Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein • Religion: Useful fiction or ultimate truth? PART 1

Hope you enjoy the 1st episode of The Big Conversation Season 2. More shows with big thinkers land this Autumn. Sign up at www.thebigconversation.show/ to be notified and for exclusive content

As a Christian theist, I have to say I love guys like Weinstein. Its refreshing to see a skeptic with a view of religion that acknowledges some of the positives, and just his overall manner is extremely respectful.

The best thing a out the Evergreen meltdown was the introduction of Brett (and Heather) o the rest of the world. Evergreens loss was our gain!

Descartes: “I think, therefore I am. I think.” XD

I love this debate! Very civil, this is the way differences and conversation should be discussed.

One of the discussions that I've the most enjoyed, many interesting deep insights presented by both sides; especially Bret Weinstein, a lucid mind and an eloquent speaker. Keep up with the adult conversation!

Bret is a delightful person to listen to. He is very thoughtful and a teacher per excellence

I'd have to side with many who felt McGrath fell short in meeting Weinstein's challenges. But, as a Christian who believes what the Bible asserts is true, in a supernatural, etc., I was really engaged listening to Weinstein. I could listen to this several times and get a good perspective on where he's coming from, simply because he was thoughtful and methodical in presenting his position. The old "so's your mother" sound bites aren't just useless: they're tired and dull. Need more discussion like this. Thanks for putting it together.

More than halfway, great conversation so far. Two very learned fellows, and Justin is a good moderator.

Fascinating conversation, thank you. 🙏

Let's not be too harsh toward Dr McGrath (three doctorates, actually), who made a quietly important comment and disagreement with Dr Weinstein at minutes :39 - :43, where he took issue with Bret's characterization of the Bible as 'not coherent' by 'design', saying that there really is a coherency to it when we see 'the big picture' view of the Bible, which sounds rather a lot like 'context,' an issue brought up on these boards every day. Without context, there is no meaning, and (this is my explanation) the meaning is Christ, which Dr Weinstein doesn't ask about (by not inquiring after this point of McGrath's). In this part of the discussion, he, Alister, becomes quite serious in his disagreement. He merely remains civil and respectful in that disagreement. For McGrath, 'the question why' (minute :44 - :45:10) is different from Bret's question 'why' which he then elucidates but without including or considering Alister's conception of it. He says, 'The Bible is old and we don't understand it as the ancients did.' But we know how the ancients understood it (they've left us quite a number of commentaries and sermons, for example), and we can think about how they understood it and draw our own lesson for our own time and lives from it, which Bret doesn't seem to know, except as part of his theory about 'evolutionary usefulness.'. In his defence of his position, however, he doesn't show any willingness to think about Alister's point. A missed opportunity for him. Then, at minute :46 he begins to recount completely false ideas about the text of the Bible itself (in Deuteronomy, rules for war which are 'basically genocide', which they are not if you do as Dr McGrath advises and see the entire Bible). The only peoples against whom Israel waged and were told to wage total war were those who would not stop attacking them, and in a culture, place, and time in which there were no rules for war, family honor was satisfied by revenge over however long a period, and there was no Haig or Geneva Conventions or even any jails or standing armies, what does a people do in order to survive in the face of another people who repeatedly tries to wipe them out without benefit of warning? Those of the same peoples who lived in peace with Israel were allowed to do so and in fact can be found among King David's army centuries later. Mind you, I respect Dr Weinstein greatly and think him well worth listening to and learning from. Here, however, he is wrong. It happens to the best of us, apparently.

I think people should give ideas in comments rather than saying all time . This is civil I like it full respect

I’d love to see this topic held again, but without McGrath debating. I’m sure his intentions were good, but he consistently moved off topic or provided very unsatisfactory answers to what should have been simple responses.

Great conversation gentlemen.

As much as I admire Mr McGrath. He seems to have been off his game. There were too many questions that Brett posed that could've been satisfactorily answered or at least would've given Mr Weinstein food for thought.

So glad to see how interested Alastair is in everything. If only he had something to add to the conversation

So refreshing to hear two gentlemen who disagree on some serious fundamentals dialoging together in this manner.

Two of my favourite thinkers!

“The bible does not give us details for contexts it could not imagine” 49:45 Interesting point

Love this. Our world needs more public and open and kind and thoughtful cross-conviction conversations like this one. (Disclaimer: only listened to the first 40 minutes so far)