WLC Reacts! to Bertrand Russell and His Message to the Future

preview_player
Показать описание
Dr. William Lane Craig watches and responds to a video of philosopher Bertrand Russell from 1959 where he gives advice to future generations.

#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #philosophy #theology #atheist

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Russell is such an exemplar of a lost generation of thinkers: unbelievably blistering in his critiques, incredibly thoughtful, and ultimately hospitable. We can learn a lot from him for sure!

SincerelyBradley
Автор

Okay, carefully analyzed! God bless you over there.

JandroD
Автор

Craig should break down the Russell/Copleston debate, since he really admires both.

Real_LiamOBryan
Автор

Excellent analysis, please keep these coming! Thank you!

alittax
Автор

Astute observation about Bertrand's moral advice, love is wise, hatred is foolish.

angusmacangus
Автор

as a Christian I think that Bertrand Russell is probably the most competent of the atheist philosophers

tanaka
Автор

I’m an atheist Buddhist, just to say that I’m not ideologically aligned with Craig, But I love his moment here saying this was the first time he heard him talk [edit: to Bertrand Russel, my apologies] haha thanks for sharing the joy craig :)

davidmireles
Автор

I highly doubt that Russell at the time of the interview he may have thought his stance on belief of a phenomenon based on evidence could be applied to religious related arguments. Indeed, an argument could be made, especially by those familiar with his work on religion, that he might have said the words to oppose the religious dogma which he believed to be belief void of evidence. This interpretation by Dr Craig. would simply be misrepresentation or stretching his thought beyond what would have accepted.

oyamapapu
Автор

Russell did not recognize that "there are no objective moral values". What he recognized was that religion did not provide a simple answer to this.

doctorlove
Автор

Oh yes BR was all over love as a eugenicist.

mogx
Автор

As (nearly) always, I disagree with WLC. Love is good, of course, but it is also wise. Why? Because it is linked with the 'Word', the ultimate principle of wisdom.

theophilus
Автор

And, my message [well, ONE of them, anyway] to Bertrand Russell would be, If YOU were wise and moral, you WOULDN'T promote the idea that there is no god.

johnharrison
Автор

"It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all of the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "Forget not thy whip"-- but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. ...the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-conscious ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end."
—Bertrand Russell, explaining why Friedrich Nietzsche should be regarded with contempt. 😉😉

johnharrison
Автор

Hate is not the opposite of Love Proof: You hate the cheating of your wife because you love her.
The opposite of Love is indifference. Proof: You don't care if she cheats or not.

junacebedo
Автор

But with no objective morals, foolishness and wisdom don't exist either

juhadexcelsior
Автор

Proverbs states that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom so WLC is splitting hairs with his final point. Wisdom is virtue. Wisdom is good.

tristramcoffin
Автор

This is silly, what if I want their to be a speed of light do I throw that out because I want it to exist, all this is silly.

everett
Автор

If WLC is assuming that God’s moral nature is “the good”, then I can’t see it. A God who creates a Hell and creates specific People whom He knew would go to that Hell, can’t be “the good”. They are the facts.

TheMirabillis