Fascinating discussion. The opening question regarding the philosophers illustrated Rav Bashevskins point dramatically. At a time when there was only consciousness, and then language, religion was so much more inevitable and natural. The more the physical world developed, the further Humankind strayed from Gd consciousness.
As the saying goes: Faith begins where knowledge ends.
It is impossible for a theist to debate an atheist unless they agree on that principle. And if they do, there is nothing left to debate.
The Designer theory is a rational approach that proves nothing but reveals everything.
I came to religious faith through rational principles and logic. The existence of Gd is, to me, the most rational and plausible concept.

Good interview Dan! The questions were really good I didn’t find that the answers resonated. Also the pragmatic benefit of religion is more likely for those that really are convinced it’s the word of god.

The Lubavitcher rebbe said there can be life in other parts of creation but they wouldn’t have free choice

he repeatedly turns an epistemological limitation of science into positive evidence for religion, when logically there is a large unexplored space between those two claims

Gestalt psychology is defined here as being a study of what happens when you get a large group of people together.
How interesting that Judaism is the only religion in history founded by a mass witness event: Mt Sinai.

33:21 hmmmmm

With all due respect to Rabbi Bashevkin (and I have a lot of it), his answers were perplexing. Is this representative of Yeshiva university? If so, I’d be amazed if half of the students there don’t become atheist after one semester. His wishy washy answers were unnecessarily from a place of weakness vis a vis secularism. All of this postmodern lingo with very little grounding in Jewish philosophy and masoret. I had to stop watching after the very painful analogy comparing our Avutinu to 3 year olds.

There are much better interlocutors for these kind of discussion in Israel. Dan, I recommend trying to reach out to Rabbi Guy Alaluf or Rabbi Uri Sherki if you want the more historical and postmodern (but in a good way) discussion. Or the brilliant Rabbi Yehushua Inbal who has immense scientific and historical understanding of the Enlightenment as well as being a giant Talmid Chacham. Or even, if you want a more extreme rationalistic approach — Rabbi Michael Abraham.

I’d honestly rather listen to a fundamentalist than smug apologetics. At least the fundamentalist just rejects the facts that threaten his beliefs. This apologist accepts those same facts, then twists and reinterprets them until somehow they don’t matter anymore.

David added nothing of importance to this conversation other than reciting the tiresome standard tropes!

I love the idea of every miracle described in the Torah as being proven by science. It only strengthens the Torah narrative. The idea of the viewpoint of the ancient world is so important. The fact that one day it will be clear how certain things could happen is exciting.
Chariots and weaponry were found at the bottom of the Red Sea. Noah’s Ark may have just been discovered. People appear to be walking on water during low tides. All explanations are welcome. They do not detract from the original narratives, only explain them.

I believe the “shoulds” come from Torah. Before Torah, murder was acceptable, as was theft, adultery, child sacrifice, etc.
Today, sadly, we are literally seeing a reverse of Torah principles, one by one, to the point that even murder is justified as we have seen in very high profile cases, and theft is decriminalized.
The “shoulds” of society that we now take for granted were introduced to the world at Mt Sinai. They are now generally considered JudeoChristian values.
Those values/shoulds have a source of origin.
I love the reaffirmation that at the end of the day, if there IS a Gd, surely He expects something of us. Religious practice is the way of doing that and bringing Him into our lives. It is the very physical expression of faith and links all three levels of existence together: the physical, linguistic and conscious.

Ricky Gervais’ comment is silly. If everything man created was lost, man could easily recreate it. If everything Gd created was lost, who is Ricky Gervais to say that Gd can’t create it again? And if MAN can’t recreate it, then certainly that was hint that Gd did.
If religion is man made, then according to Gervais it can be replicated.
If religion and religious revelation is from a higher power, then logic dictates that higher power is as able to recreate it as man would be.
Whether over time (who says those left behind will have the scientific knowledge to recreate everything, and those left behind will search for deeper meaning) or instantly, Gervais’ argument is typical of an atheist who doesn’t even try to see things from a different perspective.