalOne]

Yes, it has been expelled.

[@SagaciousNJ]

I made a show of pointing out that "Jonathan Sack's" faith and ideas are self limiting BS, I didn't make a general statement about religion. That aside, I'm more than willing to issue pronouncements on the damage inevitably done by "faith" where it is defined as the project of asserting certainty while lacking physical evidence. Point is, if the end result of faith led only to the views of this affable rabbi then it would be nothing more than a beautiful lie, as it is, faith is hideous.

[@boliussa]

no i'm not a logical positivist, there are valid sources of knowledge and enquiry other than science, such as epistemology(OTOH can't "science"demonstrate an epistemology to be reliable?),also,though science has developed and with neuroscience it studies the subjective, studies consciousness,and could I suppose take note of what people detect themselves thinking and feeling.Thoughts and Feelings may well be non-physical, but science can study it.They manifest themselves,are detectable in reality

[@Yaarrr]

Faith is not a virtue.

[@aido92]

@Blingy98 Agreed. Four pretty tame atheists, if the truth be told. The only thing he put on the line was his credibility.

[@finausis]

So you agree with murder, thievery, adultery etc. which are in the 10 commandments. If you knew your Bible, slaves were protected and had to be treated well, so were women. There prayer you are quoting is NOT from the Bible but Rabbinical!

[@boliussa]

Gangsters don't know christianity well, they can't debate it. And maybe they're right that they can't do much else. Maybe they get such a buzz from what the do and such status they prefer it to being bottom of the ladder in an office job. They may also be thick and believe in things based on insufficient evidence, along with not being able to do other important things in life due to their thickness, lack of self control, inability to read. I don't think Christianity or Gullibility is the root.

[@boliussa]

You should try to quote me if you try to differ with me. I replied to your recent point about materialism. Mohammed had a very materialistic view, e.g. you snort Satan out of your nose in the morning. You can drink wine and do other materialistic things in your paradise. You really shouldn't be criticising such materialism and as you say "superstitious notions", while getting up in the morning and snorting satan out of your nose etc.I don't deny the immaterial by the way. As I said, quote me.

[@Yevhen123]

@NAGANUGE Nice catch.

[@MartinWoad]

There is no way to understand religion. Religion is just a piece of imagination.

[@Phelan666]

@armarjaleo No critical thought allowed.

[@waksibra]

do they even care about truth?

[@panzerster]

@slipcurve good point , catholic confession i immoral , thanks slipcurve for the comment

[@SagaciousNJ]

I restate, faith i.e. believing things without evidence is by definition the foundation of moral turpitude. Sacks has taken this inherently corrupt enterprise and imposed his good nature onto it so as to produce an affable sort of bullcrap. That being the case he could just as easily have imposed a violent, evil nature onto his faith and found the immunity to correction that arises from faith as well as a religious pretext for persuading others to emulate his malevolent peculiarities.

[@Etcher]

@crabsallover well said!