Alex low key pisses Dawkins off every time he plays devils advocate lmao. As a deconverted Christian, I do love how Alex absolutely knows the Christian argument. It’s what makes him so effective at dismantling it.

Lewis’s quote “a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy “ and Dawkins proceeds to give examples of desires this world can satisfy

So much respect for Alex. Someone who gives a fair shake to both the theist and atheist perspectives and still honestly expresses their own beliefs is the example to which all of us should aspire.

Dawkins doesn’t address directly what was said. Instead he creates some weird analogy.

Dawkins says that is a bad argument and then comes up with his own bad argument.

He missed a button!!!

I love that, even if its in good faith and more to have a little laugh than anything, the fact that you're actually trying to counter his argument is fantastic. It's good to think critically about the opposition's argument, it's even better to give the same treatment to those on your side of the argument

Dawkins fundamentally misunderstands Lewis’s argument though. Lewis is not talking about wanting to live forever, he is speaking of a desire for a joy that nothing in the material world is able to provide. Just because I’m hungry doesn’t mean I will get food, but it points to the fact that something exists that could satiate my hunger.

Umm…am I the only one that noticed how Dawkins missed the point? Lewis said “a desire that can’t be satisfied in this world”. He didn’t say the desire to keep on living in this world. The longing and unsatisfied desires we have while living here. As a Christian, I honestly don’t think much about living forever. It’s more so that I long for things that I haven’t ever experienced.

I have a lot of respect for Lewis, but I agree with Dawkins here, it’s not a good argument.

I don’t think it’s the strongest argument, but I also don’t think the argument was actually presented here.

I'll take Lewis over Dawkins any day. It's only logical.

I am sure, if CS Lewis was alive, that he would have batted away R Dawkin’s bouncers.

Almost no one in these comments understands Lewis argument: we have desires that cannot be satisified by anything in this world. All desires have some object that is grounded in reality. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that those desires that cannot be satisified by this world can be satisified by something not in this world. But if those desires are truly mere daydreams, why do we have them? Its like having hunger but never hearing of food.

Dawkins almost headbutting the host at the end. 😂

Once again, Dawkins answers a question that wasn't asked

I wish Alex hadn't cancelled his joke - Richard Dawkins squirming is a feast for the eyes 😍

As usual, Dawkins just doesn’t get it.

Even as an agnostic I find the idea of god laughing in Dawkins' face very satisfying.

Lewis. As usual. Is correct

That's a really weak argument.

Alex, I hope you understand how lucky you are to be able to not only talk with Richard Dawkins, but joke around with him. I can only wish

False equivalency. Dawkins is talking about an earthly desire. Lewis is talking about a desire that transcends this mortal world.

Dawkins was given the exact premise. Merely seconds later answered in multiple ways that had nothing to do with the premise.

Never underestimate the importance of Desire, without it we would have achieved nothing. Before we had the medicine that would someday cure the disease, we had to have the DESIRE to cure that disease in the first place. Not sit back and accept our fate. Before we had the technology that would someday put us into space, we had to have the DESIRE to go into space in the first place. Not be resigned to our earthbound fate. Thanks to the wonders of science we now have the means of making these desires a reality - what was once considered impossible now becomes possible. Could the same principle apply to our quest for immortality ?

It’s an argument from spirituality. Not a particularly good one. It’s just a repackaging of the first cause problem. Not to mention even if we were to accept this why does it only support Christianity? Every religion claims or implies some sort of spiritual desire

CS Lewis is so far ahead of the shortsighted Dawkins, it's embarrassing.

Dawkins misses the point of what Lewis is saying- it’s not about a desire to continue living after death

Yeah this seems to be rationalization made into an argument. Normally someone wanting a proposition to be true is either irrelevant or kind of a red flag in their defense of that proposition. Lewis is going one step above and saying that him wanting for God to exist is itself an argument for the existence of God.

I think what makes Lewis's argument interesting is that he is saying that if Humans desire things that aren't realistic or logical IN this world, then there must be something or someone BEYOND what we know that created and allows for those desires to exist. Look at how Immortality is one of the biggest quests for Humans across History. We can't achieve it (although we could potentially in the future), but we still long for it. It doesn't mean that God does 100% exist, but it does tell us that Humans are wired for it, so there could be a reason as to why.

Just because you want something to be true it doesn’t make it true

I don’t think what C.S. Lewis had been getting at can be constrained to an interest in eternal life.

The film star exists but the desired sexual relationship with the film star does not and will not in all likelihood…that was his analogy and point.

Lewis was not talking about a desire to live after death. He was talking about a desire for purpose and meaning as well as a connection to God. Evolution can not fulfil any of these.

That small pause there as an unspoken " which film star you think off" 😂

I always thought this was a dumb argument, and another piece of evidence for Lewis' awful understanding of evolution. The implication is that we would expect some inherent cap on orientation towards survival/propagation on naturalism. But any lifeform with such programming would be outlived/outbred by those without.

C.S. Lewis is just logical. Dawkins loves probability: Well, if you feel thirst, it's more likely that there exists water than that there isn't. There is so little consistency and analytical depth in Dawkins' thought. Elsewhere he said: "There is no evidence that any religion is true.” I agree - and include his own. I can easily deal with Dawkins' atheism, but as a mathematician I can't accept his stunning lack of logic. What is a “religion” but a metaphysical worldview based on dogma and shared with others? And doesn't Dawkins share with his followers a worldview based on a dogmatic claim to empirical evidence (rather than simply reason, which is actually the basis of science by not ignoring the fact that there is a lot of "non-empirical" reality, such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) ? This is obviously a very dogmatic stance, because where the hell is the evidence that all existence is empirically evident ? It is Dawkins' faith, his “religion“, he believes in it without evidence. On the contrary, It is astonishingly illogical, especially for an evolutionary biologist. For obviously there is a reality beyond the horizon of Homo sapiens, just as there is beyond the horizon of Pan troglodytes. This is what is called “transcendence” - something that Dawkins seems completely blind to, although if it lies in the very logic of evolution. So when Dawkins finally understands that there is no evidence that ANY religion is true - including his own - he has finally discovered the fact of transcendence 😆 A very fact that allowed a great mathematician to make another probability statement: “There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't." [ John v. Neumann ]

He didn’t understand Lewis’s argument very well.

organisms can evolve random useless things and keep them for generations

No one can know with any certainty what happens after you die. So for many they are willing to simply assume they will live on because it benefits them psychologically while alive. If they chose to assume they will cease to exist permanently, psychologically it is disturbing for most. Since no one knows for sure either way, it seems just as rational to assume an afterlife as it does to assume non existence. Probably being agnostic is the most realistic position but that too triggers our need for certainty on key questions which is almost as bad as assuming we cease to exist.

I desire for Richard Dawkins to button all the buttons on his shirt. It won't matter in the next world though.

As a Christian I wish I could "prove" that my religion is correct. I can't.

I used to watch your videos Alex, but I'm a Christian now.

The ultimate religious argument; "magic"

I really wanted Dawkins to start referencing sexual desires that really dont have any existence in reality (furries, aliens, monsters, bronies, other victims of rule 34) but I knew he be too classy for that

And, as we know, through our knowledge of evolution, having our legs pulled is why humans are able to stand more upright compared to other apes.

Some people had a crush on Jessica Rabbit. That is a desire which no experience in this world could satisfy. Therefore, those people are made for a different world in which it could happen. Ergo, Space Jam is a documentary.

The best example would be if you want to be a superhero with supernatural power or a witch, but you can't

Some of us have desires that transcend a "desire to survive and live". Richard Dawkins is a very sad figure

I get that Alex is being cheeky, but you can see that Dawkins wants to have a real conversation, and the pattern of: 1) present flawed argument, 2) explain the flaw 3) make a hilarious leap in logic to defend it as a joke, isn't interesting to him.

That argument literally makes no sense lol what a strange guy. "If I want jello it's clear to me that jello must be from outer space"

This isn't the case Lewis was making. He was speaking instead of something Cicero refers to in terms of a monument. Humans not only have this evolutionary desire to continue living after they die, but more importantly to leave behind a remembrance. You don't see that anywhere else in the natural world. No animal is writing books that will outlive the animal. No animal is forming governments for posterity. Humans do this and Cicero thinks it speaks to an immortal soul. Science has no explanation for this and evolution doesn't get at it either. Humans don't just desire to extend their lives in some way. They desire legacy. The rest of the natural world doesn't manifest that in any meaningful way.

Why is he trashing my love of Raquel Welch?

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work that God has done from beginning to end. - Ecclesiastis 3:11

He just created a strawman. Dawkings really just oozes pride in himself and his deeds. ”Those who look down on others, cannot ever look up”

I think a better option for Dawkins argument than a film star is a furry :3

C S Lewis: inscrutable desire Dawkins: film star

We don’t have a desire to survive we have a fear of death. We try to survive to avoid death. We don’t desire life we desire worldly things.

I desire to ride to work on Cathulu Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

The Problem with These Kind of discussion is: Scientist try to find the truth with Experiments and evidence while Religious people claim to have found IT despite any real evidence. You cant convince people Like that.

Lewis' "Liar, lunatic or lord" argument also reveals a poor grasp of mental illness.

There's a fine, blurry line between theology and psychiatry

Dawkins is bad at discussing with people with degrees

What Dawkins is saying about Lewis and other theologians is that their arguments are idiotic. He’s just being eloquent about it.

Lewis was an excellent scholar of literature. However as a philosopher and theologian he was an overated third rate thinker .

Wow, there's not a single poetic bone in this mans body. Some people are all about reason and hard facts and I respect that, but understand there are people who lead by feeling and imagination you can't possibly fathom how their mind works or how they perceive the world.

Missing the point of the argument. Where does the desire come from? If I desire a film star, it is because I first saw the film star. What Lewis is getting at is that when there is a longing that only could be spiritual, it must be a spirit within oneself that is longing.

CS Lewis is such a boring writer.

Dawkins is either really bad at arguing or he didn’t understand what Alex said. Dawkins is talking about something completely different than what CS Lewis is stating

“The film star exists though” Should’ve used anime Weebs have a desire for their waifu, this points to the idea that the desire can be satiated, therefore, waifu must exist

Dawkins is no replying to Lewis’s real point, it’s not about living forever, it’s about wanting things that seem impossible in this world like perfect justice

Richard Dawkins, talking about sexual desire perhaps from Epstein Islands

Dawkins gets destroyed in a debate against someone who’s playing devils advocate 😂.

C.S Lewis was essentially on the side of postmodernism.

The one missing button is bothering me more than it should

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists noone was born with the desire for afterlife

Dawkins is such an intelligent person, just a shame he was born without any imagination whatsoever.

"wretched person" Holy shit, Dawkins.

Alex seems to confirm the logic of C S Lewis's statement much to the discomfort of Dr Dawkins.

You are deliberately don't want to understand or cannot? This is not what Lewis had in mind. Debunking C. S. Lewis? You should be more serious and honest for smthg like that.

😂😂 I love how annoyed Dawkins was by that little quip

I thought he'd go the curiosity route. We also have a high degree of curiousity which leads to the feeling of "there must be something more", "something we're not seeing". Its just a desire to understand the environment. We also from experience "know" that there is always a reason or a cause behind the state of things. So we find it hard to accept an idea such as "the world just is". Not that we innately know there must be some divine thing behind the universe. It was attributed to a divine agent because in a way, its reasonable to think it must be something extremely powerful and intelligent to be able to create literally everything. A naturalistic explaination of this phenomenon of desire, makes much more sense to me than "therefore god must exist" lol.

Why tear Lewis apart. Disagree with him, but leave the dead in their graves.

People will be reading C. S. Lewis long after these lessers are forgotten.

B. S. If C. S. Lewis were alive, he'd eat this atheist's lunch.

Richard Dawkins dodges the question yet again and arrogantly as well as ignorantly criticises a straw man. It is not as he mischaracterizes CS Lewis simply "the idea that because you want something therefore it must be true" [0:27]. It is a profound observation about the human condition, namely that every innate desire, i.e. one that is common to all, does indeed have a real and true satisfaction. I am tempted to write a "natural" satisfaction; however, materialists may well read into that something which is not intended. For thirst, there are fluids. For hunger there is sustenance. In an abstract sense too, for something such as loneliness, there is "company". An intrinsic aspect of the human condition is morality and so it follows, through deductive logic, that there is an objective marker by which all such claims can be judged. Maybe one day Richard Dawkins will learn to park his misplaced condescension, curb his hypocrisy and answer a question intelligently.

Dawkins constant intense frown turns upside down for a moment. Such a rare occurrence. Cherish the moment…Total opposite of John Lennox who’s one of the happiest looking guys I’ve ever seen.

In terms of impact, C. S. Lewis is often described as one of the greatest Christian apologists of the twentieth century. The great strength of his writing is in connecting spiritual ideas to everyday experience. Lewis’s approach to defending the faith is simple and direct, yet profound. Rather than grappling with convoluted philosophy, his best writing explains Christianity in terms easily understood by all readers. For Lewis, faith in Christ wasn’t some irrational leap into the dark. Instead, faith was a submission to common sense-an acknowledgement of everything daily life already tells us. The ability to present Christianity in a clear, personal way is especially notable, given that C. S. Lewis was a vigorous atheist through his teenage years. It was his exposure to new ideas and deeper learning while at the university that eventually led to his conversion. A voracious reader, Lewis was fond of the writings of Christian authors George MacDonald and G. K. Chesterton. MacDonald’s book Phantastes caused Lewis to rethink his atheism. In much the same way, G. K. Chesterton’s book The Everlasting Man led Lewis to question his dismissal of religion. While teaching at Magdalen College, C. S. Lewis met two Christian men who later became close friends: Hugo Dyson and J. R. R. Tolkien. Soon Lewis recognized that most of his friends, like his favorite authors-MacDonald, Chesterton, Johnson, Spenser, and Milton-were Christians. He was also greatly influenced by Owen Barfield, a writer who had earlier converted from atheism to Christianity, and author Nevill Coghill, another devout Christian. Unlike many converts, C. S. Lewis was not eager to become a believer. Even as evidence mounted, demonstrating the truth of the Bible, Lewis struggled to maintain his unbelief. Rather than fleeing to faith or fulfilling a personal wish, Lewis resisted acceptance of God. He came to faith, in his own words, “kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a chance of escape” (Surprised by Joy: The Early Shape of My Life, p. 228-229.). Lewis described himself, at the moment of his conversion in 1929, as “perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England” (ibid.). C. S. Lewis’s eventual enthusiasm for Christianity spawned a lifelong stream of books on Christian apologetics and discipleship. His first major work, The Pilgrim’s Regress, published in 1933, was about his own spiritual journey to Christian faith. Though best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, Lewis wrote 74 books during his lifetime, leaving an enormous literary legacy for generations to follow. In 1956 Lewis married American divorcée Joy Gresham, sixteen years his junior, who died four years later of cancer. Despondent over her death, Lewis turned to the outlet he knew best: writing. His book describing the process of loss, A Grief Observed, was originally published under the pseudonym N. W. Clerk to avoid the pain of even greater publicity. Ironically, friends and relatives often suggested that Lewis read the book as a means of overcoming his anguish. Only after Lewis’s death did the publisher acknowledge that Lewis was, in fact, the author. After the death of his wife, Lewis’s own health deteriorated, and in the summer of 1963 he resigned from Cambridge. Mere months later, Lewis died. His death would have been considered a more notable event, but at that moment, the entire world was watching the United States. On November 22, 1963, Lewis passed away on the same day that American President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. As with any deeply studied figure of religion or philosophy, C. S. Lewis also attracts criticism for some of his doctrinal positions. Among the most frequently mentioned are his views on the inerrancy of the Bible, the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, and eternal security. While conservative Christian scholars would generally consider Lewis to be in error on these points, such issues clearly didn’t dampen his zeal for literary evangelism. In fact, Lewis was often criticized by his peers and passed over for teaching opportunities for his vocal defense of the gospel. A major plank of Lewis’s philosophy of religion was that myths were mankind’s way of foreshadowing God’s eventual revealed truth. In accordance to that belief, he accepted the possibility that many Old Testament stories, including those of creation, were purely mythical and not necessarily true. For Lewis, this even included the possibility that Adam and Eve were entirely mythical, and not actual people. In a similar way, Lewis held that the Bible was the work of human authors and therefore fallible. While convinced that the New Testament was more literally true than the Old Testament, he still believed there were errors and contradictions within the Scriptures. In Lewis’s view, divine inspiration by God simply meant that truth was contained in the Bible, not necessarily that everything written in the Bible was true. As explored in books such as The Screwtape Letters, Lewis held to a conditional view of salvation. According to his perspective, people were in constant spiritual motion, either toward God, or away from Him. This, rather than some once-for-all redemption, was what eventually determined their eternal destiny. While not as overtly controversial as his views of inerrancy or history, this is a point of caution that should be applied when interpreting Lewis’s works. C. S. Lewis stands as a shining example of the influence a Christian can have in both the university and popular culture. His works changed the lives of many during his lifetime and beyond, offering a model for those who desire to live as “salt and light” in a dark culture (Matthew 5:13). As an apologist and writer, C. S. Lewis was exemplary, and his books are among the most useful ever written for explaining the value of Christian faith to a skeptical world.

Wishful thinking, false promises and delusion are part of the reason religiosity has persisted for so long.

Dawkins clearly doesn't understand what Lewis was talking about and it's hilarious that he's so ignorant he has to act like Lewis didn't know what he was talking about.

Lewis literally addresses this rebuttal in the next paragraph.

Dawkins never believes that he could be wrong but I could wrong

What is the evolutionary benefit of having a desire to pull the leg of Richard Dawkins?

Lewis was an atheist until his best friend Tolkien convinced him to become a god believer. To Tolkien's disappointment Lewis joined the Church of England instead of the Catholic Church. Hilarious.

The very definition of wishful thinking

So he doesn't know about the soul's desire to go back to its source. He is spiritually dead.

Isn’t this the same dude who just confessed that Western Christianity is necessary for establishing any kind of moral society?

All the money in the word, all the sex, all the food, all the success, all the pride, nothing can console my tribulated heart

CS Lewis specifically mentioned desires not of this world. This is an incredibly abstract concept. But, what he means, is desires for the intangible. Since consciousness is intangible, he may desire emotions and experiences that can’t be identified by anything tangible. An example of a tangible thing mentioned is a film star. But instead, something intangible, like the experience of listening to music, is what inspires the hunger for something non-physical-something that can’t be attained in the world.

I only just noticed, Richard missed a button on his shirt.