Wow what a bunch of sour grapes.
It's amazing how quickly people will dismiss an argument that has anything to do with religion, whether it be someone who is religious or someone who merely suggest that religion isn't bad.
Speaking of meaning and the lack thereof. This video. You can only make so many categorical errors, use so many non-defined words, commit so many logical fallacies and say so many things which just plain make no sense before what you say becomes strictly meaningless. This video has well crossed that line and is now in the land of incoherent muttering. And no, copying the incoherent mutterings of Kierkegaard doesn't make it any better. And no, the fact that Kierkegaard responded to the incoherent mutterings of Hegel still doesn't help.
I'll just point out some of the many absurdities: The second sentence is: "For thousands of years, rationality has been considered the hallmark of truth, for through it the modern age has given us fast cars, instant food, advanced medicine immediate communication and epic giant robots."
The first problem with this can be grasped immediately by anyone with even the remotest understanding of history. Whatever happens in the modern age cannot be a reason or cause (which the word 'for' implies) of notions that have been around for thousands of years. Typically in philosophical discourse the early modern age is supposed to have started with Descartes (early to mid 17th century) and the modern age proper is supposed to have started with Kant (late 18th century). Now whenever the modern age started might vary depending on your point of view but I have never heard anyone claim it was anywhere before the fall of constantinople in 1453 which was not a thousand or more years ago. The reason people like Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, the stoics and the like thought reason was a good thing had nothing to do with stuff we have gotten from it thousands of years later. Even in the modern age philosophers like Kant who like reason do not like it because it gives us stuff.
But such a blatand causal and historical absurdity isn't even the worst of it. For what does it mean to say 'rationality has been considered the hallmark of truth'. Truth is a property of propositions, sentences or thoughts (depending on which philosopher you ask) whereas rationality is a property of decisions, reasons or persons. How can rationality be the hallmark of truth? It is well recognised that completely irrational people might say true things once in a while or that you might believe something to be true for touroughly irrational reasons. Perhaps it is meant that rational thinking leads to true believes but even that is rather vague.
next up: "Sure, reason makes life more convenient but it doesn't give us what we really want, to live meaningful lives."
There is a reason why a significant part of philosophers scoff at the idea of 'the meaning of life'. That reason is because it isn't at all clear what it means for life to have 'meaning'. Words and sentences have meaning.
Then we get to the really incoherent part, as hard as it is to believe that we can get even more incoherent: "Truth cannot be mediated by society, science or authority, I must orient myself towards these things."
What does this mean? Mediation is between two things and it is completely unclear in which sense one of those things might be truth. The closest thing I've ever heard to people claiming truth is mediated by society is the relativistic claim that the truth of a belief depends on it being commonly held. If this is what the author is getting at it isn't clear in the slightest how he has managed to identify 'reason' with 'relativism'. Or, and this is what I believe, the author does not have the faintest clue what the word 'truth' means.
Lastly, the claim that we need to make decisions ourselves, without depending on authority was also made by Kant but interestingly enough, Kant sees no reason to reject reason. In fact, reason was seen precisely as something done yourself, independend of authority.
"To achieve truth, we musn't mediate our choices through reason or anything else, but instead make a passionate leap of fate towards a decision. Choose from inwardness, from subjectivity."
I'll ignore the bizarre use of the word 'mediate' and reply to what this is probably supposed to mean. It was said that 'truth is subjectivity' earlier in the video. We could thus render this sentence as follows: "To achieve subjectivity, we musn't mediate our choices through reason or anything else, but instead make a passionate leap of fate towards a decision. Choose from inwardness, from subjectivity." This makes this whole sentence a hollow tautology. This leaves open the question why subjectivity would be a good thing. In any case, this is bascically saying that we should just do whatever without having any reason to do so. This simply makes no sense. When you act, you have a reason to act the way you do. If I ask somebody, "why are you doing this?" and the answer is "it's what I do" then we regard that as a facile answer but that is pretty much the answer that Kierkegaard recommends. This supposedly brings meaning to our lives by removing any reflection from it. If that is the 'subjectivity' you are looking for you don't want to make decisions. Acting without reflection is just an event that anything could undergo. The best way to achieve it is suicide.
"reason cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question of gods existence and nature."
It can't give you a satisfying answer but that is because you want the wrong answer to be true.
"When faced with such things that are objectively uncertain, one must choose subjectively."
Oh dear. What does 'objectively uncertain' mean. The uncertainty is in the object? Are we doing quantum mechanics now or, more likely, was the word 'objective' just thrown in for no reason? And how does one choose subjectively. Ah, I remember, we just do whatever for no reason, like a chair falling over. I can hardly think of a more thourough betrayal of our subjectivity.
Captcha: wild and woolly.
See, Captcha gets it.
History is linear, and is based on causality. A happened, therefore B began, which caused C. Nothing in human history happens in a vacuum, everything happens because something else happened.
The rational arguments that came about two thousand years after the Greek philosophers were still using some of the ideas of the Greek philosophers.