I hate it when my mechanic *presupposes* that my car troubles are caused by mechanical failures and just dogmatically rejects the possibility of a gremlin slowly destroying it while no one is looking
@captainhennahead23239 ай бұрын
Right!!? I HATE car-eating gremlins!!!! 😂
@ratamacue03203 ай бұрын
That's not necessarily true. Sometimes the gremlin destroys it suddenly.
@davidlewis307226 күн бұрын
😂
@TheAntiburglar9 ай бұрын
Wow.... this is pretty meta o.O and as per usual, apologetists seem to be projecting pretty spectacularly. Thanks for providing actual scholarship and data rather than the dogma out there! :D
@alanb88849 ай бұрын
Meta is the right word for this one
@willthecameraman7 ай бұрын
Most efficient tactics available? I guess the pot calling the white apron black.
@spinnwebe_9 ай бұрын
God I love the hardcore and relentless logic Dan brings to these things
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
...and with the personality of a guy you'd like to have a beer with. That makes his facts and arguments even more effective.
@thescoobymike9 ай бұрын
Scholarship changes with more data whereas dogma remains the same despite new data
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
That's it in essence. 💯
@DavidAlastairHayden9 ай бұрын
Very succinctly said.
@davidjanbaz77289 ай бұрын
Not towards Christianity only in the opposite direction of their conformation bias!
@HangrySaturn4 ай бұрын
Exactly.
@MegaDejok2 ай бұрын
The fact that it changes , not becomes better (like physics,biology...) says everything about their confusion..I will wait untill they stick to something for more than 10 years (like in biology, physics...)
@teslacorkill34759 ай бұрын
Dan, I did not realize how uniformed some of our generations are about the critical method. My parents generation and the one before (I am Gen X) who have been life time church goers, if they know anything about it, have mainly been taught to view it with suspicion and mistrust. I was also indoctrinated this way, but it didn't stick. My world blew up when I discovered Robert Alter. I knew there was so much more to this text than Sunday school lessons! We use a lot of your YT material in our BEMA discussion groups. Thank you for making academics accessible to those of us who couldn't afford seminary or secondary degrees. Looking at taking some of your classes in the new year, hopefully! Shalom!
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
For all of the downsides of the Internet and social media, it has allowed for unprecedented access to legitimate scholarship for those who seek it. Dan is performing a huge service, not just academically, but in combating the bigotry of some fundamentalists, which sadly we've seen on the increase in the MAGA era.
@minaguta41479 ай бұрын
Please donate to Dan's A/V equipment fund. Those mic drops add up.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
😂 As a former ordained Christian minister and apologist, I can tell you that this creator has nerve. Either that or he didn't do his homework. I would've watched some of Dan's content before engaging him. And it wouldn't have taken more than a handful of videos to realize that I was in over my head because he's bringing the goods. Not merely data but the expertise to put it into context. And....he's intellectually HONEST.
@annemariededekind62719 ай бұрын
YES, I agree, Dan. If you study Theology of a certain Church group, it only means that you follow and study their own findings and rules and what that specific church stands for. If you question them on what they believe, they throw you out of their church and ask you never to return, because you are not allowed to think critical as you have to accept THEIR way of thinking. Thank you for your critical thinking. If you do not ask questions you will never learn. Thank you, thank you!!!!
@adrianvargas13809 ай бұрын
Dan, thank you, truly, you have no idea how inspiring it is to hear from someone like you, no matter the religious or non-religious background of the person coming upon this knowledge, it moves people forward and informs them about what there is, and what there is not. Also, you defences of your videos are excellent, defending one´s work sometimes is better than just making it.
@moontrack46259 ай бұрын
I thought most realized if all your education comes from only like minded people you are in a very small impermeable bubble = cult
@calanm78809 ай бұрын
I was that guy, making false equivalence of academic biblical study to something I could lampoon. (Kicking myself I never thought of Winnie the Pooh! Lol) Today I’m so thankful for these short YTs: I spent 30 yrs remonstrating against this stuff (closing my ears helped lol) - but opening my eyes has made me happy
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Can I so relate to this. That unrelenting cognitive dissonance is headache inducing, isn't it? 😁
@jimmythompson19799 ай бұрын
Me too! The scales were completely over my eyes, now i can see the bible for what it is. The book doesn't have all the answers, nor is it authoritative in my life.
@defel19 ай бұрын
I was fortunate when I was in Lutheran seminary in the late 60s and early 70s that the faculty approached the scriptures with text criticism processes. Further, we were taught that sermon preparation was to begin with our own translation of the text from the source manuscripts, considering the issues raised by context, source etc. There were some students among my classmates who were very much opposed to this. Beyond the opposition to biblical scholarship and textual criticism, I think the apologists' stance points to deeper issues of insecurity, fear, and fragile personalities. Although I am now an atheist, I appreciate your videos.
@probablynotmyname85219 ай бұрын
Similarly methodological naturalism rejects supernatural causes because hundreds of years of study have never found them. Its not a presupposition, it just results from the lack of ever finding one and having found natural causes for supposed supernatural events, such as lightning, or earthquakes, or plagues, or droughts etc.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
It's revealing that apologists, rather than offering data which substantiates their beliefs, employ the rhetorical trick and logical fallacy of false equivalence. Categorize--without evidence--your opponents as being what you the apologist are: faith-based-not empiricist-worldview, intellectually dishonest, etc. Claim that neither side can "prove" the other wrong, but that your faith is more inherently reasonable than your opponents' "faith." Classic projection. I know, as a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist.
@KGchannel015 ай бұрын
The old idea, "Sure I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it, so it must be true".. I forget the name of that fallacy. I think scholars can basically ignore the question of God's involvement in creating the Bible and just point to all the evidence of human authorship and editing. If people want to conclude that God is orchestrating all that messiness for some mysterious reason that's their problem to sort out. That said, from a moral and philosophical standpoint, it is easier to disagree with the slavery and genocide in the Bible if we can just attribute it to humans. But hey, if they want to attribute all the internal contradictions and gross inhumanity to God, well, that is a weird hill to die on.
@hughlowe44319 ай бұрын
Critical scholarship is of vital importance to remove the literalism that the church has held to for hundreds of years
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Indeed, especially when considering the harm that such literalism can lead to, as Dan points out so often. This isn't merely academic.
@EricMcLuen9 ай бұрын
For being usually calm and collected, this might be the first time I have seen someone really get on Dan's nerves. I dont think it wad due to the personal attack but some of these creators just dont listen to what they are saying.
@ericlipton76409 ай бұрын
Dan: you may attack me, but you will never attack critical scholarship!! En garde!
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
I don't see this clip as representing Dan at his most agitated. I perceive that what really irks him is the use of the Bible to rationalize and support bigoted and harmful narratives, because of the harm they cause. Biblical literalist apologists who offer logical fallacies are annoying, for sure.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Thank you for providing this service, Dan. The fact that I address you casually here is no slight of your impressive credentials. My perception is that you aren't the kind of person who insists on or elicits being addressed as Doctor. And that, as much as your erudition and articulate, cogent presentation of the facts, is why I think you are very effective. You defy the stereotype of the condescending academic (another strawman, of course), and convey humility and sincerity. As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist, I can attest that while I tried to convince myself I was approaching the evidence objectively and critically, I knew better. Apologists are like trial attorneys who parse the evidence not for the truth, but rather that which supports their case. The difference between this apologist creator critic and scholars like Dr. McClellan can be boiled down to how they respond to data. Dan will discard and/or adjust his current view if presented substantial and valid contrary evidence. The apologist will not.
@KGchannel015 ай бұрын
I would be very open to a good faith discussion about weak spots in individuals' scholarship, or a school of thought, or the scholarly community at large. In fact, scholars challenge eachother all the time and in this way help keep eachother honest. Scholars are humans and suffer from cognitive biases like everyone else, and so should not let their guard down, BUT... the critical methodology and the culture of "how do you know that?" tends to be subversive of various biases; whereas the apologists' method generally starts with a presupposition (like the Bible's inerrancy) and argues backwards - making confirmation bias a prominent feature rather than a bug.
@barryrichins9 ай бұрын
Dan I have few heroes, except for my mother and my wife, but I have a number of people I admire for their conscientious scholarship and minds. You, my I-wana-be-your friend, are one of those I admire. Mostly by accident, I spent ten years of my life in higher education; If there ever was a rough stone rolling, I had to be one of them; Kicking and screaming, I learned to admire good teachers, good teachings and good thinkings. You, Dan are the type of scholar I learned to and still do admire. In my bestest scholarly language, may I say, "one helluva academic." I wonder, Dan, If you might view an interview I did on the backyard professor podcast with Kerry Shirts, in which I share my observations on the Roman civilization and the so-called Lehite one, suppossedly contemporaneous. After viewing episode 125, and if you find it worthy of your level of discussion, perhaps we might become colleagues.
@JacarandaMusic13 күн бұрын
I love you use ‘data’ as a plural properly.
@garrgravarr9 ай бұрын
Love your work and commitment to truth, Dan ❤
@tomdukowski9 ай бұрын
Thank you for this.
@QuinnPrice9 ай бұрын
Apologists are a wild group. They attempt to frame and blame only to hide the weakness of their argument.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
As a former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist I liken it to being in the role of a defense attorney, in respect to the evidence. It is parsed not with the objective of going wherever it leads, motivated by a desire for the truth, but rather to find whatever could be used for the case. Imagine that attorney passionately believes they already have the truth regarding the innocence of their client, to a degree that compels them to prioritize their defense over rhe data. And that doing so is morally the right thing to do.
@jamescutler4283 ай бұрын
Probably the best take down Dan (or anyone else for that matter) has ever done. I can’t even imagine what it would be like for an inerrantist to listen to this and try to respond.
@skyinou9 ай бұрын
So many of these "creators" seem just allergic to science. It's weird.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Not when you consider that they begin with the conclusion, i.e., biblical literalism, and thus are allergic to any and all data which contradict their worldview. I know. I was one of them. The allergy manifests itself in the cognitive dissonance, and resultant headaches.
@Matt_The_Hugenot9 ай бұрын
Special pleading and double standards. They have to smear anyone they fear.
@Tjstube329 ай бұрын
A master class in critical reasoning, logical arguments and how to spot the never ending apologetic arguments based on misinformation.. well done Dan we appreciate your dedication🖖
@DrKippDavis9 ай бұрын
@04:42 Graduate School at Trinity Western University shout out! Represent.
@thirdmaskstudio25119 ай бұрын
One of the best vids you’ve made in a while. More like this please.
@wendyleeconnelly29396 ай бұрын
Love this. Hope sometimes you will do more vids explaining scholarship and how it works.
@Noneya55559 ай бұрын
Pathetic that Christian apologists need to misrepresent evidence to make their point. The fact that this creator takes seriously a work meant as satire is telling.
@huntervalls86909 ай бұрын
I think the thing about this video that should possibly inspire the most confidence in your motives is the fact that you are doing everything you can to protect the original creator from a viral criticism onslaught, from the note at the beginning of the video to not even linking his content anywhere here. I have no idea who he is or how to find him (perhaps some do). You yourself are levying the appropriate academic criticism in an extremely mature, non-combative and unemotional way (seriously, you hold back several times when you could have blasted him) rather than provoking an army of followers to simply attack this person. This clearly shows you are not posting this as retribution. Your motive, as you state in your intros, seems to simply be to correct misunderstandings. That being said, I would love to hear the rest of your responses to what he said but can't seem to find them.
@munirone9 ай бұрын
Wow! Just amazing! Wow! ❤
@pineapplepotato69859 ай бұрын
Most epic roast of the decade thus far
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Dan drops the mic in such a soft spoken, controlled, rational manner. Makes the sound of the mic hitting the floor even louder. 😁
@michaellong57145 ай бұрын
Years ago, I read a book titled 'The Pooh Perplex' which was purely satire. It was purported to be a collection of 5 different theses on critical scholarship of Winnie The Pooh coming from 5 different (ok 12 actually) authors and their respective viewpoints (or scholarly intent). The first two were obvious - Marxist/Leninist, Christian Religionist, then from a College Freshman lit course, and i now forget the other two. I found it absolutely hilarious, and realized that it was all to easy to adhere to a particular viewpoint - whether valid or not - and then turn any action, words, or situations into support for ones' viewpoint, if one searched enough. I haven't read whatever the original creator was waving about, but just mentioning Winnie the Pooh, and I immediately remember the book. (sadly, I 'loaned' the book to a friend, and shortly he moved away before I could retrieve it.)
@pgbollwerk9 ай бұрын
Outstanding sir
@bubbaclean94419 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@mckayheaton54659 ай бұрын
Something I struggle with is that the conclusions are only as good as the data we have and the methods we use. However, those are always changing as we get new data and develop new methods. I mean look at pretty much all scientific pursuits. #RIPplanetputo I definitely respect the work and goals of critical scholarship, lots of what Dan has said has really forced me to confront my presupositions and help me arrive at a richer spiritual faith. But it's hard to totally put my trust/faith in these systems that speak so confidently about it one way now but is guaranteed to change its tune. I'd really like to understand how people in the scientific and academic communities view that issue.
@michaelfuller349 ай бұрын
It is hard to accept that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about most things. We have a perspective from where we examine things, we come up with what is most probably the truth, but in science, there is always room for new data that may upset the apple cart.
@toniacollinske25189 ай бұрын
I don't believe good scholars ever say something is absolutely true. Dan says "the data indicates". Just as we discover and recalibrate our understanding of the universe because we now have the Webb telescope. We had good info before, now we have better.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Former ordained Christian minister and passionate apologist here. I see it as empiricism vs. faith and intuition. The teleological, Kalam, etc. arguments are intuitive. Even Dawkins was forced to admit that. Accepting the reality of biological evolution was a little emotionally chafing, since it was my chief nemesis. Intellectually, not so. The observable evidence, including speciation, is overwhelming. I'm finding it more difficult to wrap my mind around what I'm learning about the concept and properties of emergence. Probably moreso due to my ignorance of the subject, but also because it's not nearly as intuitive as design. Re: empiricism vs. faith: As an apologist defending a OEC (Old Earth Creationist) stance, I would resort to quote mining, rhetorical sophistry, special pleading, etc. I knew I was. The cognitive dissonance was discomfiting. Now, I no longer fear ANY evidence, nor where it might lead. Also, I now am much more demanding and critical in terms of the substance and validity of the evidence. Essentially, it's a matter of how one responds to the data. Accept or minimize, explain away, etc. I'm sure you're aware that many Christians accept biological evolution and yet retain a belief in God, including many scientists in the field of origins. I don't belong to that cohort, but I know that the more fundamentalist one's background, the more challenging it is to accept the science on origins. I wish you the best on your journey.
@mckayheaton54659 ай бұрын
@@toniacollinske2518 A lot definitely comes down to how the conclusions are communicated. A tough job in a market that rewards less nuance and more clickbait.
@mckayheaton54659 ай бұрын
@@kentstallard6512 thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve gone along I’ve definitely grown more comfortable examining data that challenges my current understandings so I feel like I hear you there. I can’t say I’m 100% versed in the field of origins, I don’t recognize most of the names and concepts you brought up. But I was raised in a place, at at time, and went to a church university that doesn’t have a problem with concepts of evolution coexisting with a divine being. Maybe that’s why that one in particular has never bothered me much from a faith perspective but I’ll continue learning for sure.
@grendlsma9 ай бұрын
You have a talent, man. A very important talent.
@GrandMaitre-zm3yf9 ай бұрын
Sarcasm is hard to convey in written form.
@kentthalman44599 ай бұрын
You heard it directly from batman.
@chrisose20 күн бұрын
When apologists start saying your position is dogmatic or "just another religion", you know you are on the right track.
@basilkearsley26579 ай бұрын
And other great one Dan
@billirwin35589 ай бұрын
It is always good to hear from 'real scholars' about their work and methodology. To even question Christian Apologists 'dogma' results in vicious fallacious attacks that are simply unwarranted. And that sort of ignorant attack discredits Christianity as a whole in my opinion.
@SimonDaumMusic9 ай бұрын
As always, spot on Dan
@BillyYonaire6 ай бұрын
There it is 🔥
@BluStarGalaxy9 ай бұрын
The projection that some people have. Dogmatic apologists claim critical scholars are actually the dogmatic individuals. Christians claim that athiests are actually the ones that have faith. Hilarious.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Yep...that's the tactic of last resort when the evidence has them backed into the corner: false equivalence, Tu Quoque fallacy, etc. 'You non-believers are just as religious as I am, and rely on faith as much as I do!' Pathetic.
@BluStarGalaxy9 ай бұрын
@@kentstallard6512 I have heard a Christian speaker say, "Everyone has faith. You had faith that the chair you sat in would hold you up." This argument is flawed because we know that other people have sat in the chair and it has held up and that it is constructed in a way that will be supportive. If it was not, it would have been replaced by a good one. If I build a chair and test it, I am not putting it on faith that it will work, I am making a logical assumption. Totally agree on what you said.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
@@BluStarGalaxy Exactly.
@user-gk9lg5sp4y9 ай бұрын
When one has to lie, to one's self first and foremost, to protect presuppositions, as apologists so often do, one might just consider rethinking.
@tawneenielsen40809 ай бұрын
Dan is the best
@stephenleblanc46779 ай бұрын
I think the batman scholar is better looking... that's my dogma. The other stuff is too complex for me.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Holy Indifference, Batman! 😄 Not snarking....I liked your post.
@drjtrekker9 ай бұрын
Great lesson and video. Love the apologetics to the apologists!
@user-og2wt3le4j9 ай бұрын
Interesting discussion. I would be interested on what criticisms Dan has about the Book of Mormon.
@stormy81109 ай бұрын
OH NO!! Not exposure to Critical Thinking!!! NOOOOO!!! 😂😂😂
@LPRH2469 ай бұрын
This guy's microphone looking phallic
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
😅 Now look what you've done...the fundamentalists will read your post and claim that Dan is the "branch" of Ezekiel 8:17. 😂
@jram_8999 ай бұрын
Amazing! Great video
@chaiman37619 ай бұрын
Apologists - conclusion guides the data
@moontrack46259 ай бұрын
I always think the word Pentateuch sounds like a cuss word…
@TigerLilly44959 ай бұрын
I'm curious Dan, I know your scholarship is in the Bible, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the Book of Mormon. I'm in the middle of trying to figure out what to do with it and would love to hear your perspective.
@richardhunter1327 ай бұрын
I don't know why apologists don't just take the position that they accept critical scholarship whilst maintaining that it doesn't disprove the idea that the texts were divinely inspired. they just look like fools otherwise
@thundercatt52659 ай бұрын
Sounds like he just hating on Dan nothing more that's why it makes no sense
@byrondickens5 ай бұрын
To paraphrase Dr Justin Sledge, if you let your beliefs dictate your scholarship, you betray both of them.
@BobJohnson-bx1vs9 ай бұрын
Apologetics are like little kids in the sandbox and most often loose arguments with good scholars. Apologetics have some disdain for truth and all you have to do is watch some of the big churches on TV. There's one pastor who crows and wants a big war in the middle east. He's that rather large fellow that idolizes eschatology. People like Dan bring out the truth of the Bible, the who, the what, the when and where. To me, scholars have allowed me to have a stronger faith.
@sketchygetchey82999 ай бұрын
Apologetics trying to throw cheap shots at Dan. So petty!
@FlyingFox868 ай бұрын
This sounds very similar to the old "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer", in the sense that it is calling things the opposite of what they actually are in an attempt to level the playing field. The same happens here by calling something, that is expressly not dogmatic, dogmatic. Apologists really like to turn things on their head, whether it makes sense or not.
@TheMesomovie9 ай бұрын
You weren't hard enough on this guy. How does he think we even get translations of the Bible, divine inspiration polyglot style? Without critical thought, the very meanings of the text would be lost.
@stephenlitten17899 ай бұрын
The apologist critic has not even done an introductory historiography course. Language changes, societies change, societal beliefs change. Even a read of Genesis 1 indicates the Bible has been nailed together from different sources/traditions.
@JustErics1019 ай бұрын
How could it possibly be? Christian apologists are often dead set at starting at a conclusion and then working backwards to get it, while secular scholars are not bound by such presuppositions. Everyone has a bias sure, but it seems Christian apologetics have more bias on this subject.
@Cloudryder7 ай бұрын
🔥🔥🔥
@attitudeblack56623 ай бұрын
So my question is, though true that prophecies and miracles are something that data cannot govern and can only be taken as a dogma which we choose to accept but is/are there any scholarship studies on what are the parameters that makes a text divine and if those parameters are fulfilled then whatever the text says should be accepted? Thanks.
@ColinBurch49 ай бұрын
Did I miss the link to the Kevin Carnahan video that Dan mentions at the end? I can't seem to find Carnahan's response amongst his videos, but I would love to see it. Help?
@RobertSmith-gx3mi6 ай бұрын
Has Doctor Frank ever claimed he doesn't have enough faith to be a biblical scholar?
@BB-tm3sx9 ай бұрын
It is wrong to be a little extra critical of scholars that are employed by institutions that have statements of faith that carry consequences for violating the statement of faith? I mean, we ought to be be critical of, well, everything I reckon, but sometimes I can't help but notice motives...
@kcthorne59699 ай бұрын
Personally I feel like your question and your use of the word "wrong" may stem from a moral judgement about your distrust of the context. If so, the answer is no. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical and nothing wrong with challenging your biases. Considering potential motives or bias instilled by the instituion for which a scholar works is simply part of considering context. Could someone be biased by their own affiliations or those who employ them? Of course. If they are genuinely applying critical scholarship they are asking the same questions of themselves all the time. Its also possible for someone to not be remotely biased by their affilliations, employer or even their own personal beliefs. Consider that until the start of 2023 Dan was employed by the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He's even written papers challenging certain long held Mormon interpretations and beliefs. And no, his work isn't why he left corporate church employment. He left because his social media career is bangin' successful. He's still an active member of the Mormon church while also being an exceptionally knowledgeable Biblical critical scholar.
@SawySauce649 ай бұрын
For someone out of the loop: What's an MDiv?
@maklelan9 ай бұрын
Master of Divinity. It's a type of master's degree you usually get from a divinity school.
@oldpossum579 ай бұрын
Frédérick Crewes, an English professor, gained fame by writing a satirical parody of various critical approaches, normally used for serious literature, applied to A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh. The Pooh Perplex. It is good fun. Decades later, Crewes did a much nastier satirical parody of more reçent critical methods, called Postmodern Pooh.
@raydunn82629 ай бұрын
Do you think critics of critics wonder if they have become worst whovthey are crititzing. Least those whom they are criticizing have experience. These prople should find jobs where they make a difference, not just sprout their halfass thoughts.
@chables749 ай бұрын
A lot of “rejecting authorship” isn’t even really that; nothing about the books of the Torah themselves would lead you to believe they were written by Moses, for example.
@velkyn19 ай бұрын
not "dogmatic" the christina tries to use that word and uses it incorrectly. The word he wants is that critical scholarship uses facts and he doesn't like that. He has to plead for "charity" for his baseless nonsense that not even other christians agree with.
@martinanderson173725 күн бұрын
This is the entire problem with their revelatory epistemology, you have no avenue to challenge the arbitrary exemptions we allow the privileged texts to posses.
@blairmcian9 ай бұрын
You are too kind when you stop at calling apologists' claims "caricatures." The term "lies" would fit well.
@joelmouton93659 ай бұрын
If the guy he is responding to is not an educated scholar with peer reviewed research why should we care what he thinks.
@Jeewanu2169 ай бұрын
Because that would be an argument from authority. Just because someone is educated formally or informally, or has peer review papers, doesn't mean they're right. In the same way, just because someone is uneducated or hasn't published, doesn't mean they're wrong.
@joelmouton93659 ай бұрын
No but people that have an education or formal training in a given subject tend to no more and are more trustworthy. It’s also a way of filtering information. I require peer review and education on professional and formal topics unless the individual is siting a professional. The same way when I have a medical issue I don’t ask my mechanic.
@KhalerJex9 ай бұрын
The guy simply doesn't get science.
@2023betterresearch9 ай бұрын
Long due video
@patriklindholm75769 ай бұрын
Nope, it's just more honest.
@righty-o35859 ай бұрын
OK, but to be fair, the authors of those Bible books are not actually known, as there is no legit evidence that any of those people even existed.
@Uryvichk9 ай бұрын
But to be counter-fair, obviously SOMEONE existed to write these books. It's sort of like how, even if we aren't sure that anything Paul tells us about himself is true, there was a guy who authored all the genuine epistles and that guy, for all intents and purposes, is Paul. The author of Daniel is known to not be Daniel, but the mere fact he isn't Daniel and that we lack evidence of who he was doesn't mean he didn't exist. It just means some guy existed who wasn't Daniel and wrote the book as a singular author. There WERE people behind these works, but most of them seem to have vanished into the legends told about them or been subsumed by legendary figures.
@jeffmacdonald98639 ай бұрын
@@Uryvichk You could argue however that Paul wasn't really Paul if analysis of the Pauline letters led to the conclusion that they couldn't have been written in the time and context they're about. Like, if one person wrote them, but he was clearly writing 100 years later, long after the early spread of Christianity, but was writing from the point of view of the character Paul who'd established many of those early Churches among the Gentiles. Paul is both a writer of texts and a character in those texts who played a role in early Christianity. If those aren't the same person, then Paul the writer isn't really Paul the character. The same basically holds true for the Gospel texts. The same dude wrote Luke and Acts, we're pretty sure about that, but that doesn't mean that he's, for all intents and purposes, Luke. Luke the companion of Paul is not "Luke" the gospel writer. Now, if there's a text with a traditional authorship, where the traditional author doesn't figure in their own text or elsewhere in Biblical (or Church) history, then it would make sense to say the author of that text was really, for all intents and purposes, that person, since there's nothing else known about them, but authoring that text. If we had a Gospel According to Bob that just told the story as Bob knew it that would make sense. But I'm not sure we have that anywhere in the Bible. Not in the New Testament, since apostolic authorship was one of the things those setting the canon considered.
@grahamjones54009 ай бұрын
Unlike God i can actually seen all the Batmans, but Ben Affleck is not Batman.
@Satans_lil_helper9 ай бұрын
🖖🏾🤘🏾✊🏾
@lde-m86889 ай бұрын
Which is more likely, a book made over time, for many reasons, by many people or GOD made all this? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebra.
@BracesForImpact6 ай бұрын
Hah, hah! Well if we allow reality to dictate our research how will we reach the conclusion we've already decided upon? 😂
@mr.zafner82959 ай бұрын
Stirring
@MegaDejok2 ай бұрын
I was thought documentary hipothesis at theology college by a proffesor who treated it as a dogma. I am glad that that dogma is debunked.That was just one of numerous protestant hilarious dogmas. Protestants constantly change their beliefs but they allways insist that the newest one is the right one....Also,when you say dogma, you have to be specific: is it christian dogma or antichristian dogma,.....
@jessica.bell.0006 ай бұрын
Making short sharp videos that are straightforward debunkings of false claim make the most sense. The claim is X, but in actual fact it's Y, very simple get in and get out. But once things get more complicated and nuanced -- this is not a serious argument, this is a parody, but it's not a good parody, because it strawmans it's target -- it might make more sense to slow down and explain it carefully instead of rushing through it in just 90 seconds.
@bargle81819 ай бұрын
I am a lapsed Mormon and no longer believe the Church’s core truth claims. I’m honest enough to say that up front. Dan should stop calling himself a “faithful Mormon” if he rejects any divine origin for the Bible or B of M. It’s profoundly dishonest.
@Jaggerbush5 ай бұрын
Im so confused by this guy.... Is he religious?
@HangrySaturn4 ай бұрын
He's Mormon.
@mrdevonscook9 ай бұрын
Hmmm. Lots of finger pointing going on here. I think both sides have some legitimate complaints. What I really want to hone in on, however, is Dan's assumption that the academic approach he is using (higher criticism) is objective and superior. Dan's academic approach is fundamentally skeptical, meaning it prioritizes empirical evidence and rational argument to substantiate claims. Academic skeptics take evidence that can be seen or touched or otherwise apprehended by the senses (or extensions of the senses like a microscope), and make reasonable claims from that evidence. That word "reasonable" is really important. Skeptics are always going to argue for what is most likely based on their own experience and will always hold a heavy bias against anomalous events, or events that are exceptions to the patterns of everyday life. They also tend to be heavily biased against any kind of metaphysical or supernatural evidence that might be brought to an argument, because those types of evidence are not empirical. Dan obviously prefers the skeptic worldview, but let's not pretend that his worldview is objective and unbiased. A great example of this bias is the claims made about Jesus' resurrection. Dan and other skeptics will immediately throw out the possibility of Christ's resurrection because the event is both unreasonable and anomalous. All our understanding of the physical world points to it being impossible, AND it only happened once. This is something that, at it's core, would be incredibly difficult for a skeptic to accept as true. But this skepticism heavily biases people like Dan against the evidence. If we had the same number and kind of sources that we have now attesting to Christ's resurrection, but they were about a meal he had on a Tuesday, Dan and his colleagues would all accept that meal as a historical fact. Entire theories of ancient anthropology have been built on far less evidence. I have seen huge sweeping claims made based on the discovery of a few stone idols at an archaeological site. When Dan says "the data do not support that," he is simply stating the lack of empirical evidence for a particular claim. What is hidden behind that statement is a bias which says, "If physical proof doesn't exist, then I am going with an explanation which assumes no supernatural intervention." The data absolutely do support the claim that Christ rose from the dead, but they don't prove it. So Dan's says some other explanation of the evidence is more reasonable. But none of the claims of higher criticism can be "proven" either. It's easy for a Christian to apply the core ideas of such criticism to the Biblical text; they will just be working from a different bias with different core assumptions. These videos would bother me far less if Dan simply acknowledged his bias and just said, "I don't believe it. I don't like the Bible and its truth claims and I'm looking for empirical/rational explanations for the Bible as a cultural text devoid of any true divinity." Religious people are not dummies. They don't magically lose their rational faculties when they come to faith. Yes they are biased. But so are you.
@14Sciteach9 ай бұрын
I beg to differ. I don't think you can accuse someone of "finger pointing" when they're maturely defending themselves against clear, direct criticism from someone else. Everyone has a right to defend themselves without being negatively characterized. It may sound like finger pointing because, unfortunately, the person who originally levied this criticism was using fallacious, sometimes laughable logic (a fact you didn't acknowledge amidst your criticism of Dan's logic). You're seeking to invalidate Dan's methodology as a whole and therefore his entire work and the entire field of critical scholarship (but not the methodology of the person who criticized his work, despite acknowledging “finger pointing” and “legitimate complaints” from on BOTH sides). That's a GIANT attempt, and it therefore doesn't inspire confidence in what you're saying. In your comments you have not successfully addressed a single point Dan made in this video. This is a common tactic - even lawyers in courtrooms do it. Instead of directly addressing evidence presented, they spend much time seeking to paint a defendant or witness as incompetent or biased or something like that. Because they realize, as you seem to, that as humans we unfortunately tend to prefer characterization over evaluation. It's easier to characterize a person with a negative label or tribe identification than to actually evaluate the evidence they're presenting. Because if I can slap a negative label on you, I don't have to exert effort to evaluate what you say. On a basal level, it's not much different than an argument between two children devolving to the level of, "Well, you're stupid!" "No, you're stupid!" Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), people from the opposite camp often are right, and they often present valid claims; denying this fact is one thing that impedes bipartisan efforts. As you pointed out, it seems you feel that Dan is characterizing religious people as "dummies." But he never says that, and that's not his purpose. I used to be religious, and I had the same rational faculties I have now - I don't think Dan's main thrust is to accuse people of not using rationality or to change their rationality. The difference, for me, was not being irrational - I’ll agree with you there. The difference was being exposed to historically accurate information as opposed to being shielded from it and even presented with information in religious contexts that was blatantly false. When I was exposed to accurate information, my rationality was able to use it to draw different conclusions than I had before.
@wheat32269 ай бұрын
Resurrection only happened once?? I guess you don't believe then the evidence supports the resurrection of Lazarus.
@mrdevonscook9 ай бұрын
@@wheat3226 Lazarus was raised from the dead by Christ. No one was there to raise Christ from the dead. Also, according to Christian theology, Christ was not only raised from the dead, but he was raised never to die again. Presumably, Lazarus eventually died of old age. The point still stands regardless. Both events defy reason from a skeptic's point of view.
@wheat32269 ай бұрын
@@mrdevonscook And you believe all other religions supernatural claims? And I thought God was there to raise Christ from the dead.
@DavidAlastairHayden9 ай бұрын
So are you okay with singular supernatural instances as valid data when those instances are from Hinduism or Islam? Or only in the text you prefer? Scholarship and skepticism are not the same thing, though in some ways they are similar.
@MyMy-tv7fd9 ай бұрын
CS Lewis wrote and essay or three about this - when he was an Oxford undergrad Homer had been debunked and assigned to any number of authors - but by the 1950s Homer was back and nearly no so chopped up. Most famously he wrote 'Fernseeds and Elephants', which exactly desribes the reductionist trivialism of Wellhausen/DocHype proponents which Danny boy so perfectly represents here and now
@gregorsamsa52519 ай бұрын
This video literally pre empts and thoroughly debunks your comment. Not sure why you waste time posting this if you're not even going to engage with the content of what you're supposedly responding to.
@jedidiahpaschall10409 ай бұрын
The ignorance of this comment is so loud my ears are burning. There’s clearly wiggle room on how the composite structure of the text is understood with several prevailing theories of how the Pentateuch was put together. But, even inerrantists like Michael Heiser and John Sailhammer acknowledge that the Pentateuch is a composite text (with a Mosaic core). And, contemporary advocates of the classical understanding of the DH are hardly confined to theological liberals, as relatively moderate and even conservative Christians and Jews have come around on this particular point to varying degrees. Even if one holds to some form of Divine Inspiration of the text, its composition, and its recognition as canonical (which I do BTW), this need not be subverted by critical scholarship simply because this is beyond the purview of its methodology, and because such claims are not falsifiable. If anything critical scholarship has liberated faith communities from the laconic, ossified, and categorically incoherent nature of fundamentalist literalism. All to say, you need to go do some more homework bro. There are plenty of believers who welcome and benefit from critical scholarship.
@pansepot14909 ай бұрын
C’mon everyone knows that Homer was inspired by the muses, Calliope in particular. 😊
@jedidiahpaschall10409 ай бұрын
@@pansepot1490 clearly the best inspired rage poetry of all time. And, who wouldn’t want to spend a little time knocking around on the wine dark sea and stumble upon the lovely Circe for a spell?
@Uryvichk9 ай бұрын
CS Lewis was not a theologian, philosopher, scholar, or textual critic. CS Lewis was an author of bad fantasy and mediocre science fiction. He had a very high opinion of his own philosophical perspectives (having reasoned himself into his laughable position), but very little perspective on anything that serious scholars were considering. He is a layperson whose assertions appear convincing to laypeople, but he would not be agreed with even by conservative religious scholars who know better. Also, even if the Iliad and Odyssey have a single author, it doesn't make Homer real. Moses never existed even if a single group of priests composed the Torah. God never told Moses anything because there was no Moses to tell anything; whether God inspired whoever actually wrote the book is another matter, but it wasn't Moses (God doesn't write books though).
@joestfrancois9 ай бұрын
Ok, all wives are different, and I am speaking from a 21st century North American perspective, but if you really are married, I don't think your wife would be happy with the wrinkled shirt on your youtube channel. Dude, if you are doing your own laundry, fold it right out of the dryer.
@boboak91689 ай бұрын
Other prudish types would be alarmed at the lack of collar, but hey, you do you with your particular hang-ups on dress code. I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt.
@joestfrancois9 ай бұрын
@@boboak9168 wrote "I’d prefer a wife that is responsible for having just mauled those wrinkles onto my t-shirt." True that, but we don't even know if there is a separation of duties in that house. This ain't OT times, but I cut the grass, take out the trash and do the dishes, my wife does the clothes. It seems to fall that way often.
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
Irrelevant.
@VirtualBilly9 ай бұрын
The inherent problems with "higher criticsm" (aka "historical criticism"), despite the romanticized name, are that it's an approach to BIBLICAL scholarship specifically, not to "interrogate all kinds of literature," and that because it isn't taught until well after you've been indoctrinated, it comes with a very high potential risk for confirmation bias. The Winnie the Pooh paper may be satire, but that fact by no means makes this entire method any less questionable in and of itself.
@DavidAlastairHayden9 ай бұрын
I was a religious studies major. I can’t speak for everyone but there was no indoctrination before I learned higher criticism. We learned to follow data not presuppositions. I’ve also seen the technique applied to literature and myth.
@VirtualBilly9 ай бұрын
@@DavidAlastairHayden Your faith undermines your pretense of non-bias.
@DavidAlastairHayden9 ай бұрын
@@VirtualBilly What faith? I have zero faith except where data leads me. And it has lead me in different directions over the years. I questioned my teachers and their methods because they encouraged me to. I am okay with uncertainty. It’s not a pretense.
@VirtualBilly9 ай бұрын
@@DavidAlastairHayden You just defended a fundamentally religious study method that was developed by religious people to study religious evidence, and now you’re asserting that you have no faith? Look up the word “introspection” and talk to me again when you’re less confused.
@zurielsanmartin17149 ай бұрын
Apologists don’t really believe in Jesus or what he taught. They’re more interested in using the Bible as a means to justify their Fascist worldview.
@evangelicalsnever-lie97929 ай бұрын
💯👍
@Christian_Maoist.9 ай бұрын
What does that even mean? Lmao
@kentstallard65129 ай бұрын
So everyone has the wrong version of Christianity but those who agree with you and your interpretation? Your post proves Dan's point: the Bible is not univocal. Thousands of Christian denominations, one Bible.
@zurielsanmartin17149 ай бұрын
@@kentstallard6512 I am not a Christian. The Bible is most definitely not Univocal or inerrant. My comment was just a thought I had when I compared the behavior of apologists to the supposed behavior of Jesus. It more or less seems like they are becoming what he preached against. They are the new Pharisees.