I don’t understand why anyone is still taking Dawkins seriously. He’s a shallow thinker, his understanding of theology is paper thin and he constantly changes his tune based on where the cultural winds blow (see his “obvious” take that babies with Down syndrome should be aborted, followed by the “obviousness” of it being a bad take). Remove the smug Eaton accent and mannerism, and just like Hitchens, I’m afraid you aren’t left with much at all.
Well, I suppose he could still get his Christendom creature comforts back then, like democracy, freedom and progress - which must have irritated him no end - unlike now, being happily cornered into the Islamabad of his own making. Makes perfect sense, really.
Yeh. Well, he likes the beast with it's teeth pulled, as it is today. I doubt if he'd be so keen a couple of hundred years or so ago, when he would have been burnt at the stake for not towing the line, and doing so in the exact way currently in power. Christianity without power and tempered by enlightenment values and the rights we've fought hard for is fine
@@LeutherGreengager-ip1uw Those are the result of Greek and enlightenment values more than Christian ones I’m afraid. But reformed Christianity allowed those conversations and evolutions to happen. The character of Jesus softens Christianity to a good degree (Dawkins once had a tshirt printed with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it) - without Jesus you get left with the Old Testament, which is basically Islam.
Richard Dawkins (et al) remind me of: '"I stopped outside a church house Where the citizens like to sit They say they want the Kingdom But they don't want God in it"' (Johnny Cash, The Wanderer).
What a great analogy you gave Glenn of Richard Dawkins being a bird who pecked at the seed being sown and later perched in the tree that the seed of Christianity had grown int..
Maybe I'm just not in a charitable mood but the more I see of the inconsistencies in so called 'academic thought' the more I see it as spiritually parasitic. Not only do I not see why I should not take people like Dawkins seriously, I don't see why they take themselves seriously. How do you have a good faith conversation with someone who fundamentally doesn't understand faith at all - even when it crops up in their own worldview? Anyway, Happy Easter.
IMO, these vocal atheists are narcissists who get their fun from spoiling someone's day. Even if someone uses their faith and a crutch to help them through the toils and troubles of life, who is Richard Dawkins to kick that crutch away. I'm presuming that Richard Dawkins is getting paid for his books and interviews so he is also profiting from his narcissistic adventures. From a Google search I see that one of his books "The Selfish Gene," is on sale for £4.00, for a moment I thought it was his autobiography 😂
@@SB-dg8hq , thanks! I feel like that is one of those things that - once you do see it, it's really hard to un-see it (for me, anyway). If I am in a charitable mood I think it is maybe something unintentional and it is sucking the life out of them too - but that doesn't mean I want to entertain it. :)
People like Richard Dawkins want to have their cake and eat it too. And it's not just atheists only, unfortunately. I've met christians who have one foot in religion and another in Liberal Secular values. People need to know that you can't have it both ways.
Appreciating English culture, I also find contentment as the number of English people decreases yearly, yet can we all feign Englishness? How does this even make sense?
Gavin from Truth Unites recommended your Channel. Already subscribed! Great content!!! Will be a regular viewer. Dawkins is thankfully slowly realizing we need God.
I prefer a Christian culture/society, but it doesn't happen by itself without the values becoming deep conviction in the heart/soul/spirit of individuals in a society. Social Christianity has no staying power devoid of its actual core values and tenets of the faith.
Our British culture has Christianity, paganism, Greek philosophy, enlightenment, reformation, monarchy, capitalism and many other things in the mix of what underpins it and makes it unique. At times in our history Christianity has had more or less influence (and sometimes, but not always, for good). I will agree we are a ‘Christian’ country insofar as that is far preferable to being an Islamic one.
There's a famous quote about the preservation of ashes vs the stoking of a fire and what Dawkins is unironically advocating is the preservation of the ashes of our culture.
As a US citizen who lived in the UK for over ten years, I would say that the situations regarding Christianity and culture are not nearly as great as Glen suggests. I fear he is relying too much on social media, which tends to exaggerate the presence of "Christian Nationalism" and the like here.
We all know that the virgin birth of Christ and his resurrection are naturally and humanly impossible. But the cause of both events is supernatural and divine. I don't think Richard Dawkins has the authority and competence to deny these types of causes.
I heard Richard Dawkins on LBC about ten years ago, pushing his new book for children, in which he claimed the Gospels are silly because, (he gave an example of a story in one of the non canonical, gnostic gospels) is silly. He then said he knows it's not in the Bible but that's only by chance. So basically he wants' to educate children into circular reasoning, ie the Gospels are irrational, therefore what is a gospel is an irrational choice, therefore I can irrationally use a non canonical gospel to show that the canonical gospels are irrational ?
They are silly because they’re blatantly made up. Doesn’t mean there’s no value in any Bible teachings but that’s only where they coincide with those we would come up with ourselves like ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’. Those are universally accepted values across all cultures, with varying implementation.
@@mogznwaz Where is your evidence that the Gospels are blatantly made up ? And why do most societies kill unborn children and steal what is rightfully theirs, if not killing and not stealing are universally accepted values ?
@@brendanbutler1238 Where is your evidence that they’re real? There isn’t any. 1st rule of science - evidence is required and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 2nd rule Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one - what’s more likely, some stories made up in the bronze age by illiterate credulous Middle Eastern peasants or there really is a big invisible sky daddy controlling everything but who never makes it obvious because you need ‘faith’? 3rd rule you can’t disprove a negative - I could tell you a pink unicorn is sitting on your shoulder - you can’t disprove it 4th rule go back to rule 1
@@mogznwazNo value is universal unless you believe in collective consciousness or intelligent design. On the atheist view everything evolutionary happened by chance and there are many variables as to how things could develop. No programming.
@@brendanbutler1238 Not long ago all societies (including all Christian societies) still agreed that slavery is fine and that women are just property of men with no rights.
Rachel Johnson wants women's rights, but not unborn children's rights. I don't want to be put down, but I want to be able to put others down. And since when was the right to life of the unborn a "fundamentalist Christian" issue. No, pro life has been part of mainstream Christianity from the beginning. All human beings are valuable in the sight of God.
Kind of feels to me like Pascal's bet. A deeply rationnal way to advocate for christianity, but so utterly soulless that it'd make being a christian senseless (notwithstanding that Pascal of course was himself a deeply mystical believer in the latter part of his life).
Glen, what would it take for you to get an interview with Dawkins or to get yourself interviewed on LBC? I would be far less likely to shout imprecatory psalms at my TV if you were there to counter the objections. 😉
The image of the seed-pecking birds that also want to sit on the branches of the tree (and nest there!) is so great! I never stopped at this biblical phrase before but with Dawkins in the picture it makes sense on a deeper level!
All he is doing is acknowledging that Christianity has yielded some appealing things. But those things are not necessarily dependent on/exclusive to Christianity. And almost nobody here is willing to acknowledge this.
While I agree with everything you're saying about Dawkins, you're implying like so many others have that Transgender Day of Visibility was established intentionally to coincide with Easter in 2024. Your error is understandable and I thought that too initially, largely due to the media making the connection. However, in fact Transgender Day of Visibility has been observed each year on March 31 since 2009. It just happened to fall on Easter this year.
While it's true that March 31 has been observed for some time by trans activists, it was Biden who made it official. He did so by proclamation on March 29th, 2 days before Easter. It wouldn't surprise me that it did not occur to anyone in the White House that March 31 was also Easter Day; or that if anyone did, they wouldn't consider it a conflict or that the sensibilities of Christians were an adequate justification to choose a different day.
Yes, absolutely. I was going to mention this too. @Speaklifemedia please do be careful next time as it doesn't help your (and my) cause. Love your stuff btw
@@philippbrogli779That's not how it works. Easter won't be on the 31st March again until 2086. There are plenty of other dates they could have picked if they wanted to make sure it fell on Easter Sunday more often.
You ask if Easter matters? And you talk about other events placed in the same day? Easter is great for many people of either belief or secular thought for various reasons. If something else correlate that's just how the calendar rolls. Isn't it important to coexist and celebrate on behalf of each other?
From what I've seen of Dawkins he does not seem to live up to the intellect that many people credit him with. His arguments often seem reductive, willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. (E.g. a randomly created universe is more easily explained than a creator god, ergo the latter is implausible. Huge assumption there that the simpler explanation must be the correct one. I wonder if he'd be so fast to dismiss the laws of thermo-dynamics)
I think that Dawkins finally understood what is the alternative. Four atheists promised that society will flourish if everyone became secular, just as libertarians promised that economy will flourish if you ban state, court, taxes and flags. But neither of these scenarios is viable, and Dawkins realised that decline of Christianity will only create vacuum for sinister ideologies.
Preventing women from killing their offspring is fundamentalism and regression. Listen to this woman. They speak of baby butchery as a female right. But any violence perpetrated upon women is an unequivocal evil. I don't see how one act of violence upon a vulnerable person is not only acceptable but a right while the other is a horrific abuse and unacceptable.
Appreciating English culture, I also find contentment as the number of English people decreases yearly, yet can we all feign Englishness? How does this even make sense?
The NEW TESTAMENT does a bit thanks to Jesus. I don’t believe in any of the supernatural stuff but I do recognise the contribution of Christianity to British culture and that without the New Testament we basically get Islam. Which none of us want.
Yes just vote for one of the Kabbalist/Zionist Freemason actors on TV and wait for change lol. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Without the new testament you get Judaism, but Islam is fake and a sect of Judaism. You dont have any freedom. You are allowed to say that you are Christian, Muslim, whatever, but only allowed to practice Freemasonry. All of your slogans are just slogans. Fake as the invisible thing floating around that can make you die if you dont let the sorcerers inject something in your blood. Best convert to Eslaum for your own good and overthrow the government. Eslaum is the only true ideology and freedom: "whoever wants to believe let him believe and whoever wants to disbelieve let him disbelieve." - Allauh in the Goraun. It is the world government that brought these sellouts from occupied Mosslem lands and they practice the same as you which is following blindly/worshiping the rabbis and TV, that is why the moneafegeen condemn fake terror attacks on TV as if it really happened. In Eslaum there is no prisons, no police, no taxes, and only god is the Truth/Justice...Goodness in the heart of believers, and a ruler only has to be just doesnt even have to be a Mosslem. Have the courage to follow your heart, become a "terrorist", my fellow man. Dont lie and invade Irak and serve satans and dont attribute what Jews believe to the real Mosslems who fought your satanist gods and your infiltration, and dont then accuse the Mosslems of infiltrating you. There is no way a real Mosslem can infiltrate your vile culture or Freemason lodge because it is forbidden to the Mosslems to lie and steal and rape and murder and drink baby blood and get intoxicated and lust with whores and do all kinds of sins and crimes. Dawkins is only an actor on TV. You wouldnt get it... Such a great culture, you are so superior.
It's actually incorrect to actually refer to the Germanic gods as 'the Norse gods'. These gods and this mythology was shared throughout the Saxon world including England, otherwise we wouldn't have place names like 'Wednesbury'. This mythology should be taught at least part of our cultural tradition.
Not really. He sees the value of some things religion has instilled, but that doesn't mean he agrees with religion in all its particulars. I know someone who isn't religious at all but goes to church for the social bonding that happens there.
Excellent commentary. It is difficult to do without looking like a jerk hollering from the stands.Not the emphasis of this video, but 1) I find it difficult while promoting the good of Christianity for culture, how to articulate the place of minority groups. How do I find a place for LBGTQIA+ without throwing them off a roof as might be done in a Muslim community or canceling them completely from the town square. How do I permit such behavior without prohibiting or promoting it? The same applies to atheism and Islam. 2) Judaism has a large cultural and not religious segment. Can Christianity likewise? The USA is more of an idea than an ethnic foundation. Can it survive when the idea is no longer expressed?
Nietzsche answers this in beyond good and evil. And it seems we are still stuck in that neurosis of the theistic answer being rejected for the cultrual and moral one.
Wrong. Dawkins is a rational and evidence based scientist. It is not a character flaw to not believe in supernatural deities it is the rational position. However this does not erase the cultural impact of Christianityon our culture. Dawkins has always acknowledged he is a British cultural Christian (like me) and even had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it.
He likes the fruit, but not the tree. It's a contradicition. We as Christians should welcome Richard Dawkins to christianity and hope Jesus puts in his heart to come to Him. God bless.
No, he just recognizes that Christianity has yielded some things that are appealing. So what? That doesn't mean Christianity is the only thing that can do so. And that is what nobody is saying. It baffles me.
Wrestling with religion and its place in society has its place. Judas was presumably necessary for the story being told. Truth is not found by blind obedience but through dialogue and debate.
Well, let's be straight. He's up a mountain, it's Sunday am, he hears the bells of the local church. Cherry on the cake. Emgland's green and pleasant land. The experience is heightened by those bells almost as much as the pub lunch to follow. Alternatively, you hear the muslim call to prayer, and everyone in your group, including the muslims, stiffen with dread. The sound of obligation. Exactly how someone would have responded to the bells a couple of hundred years ago. Dawkins likes Christianity with it's teeth pulled. Fair enough
Your explanation of the Church of England and the Crown had me look into peerage. British nobility, in the United Kingdom, members of the upper social class, who usually possess a hereditary title. The titled nobility are part of the peerage, which shares the responsibility of government. The peerage comprises five ranks, which are, in descending order, duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. You do realize the Jew introduced to the Peerage in 1885 influences your Church and Government. The cultural Christianity of Christianity in Europe is being influenced by NON Christians. The migration into Europe is controlled by the same Government.
Loved the video. Just a comment on the presenter’s sorry about her two-year-old: my son is almost 3 and I am certain that he wouldn’t never ask a priest that question. Even if he did, he would have no concept of what he’s asking. I’m sure I could get him to say those words, but they would have no meaning.
i can only draw 2 possible conclusions: 1. he has realized his idea of "militant atheism" has failed him so he's trying a new approach. 2. perhaps he is rethinking his thinking and slowly coming back to God.
Dawkins has always said he’s a cultural Christian (you can’t not be if you’ve been raised in Britain) and he quite likes Jesus, he had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ printed on it. Stop trying to caricature Dawkins because he’s not a believer like you are.
@@mogznwaz perhaps you're not aware of his early videos and even in The God Delusion when he preached, "mock with contempt". he advocated _against_ God, all religions and _especially_ Christianity.
@@crashoppe Yes I agree with Dawkins. Religion should be mocked, satirised, challenged and resisted loudly like any other philosophy is. I too object to the faux ‘respect’ demanded by religious believers for their particular philosophy just because it’s a ‘religion ’. No. It doesn’t deserve it. Respect is earned.
Richard Dawkins would qualify eminently for the role of leader of the Anglican Church of England. Atheist but culturally appreciative, He would ensure religion was as empty as possible. How far the Anglican church hierarchy has strayed from its bible based protestant roots.
Your "spiritual Switzerland" has a white cross on its flag, has God in the preamble to its constitution and praises the Creator of all things in its national anthem. Nevertheless, I get your point :-). Thank you for this brilliant takedown of Richard Dawkins' thought.
I'm similar to Dawkins in that I was raised in a Christian family, but stopped believing as a teen. I see myself as culturally Christian too, and unlike him, I don't have any animus for the faith at all. But surely he must recognise that Christian culture cannot endure without at least some number of people adhering to Christian faith?
Dawkins doesn’t have animus against Christianity he objects to its outsized influence on public policy and science teaching and he believes in evidence based truth, which he rightly points out the Bible offers none. So he has every right to challenge it. He has always described himself as culturally Christian and even had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it. Like me he’s very concerned about the threat of Islam and like me, if it came to a choice we’d fight alongside Christians for British culture, including its flavour of Christianity, against the threat of Islam. All sane people would.
Nostalgic group-identity marking has a long history, and of course seeing other groups marking their identity tends to make - especially older-people - feel uneasy. This is why even intellectually respectable folk like Dawkins fall for being "anti-woke" etc. It's better to keep your eye on the ball of reality and observe who is using nostalgia and crusted traditions to carry on making life difficult for out-groups.
I’m an atheist and culturally Christian - I understand what Dawkins means perfectly. Fundamentally, even though I’m not a believer and consider the Bible to be a fiction, sometimes wickedly so, I prefer our resultant Christian/enlightenment/secular/uniquely British culture to an Islamic one and I would fight alongside Christians to ensure that it continues. Better the devil you know.
dawkins realized the decline of christianity leave a void and that void filled by islam right now. when islam taking over i wonder what will happen to atheist under sharia law?
He views the very liberal Christianity of Europe as decent... Compared to Islam. In this same interview he distinguishes this from American Christianity. Which he views as evil. As do I.
Students what is can't recognize one another? Don't believe! Likewise be mindful unto all the Who am I? In front! Why? Ye commanded to bring to remembrance. Yes, judgment and Justice came unto them! Resting upon SUSTAINED! What is the kingdom of God, new Jerusalem, nor the new Pillar? Came to unto them! Upon all dry grounds nor the world! Yes, upon all shared Feet resting upon HIS Vineyards resting upon HIS Footstool!
Y'know, Dawkins has a point, as did Churchill before him. Our common civilisation and cultures in the West were decisively reshaped and reformed through the third root, Jerusalem. That is, Western Civilisation as we received it (for many centuries known as Christendom, the realm of Christian peoples) was formed through the countercultural -- and inevitably imperfect, mixed blessing, wheat and tares -- Christian Synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. With of course the onward legacy of the river valley civilisations of the fertile crescent. Yes there are many other influences, contributions and interactions, but that is the core. The key elements of that Synthesis are in the Bible, hebraic, and christian. Ac 17, 27, Romans, 1 Cor 14 v7 ff, Eph 4 vv 14 to 24 ff and esp. Matt 5 - 7, along with Exodus 20 and Lev 19 vv 15 to 18 in context, etc all are key. This includes for instance Paul endorsing core natural law, voice of conscience and the heart of logic while critiquing the appalling incoherence, folly and decadence of pagan culture on the whole, the centrality of love to God and neighbour. Etc. Where, the inherently good, uttetly wise creator God, a necessary (so eternal!) and maximally great being worthy of our fealty and responsible reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature, is the only serious candidate explanation that bridges the is-ought gap in the root of reality. The only place it can be bridged. This is so compelling a clue that it warrants Paul's "without excuse" remarks in Rom 1. And that is Dawkins' dilemma. He knows he has rejected God, but realizes that the Christian and Hebraic heritage are pivotal to civilisation. He knows evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot bridge the is-ought gap, and tends to undermine moral principles. He should know it cannot even account for brain as complex computational substrate, much less rational, responsible, warranting, credibly knowing mind, and yet he has stood up to lead the atheist charge across our cultural landscape. And now, consequences begin to mount up, Ac 27 civilisational storm consequences. I judge, we are at cultural kairos. Can we rise to the occasion?
Christianity has given us many good things and also many bad things. One of the extremely bad things which resulted in the torture and burning of literally tens of thousands of women was the belief that there was such an entity as the Devil and that certain people could access him and gain power. You can't go anywhere in Europe without coming across public squares where in times past either heretics or witches were burnt at the stake."Thou shall not allow a witch to live" is actually a quote from the Old Testament.
I really appreciate your podcast and commentaries, and nearly always find your insights on our faith incredibility perceptive and interesting. Can't tell you how grateful I am for your faithful exposition of the Gospel and your penetrating analysis of cultural issues from a Christ-centered perspective. But it strikes me in this reaction to Dawkins you've adopted the secularist's vocabulary of "sexual minority" when speaking about women. Other than in mostly Asian and Islamic countries women are nearly nowhere minorities. That are actually a slight majority in most western countries. It seems to me that to those who speak of "sexual minorities" either don't understand what the word minority means, or seem to be suggesting that one or more of those groups described by LGBTQAI+ designate a sex other than male or female. Not the end-all I guess, but it does seem many of the most doctrinaire argument of the cultural left depend to a very large degree on their ability to corrupt the meaning of language.
Hi Tony, thanks for the encouragements. Dawkins had just talked about two issues, "women and gays" - hence me talking about two values: the *equality* of the sexes and *compassion* towards sexual minorities (meaning homosexuals). I tried to be clear that "sexual minorities" referred to a minority sexuality, not to women. Make sense?
I think Dawkins is an important figure because he demonstrates that you wont find God in the rationale of men. God exists outside of that (1 Corinthians 3:18-19) and like you point out Dawkins, ironically, seems to none the less appreciate the fruits of that. Pray that God pours out his spirit on Richard to this mystery - at some point you have to resign to knowing - because none of us have the mental capacity to fully know.
this is a flat out lie, there is an interview with him on the bbc webpage from 2007 and he said exactly these words back then _"Monday, 10 December 2007 Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian"_ you can read the entire article there, there is not a single change in his thinking
0:04 The lens of Jesus? Great to see that some people still believe in, and guide their lives through fictitious supernatural beings. Let the delusion continue. 😊 Have a great life - this is the only one you have though - better make the most of it. Cheers.
Yeah, and I would agree. At least nowadays. It certainly seems that the Christianity of centuries ago was as dismal and heinous as a lot of Islamic societies today.
Hmm. He didn't view Christianity as fundamentally decent when he had me thrown out of one of his lectures for asking the wrong questions in 1994.
I don’t understand why anyone is still taking Dawkins seriously. He’s a shallow thinker, his understanding of theology is paper thin and he constantly changes his tune based on where the cultural winds blow (see his “obvious” take that babies with Down syndrome should be aborted, followed by the “obviousness” of it being a bad take). Remove the smug Eaton accent and mannerism, and just like Hitchens, I’m afraid you aren’t left with much at all.
Thrown out? Tell us more!
Well, I suppose he could still get his Christendom creature comforts back then, like democracy, freedom and progress - which must have irritated him no end - unlike now, being happily cornered into the Islamabad of his own making. Makes perfect sense, really.
Yeh. Well, he likes the beast with it's teeth pulled, as it is today. I doubt if he'd be so keen a couple of hundred years or so ago, when he would have been burnt at the stake for not towing the line, and doing so in the exact way currently in power. Christianity without power and tempered by enlightenment values and the rights we've fought hard for is fine
@@LeutherGreengager-ip1uw Those are the result of Greek and enlightenment values more than Christian ones I’m afraid. But reformed Christianity allowed those conversations and evolutions to happen. The character of Jesus softens Christianity to a good degree (Dawkins once had a tshirt printed with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it) - without Jesus you get left with the Old Testament, which is basically Islam.
Dawkins: "I want a Christian country 😔"
Dawkins 5 mins later: "lmao you don't actually believe in Jesus, do you?? 😂😂"
Richard Dawkins (et al) remind me of:
'"I stopped outside a church house
Where the citizens like to sit
They say they want the Kingdom
But they don't want God in it"' (Johnny Cash, The Wanderer).
"I like the warmth of the sun but I'm not foolish enough to believe that the sun exists"
Prof. Dick Dawkins
@@BonusHole Even better.
What a great analogy you gave Glenn of Richard Dawkins being a bird who pecked at the seed being sown and later perched in the tree that the seed of Christianity had grown int..
Maybe I'm just not in a charitable mood but the more I see of the inconsistencies in so called 'academic thought' the more I see it as spiritually parasitic. Not only do I not see why I should not take people like Dawkins seriously, I don't see why they take themselves seriously. How do you have a good faith conversation with someone who fundamentally doesn't understand faith at all - even when it crops up in their own worldview?
Anyway, Happy Easter.
IMO, these vocal atheists are narcissists who get their fun from spoiling someone's day.
Even if someone uses their faith and a crutch to help them through the toils and troubles of life, who is Richard Dawkins to kick that crutch away.
I'm presuming that Richard Dawkins is getting paid for his books and interviews so he is also profiting from his narcissistic adventures.
From a Google search I see that one of his books "The Selfish Gene," is on sale for £4.00, for a moment I thought it was his autobiography 😂
@@SB-dg8hq , lol... never thought of that!
@@danatowne5498 It was your description of people like Dawkins as "Spiritually Parasitic," and I concur, they suck the joy out of people.
@@SB-dg8hq , thanks! I feel like that is one of those things that - once you do see it, it's really hard to un-see it (for me, anyway). If I am in a charitable mood I think it is maybe something unintentional and it is sucking the life out of them too - but that doesn't mean I want to entertain it. :)
So many brothers and sisters in Christ are rising
Love the 'biological life from non-life' challenge to skepticism re the resurrection!
The decrease in churches going public, could it be Dawkins anti Christianity narrative, for years, instead of blaming Islam ?
For sure there are a few million Muslims in Britain 🇬🇧 but many more million irreligious..
People like Richard Dawkins want to have their cake and eat it too. And it's not just atheists only, unfortunately. I've met christians who have one foot in religion and another in Liberal Secular values. People need to know that you can't have it both ways.
Great response! Came here from Truth Unites / Gavin Ortlund
Me too
Appreciating English culture, I also find contentment as the number of English people decreases yearly, yet can we all feign Englishness?
How does this even make sense?
Gavin from Truth Unites recommended your Channel.
Already subscribed! Great content!!!
Will be a regular viewer.
Dawkins is thankfully slowly realizing we need God.
Welcome aboard!
I prefer a Christian culture/society, but it doesn't happen by itself without the values becoming deep conviction in the heart/soul/spirit of individuals in a society. Social Christianity has no staying power devoid of its actual core values and tenets of the faith.
Our British culture has Christianity, paganism, Greek philosophy, enlightenment, reformation, monarchy, capitalism and many other things in the mix of what underpins it and makes it unique. At times in our history Christianity has had more or less influence (and sometimes, but not always, for good). I will agree we are a ‘Christian’ country insofar as that is far preferable to being an Islamic one.
Hats off to you, sir. The best rebuttal of Dawkins I've seen.
Love your observations Glen! Listening to ‚the air we breath‘ and it’s so interesting how much I used to just take for granted.
I'm constantly surprised myself!
Great commentary Glen, loved the Seed to Tree bit and the gaping contradiction in RD's overall - but consistent - view. Great stuff.
You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. If it were possible. They have the form of godliness but deny its source.
Another excellent message, well done Glen
There's a famous quote about the preservation of ashes vs the stoking of a fire and what Dawkins is unironically advocating is the preservation of the ashes of our culture.
As a US citizen who lived in the UK for over ten years, I would say that the situations regarding Christianity and culture are not nearly as great as Glen suggests. I fear he is relying too much on social media, which tends to exaggerate the presence of "Christian Nationalism" and the like here.
When was the last time you were in the UK? The last 10 years have seen a great falling away. Very few people know God here.
We all know that the virgin birth of Christ and his resurrection are naturally and humanly impossible. But the cause of both events is supernatural and divine. I don't think Richard Dawkins has the authority and competence to deny these types of causes.
I heard Richard Dawkins on LBC about ten years ago, pushing his new book for children, in which he claimed the Gospels are silly because, (he gave an example of a story in one of the non canonical, gnostic gospels) is silly. He then said he knows it's not in the Bible but that's only by chance. So basically he wants' to educate children into circular reasoning, ie the Gospels are irrational, therefore what is a gospel is an irrational choice, therefore I can irrationally use a non canonical gospel to show that the canonical gospels are irrational ?
They are silly because they’re blatantly made up. Doesn’t mean there’s no value in any Bible teachings but that’s only where they coincide with those we would come up with ourselves like ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’. Those are universally accepted values across all cultures, with varying implementation.
@@mogznwaz Where is your evidence that the Gospels are blatantly made up ? And why do most societies kill unborn children and steal what is rightfully theirs, if not killing and not stealing are universally accepted values ?
@@brendanbutler1238 Where is your evidence that they’re real? There isn’t any.
1st rule of science - evidence is required and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
2nd rule Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one - what’s more likely, some stories made up in the bronze age by illiterate credulous Middle Eastern peasants or there really is a big invisible sky daddy controlling everything but who never makes it obvious because you need ‘faith’?
3rd rule you can’t disprove a negative - I could tell you a pink unicorn is sitting on your shoulder - you can’t disprove it
4th rule go back to rule 1
@@mogznwazNo value is universal unless you believe in collective consciousness or intelligent design. On the atheist view everything evolutionary happened by chance and there are many variables as to how things could develop. No programming.
@@brendanbutler1238
Not long ago all societies (including all Christian societies) still agreed that slavery is fine and that women are just property of men with no rights.
Thanks very much for that. Really appreciated it.
He must have read Tom Holland's book "Dominium"
Rachel Johnson wants women's rights, but not unborn children's rights. I don't want to be put down, but I want to be able to put others down. And since when was the right to life of the unborn a "fundamentalist Christian" issue. No, pro life has been part of mainstream Christianity from the beginning. All human beings are valuable in the sight of God.
Will Keep Praying for Richard Dawkins!
Trans day of visibility? This not only occupies the same day as Easter, it is in direct opposition, and competes against Easter
Kind of feels to me like Pascal's bet. A deeply rationnal way to advocate for christianity, but so utterly soulless that it'd make being a christian senseless (notwithstanding that Pascal of course was himself a deeply mystical believer in the latter part of his life).
an argument isn't refuted by laughing at it
Glen, what would it take for you to get an interview with Dawkins or to get yourself interviewed on LBC? I would be far less likely to shout imprecatory psalms at my TV if you were there to counter the objections. 😉
Ah, just spend your time liking and sharing our videos instead! New media for the win!!
The image of the seed-pecking birds that also want to sit on the branches of the tree (and nest there!) is so great! I never stopped at this biblical phrase before but with Dawkins in the picture it makes sense on a deeper level!
I'm a cultural Christian. Culture is important. We should value such a heritage.
I'm glad to hear that Richard Dawkins thinks like this.
All he is doing is acknowledging that Christianity has yielded some appealing things. But those things are not necessarily dependent on/exclusive to Christianity. And almost nobody here is willing to acknowledge this.
I love “Reading between the Lines.”
He is now seeing the fruits of his labour... bless...
Thank you
Can I buy a speak life cup?
Good seed point Glen !
Great commentary, thankyou 👍
Awesome breakdown thank you
It is ok to change your mind. Most people do. But acknowledge it
Great commentary, as always.
While I agree with everything you're saying about Dawkins, you're implying like so many others have that Transgender Day of Visibility was established intentionally to coincide with Easter in 2024. Your error is understandable and I thought that too initially, largely due to the media making the connection. However, in fact Transgender Day of Visibility has been observed each year on March 31 since 2009. It just happened to fall on Easter this year.
Interesting. Thanks for the info
But doesn't that mean it has a one in seven chance of beeing easter during? So it's the same with a few extrasteps.
While it's true that March 31 has been observed for some time by trans activists, it was Biden who made it official. He did so by proclamation on March 29th, 2 days before Easter. It wouldn't surprise me that it did not occur to anyone in the White House that March 31 was also Easter Day; or that if anyone did, they wouldn't consider it a conflict or that the sensibilities of Christians were an adequate justification to choose a different day.
Yes, absolutely. I was going to mention this too. @Speaklifemedia please do be careful next time as it doesn't help your (and my) cause. Love your stuff btw
@@philippbrogli779That's not how it works. Easter won't be on the 31st March again until 2086. There are plenty of other dates they could have picked if they wanted to make sure it fell on Easter Sunday more often.
I love the fragment you show of Rachel Johnson being completely flustered by some basic and obvious questions.
I hope Rachel does your 321 course
You ask if Easter matters? And you talk about other events placed in the same day? Easter is great for many people of either belief or secular thought for various reasons. If something else correlate that's just how the calendar rolls. Isn't it important to coexist and celebrate on behalf of each other?
From what I've seen of Dawkins he does not seem to live up to the intellect that many people credit him with. His arguments often seem reductive, willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. (E.g. a randomly created universe is more easily explained than a creator god, ergo the latter is implausible. Huge assumption there that the simpler explanation must be the correct one. I wonder if he'd be so fast to dismiss the laws of thermo-dynamics)
I think that Dawkins finally understood what is the alternative.
Four atheists promised that society will flourish if everyone became secular, just as libertarians promised that economy will flourish if you ban state, court, taxes and flags. But neither of these scenarios is viable, and Dawkins realised that decline of Christianity will only create vacuum for sinister ideologies.
It isn't that it isn't viable. It's that a nation or people becoming secular by itself doesn't mean much.
Oh Rachel your 2 year old never asked that question, what a pack of lies..
Nice sweatshirt!
Preventing women from killing their offspring is fundamentalism and regression. Listen to this woman. They speak of baby butchery as a female right.
But any violence perpetrated upon women is an unequivocal evil.
I don't see how one act of violence upon a vulnerable person is not only acceptable but a right while the other is a horrific abuse and unacceptable.
Appreciating English culture, I also find contentment as the number of English people decreases yearly, yet can we all feign Englishness?
How does this even make sense?
Christianity alone gives us freedom to choose...Dawkins is getting it.
The NEW TESTAMENT does a bit thanks to Jesus. I don’t believe in any of the supernatural stuff but I do recognise the contribution of Christianity to British culture and that without the New Testament we basically get Islam. Which none of us want.
Yes just vote for one of the Kabbalist/Zionist Freemason actors on TV and wait for change lol.
"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Without the new testament you get Judaism, but Islam is fake and a sect of Judaism.
You dont have any freedom. You are allowed to say that you are Christian, Muslim, whatever, but only allowed to practice Freemasonry.
All of your slogans are just slogans. Fake as the invisible thing floating around that can make you die if you dont let the sorcerers inject something in your blood.
Best convert to Eslaum for your own good and overthrow the government. Eslaum is the only true ideology and freedom: "whoever wants to believe let him believe and whoever wants to disbelieve let him disbelieve." - Allauh in the Goraun.
It is the world government that brought these sellouts from occupied Mosslem lands and they practice the same as you which is following blindly/worshiping the rabbis and TV, that is why the moneafegeen condemn fake terror attacks on TV as if it really happened.
In Eslaum there is no prisons, no police, no taxes, and only god is the Truth/Justice...Goodness in the heart of believers, and a ruler only has to be just doesnt even have to be a Mosslem. Have the courage to follow your heart, become a "terrorist", my fellow man. Dont lie and invade Irak and serve satans and dont attribute what Jews believe to the real Mosslems who fought your satanist gods and your infiltration, and dont then accuse the Mosslems of infiltrating you. There is no way a real Mosslem can infiltrate your vile culture or Freemason lodge because it is forbidden to the Mosslems to lie and steal and rape and murder and drink baby blood and get intoxicated and lust with whores and do all kinds of sins and crimes.
Dawkins is only an actor on TV. You wouldnt get it... Such a great culture, you are so superior.
But what good is freedom to choose if you get royally screwed for choosing "wrongly"?
It's actually incorrect to actually refer to the Germanic gods as 'the Norse gods'. These gods and this mythology was shared throughout the Saxon world including England, otherwise we wouldn't have place names like 'Wednesbury'. This mythology should be taught at least part of our cultural tradition.
What does it mean that "the secular is a gift from Christianity"? Can someone explain this?
I speak about it quite a bit in this video: czcams.com/video/W28zfgsdQnI/video.html
@@SpeakLifeMedia Will give it a watch thanks
Great video guys.
That plug for Between the Lines was natch.
I feel like Dawkins was basically endorsing it already, so...
@@SpeakLifeMedia Trans stuff is not a religion, it is anti religion and anti God
I love the fact LBC didn't even bother to use a service that won't give them a warning mid interview. So amazingly professional.
Richard Dawkins: proof of a living contradiction. Fascinating concept
Not really. He sees the value of some things religion has instilled, but that doesn't mean he agrees with religion in all its particulars. I know someone who isn't religious at all but goes to church for the social bonding that happens there.
Excellent commentary. It is difficult to do without looking like a jerk hollering from the stands.Not the emphasis of this video, but 1) I find it difficult while promoting the good of Christianity for culture, how to articulate the place of minority groups. How do I find a place for LBGTQIA+ without throwing them off a roof as might be done in a Muslim community or canceling them completely from the town square. How do I permit such behavior without prohibiting or promoting it? The same applies to atheism and Islam. 2) Judaism has a large cultural and not religious segment. Can Christianity likewise? The USA is more of an idea than an ethnic foundation. Can it survive when the idea is no longer expressed?
Something else will flood in? Something else has.
Nietzsche answers this in beyond good and evil. And it seems we are still stuck in that neurosis of the theistic answer being rejected for the cultrual and moral one.
I wonder if Dawkins realizes what a fool he is. To accept and want the good that God gives but deny and reject its source is lunacy.
Wrong. Dawkins is a rational and evidence based scientist. It is not a character flaw to not believe in supernatural deities it is the rational position. However this does not erase the cultural impact of Christianityon our culture. Dawkins has always acknowledged he is a British cultural Christian (like me) and even had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it.
Dawkins is most definitely NOT a fool
@@rumdeal Psalm 14:1. The fool says in his heart “there is no God” . Dawkins is a fool.
@@mogznwaz The fool says in his heart, “there is no God” . Dawkins is a fool .
@@alisonmoffitt1051well you can’t argue with the bible can you
He likes the fruit, but not the tree. It's a contradicition. We as Christians should welcome Richard Dawkins to christianity and hope Jesus puts in his heart to come to Him. God bless.
No, he just recognizes that Christianity has yielded some things that are appealing. So what? That doesn't mean Christianity is the only thing that can do so. And that is what nobody is saying. It baffles me.
Reason is the bulwark against any religion. Dawkins asks Rachel reasonable questions.
Wrestling with religion and its place in society has its place. Judas was presumably necessary for the story being told. Truth is not found by blind obedience but through dialogue and debate.
Well, let's be straight. He's up a mountain, it's Sunday am, he hears the bells of the local church. Cherry on the cake. Emgland's green and pleasant land. The experience is heightened by those bells almost as much as the pub lunch to follow. Alternatively, you hear the muslim call to prayer, and everyone in your group, including the muslims, stiffen with dread. The sound of obligation. Exactly how someone would have responded to the bells a couple of hundred years ago. Dawkins likes Christianity with it's teeth pulled. Fair enough
Your explanation of the Church of England and the Crown had me look into peerage.
British nobility, in the United Kingdom, members of the upper social class, who usually possess a hereditary title. The titled nobility are part of the peerage, which shares the responsibility of government. The peerage comprises five ranks, which are, in descending order, duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron.
You do realize the Jew introduced to the Peerage in 1885 influences your Church and Government.
The cultural Christianity of Christianity in Europe is being influenced by NON Christians. The migration into Europe is controlled by the same Government.
Easy there, tiger! Trans day of visibility is always March 31, but Easter is on a different day every year.
And eventually, Christians will have to share Easter with stoners on 4/20.
Christianity is ‘decent’ with P Hawkins when he realises that it’s the only barrier to an Islamic state. Too many are like him.
Fantastic video. But surely the most preposterous belief is the belief that Rachel Johnson's 2 year old really asked that question at the end.
Yeah surely she misremembered the child's age. Something parents often do as they age
@@SpeakLifeMedia True. My 9 month old often points this out to me.
At 3, I asked my father, then my pastor, who made God.
Loved the video. Just a comment on the presenter’s sorry about her two-year-old: my son is almost 3 and I am certain that he wouldn’t never ask a priest that question. Even if he did, he would have no concept of what he’s asking. I’m sure I could get him to say those words, but they would have no meaning.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
i can only draw 2 possible conclusions:
1. he has realized his idea of "militant atheism" has failed him so he's trying a new approach.
2. perhaps he is rethinking his thinking and slowly coming back to God.
Dawkins has always said he’s a cultural Christian (you can’t not be if you’ve been raised in Britain) and he quite likes Jesus, he had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ printed on it. Stop trying to caricature Dawkins because he’s not a believer like you are.
@@mogznwaz perhaps you're not aware of his early videos and even in The God Delusion when he preached, "mock with contempt". he advocated _against_ God, all religions and _especially_ Christianity.
@@crashoppe Yes I agree with Dawkins. Religion should be mocked, satirised, challenged and resisted loudly like any other philosophy is. I too object to the faux ‘respect’ demanded by religious believers for their particular philosophy just because it’s a ‘religion ’. No. It doesn’t deserve it. Respect is earned.
@@mogznwaz you see believers "demand" respect? do you think believers should respect atheists that " mocked, satirized, challenged and resist loudly"?
Richard Dawkins would qualify eminently for the role of leader of the Anglican Church of England. Atheist but culturally appreciative, He would ensure religion was as empty as possible.
How far the Anglican church hierarchy has strayed from its bible based protestant roots.
Agree, reactionary thinking (in his case anti-woke hysteria) melts your brain
All sane people are anti woke
Your "spiritual Switzerland" has a white cross on its flag, has God in the preamble to its constitution and praises the Creator of all things in its national anthem. Nevertheless, I get your point :-). Thank you for this brilliant takedown of Richard Dawkins' thought.
If we can’t protect the weak unborn we will not protect the weak old, Mr. Dawkins. See who’ll speak up for you? Why should they?
I'm similar to Dawkins in that I was raised in a Christian family, but stopped believing as a teen. I see myself as culturally Christian too, and unlike him, I don't have any animus for the faith at all. But surely he must recognise that Christian culture cannot endure without at least some number of people adhering to Christian faith?
Dawkins doesn’t have animus against Christianity he objects to its outsized influence on public policy and science teaching and he believes in evidence based truth, which he rightly points out the Bible offers none. So he has every right to challenge it. He has always described himself as culturally Christian and even had a tshirt with ‘atheists for Jesus’ on it. Like me he’s very concerned about the threat of Islam and like me, if it came to a choice we’d fight alongside Christians for British culture, including its flavour of Christianity, against the threat of Islam. All sane people would.
@@mogznwaz Nah, he's called the bible appalling loads of times.
@@joelharvey Yes the Bible is appalling. It has the odd good bit
@@mogznwaz So like I said, he has an animus against Christianity.
Any system religion or not involvimg wrong people are no longer supportable. Whwther thats religion or anti-religions does not matter any more.
Shake the dust off your feet and seeds falling on stoney ground aren't just King James Bible, that's the phrasiology of pretty much every Bible.
What a double minded fraud...
Double minded? Yes kind of but i think it has more to do with emotions, cultural and now fear of new replacement belief.
Fraud? NO!
Nostalgic group-identity marking has a long history, and of course seeing other groups marking their identity tends to make - especially older-people - feel uneasy. This is why even intellectually respectable folk like Dawkins fall for being "anti-woke" etc. It's better to keep your eye on the ball of reality and observe who is using nostalgia and crusted traditions to carry on making life difficult for out-groups.
I’m an atheist and culturally Christian - I understand what Dawkins means perfectly. Fundamentally, even though I’m not a believer and consider the Bible to be a fiction, sometimes wickedly so, I prefer our resultant Christian/enlightenment/secular/uniquely British culture to an Islamic one and I would fight alongside Christians to ensure that it continues. Better the devil you know.
dawkins realized the decline of christianity leave a void and that void filled by islam right now.
when islam taking over i wonder what will happen to atheist under sharia law?
Once Christianity became atheistic now he says its acceptable... he won that fight against Christianity but not against Islam
He views the very liberal Christianity of Europe as decent... Compared to Islam. In this same interview he distinguishes this from American Christianity. Which he views as evil. As do I.
Students what is can't recognize one another? Don't believe! Likewise be mindful unto all the Who am I? In front! Why? Ye commanded to bring to remembrance. Yes, judgment and Justice came unto them! Resting upon SUSTAINED! What is the kingdom of God, new Jerusalem, nor the new Pillar? Came to unto them! Upon all dry grounds nor the world! Yes, upon all shared Feet resting upon HIS Vineyards resting upon HIS Footstool!
Y'know, Dawkins has a point, as did Churchill before him. Our common civilisation and cultures in the West were decisively reshaped and reformed through the third root, Jerusalem.
That is, Western Civilisation as we received it (for many centuries known as Christendom, the realm of Christian peoples) was formed through the countercultural -- and inevitably imperfect, mixed blessing, wheat and tares -- Christian Synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. With of course the onward legacy of the river valley civilisations of the fertile crescent. Yes there are many other influences, contributions and interactions, but that is the core.
The key elements of that Synthesis are in the Bible, hebraic, and christian. Ac 17, 27, Romans, 1 Cor 14 v7 ff, Eph 4 vv 14 to 24 ff and esp. Matt 5 - 7, along with Exodus 20 and Lev 19 vv 15 to 18 in context, etc all are key. This includes for instance Paul endorsing core natural law, voice of conscience and the heart of logic while critiquing the appalling incoherence, folly and decadence of pagan culture on the whole, the centrality of love to God and neighbour. Etc.
Where, the inherently good, uttetly wise creator God, a necessary (so eternal!) and maximally great being worthy of our fealty and responsible reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature, is the only serious candidate explanation that bridges the is-ought gap in the root of reality. The only place it can be bridged. This is so compelling a clue that it warrants Paul's "without excuse" remarks in Rom 1.
And that is Dawkins' dilemma. He knows he has rejected God, but realizes that the Christian and Hebraic heritage are pivotal to civilisation. He knows evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot bridge the is-ought gap, and tends to undermine moral principles. He should know it cannot even account for brain as complex computational substrate, much less rational, responsible, warranting, credibly knowing mind, and yet he has stood up to lead the atheist charge across our cultural landscape.
And now, consequences begin to mount up, Ac 27 civilisational storm consequences. I judge, we are at cultural kairos. Can we rise to the occasion?
He just means the God/theology of Christianity is appalling but the purely human religion itself (when compared to Islam) is decent.
Christianity has given us many good things and also many bad things. One of the extremely bad things which resulted in the torture and burning of literally tens of thousands of women was the belief that there was such an entity as the Devil and that certain people could access him and gain power. You can't go anywhere in Europe without coming across public squares where in times past either heretics or witches were burnt at the stake."Thou shall not allow a witch to live" is actually a quote from the Old Testament.
Did bible ask them to burn the witches or people did it at their own will?
Next makeover - Londinistan permitting - Dawkins the Crusader!
Any sane person, Christian or atheist, should resist the creeping Islamisation of Europe.
I really appreciate your podcast and commentaries, and nearly always find your insights on our faith incredibility perceptive and interesting. Can't tell you how grateful I am for your faithful exposition of the Gospel and your penetrating analysis of cultural issues from a Christ-centered perspective. But it strikes me in this reaction to Dawkins you've adopted the secularist's vocabulary of "sexual minority" when speaking about women. Other than in mostly Asian and Islamic countries women are nearly nowhere minorities. That are actually a slight majority in most western countries. It seems to me that to those who speak of "sexual minorities" either don't understand what the word minority means, or seem to be suggesting that one or more of those groups described by LGBTQAI+ designate a sex other than male or female. Not the end-all I guess, but it does seem many of the most doctrinaire argument of the cultural left depend to a very large degree on their ability to corrupt the meaning of language.
Hi Tony, thanks for the encouragements. Dawkins had just talked about two issues, "women and gays" - hence me talking about two values: the *equality* of the sexes and *compassion* towards sexual minorities (meaning homosexuals). I tried to be clear that "sexual minorities" referred to a minority sexuality, not to women. Make sense?
Got it. Thanks. And thanks again for all your hard work keeping the faith and running the race. @@SpeakLifeMedia
Dawkins "I'm on team Christian" that's what i want to hear more anti theists say. What a marvelous insanity
If people are serious about god, then they really have to consider Islam. Christianity of today isn't the teachings of Jesus. Period.
Sorry how are women treated better in the Bible? In the Bible a woman can't divorce her abusive husband? 😂😂
I think Dawkins is an important figure because he demonstrates that you wont find God in the rationale of men. God exists outside of that (1 Corinthians 3:18-19) and like you point out Dawkins, ironically, seems to none the less appreciate the fruits of that. Pray that God pours out his spirit on Richard to this mystery - at some point you have to resign to knowing - because none of us have the mental capacity to fully know.
this is a flat out lie, there is an interview with him on the bbc webpage from 2007 and he said exactly these words back then
_"Monday, 10 December 2007 Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian"_
you can read the entire article there, there is not a single change in his thinking
He still looks like an offended garden gnome, whatever he is saying.
What will take Christianity's place? Well theosophy through the Trojan horse of SEL (Social Emotional Learning ) in schools is having a good go....
0:04 The lens of Jesus? Great to see that some people still believe in, and guide their lives through fictitious supernatural beings. Let the delusion continue. 😊 Have a great life - this is the only one you have though - better make the most of it. Cheers.
I'm open about my lenses. What are yours?
Christianity is not your theme park ride operators and management team.....'>.....
Clearly senile.
He said christianity is decent compared to islam.
Yeah, and I would agree. At least nowadays. It certainly seems that the Christianity of centuries ago was as dismal and heinous as a lot of Islamic societies today.
You either a Christian or you not .
He said it long ago he prefers Christianity then islam