20 Christian Academics Speaking About God

[derth12546]

In Christian theology we would call this video "proof texting" Best to listen to everything a person says rather than picking one liners that help "prove" your case.

[JPararajasingham]

@derth12546 "In Christian theology we would call this video "proof texting"

You either didn't watch the video or don't know what prooftexting is. My claim stated during the intro is that religious thinking can lead to irrational ideas. Please give an example of clip I've used which does NOT reflect the opinion of the speaker involved, or where further context would alter the content.

"Best to listen to everything a person says"

EVERYTHING? Be realistic for Christ's sake.

[yachtomee]

Painful, painful viewing

[mleonsmith]

wow. Dr. Ben Carson? wow.

[breenhill]

THE GOD DELUSION!

[Cisco11211]

My UNIVERSAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING is Ultimate Reality of LIFE. Reaffirmed with Nassim Haramein’s & Garrett Lisi’s work of last few years. Crop Circle makers in high conscious of knowledge of the "TREE OF LIFE". Tree of Life spoken in Bible & is all people of world who contributed knowledge & scientific research. NASSIM HARAMEIN SOLVES Einstein Universal Cosmo CONSTANT. Youtube(dot)com/watch?v=S1JDMT­oJDe0

Read my Theory of Everything blog:

ciscosphere(dot)wordpress(dot)­com/category/uncategorized/

[baljeetd]

I had no idea that prominent scientists could be so moronically stupid! It's amazing how religion can dumb down thinking in every corner of society.

[jeffreydebra1]

Yes, profoundly irrational, quite disturbing indeed.

[jeffreydebra1]

That is kind of what God is, an advanced form of Santa Claus. Who is going to tell all of these "religious" academics that there is no Santa Claus. BTW...love can still exist without Santa Claus.

[jde1757]

D'Souza is a complete tool. He has nothing of value to contribute to any discussion.

[jde1757]

Carson is an embarrassment to the medical profession. He went to Yale, is head of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins - yet when talking about evolution, he sounds like any ignorant fundie. It's absolutely shameful. I can't even conceptualize that level of compartmentalization.

[nlytend1]

@ 7:30 a man says "if the future doesn't yet exist, [then] even God doesn't yet know it." WTH, that means it isn't a god dummy, if a god is to be all-knowing. Plus, if part of it is "out of time" and the other part is "in time" (don't ask me how this works), wouldn't the part that's "out of time" see the whole of time? That means there is no present, past or future for this god, it would see time in a linear form. Every event, past or future, would all be happening at once.

[Sybsop]

False analogy thy name is Dr Carson

Then again it is not uncommon for theists to construct logical fallacies to maintain their faith.

[NOZUMI800]

Well said by Dr. Benjamin Carson. One of the greatest Neurosurgeons in history.



[TSAR373]

The lion kills the antelope because it is hungry, but the lion doesn't want to kill all the antelopes in the world.

[jacderida]

Dinesh D'Souza is an embarrassment...

[ArthurTheChristian]

George Coyne say "it puts me in a embarrassing position as a scientist"? Why would he say that? I mean, if your not happy being religious, then don't be. But why would be say I'm religious and embarrassed by it? Coyne is such a disappointment.

[desperaclo]

Man, I try to forget about D'Souza. I hadn't thought about him in months! Now I'm sad.

[PrivateTella]

There is not space given to anybody whether Christian or not, to 'stand at a distance' and qualify the existence of God. Only through the person Christ is where the Bible claims the Truth can be found about the existence of God and humanities present condition. Because it claims that Christ is the Truth, not science, not rationalism, not even the Bible.

[JPararajasingham]

@PrivateTella "Christ is the Truth, not science, not rationalism"

Rationalism is not Truth? So your Christianity is non-rational?

Do you not find it unnerving that as Christianity progresses it recedes, first fragmenting into sects, then claiming it is beyond rituals, then claiming God is beyond our mortal understanding, then claiming it is beyond science, and now according to you saying it is beyond rationality?

Take the final leap and realise that it is beyond Truth.

[PrivateTella]

@JPararajasingham So the Bible claims that Christ is Truth, but Christians don’t have to be irrational to perceive Him, but they do make choices dependent on Him revealing Himself personally. Rationality is not Truth; it is a means by which people can make sense of Truth revealed to them. I imagine the difference between us is that I believe in Truth ‘revealed’, whereas you perhaps believe in Truth ‘discovered’.

[JPararajasingham]

@PrivateTella "Rationality is not Truth; it is a means by which people can make sense of Truth revealed to them."

Rationality in itself is a truth - a methodological truth. Sure I believe in discovered truth, but also in methodological truth. Revelation and experience are (by themselves) unreliable methodologies, since their foundation is human subjectivity, which science shows is dangerously fallible. Objective verification is a necessity prior to claiming such a "truth".

[FUTUREPR00F1]

A lot of these excerpts are of Christians being forced to speculate. They'll be first to admit they don't know all the answers. 'My thoughts are not like your thoughts, my ways are not your ways.'

[133839297]

I'm from Brazil and I'm not sure: is this video serious? I mean, is it some sarcastic comedy show or something?

[133839297]

Thank you. Really good.

[andreasdrg]

One way to see it is that in a transitional phase where mankind abandons belief in the supernatural, there are bound the be people like these: highly intelligent people grappling with the cognitive absurdities caused by the parasite of religious indoctrination, vainly trying to rationalise them. The interview Dawkins did with George Coyne is a good example of this phenomenon.

[JPararajasingham]

@andreasdrg Very good summation.

[andreasdrg]

@JPararajasingham Thanks for these videos by the way, good work putting them together!

[JPararajasingham]

@andreasdrg Much appreciated, thank you :)

[JPararajasingham]

@topazblueriver "they should be tentative about coming down one way or the other"

Not as theists. It is irrational to continue to accept theism when they cannot answer how core theistic claims actually work alongside KNOWN aspects of reality (time, causality, physical systems, etc.).

Apply that approach to any other scientific hypothesis - if a hypothesis doesn't seem to fit with KNOWN science, then it is irrational to hold it to be true. It becomes an extraordinary claim.

[andreasdrg]

At 11:00 Dinesh points out that civilization and science received a great boost around 5000 years ago, indicating divine intervention. That might be the explanation. That... or the invention of writing.

[adorablesquire]

You have specifically focused on quotes of religious scholars talking in areas that are fuzzy, where there are lots of disagreeing opinions, and where it is easy to get tripped up. But, these are questions that every religious person faces AND answers, in some way, or stops believing. What is more logical, that Christians and other religions think deeply about their religions and the tenets they use to guide their lives, or that they are all just stupid and never think?

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire "areas that are fuzzy"

I do not accept that questions regarding the nature of god, how he exists in time and space, how he interacts in the world, etc., to be allowed such fuzziness, while still maintaining the belief in such a being. I would accept less core elements of the belief to be fuzzy, but not these. If there is such disagreement in any other hypothesis we suspend judgement. This does not seem to happen with the God hypothesis, which is irrational faith.

[adorablesquire]

@JPararajasingham How can you expect to fully understand a being who has created and controls the whole universe? That's like a kindergartener asking to understand particle physics so that they can believe that the universe exists. A belief in God is a belief in a being who knows a lot more than you and is a lot more powerful than you. If we have to understand how something works before we believed in it, nobody would ever learn anything.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 1/7 “How can you expect to fully understand a being who has created and controls the whole universe?“

I don’t expect a FULL understanding. I expect to have a shred of evidence or at least a coherent account before taking the idea seriously. Especially when there is evidence and coherency behind the idea that humans would have a tendency to make up such fictional beings.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 2/7 “That's like a kindergartener asking to understand particle physics so that they can believe that the universe exists.”

The reason god requires coherency is because we can't observe he exists. None of us, let alone a child, know exactly how the universe WORKS, but can observe and thus believe it to exist. Rational beliefs are based primarily on observation/evidence, and secondarily on logical coherency. God cannot be observed, evidenced, or made coherent.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 3/7 Presumably you think we will know god exists after we die. Is this by direct observation, or in the same way the child understands particles when he matures? Either way, why does this revelation or insight not occur BEFORE we die? Given the monotheistic description, it is of paramount importance that we accept god’s existence before we die, afterwards is too late to change one’s mind.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 4/7 For some mysterious reason, even though we get new information about god’s existence after death, we cannot alter our decisions based on that new information. If you don’t accept what you’re being told while you’re still a “child”, born deprived of observable evidence or insight, you will be punished for it. Does this really make logical or moral sense to you?

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 5/7 A human parent can be seen and heard, they tell their child to trust what they’re being told about the existence of atomic particles, and they will understand when they are older, and there is no punishment for their disbelief in particles as a child OR as an adult.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 6/7 Compare this to your God “parent”, who can’t be seen or heard, speaks to his “children” only through other intellectually inadequate “children” to say believe in him, and that we will only have the evidence or insight of his existence after we die, but by then the decision to punish will already have been made.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire 7/7 “If we have to understand how something works before we believed in it, nobody would ever learn anything.”

I hope you now see that if we agree to believe in all conceivable things, with zero evidence and zero coherency, we would believe anything and learn nothing.

[adorablesquire]

@JPararajasingham Of course. The issue I have is that you want to suggest that believers in God have no reason to believe in God, that they believe merely because it has been suggested that God might exist. I do not know how he does the things that he does, but I have seen God work in my life countless times. I pray, he answers my prayers. I have thought deeply and logically about my beliefs - I do not adopt them lightly or without examination or without evidence.

[JPararajasingham]

@adorablesquire "I pray, he answers my prayers"

You consider that evidence, yet I consider the failed prayers studies, the multiple human psychological biases, the vast suffering despite prayer (tsunamis, etc), the inability to explain how prayer could work telepathically and as an interruption of the natural order, and conclude there's vastly more evidence to the contrary. Each evidence/coherency claim about God comes up against this sort of insurmountable counter-reasoning.

[breenhill]

The inability to explain HOW prayer works in no way shows prayer to be false. Physicists can't answer HOW the Big Bang happened but that doesn't mean it was imaginary. Please cite failed "prayer studies." Prayer doesn't guarantee answers and conclusions we want-it's supposed to be communication with God.

[JPararajasingham]

@breenhill "The inability to explain HOW prayer works in no way shows prayer to be false."

But it's not just that, is it? There is no evidence of prayer effects, there is no rational account of how it could work, and if it occurred it would make no moral sense. While on the other hand, it makes sense that prayer is neither seen nor made sense of, because its origin is wishful imagination. If you widen your perspective, you will see why such ideas are so intellectually objectionable.

[breenhill]

The inability to explain HOW prayer works in no way shows prayer to be false. Physicists can't answer HOW the Big Bang happened but that doesn't mean it was imaginary. Please cite failed "prayer studies." Prayer doesn't guarantee answers and conclusions we want-it's supposed to be communication with God.

[JPararajasingham]

@breenhill "it's supposed to be communication with God."

So how is it distinguished objectively from talking to oneself?

"The inability to explain HOW prayer works in no way shows prayer to be false."

In combination with all the other things I listed, it is relevant. Empirical evidence and/or rational account and/or scientific plausibility is required to take a proposition seriously.

[gunner23]

@JPararajasingham So you need empirical evidence to proove moral truths?

[JPararajasingham]

@gunner23 "So you need empirical evidence to proove moral truths?"

I don't believe in "moral truths".

[gunner23]

@JPararajasingham So you dont believe objective evil exists?

[JPararajasingham]

@gunner23 "So you dont believe objective evil exists?"

No.

[JPararajasingham]

@breenhill "Please cite failed "prayer studies.""

Aviles et al: "Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial". Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Krucoff et al "Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care". Lancet 366 (9481)

Benson et al. "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients". American Heart Journal 151

[breenhill]

@JPararajasingham Wow...I was unaware of the powerful scientific surveys that disprove prayers. I'll give you a thumbs up for refuting me and putting my delusional beliefs back in the place where it belongs...sort of like where talking to imaginary friends and believing in fairy tales belong.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@breenhill

"The inability to explain HOW prayer works in no way shows prayer to be false."

It's actually the fact that prayer does NOT work which shows that it is false.

[breenhill]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Okay...okay.

[1stApologist]

This is the worst kind of taking people out of context. I guess when atheists run out of arguments they seem to do and say anything. I've seen many if not all of these videos and by putting only snippets is not only intellectually dishonest but coward-ness.

[JPararajasingham]

@1stApologist "This is the worst kind of taking people out of context"

Strange how no one's actually trying to defend the clips as being rational. All I hear is agreement they sound silly, and excuses for why that might be.

Further context will not change the meaning of what is being said. The lengths of the clips were determined BASED UPON sufficient context. Links to clip sources are also given, so anyone who wants to see full interviews can do so. There is nothing to hide.

[Lrock79]

I'd much rather listen to the whole of these discussions versus snippets. I hate when Christians do this to atheist speakers to make them look foolish, it's a shame that a rational free thinking atheist would do likewise.

[JPararajasingham]

@Lrock79 "I'd much rather listen to the whole of these discussions versus snippets."

These "snippets" are still in their own right FULL answers to particular questions about the Christian God. And this video is no different to how the media quote people. I highly encourage people to seek out the full discussions to see if the foolishness you yourself observe disappears. Taking segments has not created an apparent foolishness - it comes from theism, whichever way you edit it.

[Lrock79]

@JPararajasingham I've actually watched a few of these videos in whole, especially John Lennox, that brother is deep. Even if you don't believe, you can appreciate the philosophy of theology, ideas of morality and the nature of love and the meaning of life, wonderful stuff whether true or not. I happen to believe it's true. Just as I can appreciate a Bertran Russell, Hume or Nietzsche, or enjoy a sacreligious rant eliquently woven and delivered by Christopher Hitchens. Enjoy

[JPararajasingham]

@Lrock79 What I object to is your accusation that I've edited in such a way which makes the speakers look foolish when in fact they are not. What I am actually trying to show is that when the (rare) right question is asked, about the nature of god and how the concept fits into reality (evolution, time, physical laws, etc.) then foolishness, hesitation and speculation become the norm. I am showing the intellectual gaps in theism. Theology, however interesting, is speculative not factual.

[Lrock79]

@JPararajasingham The same can be done with snippets of interviews with Atheist within context, in fact I'm sure I found a few on YouTube. And there are intellectual gaps in Atheism as well. We all believe in the best inference to the explanation, Darwinian evolution and multiverse hypothesis are not empirically verifiable, they are abductive. Atheism does not hold the higher ground, both have the burden of proof. At least I take both sides seriously. Hey, good video nonetheless. I liked it.

[JPararajasingham]

@Lrock79 I have not seen the same extent of lack of reasoning among atheists, evolution and the multiverse hypothesis have empirical scientific and mathematical evidence backing them up respectively (the theories make sense of empirical data discovered), and atheism as a lack of belief holds no burden of proof. I am not able to take the other side seriously. Glad you liked the video :)

[Lrock79]

@JPararajasingham I respectfully disagree and keep up the good work.

[fbarfety]

"more interested in consensus opinion," but then most of the world population believes in God. Sure it doesn't make it true, as truth could careless about our beliefs or interests.

"elaborate..." if JP Moreland says animals have souls, he most likely knows some sound philosophical arguments to support this position. He is the foremost expert when it comes to the philosophical study of consciousness. Where can I read your writings, I am interested in neuroscience. Thanks for the video!

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety ""more interested in consensus opinion," but then most of the world population believes in God." - I'm referring to academic consensus i.e. scientific and philosophical consensus.

"Where can I read your writings, I am interested in neuroscience. Thanks for the video!"

My website, drjtp.com. Thanks :)

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "if JP Moreland says animals have souls, he most likely knows some sound philosophical arguments to support this position. He is the foremost expert when it comes to the philosophical study of consciousness."

But the majority of philosophers would disagree with him on that, as would essentially all animal biologists and neuroscientists. So from a scientific and philosophical consensus point of view, his idea is outlandish. So as a non-philosopher, what should I conclude?

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety Re: expertise and consensus: Let's say you have a medical condition, but you're tentative about your doctor's advice. What do you do as a medical non-expert? I imagine you'd read as much as you can understand about treatment, but more importantly find out the consensus medical expert opinion. You don't apply to med school, become a doctor specialising in that field, and then decide! The non-expert should approach science/philosophy and God hypothesis in exactly the same way.

[fbarfety]

I said "scholars agree..." - in your video - not most and not in a broad general sense as you painted it in your response with "most scientist are materialists."

"no one person is a scholar in every field yet you are a neuroscientist attempting to discuss philosophical ideas. What is your philosophical background? To be able to discuss this subject wouldn't you agree one would need to be educated in both science and philosophy? Asking in a friendly manner...

[JPararajasingham]

"To be able to discuss this subject wouldn't you agree one would need to be educated in both science and philosophy?"

Sorry, is this your opinion? If so, could you elaborate?

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "I said "scholars agree..." - in your video - not most and not in a broad general sense as you painted it in your response with "most scientist are materialists.""

I misunderstood in that case. I did think you were making a general statement. Elite scientists who believe in god or the immaterial are extremely rare creatures. But if you look hard enough you can find scholars who believe in all sorts of nonsense. That is why I'm more interested in consensus opinion.

[fbarfety]

"The opposite is true - most scientists are materialists."

This appeal to authority won't work. These scientists (dissentfromdarwin) for example all agree that naturalistic materialism cannot account for the complexity of life, and that careful examination of the evidence is encouraged.

When Collins, Director of the Genome Project, says a God must exist, I would like to hear what he has to say, not a short snippet that attempts to ridicule and discredit him as a scientist.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "This appeal to authority won't work."

You attempted to appeal to authority when you said "scholars agree etc.". When considering a philosophical and scientific question such as the God Hypothesis, it is missing the point to then complain about "appeal to authority". You need to think a little deeper and realise that it is an incontravertable fact that no one person is a scholar in every field, therefore we must ask specialists their opinion, and take them into account.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "When Collins, Director of the Genome Project, says a God must exist, I would like to hear what he has to say, not a short snippet that attempts to ridicule and discredit him as a scientist."

Clearly a single video cannot do any single person justice. But when Collins is asked basic questions about his beliefs, he fumbles, and clearly you recognise this as well which is why you describe it as an "attempt to ridicule". It is not an attempt - what he says IS ridiculous.

[arnoldlayne1991]

rowan williams! Such a wondeeful deep voice!

[fbarfety]

Scholars seem to agree on one thing: There is more to life than just the physical particles. Video suggests that if you entertain the existence of the soul, free will and the Problem of Evil you are to be discredited, but neuroscience has far from settled the reality of consciousness, free will, our ability to reason or the presence of information in biological forms. This "blooper" style video offers no counter arguments and is a bit shallow for it.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety

"Scholars seem to agree on one thing: There is more to life than just the physical particles."

The opposite is true: most scientists are materialists.

"Video suggests that if you entertain the existence of the soul, free will and the Problem of Evil you are to be discredited"

Video suggests that those who entertain such ideas have no rational explanations to support them.

"video offers no counter arguments"

I've made 2 other videos with the opposing view.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "This "blooper" style video"

Interesting that you should refer to this as a blooper video. Bloopers suggest that it is obvious to everyone, including the speakers themselves, that they are making mistakes. However, sadly, the complete opposite is true. These clips are not of mistakes, but rather their best attempts to explain core aspects of theistic belief. I agree that they are talking rubbish (bloopers), but they don't think that of themselves. And nor do many Christians.

[fbarfety]

@JPararajasingham Blooper style as in short, humorous and entertaining. Yes, these are their positions we agree here. I am not sure this video is aimed at covering the "core aspects" of their theistic belief. Core aspects to me would refer to essential doctrines, i.e. for Christianity: the virgin birth, the resurrection, the triune God, but Christians differ and argue vigorously about many issues including consciousness, the nature of free will, the age of the earth, etc...

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "Blooper style as in short, humorous and entertaining."

As I said, they do not think what they are saying is humorous. I think it's laugably ridiculous, but they do not. They are deadly serious. That is what is worrying.

"Core aspects to me would refer to essential doctrines"

By core aspects I mean HOW the God Hypothesis fits with scientific reality i.e. what is God, how does he exist, what is his relatioship to time/space, how does he interact with the world, etc.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "Core aspects to me would refer to essential doctrines, i.e. for Christianity: the virgin birth, the resurrection"

Collins and others ARE addressing exactly this question i.e. miracles and how they occur. They do not know, they blindly accept. They recognise that the world works via invarying laws, and cannot account for how miracles even COULD occur. So to still accept the belief despite having no plausible explanation for it is, it seems to me at least, irrational.

[JPararajasingham]

@fbarfety "Blooper style as in short, humorous and entertaining."

You make it sound as though the comments are outtakes. Sadly they are not, and such accusations only support the conclusion that everyone, including theists themselves, find the arguments of these elite theistic scholars to be embarrassing. Christian elite scholars are rare, yet almost every single one can be found talking nonsense when questioned about their theism. Why do you think that is?

[TreVelocita]

Thanks for doing the extra work to mirror the relevant clips.

[JPararajasingham]

@TreVelocita My pleasure!

[patlecat]

Dr. John Lennox is always extremely illogical whenever he talks about his belief in god, even though he is a methematician! Incredible... Although usually most of the beliefers are academic of arts, not of natural science. So they just love construct the world in their head only. But religious academics of nat.scie. are mind boggling, maybe they are mentally ill in some way?

[nontheistdavid]

What a bunch of charlatans!

[DrBones666]

Why do people need religion? A belief in God doesn't mean you have to follow some idiots list of rules. Love God, love your fellow humans and learn what you can. Do that and you'll be more holy than any christian, muslim or jew.

[TechGriffin]

11:02 that douche (Dinesh D'Souza) is wrong. Gobekli Tepe is said to be 11,000 years old, that's more than twice as old as he gives man credit for. Adam's calendar is said to be 75,000 years old, if it's actually a calendar and not just some rocks. We see proto-writing from 6600 BC...ect He's really REALLY wrong. I doubt he even knows what Neolithic means. Amazing display of ignorance from Mr. Dinesh D'Souza.