Richard Dawkins vs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali | Debate Teacher Reacts

I've never met a vicar that I didn't like. I mean, they're always very, very nice people. Yeah, but but nevertheless, the stuff they believe is obvious nonsense.

The attitude that atheists take, that if you do not see the world in the way they see it and if you don't live according to reason, you must be an idiot.

You must be unintelligent. You must be. No, no, no, no, no. I think that that is a bit that just smacks off. OK, yeah.

OK, let's go. What is that smack of Ali? What does that mean? Does that smack of arrogance?

And that's why Richard Dawkins will remain a skeptic. And not because there is no evidence for God or that there are no arguments to be made, but because he refuses to truly consider and evaluate a worldview that is different from his.

Richard Dawkins debates brand new Christian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And from what I understand, there were some heated moments in this discussion.

We're going to take a look at it on this edition of Debate Teacher Reacts. It looks like this is more of an informal dialogue as opposed to a formal debate.

But let's see if there's something that we can pull out of it. You know, let's see if we can still identify a person, one of the people who challenges the other better, who makes the better arguments.

Will Ali give good reasons for being a Christian or will Dawkins slay her on the stage? But first, before we get into that, welcome to Wise Disciple.

I'm Nade Sala, and I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you are meant to be. Make sure to like and subscribe to the channel. We're really slowly trying to make our way to 200 ,000 subs, and I'd love to get your help with that.

Also, if you think this is an important discussion, would you share this video with someone else? It just helps me out. Finally, don't miss out on the special discounts we're running through Logos Bible software.

These discounts constantly change. So you got to check back. There's also free books that Logos gives you every single month just for signing up.

And they're valuable. I grab as much as I can for my personal library. So go check those out. It's Logos .com

forward slash Wise Disciple. So you believe in some kind of higher power, which is comforting you. And you react, you're obviously reacting from an

Islamic past. And I know that from what you've written, that part of what you feel is that Christianity is a bulwark against Islam, which is a quite separate thing from what you've been now saying.

But you stand by that. I mean, that's part of what you're saying. And I accept that and I support that.

That's why I called you a political Christian. But from what you've just said, it sounds like you're more than just a political Christian. It sounds like you actually believe it.

What is your response to those specific questions, Richard? When the vicar is saying that Jesus is the son of God, literally, not figuratively, how do you square that with your highly trained rational mind?

So Ali was asked about her testimony. And essentially, she gave a very personal story about feeling a horrific lack of meaning and then discovering it by praying.

Finally, and I suppose she meant praying to the God of the Bible. This is incredibly interesting because Ali used to be on Dawkins side of the fence.

You know, she used to be an atheist. She used to be grouped together under the category of the new atheists.

So she should know what Dawkins is asking her. She should know what he's going to ask her. Right. These guys, they want to hear some kind of objective argument or evidence that changed her mind.

Truth be told, that's what I'm listening out for as well. OK. Well, it is, again, different planes of perception.

So I I choose to accept Jesus Christ, the teachings of Jesus Christ, the story of Jesus Christ.

I choose to accept that. So on the personal level, the rewards I get very subjective again, but mine and true choice, which is separate from where I think that aside from my personal experience, the history of Western civilization is mainly

Christian and that the external forces, for instance, the spread of Islam nonviolently or violently and the challenge of Islam and the message of Islam to Western civilization can be countered and should be countered with the message of Western civilization, which is essentially

Christian. And in that sense, I think there are more people who agree with me, but that is on the societal level and then on the civilizational level.

I think, OK, we've watched enough of these together. You and I. Is she giving a sufficient response to these men to not only

Dawkins, but to the moderator? Right. Both asked her essentially whether she believes the claims of Christianity.

Right. God created the heavens and the earth. Jesus is the son of God. He died and rose again on the third day. Those who place faith in him will have eternal life, et cetera.

Does she really believe these things to be true? Is she answering the question? And more than that, how does she square?

That's what the moderator was asking. How does she square these claims of Christianity with her rationalistic mind?

That's every model you've used yourself, Richard, the phrase lately that there is moral

Christianity and is cultural Christianity. And when moral and cultural Christianity collides with moral and cultural

Islam or moral and cultural Confucianism or cultural authoritarianism, I think that perhaps we're on the same page about that might be a way of countering it.

Yes. But on the personal level, yes, I choose to believe in God. And I think there we might say, let's agree to disagree.

OK, so she says she chooses to believe in God again. Let me ask the question.

OK, by the way, you know, it's funny because I somebody had mentioned this before. When you get into debates, a lot of it from from people's perspectives, especially who are not they don't have a background debate.

A lot of it trades on what seems to be in overemphasis in semantics.

That's not it at all. The only way that you're really going to clash with your opponent, the only way that you're going to be able to have an exchange worth having is if first you zoom in on definitions of terms.

Right. If you actually try to as best you can understand the questions that are being asked to you.

And answer them, you know, and that's what you know, that's where I'm trying to stay.

You know, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything like that. I'm just trying to figure out specifically.

Did she answer these gentlemen's questions? And the answer is no. She was asked a very specific question.

Do you believe the truth claims of Christianity is being literally true? And if so, how do you square that with your highly rational mind?

Right. She simply said, I choose to believe in God. That's not an answer. Let's see what happens next.

I didn't hear that. She's saying, let's agree to disagree on the on the details. I mean, it's more than just details. I mean,

OK, I want to say two different things. Let's take the moral thing first.

Islam is a nasty religion. I think we agree about that. But Christianity is not all that nice either.

And when you think about Christianity, Christianity is obsessed with sin. So Augustine said that we are all we all inherit the sin of Adam.

Well, he didn't exist, but so we inherit original sin. Original sin came down in the semen.

Jesus was not conceived with semen. That's why he's clear of sin. His mother, Mary, had to be clear of sin as well, so she had to have an immaculate conception.

This is all obvious nonsense. This is so that I mean, that's one way of explaining passages like Romans five.

Right, because that's what Christians are seeking to wrestle with. OK, it's a word of God.

Look at this verse 12. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.

And so death spread to all men because all sinned for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given.

But sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned. Here it is from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Now look at this verse 17. For if because of one man's trespass, here's the phrase again.

Death reigned through that one man. Much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man,

Jesus Christ. So clearly death reigned over all mankind because of sin, which means sin is a mankind sized problem.

And if it started with Adam, then the question is, how does it pass to everyone else? OK, Augustine had a theory that was pretty descriptive there, but it's not the only explanation.

You know, right now, Dawkins is trying to be as incredulous as possible in order to undermine the teaching of the scripture.

Let's see how Ali responds. All theological bullshit and the idea that humanity is born in sin and has to be killed of sin by Jesus being crucified,

Jesus being punished for all our sins. And that is a morally very unpleasant idea. I'm sure you must agree about that. I find that Christianity is actually obsessed with love and that the figure, the teachings of the teaching of Christ, as I see it.

And again, I'm a brand new Christian, but what I'm finding out, which is the opposite of growing up as a Muslim, the message of Islam.

But the message of Christianity I get is that it's a message of love.

It's a message of redemption. And it's a story of renewal and rebirth. And so Jesus dying and rising again for me symbolizes that story.

And in a small way, I felt like I had died and I was reborn. And that story of redemption and rebirth,

I think, makes Christianity actually a very, very powerful story for the human condition and human existence and the pain of suffering, but also our internal recognition of what you call sin, but perhaps the character defects that both good and evil are there, but that both good and evil are in us.

I think those teachings in Christianity are far more powerful and have led to, I think, the flourishing of Western civilization compared to, say, growing up as a

Muslim when I was taught that really the only way for you to be faithful is to fear naked fear and to have these sets of obligations which you basically obey.

And that was very much about power, about it was centered around hellfire and all of these other things.

And so. So Ali is setting Dawkins straight about the ultimate message of Christianity.

It's hard because the message of the Bible is so rich and profound, you get to a point where you can be too reductionistic with it to the exclusion of other necessary components of the story.

So for example, a lot of folks try to highlight one of God's attributes, which is love. And we talked about this last video and they probably do so in order to downplay their own sin.

And it's true. You know, the apostle John says that God is love and everyone who lives in love lives in God essentially, but that's not the only character attribute that God has.

God is also just, and he is also loyal and he also gets angry. And all of these other attributes are present in the message of the

Bible as well. So what I'm listening out for right now is some kind of good argument that sufficiently addresses

Dawkins challenges. No doubt. A lot of people are going to resonate with the approach that Ali is taking, but so far

I have not heard anything that sufficiently addresses Dawkins. Christianity, as I experienced,

I'll give you an example. When I was an atheist and I was going all over both the

United States and all over Europe, mocking Christians, making fun of them, making fun of faith, as you're doing now, dear

Richard, I was walking with six to seven men at any given time, protecting me armed from things that I said that were offensive to Muslims or Muslims thought were offensive to them.

Christians were writing me letters saying, you know, we're going to pray for you. You're misguided. And I think that alone defines for me, the distinction between Christianity in general, main mainstream

Christianity, and mainstream Islam. Praise the Lord. I mean, that's, that's a good distinction to point out.

Christians are to forgive their enemies and love them and show mercy to those who doubt. Amen.

What's great is Ali noticed that as a non -believer and it stood out as perhaps a factor in causing her to reconsider her position on Christianity.

I've never met a vicar that I didn't like. I mean, they're always very, very nice people, but, but nevertheless, the stuff they believe is obvious nonsense.

And, and, um, you have to take the whole package because when you talked about Jesus rising from the dead, you didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Surely. I choose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You choose to believe it. Yes. And that is a matter of choice. And it's a matter.

It's, I think we, it has to go back to, is there something or is there nothing? And I think you start with, there is nothing.

And yes, for years I agreed with you. There's nothing. But if you come around to the idea that there might be something much more powerful than we are, something that caused everything else, then something like Jesus rising out of the dead or these other miracles,

Jesus being born out of a virgin for that higher power is not a big deal. Boom.

Um, yeah, she's, uh, she's starting to get going and the engine starting to rev right now.

She's starting to answer the question. She does believe that Jesus rose from the dead. She makes a good point.

If God exists and he's the source of all things in the universe, he's the one who made it all. Then the truth claims of Christianity are not a problem at all.

It's a matter of revisiting your starting assumptions or your presuppositions. Dawkins is refusing to let go of his materialism and using it to evaluate the claims of Christianity.

If you do that, of course, don't be surprised when you find the claims to be nonsense, but that's the whole point.

You can't play hokey pokey with the Christian worldview. You know, you stay one foot in one foot out, and then you claim that you figured out it's all nonsense.

You can't do that because you never evaluated it fully to begin with. But again, it's a matter of choice and it is just different planes of perception.

And I think here on this plane of perception, having been a former atheist, I don't think this is something we're going to resolve tonight or agree on right now.

And so that is why I think it's perhaps more interesting, even if you choose not to believe, to say, let's at least talk about the value of Christianity for today.

I look at these universities, the most illustrious universities of the West, and you've all shared with me images of young women draped in keffiyeh, the symbol of Hamas, performing the

Muslim prayer. And tell me if those kids are not morally and utterly lost and queers for Palestine.

So while you and I and Steven Pinker and all of those wonderful people were locked up in our ivory towers, let's ask ourselves what was happening on the ground because in the last six decades, we pretty much demonized

Christianity and the teachings of Christianity out of the public space, out of school, out of universities and a vacuum of heart.

And that vacuum is now being filled as GK Chesterton said, not because people have come to reason, but because now they'll believe in anything.

Whoa, she's, she's cooking with Greece now. Even Dawkins has to admit this, you know,

I think even Peter Boghossian admits this to demonize Christians and get them out of the public sphere is to leave a vacuum for other religious folks to step in and try to take over there.

There was never going to be a rationalist utopia in the absence of all religion. Why? Because there was never going to be a moment where there was no religious people.

That was wishful thinking from the likes of Dawkins and the four horsemen. They did not understand that all people are religious.

All people are prone to worship something. So Ali is focusing on the values and the benefits of faith in Christianity.

And she's using that as some kind of implicit argument, it seems to hold to,

I don't know, like what, would she call this like a cultural Christianity? To me, she still has not answered the question.

I was waiting for it. I'm looking for something more objective and she hasn't quite done it yet. There are very awful forces today out there that are claiming the hearts and minds and souls of these young students.

And when you say there is nothing, you offer them nothing. We're getting into the bigger political, cultural question. I just feel it's worth pressing one more time on this.

You said agree to disagree. And I understand having read Richard's letters to you that that literal belief is the bit that he can't get past.

Are you saying that you don't literally believe those things? You talked about planes of reality. Is it that you see a beauty in those things and choose to suspend your rational judgment or do you literally believe them?

Yeah. I mean, I think there is something subjective and there's a choice and there are things that you see and perceive that a different person cannot perceive.

Art, music. In fact, I think you do enjoy a great deal of Christian art and music. I will look at a painting by Pollock and I will think my six -year -old must have spilled all the paint on the canvas and run around and people are crazy enough to pay millions of dollars and hang it on walls.

But I've actually seen people be moved to tears staring at a Pollock. That is a plane of perception that is real, but it's also very, very difficult to measure.

And it's the same the way you're moved by certain pieces of music. So the fact that I have faith and I choose to have faith because of what

I've experienced is just as real for me as it is for the millions of people who believe. Boy, that, that's a

Jordan Peterson answer. I, so a moment ago I was tracking with her, you know, but, but she is not clarifying anything with this response.

How can we take this as anything other than she does not believe these things to be literally true.

It seems like that's what she's refraining from saying. Clearly, instead of it being literally true, she says it's real.

Okay. But what does real mean? Right. Like that was meant to be a clarifying question and we didn't get any clarity.

But for me, what is even more real is it's, it's the story itself and the wisdom in that story, the morality that has come out that has evolved out of that story, the internal debates of millennia long and everything that we inherited from it.

It's just too casual to cast that aside. And when we've done it, I think we have caused ourselves a great deal of damage. Richard, having heard that story, that moving story from Ayaan of clearly how her conversion has helped her.

And also she's explained in beautiful words, the mode in which she believes it. Do you still say you are not a Christian?

No, not at all. I came here prepared to persuade you, Ayaan, you're not a Christian. I think you are a Christian. And I think Christianity is nonsense.

You, you, you have to be, I mean, you are, you appear to be a theist. You appear to believe in some kind of higher power.

Now I think that the hypothesis of theism is the most exciting scientific hypothesis they could possibly hold in the idea that.

That's a mistake. He, what he just said is a mistake. See, he's again, he's refusing to let go of his own worldview in order to properly evaluate the

Christian one. Think about it. If the God of the Bible, if you really accept what

Christians are talking about and where they get that is from the Bible, that God is a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial being.

How does Dawkins think that he's going to be able to scientifically measure such a God? It's, he's just making a big mistake.

The universe was actually created by a supernatural intelligence is a dramatic, important idea.

If it were true, it would completely change everything we know. We'd be living in a totally different, different universe. And that's a big thing.

It's, I'm sorry, but it's bigger than personal company. There's an interesting claim, right?

How would that change anything about what we know?

Like if God created the universe, like wouldn't science and scientific discovery continue on unabated?

I don't, how would things all of a sudden be drastically different? I'm not following that.

Boy, thank you so much for watching this video. Did you know that the majority of people who do watch are not subscribed to the channel?

If this video is blessing you, would you do me a favor and like and subscribe to the channel? It just really helps me to get the word out about this ministry.

I greatly appreciate it. The idea that the universe has lurking beneath it and intelligence, a supernatural intelligence that invented the laws of physics and invented mathematics.

I mean, that is a stupendous idea if it's true. And to me, that simply dwarfs all talk of nobility and morality and, um, and comfort and that sort of thing.

So would you have preferred for your erstwhile new atheist colleague, I am not to have converted having heard her story?

Would you rather? No, no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't say that. Um, I'm just saying that, that it, that religious belief is bigger than what gives you comfort or it's bigger than morality.

It's bigger than what gives you comfort. It's bigger than what gives you a bull against Islam. It's something huge. It's something terrific.

I completely agree with Dawkins and I think every Christian should agree with him too.

Christianity is way more than wish fulfillment and seeking ways to gain comfort during times of discomfort.

What's at stake with regard to Christianity is the fate of our eternal souls. It matters that Christianity is objectively true and that it's not some subjective sense that makes a person feel good.

See, that's where I think Ali could really step in here and start making some objective arguments. I mean, as a

Christian, I'm so glad to hear that she's a Christian and that she's, you know, walking down that path of following Jesus Christ.

But Christianity has these kinds of arguments on its side, you know? Um, so far, all

I've heard is the subjective connection to the values and benefits of Christianity.

And that, unfortunately, it's just not going to be a sufficient response to address Dawkins challenges right here.

It's false. Are you not moved at all to, she mentioned planes of reality.

Um, is it for you entirely black and white, whether those kinds of stories are true or not, it feels like I am saying that she chooses to believe them because she accesses some kind of greater truth via them.

And it's less interested in the details. You're not softened at all on that. Well, I'm softened by a personal story and I'm softened by beautiful music.

I mean, I, you know, I'm softened by, um, Matthew passion and not, not, not just the music itself, but the story behind it.

It's a, it's a, it's a very moving story. And I'm moved by it in the same way as I'm moved by great fiction. It is fiction.

And, and one of course can be moved by fiction. And I think Ion has described me as, as the most Christian person she knows. And, and you see, you see right there.

So, so, Oh my goodness. Maybe Ali is trying to be a little tongue in cheek here, right?

She's saying Dawkins is Christian, but golly, there's a real harm in reducing Christianity down to cultural expression.

Can Christianity be expressed through culture? Absolutely. But is that all it is? No way. Christianity is based on the gospel, which itself consists of truth claims that can be verified about God, about the world, about mankind.

A moment ago, I was talking about souls, right? Um, about sin, about redemption.

All Christians believe the gospel to be true, not just real, whatever that means, but objectively true for everyone.

So to treat it as if it were, you know, merely cultural expressions means that now Richard Dawkins is a

Christian. What? And that may be true in certain senses in a cultural sense.

Um, and, uh, I certainly, when you say, excuse me, when you say

Christianity is a religion of love, um, Jesus, I think was a very, very great character, a very loving character.

The, the, the bad things about Christianity actually stem mostly from what came afterwards that Paul, um, and the, and the other

Christian apologists who came up after him. Um, so you, you cannot allow the possibility that I am, has access to truth that you yourself have not seen.

That is a great question. Who is the moderator, by the way, that is a great question.

Can you allow for the possibility that your worldview is somehow incorrect, that you're missing something you're missing truth, uh, here.

And that Christianity is true. There's a scientific hypothesis that there is a supernatural creator. And, um,

I don't see how you can get to that from, uh, feelings of personal comfort or feelings of political, um, necessity.

Uh, you have to get to that from, from thinking. Well, you can't get to that either from verificationism or holding to a materialistic worldview that, that all that exists is matter in motion.

You'll never see God when you refuse to let go of your materialism and your verificationism. And that's why

Richard Dawkins will remain a skeptic. And not because there is no evidence for God or that there are no arguments to be made, but because he refuses to truly consider and evaluate a worldview that is different from his.

And that brings us to consciousness. So first of all, the hypothesis itself, um, which even if you don't allow for set religion aside, the hypothesis of where did all this come from and how did it begin?

Again, there is no consensus on that. Um, there is no consensus on what consciousness is and, um, what all that entails.

Um, but I think that it is on an academic level, very interesting and very rewarding, um, to look into and explore all of these different things separately, um, on an academic level, on a non -academic level.

I think that it's very useful now. I hate to go back to utility, but to have all of these things connected where as human beings, uh, we are material.

Yes, but we also are more than material. We have a sense of consciousness and we have a range of needs. And some of these needs, um, reason can answer and pure science can answer, but some of these needs cannot be answered by that.

And I think faith in a higher power in God and in the story that makes sense of it all gives it meaning is very, very important for human beings.

And the danger lies in trying to conflate these different planes. Um, and then casting aside as useful, this false, it's useful, it's useless, it's unnecessary.

And now we have, you know, the, the range of human suffering where as an atheist, um, you don't really offer, um, an answer.

You don't offer a prescription for this is, um, this is a way of life. This is the path to happiness.

This is how you can deal with the challenges of existence. And atheism is an attitude. It basically says, uh, as of now, there is no evidence to show that God exists or that the higher power exists full stop.

And you figure the rest of it out. And it's very, very difficult to figure the rest of it out, starting from scratch.

And I think faith then gives meaning and purpose. And yes, if you're afraid of the dark, and if you're afraid of whatever it is that's causing you anxiety or whatever is causing you, um, self -doubt, um, relationships between other human beings,

I think Christianity does offer a recipe and perhaps in my view, the best recipe for not only how to live with yourself and connect to the universe, but also how to connect with fellow human beings and, and then bring about a civilization like this one.

I like where this is headed. Um, Ali started to discuss the philosophical arguments that explain consciousness, you know, that explained the beginning of the universe.

That's where this kind of discussion should go with somebody like Dawkins, in my opinion. It's funny.

I w I was talking to Peter Boghossian about this recently about, about what it would take for him to change his mind about the existence of God.

And he said, what I'm saying now, it would have to be some strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God, for the existence of a supernatural realm and of supernatural beings.

Why? Because physical evidence can always be explained away by some other means, if you hold to verificationism and if you hold to materialism.

So I like where Ali was going with it, but she didn't spend too much time there.

You know, she ended up, you know, going to Beany. And again, I believe that there are a lot of people in the audience, uh, and, and watching the video that are going to resonate with this.

Okay. Um, but this approach is good and bad. It's good because she's absolutely right.

Skepticism and atheism is not equipped to give answers to the deeper questions of life. And let's face it.

Everyone is wrestling with these deeper questions, right? And if you have to start from scratch, uh, that's what she said.

And I think what she means is, you know, kind of make up these answers for yourself that can be very disappointing and it can lead to angst.

William Lane Craig has talked about this. It, um, he says it can lead to what he calls existential dread, essentially.

So that's good, but it's also bad. Um, it's a bad response because again, if you persist in characterizing

Christianity only in terms of value and benefit, you are being too reductionistic.

You have reduced it down too much and it just becomes a subjective preference amongst others. You know, um, one of many, that's not what

Christianity is. And it misleads people, especially people who are more, more, um, postmodern.

They're more relativistic in nature. It misleads them to misunderstand what the Bible is teaching, by the way, what do you think?

Like so far, this one is Ali providing good reasons to be a

Christian or not. Let me know in the comments below. Um, let me know if you think Dawkins has the upper hand at this point,

I'd love to get your thoughts. It were true that atheism doesn't offer anything, doesn't offer anything.

So what, why should it offer anything? Why should the universe offer you anything? So I, yeah,

I don't think Dawkins really appreciates how his response here leads to angst leads to disillusionment and existential dread.

So what, you know, the, the, the, so what response that doesn't help anyone searching for deeper meaning and purpose to life.

It just doesn't. What is the scientific explanation for you being moved to tears by somatic passion? Well, it's neurology.

Um, let me ask that. I am. I think the question you asked now. Whoa, let's not let's hold on.

We, we went too fast over that, right? The moderator is asking some killer questions. Okay. Because he just asked, what is the scientific explanation for being moved to tears by, did he say

Matthew's passion? So, so the gospel narrative, is that it? And Dawkins simply said,

Oh, neurology. That doesn't explain anything. You know, there that's, that's, um, that's a neurology of the gaps.

It seems to me, right? So, so Dawkins asks Ali some great questions and Ali, in my opinion, just could be giving a lot more objective answers, but she's not.

But now Dawkins gets asked some questions and his answers are too brief and too dismissive to be anything of substance. So are you seeing this?

Like this one's, this one's an interesting exchange. It's very interesting. Why should atheism offer you anything? There's no reason why atheism should offer anything, but something else, faith offers something, something valuable and tangible.

And so why should atheism mock that and knock it down? Is it not possible to have this coexistence where there is a place for reason and there's a place for faith and for subjectivity, just like we agree to have a separation between religion and politics.

I think it is absolutely possible to have, and Christianity allows for that, a separation of science and, uh, you know, the material world, the temporal world versus the world of faith.

And these things, when, when they complement each other, uh, I think lead to a much more powerful outcome than when you, again,

I find, I find the differences between us a little cosmetic and a little artificial, because there are so many things I agree with that you are saying.

It's just that the, um, the attitude that atheists take that if you do not see the world in the way they see it, and if you don't live according to reason, you must be an idiot.

You must be unintelligent. You must be stupid. I think that that is a bit, that's just smacks off. Okay. Yeah.

What does that smack of Ali? What does that smack? Does that smack of arrogance of pride, of condescension, perhaps hubris, right?

She should have finished that statement. I think she's right. That is Dawkins attitude. That was the attitude of the new atheists.

Let's not, let's not go there. I don't want to say that. What I do want to say is this, um, faith offers you something, obviously, that's very, very, very clear, but it doesn't make it true.

It doesn't make the existence claims of Christianity. There is a difference from saying that, that being in a certain psychological place is consoling and comforting and offers you a meaning for life, meaning of life and, and give you a purpose in life.

All those things, which are wonderful. And I have them too. They're a bit different, but I do have a purpose in life. I have a meaning in life.

But this is exactly what I was saying a moment ago. So, so now Dawkins is making my point.

Okay. And he's totally right. Just because something is helpful does not make it true.

And materialists who do not believe in the supernatural realm, who believe that life is ultimately meaningless, they still make up their own meaning for themselves.

That's why it's important to bring this discussion into the realm of the objective and not just talk about why it's true for you subjectively, but also why it's true for everyone.

Just simply because something gives you a meaning and a purpose in life. It doesn't make the existential claims true. And Christianity like any other religion makes claims about the world, about the universe, which are either true or not true.

And I may be wrong and you may be right. They may, they may be true, but the mere fact that they're comforting doesn't make them true. That's an important point.

He's absolutely right. So, so let me ask you, who's making the better arguments at this point?

Who's challenging the other person better, Ali or Dawkins? Let me know in the comments. We got a few more minutes.

The mere fact that they are comforting doesn't make them true, make them true. But the hypothesis that there's something other than nothing is something you can't disprove as much as I can't prove materially that Jesus was born out of a virgin.

So I think it's some of these areas where I think it's a very, very important debate that occurred about 200 years ago.

We can have that debate and that's an important debate and that's the one I would like to have rather than the one that's comforting.

I mean, for example, I would like to know whether you think that we survive our bodily death when our brain dies.

I asked you that when we had dinner together and you said no. Have you changed your mind about that? I'm sorry, please repeat.

What have I changed? About life after death, about, about survival bodily. I said, do you think we survive our own death?

And you said, no. I said, yes, bodily. No, I do not. I don't survive death. I don't think you will survive death. I said that when

Bertrand Russell said, when we die, we shall rot. That's yes. That is true. But then what happens to the soul consciousness, et cetera, that again,

I don't know. So you think there is a soul that survives death? Well, there is something that, um, again, like I said,

I did feel a connection and that wasn't, it wasn't a bodily connection. It was a connection through consciousness and mind.

And if that's going to outlast me or not, I don't know. I don't know about that, but Richard, I do know.

This is a very interesting discussion. Um, I think at the end of the day, we're just witnessing someone who is fresh to the

Christian scene and is not prepared to answer the questions that Dawkins is asking. She's had multiple opportunities to provide good arguments and evidence for her position on Christianity, but she has not given very many at all.

She certainly hasn't used the time to grill Dawkins in the way that Dawkins has been grilling her. And he has countered with some solid pushback on object of truth, being the measure by which we should assess

Christianity. Essentially that's his framework that he's laying, uh, for her and for the audience.

Uh, it should be that we measure things by whether or not it's existentially true or the existential claims are true, not, uh, based on feelings of subjective experience.

He's totally right. Even though he does not fare well when he, when the arrow is turned around on him and he's answering questions,

Dawkins challenges Ali, um, better than she does.

As a matter of fact, his challenges to Ali are largely being left unanswered. And I think it's because of that, that he has had the advantage on balance in this entire exchange.

Well, you know, that, that was very interesting. That was not what I was expecting. Um, I don't know.

I on her CLE very much. I'm not familiar with her. Uh, but I thought that, you know, since she was a new atheist at some point, and she is familiar with Dawkins, they're friends that she would be better prepared to answer

Dawkins, you know, but she took an approach that highlighted personal meaning and subjective experience to the detriment of objective truth.

And that left the challenges that Dawkins was throwing at her and her faith, just unanswered. I would say

Dawkins outperformed Ali there. Well, Hey, now it's your turn. What do you think? Who won this debate?

Was it even a debate at all? Let me know in the comments below. I'd love to get your thoughts. Um, and again, if you've made it this far, definitely join the

Patreon community. You can jump into the discussions that we're having over there. You can join the Bible study that I'm doing with everybody.

You can, uh, get into all of the cool features that are offered live streams,

Zoom hangouts. You can meet up with me one -on -one and chat about whatever you want. The link for the Patreon is below. Hey, I will return soon.

I'm going to take a break and work now on the debate series. The online debate series is coming. Um, so I'm going to take a little bit of break, but then