Stream Your Event | Partners | Speakers CART ITEMS: - | CHECKOUT

Rabbi David Wolpe on Why Faith Matters

Watch Full Video | previews

Sixth and I Historic Synagogue

Info
Bio
Chapters
Preview
Download
Zoom In

David Wolpe Separates Religion from Violence

05 min 23 sec

Add to Profile

Rabbi David Wolpe counters the argument that religion makes people violent against others by claiming the world was a much more savage and violent place before organized religion came on the scene.

He asserts that human nature is to be tribal and exclusionary and that God is the only universal concept that exists to unify people.
Wolpe: New Atheists Hold Religious Believers in Contempt

04 min 59 sec

Add to Profile

Rabbi David Wolpe percieves the arguments against religion from atheists like Christopher Hitchens as mockery, saying they hold believers in contempt. He cites harsh criticism against Sarah Palin's religious beliefs as an example.
David Wolpe Addresses Violence in Islam

03 min 11 sec

Add to Profile

In discussing a supposed connection between violence and religion, Rabbi David Wolpe says that while Islam has some violent elements in its scripture, it shares that trait with all religions. He points out that large Muslim nations like Indonesia are neither radical or violent.
Watch Full Program

01 hr 11 min 00 sec

Add to Profile

There are 15 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.

Previous FORAtv comments:

Page 1 of 2

babiyar1

Posted: 06.20.11, 04:37 PM

There are no atheists in foxholes... May all the atheists fight in Iraq, Vietnam, ...You will locate your faith...

Jack Schitt

Posted: 05.18.11, 08:57 PM

I was going to write a more thought out response to this piece, but fundamentally, I do not think it is warranted. I’ll limit myself to two basic observations; Firstly, the good Rabbi displays what could be interpreted as contempt for authors who hold different views than himself in a somewhat pot and kettle fashion. Secondly, in response to Drapper25, I’ve always found it quite amusing that God does not bother to arm his Christian (or in this case Jewish) Soldiers with the weaponry they need to overcome their foes. In most of the debates I’ve seen or been involved with, the Dawkins’ and Harris’ approach in intellectual stealth bombers while their opponents counter with intellectual BB guns. There seems to me to be a certain cognitive divide between followers of faith and investigators of reason.

csanchis90

Posted: 05.01.11, 05:09 AM

If God told you to do X, which you think it’s wrong, would you do it? If you say yes, then morality doesn’t really matter to you. You’re all about being a bigot or a slave to authority. - Sam Harris I think this is a very important questions we should ask ourselves who are human.

socratus

Posted: 12.20.09, 11:58 PM

Can a Rational Individual believe in God ? In other words: Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws? Of course Because if God exists, he must work in Absolute Reference Frame and have a set of Physical/ Mathematical laws to create everything And if we find this God’s Absolute House then we can understand Cod’s Physical Laws # Has God known the formula: E=Mc^2 ? If God has known the formula why HE / SHE /IT didn't write it in His Bible? =========.. The people created a God. No one knows what the external characteristics of this God are, a God who made himself known with the name " I am who I am ". Is it enough for us in the XXIc ? Why didn’t the formula E=Mc^2 write in the Bible? ===============. . Each religion uses a system of symbols (images, metaphors, ancient myths and legends , beautiful stories) to explain its truth. But Bernard Shaw wisely remarked : “ There is only one religion, although there are a hundred versions of it.” It means that the source of all religion is one. And I try to prove this idea with the formulas and laws of physics. I don’t invent new formulas. I use simple formulas which ,maybe, every man knows from school. Is it possible? Is it enough? Yes. Because the evolution goes from simple to the complex. So, in the beginning we can use simple formulas and laws. For this purpose I explain what the first law of Universe is, and second law is and ...........etc. Step by step I create a logical system of the Universe. ============= . . Science and Religion: Is there a conflict ? Or maybe: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. / Albert Einstein. / Or maybe: All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. / Albert Einstein. / # Science and Religion: Is there any conflict? Or maybe there isn’t any conflict. Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ? Or maybe our stupidity asks these questions. === . If I were God, I would give chance to Human to understand who I am by analyzing the physical formulas, equations and laws. Because to create Everything I need them. So, logically, catching the thread of the physics Human can understand Me and My Work. ============== . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus ===

theseanze

Posted: 08.15.09, 09:48 AM

Q1: In his answer, he says people like Rick Warren can believe that they are being told what to do by God, that they are on a God-given mission in life. Wolpe seems to think that if we are able to take these self-justified fantasies and twist them into arguments that have a semblance of reality, we should be allowed to believe and influence what we want. The failure here is that you're supporting circular thinking so someone can devote all their energy to spreading Christianity or their Christian-oriented goals, and not have to expend energy on aligning their sights, their premises, in accordance with reality. Q3: Then he tells another diversion story about seeing from another's cultural view. Umbrella bullying...makes sense after you see it from the bully's eyes? This is exactly the kind of danger about religiosity that his opponents like Harris and Hitchens are on about. People are walking around with their views that umbrellas are dumb because "I don't mind the rain, so I'm going to make sure everybody gets wet." Atheists at least think they are ones trying to take a step back and say "Hey, whatever your beliefs are, they inform your actions, and it seems like your approach to life is based on spreading a viewpoint that was created on soft ground." All of the debates, especially with John Lennox, that go on in this subject seem to be limited by the confines of what religious people can fathom. It's a constant barrage of "well, you have faith too!" Secular humanism is a worldview that appeals to the religious sense of community and moral support, but it does so without having to claim anything divinely revealed. We all want to survive and be happy. We are all evolved, flawed, but ready to make the best of this existence we are so lucky to have. Anyone who would do evil because of humanism would be forgetting the fact that they are human themselves, and much of morality comes out of placing ourselves in the "shoes" of another subjective being like ourselves. Stop defending religion for the things that secular humanism provides. Those, who oppose Western religions, like myself, do so, I think, because when you boil down the "truths" every religion teaches, it ultimately comes down to common sense wisdom about how to live well and get along with others. There were five centuries of Buddhism and Greek philosophy before Christ. Do we need to follow Christ, or refer to him as just one role model among others? Do we need to placate a God who has revealed himself in a very small locality with certain interpretations, or do we need to take full intellectual responsibility for our beliefs and the trajectory it takes us and our work?

theunmovedmover

Posted: 04.28.09, 11:14 AM

This mans misconceptions of agnosticism and atheism are absurd ''I don't believe its healthy for humans to think they're the best thing going'' This is the very opposite of what non-believing is. And not to mention it is in fact religion that places humans in an extra special light, not atheism. Religion is what places mankind in a position of some sort of absurd cosmic importance. This man should hope he never ends up debating the likes of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, he wouldn't stand a chance.

theunmovedmover

Posted: 04.27.09, 02:38 PM

''they hold you in contempt'' ??? I am a non believer, I do not hold believers in contempt. The only thing that would bother me is if people of a strong faith start forcing the rules of their faith upon me, then you will face my contempt. I truly feel this applies to most non believers. Does anyone agree with this?

Athanora

Posted: 01.20.09, 09:41 AM

I have not read the book and probably will not. David Wolpe uses weak and futile arguments. Unconvincing platitudes. What he is arguing for (at least here in this program), is why faith matters to him. This, however, is irrelevant to the debate with the atheist intellectuals. ...cats and dogs - the agents of the dark side? How enlightened! Proudly rational, Dominique

scamper

Posted: 12.23.08, 08:17 PM

I find it curious why people do not get his point. From a logical point of view, if you want to see what effect something has, you run tests... one with the thing and several without. That's pretty clear. So you look at the world without religion as the dominant role... and you get great violence and great ideology. With religion, you get smaller violence. The reasoning... people are inherently tribal. So without religion as our sense of belonging, we latch onto nationalism, tribalism, political ideologies (communism, capitalism, socialism...) It just so happens that when we latch onto things like political ideologies instead of religion, we end up committing even greater acts of violence and exclusion than religion. Can we live in a world without ideology? I doubt it as history and the modern day is a great guide. In the absence of religion, people make up stuff to believe in. Judging from history, I think you can rationally conclude that religion is the least harmful ideology of belonging. Better religion than nationalism or communism...

em5750

Posted: 12.05.08, 02:15 PM

Wolpe does not represent Judaism, but himself. For any Jew to state, "the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all" is utter heresy. Such a man can never be called a Rabbi.

Page 1 of 2