Thanks as always for watching, Hassan! I enjoy how clear and concise McClellan is. He doesn't appeal to emotion either, just hard facts for the most part.
@@SecularSpirit I was surprised to hear you say he is Mormon. It never ceases to amaze me how we humans are able to compartmentalise contradictory ideas in our heads.
I'm glad you're discussing Christian apologetics. They're very similar to Muslim apologetics. I wonder how they determine which book is more special if they both have this "miracle"
Even from the off Peterson goofs, referring to the bible as a 'book', when it's actually a collection of many different books by different authors - of course they would reference each other!
The multi-colored graphic Peterson refers to is meaningless. Who cares how many times a particular chapter or verse in the Bible is referred to or connected? It doesn't make the Bible any more true or relevant.
We should all critically examine our beliefs. Yet most of our knowledge is inaccessible to such critical analysis: it isn't acquired by direct experience, but through the echo chamber of the education system, the mainstream media and social discourse. We mostly don't want to critically examine our beliefs, but rather go along with what is socially accepted as the norm. We soak up what we are told through mainstream sources, or the government or the experts. Especially if that expert claims "I am science". Crirically examining scientific theories is certainly beyond the reach of the layman. This is left to the scientists who are assumed have no agenda other than to unravel the mysteries of the universe. But they, like us, are corruptible human beings, desiring recognition, status, acceptance and grants. Particulatly if their research is funded by big coorporations that have much at stake. The scientific method, if uncorrupted, may overcome individual shortcomings. But absolute faith in this as the only key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe precludes a serious and deep understanding of ourselves and the universe by any other means. Even to the point that spiritual quests for such knowledge are relegated to the primitive practices and beliefs of less rational people. The stigma of being labelled as such is so strong in the scientific community that serious tier one scientists won't even touch anything considered paranormal. And rarely will we ever hear of such research. And God forbid if you point out the serious flaws in the chemistry of the origins of life, even if you are a highly published and respected chemist. You will be labelled a creationist. Or accused of making the argument of the "God of the gaps". In other words you are demoted to a lesser being, someone swayed by irrational beliefs and therefore untrustworthy. Perhaps its time to put predujuce and fear aside and be open to the wisdom of ancient cultures. Experiment with spiritual practices: yoga, meditation, pranayam, Bhakti yoga etc. Here the individual can experience and critically assess the joy of such practices. As free spirits we should continue our own quest for a deeper understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe without fear of reprisals from those whose spirit has been calcified by a meaningless dry atheistic world view.
Totally agree with you that dogma and bias can creep into the scientific process. I think if we ever reach the point, no matter what the realm, that we refuse to consider any other possibilities, then we're asking for trouble and it can lead to ignorance.
I could be mistaken, but I think McClellan used to work as some sort of academic within Mormonism, but stopped doing that job when his own academic studies came into conflict with the dogma of the Mormon Church. I rate him as an intellectually honest academic - but I get why you are uncertain about how his own faith works. I don't think he would ever assert that his beliefs are 'true'.
Thanks for those insights on McClellan, Ben. I agree, I rate him as very honest academically, and I sense he may have his own unique faith that he doesn't expect anyone else to believe. I'm curious to know more about if he had potential conflicts with the mainstream Mormon community.
I've seen McLellan a few times on Mythvision Podcast. A great channel btw, if you want to dive deep into non-apologetic Christian scholarship. I think McLellan is trying to be intellectually honest, though I suspect a certain amount of cognitive dissonance and emotional attachment prevents him to take it a step further. As for the beautiful graph, I wonder how it would look if the software was let loose on the Quran. Or the Bhagavad Gita, or Dianetics. Would that 'prove' these writings are also miraculous and 'divinely inspired'? Would that make Hinduism true, or Scientology? 🤔
I do enjoy Mythvision quite a bit! And you ask a very good question: if the Quran has an even more complex and beautiful visualization (subjective I know), does that mean the Quran is "truer"??
This is one of those moments where I ask myself, are they lying/omitting truth to help justify their pre-set conclusions, or are they actually so absorbed into their theology that they believe the things they're saying.
Always my question with many of them. I have that debate all the time with friends about Ben Shapiro, for example. My personal opinion is that they aren't lying, they genuinely believe it, but for unsound reasons if that makes sense.
@@SecularSpirit That's usually the conclusion I end up reaching, but sometimes it gets hard to justifying that. So far there's only one muslim figure that I can't justify sincerity for.
He’d say “Does it matter?” As an atheist carries no weight of “acting responsibly” with them for they have no punishment. And 99% of what they consider “moral” is likely derived from Christian teachings they pretend to disregard. I’m not especially religious, but I always have to laugh at the grasping at straws atheists pretending their morality is somehow derived from nature. What a laughable concept; totally and purposely ignoring thousands of years of religion that literally shaped civilization. People who think such ways are stuck in a sophomoric hole of retardation and self-aggrandizement.
There is NEVER going to be any proof of God's existence in any religious book - so any miracles, graphs, relationships between whichever words etc wouldn't or shouldn't mean a thing to any genuinely religious person, even if they were there (they are not). The 'proof' of God's existence is Kant's moral proof. Btw Christianity and Islam are very different religions, Christianity is very ethical (even though we can find some wrong things in it), Islam is not. Thanks for the video.
@@SecularSpirit Kant's God, the one that makes our moral conduct justified and meaningful. That God is described and understood in 'revealed religions' (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on) but only to some extent, not fully. So nothing to do with 'which God/religion is true'. Btw Kant's 'proof' is not a common proof but the understanding which makes our faith meaningful and different from superstition.
@@chr_my Understood, thanks. I'll have to do my own research to figure out how that proof leads to a God existing. It sounds like an unnecessary presupposition at first glance.
@@SecularSpirit Just a friendly remark, Paul_Guyer_Kant is the best intro to Kant imho. Kind of uni level intro book, not easy to read but comprehensive and written well. Some time ago I heard a Muslim guy in a debate saying that beating your wife is ok 'because the Quran says so'. NOBODY can explain anything to such person without the help of Kant's philosophy.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent analysis! I enjoy Dan McClellan's shorts.
Thanks as always for watching, Hassan! I enjoy how clear and concise McClellan is. He doesn't appeal to emotion either, just hard facts for the most part.
@@SecularSpirit I was surprised to hear you say he is Mormon. It never ceases to amaze me how we humans are able to compartmentalise contradictory ideas in our heads.
I was quite surprised too. In his defense, while he doesn't mention it often, he doesn't hide it, it's right there in his videos for anyone who looks.
I'm glad you're discussing Christian apologetics. They're very similar to Muslim apologetics. I wonder how they determine which book is more special if they both have this "miracle"
They determine it through "faith". And as many have said, you can prove anything with faith.
I was going to say Mormon Podcast Stories interviewed him a few weeks ago. That channel can have dynamic interviews.
Good to see you.
Good to see ya too! I have one of his appearances on Mormon Podcast Stories bookmarked, looking forward to it 😁
Even from the off Peterson goofs, referring to the bible as a 'book', when it's actually a collection of many different books by different authors - of course they would reference each other!
Agreed, all the links between them isn't as remarkable as he makes them out to be honestly.
The multi-colored graphic Peterson refers to is meaningless. Who cares how many times a particular chapter or verse in the Bible is referred to or connected? It doesn't make the Bible any more true or relevant.
It definitely seems like low-hanging fruit that's meant to look pretty and to be quickly shared amongst Christians to affirm their beliefs.
We should all critically examine our beliefs. Yet most of our knowledge is inaccessible to such critical analysis: it isn't acquired by direct experience, but through the echo chamber of the education system, the mainstream media and social discourse. We mostly don't want to critically examine our beliefs, but rather go along with what is socially accepted as the norm. We soak up what we are told through mainstream sources, or the government or the experts. Especially if that expert claims "I am science".
Crirically examining scientific theories is certainly beyond the reach of the layman. This is left to the scientists who are assumed have no agenda other than to unravel the mysteries of the universe. But they, like us, are corruptible human beings, desiring recognition, status, acceptance and grants. Particulatly if their research is funded by big coorporations that have much at stake.
The scientific method, if uncorrupted, may overcome individual shortcomings. But absolute faith in this as the only key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe precludes a serious and deep understanding of ourselves and the universe by any
other means. Even to the point that spiritual quests for such knowledge are relegated to the primitive practices and beliefs of less rational people.
The stigma of being labelled as such is so strong in the scientific community that serious tier one scientists won't even touch anything considered paranormal. And rarely will we ever hear of such research.
And God forbid if you point out the serious flaws in the chemistry of the origins of life, even if you are a highly published and respected chemist. You will be labelled a creationist. Or accused of making the argument of the "God of the gaps". In other words you are demoted to a lesser being, someone swayed by irrational beliefs and therefore untrustworthy.
Perhaps its time to put predujuce and fear aside and be open to the wisdom of ancient cultures. Experiment with spiritual practices: yoga, meditation, pranayam, Bhakti yoga etc. Here the individual can experience and critically assess the joy of such practices. As free spirits we should continue our own quest for a deeper understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe without fear of reprisals from those whose spirit has been calcified by a meaningless dry atheistic world view.
Totally agree with you that dogma and bias can creep into the scientific process. I think if we ever reach the point, no matter what the realm, that we refuse to consider any other possibilities, then we're asking for trouble and it can lead to ignorance.
I could be mistaken, but I think McClellan used to work as some sort of academic within Mormonism, but stopped doing that job when his own academic studies came into conflict with the dogma of the Mormon Church.
I rate him as an intellectually honest academic - but I get why you are uncertain about how his own faith works. I don't think he would ever assert that his beliefs are 'true'.
Thanks for those insights on McClellan, Ben. I agree, I rate him as very honest academically, and I sense he may have his own unique faith that he doesn't expect anyone else to believe. I'm curious to know more about if he had potential conflicts with the mainstream Mormon community.
I think I remember him mentioning being an artist and his art running afoul of the Church.
Interesting...now I'm curious to see this "provocative" art 😅
@@SecularSpirit
yeah. Obviously I can't speak for him, but I get the impression he doesn't exactly share the same moral views as the Church.
@@bensweiss
that is incredibly intriguing.
Great video as usual. I can’t get over how popular Peterson is, he says so much without saying anything.
And thanks as always! Now imagine watching his entire lecture series 😅
@@SecularSpirit wouldn’t survive it! 😂
I hope you and your family are doing okay in light of current events.
Thank you. We are okay. I'm preparing a video to share my thoughts about what's going on, it's a lot to process.
I've seen McLellan a few times on Mythvision Podcast. A great channel btw, if you want to dive deep into non-apologetic Christian scholarship. I think McLellan is trying to be intellectually honest, though I suspect a certain amount of cognitive dissonance and emotional attachment prevents him to take it a step further.
As for the beautiful graph, I wonder how it would look if the software was let loose on the Quran. Or the Bhagavad Gita, or Dianetics. Would that 'prove' these writings are also miraculous and 'divinely inspired'? Would that make Hinduism true, or Scientology? 🤔
I do enjoy Mythvision quite a bit! And you ask a very good question: if the Quran has an even more complex and beautiful visualization (subjective I know), does that mean the Quran is "truer"??
This is one of those moments where I ask myself, are they lying/omitting truth to help justify their pre-set conclusions, or are they actually so absorbed into their theology that they believe the things they're saying.
Always my question with many of them. I have that debate all the time with friends about Ben Shapiro, for example. My personal opinion is that they aren't lying, they genuinely believe it, but for unsound reasons if that makes sense.
@@SecularSpirit That's usually the conclusion I end up reaching, but sometimes it gets hard to justifying that. So far there's only one muslim figure that I can't justify sincerity for.
Who is this Muslim figure? I'm curious
@@SecularSpirit bruzzar asked a very good question.
He’d say “Does it matter?” As an atheist carries no weight of “acting responsibly” with them for they have no punishment. And 99% of what they consider “moral” is likely derived from Christian teachings they pretend to disregard.
I’m not especially religious, but I always have to laugh at the grasping at straws atheists pretending their morality is somehow derived from nature. What a laughable concept; totally and purposely ignoring thousands of years of religion that literally shaped civilization. People who think such ways are stuck in a sophomoric hole of retardation and self-aggrandizement.
What about
James tour channel?
Perhaps for a future video!!
@@SecularSpirit ok thanks for that!
Bestsellers? So were the Celestine Prophecies!
There is NEVER going to be any proof of God's existence in any religious book - so any miracles, graphs, relationships between whichever words etc wouldn't or shouldn't mean a thing to any genuinely religious person, even if they were there (they are not). The 'proof' of God's existence is Kant's moral proof. Btw Christianity and Islam are very different religions, Christianity is very ethical (even though we can find some wrong things in it), Islam is not. Thanks for the video.
Out of curiosity, when you say God is proven by Kant's moral argument, which God are you referring to?
@@SecularSpirit Kant's God, the one that makes our moral conduct justified and meaningful. That God is described and understood in 'revealed religions' (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on) but only to some extent, not fully. So nothing to do with 'which God/religion is true'. Btw Kant's 'proof' is not a common proof but the understanding which makes our faith meaningful and different from superstition.
@@chr_my Understood, thanks. I'll have to do my own research to figure out how that proof leads to a God existing. It sounds like an unnecessary presupposition at first glance.
@@SecularSpirit Just a friendly remark, Paul_Guyer_Kant is the best intro to Kant imho. Kind of uni level intro book, not easy to read but comprehensive and written well.
Some time ago I heard a Muslim guy in a debate saying that beating your wife is ok 'because the Quran says so'. NOBODY can explain anything to such person without the help of Kant's philosophy.
@@chr_my Thanks!
Canada owes us an official apology for Jordan Peterson’s rise to fame
Canada has a lot to apologize for lately, I'm still not over Harper 😅
@@SecularSpirit My limited American mind just calls him the “legal to sell, illegal to buy” guy
@@potts995 Like many conservatives, he was the master of contradiction 😂