Are Christian Scholars Biased?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2022
- A common claim among non-Christian scholars is that Christian scholars are biased and we have to presuppose dubious motivations behind any find they present that could support the Bible. But what happened when we dive into the psychology of the bias all scholars have? A special thanks to sociologists Kenneth Vaughan and George Yancey for reviewing this video and helping with the research.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
#Psychology #Hebrew #Science - บันเทิง
The REAL question is "Are Christian Scholars BASED?" The answer, of course, is yes.
lol
Dropped this 👑
There's a video on this channel called "Are Atheists Biased?", that always looks like "Are Atheists Based?" to me at first glance. So now it's equal.
Based
Where are they BASED out of? My vote is Langley from where they are dispatched. 🤪
Yeah we’re all biased it’s unavoidable
"The New Atheist Denial of History" and "Icons of Evolution" are a couple of books that show examples of atheists being highly biased when approaching historical or scientific topics
...oh yeah? Go find a valid question which can be explained with greater probability by a biblical claim of deity than other possible explanation.
@@HegelsOwl With you asking that question, I don't think you understand what these books are about. They show that atheists have skewed facts or have made up examples to solidify their positions. These books aren't saying "The Bible is right", they're saying that deception has been used to help stonewall any criticism or debate on certain historical or scientific topics
Are the "findings" in those works generated by comparative studies? If so, what methodology do they use to rule-out their biases in the selection of facts and valid questions? What valid question, in fact, do they begin with, that should be of interest to Science?
@Rizimar ... oh, I see: No methodology, no valid question, so one-plus-one, here, still equals, "Hateful, blustering, Bible baboons."
Okay, yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. And why is that so predictable, sir? Big mystery?
@@HegelsOwl Well, I have one. How did the Universe came to be from absolute nonexistence without an external force/intelligence and without violating the principle of causality?
I’m convinced that when people point to bias, they really mean there’s a conflict of interest.
yeah i agree, bias is ALWAYS present, it's just something u gotta take into account
No. Those are completely different terms.
Please find something to offer the world besides ignorance.
"Bias" is just a way of dismissing an argument without confronting it. There are _some_ situations where you have to do this, such as if someone brings up a study or article from a radical and unreliable website/magazine/etc. and you're arguing in real-time. To dismiss an entire _group_ as biased is to just declare victory without fighting.
Well said
I think it is fair as long as the concept of bias is handled from a statistical sense. For example if you were able to find a strong correlation of one population being more likely to come to a certain but differing conclusion than another group based on analysis of the same evidence then yes, bias is a fair and accurate term.
It is wholly disingenuous to start the a scientific process with conclusions ahead of evidence. This means that both Christians and non Christians must be aware of their own presuppositions and account for them appropriately when undertaking any kind of research- and must be equally prepared to challenge them.
It’s a fancy and sophisticated ad hominem
I agree that bias is a logically invalid way of dismissing an argument without confronting it. That being said I do think bias is worth bringing up when Christians argue using appeals to scholarly consensus such as, for example, the argument that we should believe in the resurrection because 75% of New Testament scholars believe in it. The fact that 75% of of New Testament scholars believe in the resurrection isn't that impressive considering the fact that 90% of students going into New Testament Studies programs start out as Christian, so for most of the New Testament scholars who believe in the resurrection there was already a bias towards believing in Christianity in the first place.
This argument isn't to say that a decrease in the percentage of scholars believing in the resurrection proves the resurrection is false, just that the fact that 75% of scholars believe in the resurrection can easily be explained by bias and doesn't necessarily mean the evidence for Christianity is good.
@@worldviewdetective9456 That's because scholarly consensus is a fallacious argument no matter what is being argued for, whether it's Christianity or Climate Change. There might be some times in a real-time argument where one has to appeal to a consensus or authority because you can't go through every nuance to prove one point of an argument and sometimes "everyone knows that..." has to suffice, but it's not ideal.
These channels remove every doubt from my views on Christianity.
Seriously?
What are your views on Christianity?
@@wakkablockablaw6025 Read my original post for this video that begins with "Hello." That will make my views clear about the Abrahamic religions. Peace.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I was talking to turkeyguy. peace
@@theoskeptomai2535 sure whatever. But Islam is not an ABRAHAMIC religion despite their claim. It's like Abraham was walking down the road, minding good own business and a random grown ass man claims Abraham to be his father, not knowing that an Arab is claiming ancestry from an Egyptian mother Hagar. Quran is just a bunch of plagiarized trash.
This claim is nothing more than straight-up prejudice. Can’t wait to see this elaboration though
Don’t dismiss these scholars just because they’re Christian, actually take a look at the evidence that they offer. So many times, I and other brothers and sisters in Christ have offered evidence from Christian scholars and atheists have dismissed them simply because of their religious beliefs instead of actually evaluating the evidence that they present, and then they have the hypocrisy to recommend atheist scholars and I know they would freak out if I just dismissed them because of their atheism. It makes you want to rip your hair out sometimes.
Exactly
So dismissing the divinity of jesus because of a lack of evidence is being biased against Christianity? Not believing should be a starting point for any claim.
@@rabbakahn Strawman much? When that alleged lack of evidence (an assertion I don't grant you) is because one is a materialist, yes.
@@TheEngineerd Alleged lack of evidence? What is this evidence you posses that had never been shown to convince non-believer? I would like to know so that I could believe as well.
...oh. You have evidence, you say? But, sir, you do not have a valid question to be explained to validate that alleged evidence.
To say you are not bias is proof of bias. Everyone has their world view to get in the way. Scientist can be very bias when it comes to trying to prove their hypothesis. They will often ignore something that doesn't fit their belief. Or dismiss it outright.
Exactly...
I guess you don't understand the scientific process very well. They were good scientists despite Christianity, not because of it.
@@TheJimtanker I think you have a lack of historical knowledge with that statement. The man that coined the very phrase " the scientific process" was a Christian.
@@randywise5241 Yes, and did good science DESPITE being a Christian. The bible is FULL of anti-scientific claims. To believe that the bible is infallible is to be anti science.
In science a hypothesis is not just simply guessing. To simply guess is a personal assumption from an individual's own perception from limited information and is not valid science. A hypothesis is, in fact, an educated guess based on limited known facts and evidence that can be tested with study, observation, and experimention and absolutely falsified if it indeed really is false up to that point until further analysis reveals complete proof of that hypothesis, until then, it would still only remain a theory. And science is not based on any faith at all, just factual evidence only. Faith is based on no proof or evidence.
Science is not bias at all, people are, science is just a methology of study, it proves or disproves---period. The scientific methods are purposefully designed to eliminate bias because every study must be objectively verified and there must be a way to prove it wrong if indeed it is. Accuracy and accountability are the hallmarks of study in science, no exception. Inaccuracies are put to the test constantly until obvious evidence bears accurate findings that are factually true or false indisputably. And science is for the purpose of educating and discovery for human advancement, it's methodology of study is designed to eliminate any falisies or errors.
As an opening premise, there’s no such thing as an unbiased participant in theology from either a religious or philosophical standpoint. I would not trust a pagan or an atheist to speak about Christianity and I wouldn’t trust a Christian to fairly weigh other religious practices. The best which can be said must be said by those who live it best and then one can compare those superior testimonies for that which enlivens the soul.
Good video. The amount of scholarly and statistical evidence was compelling to me as a Christian. There is one form or source of bias that you lightly touched on but perhaps needs a deeper mention. Even hedons believe that their assumptions about reality warp their reality and experiences. They use the term, “Attraction.”
There seems to be enough play in “free will” to allow people to create bubbles around themselves which respond to their world view and they are not constrained in how they interpret the consequences of such a bubble. This doesn’t change for Christian’s or Atheists.
A Christian may see sin and consequences in a different way than an atheist which sees peoples choices and the stresses upon those choices as not being divine but societal. Therefore as they return to intellectual endeavors they will use this real life experience and how they see it to harden their views on what they will see as the root (positively or negatively) for reality and its aspects. This bias will exist even if they have told nobody about their life and views which in many aspects create their life’s perspective.
That said, one also need to weigh in on the possibility of deception or cult like behavior that chose to present the world view in a deceptive way
@@elguan737 granted, there are genuine villains to account for but I tend to think of them as outliers in this contract. I was addressing the subject with the more equitable thought that the reason people are not seeing eye to eye and slinging unnecessary stones is not malicious but self created paradigm driven, as it grants the possibilities that this video essay is arguing is possible within the Christian construct.
@@poetfrost agreed. I just hate it that sometimes these outlier makes it so much harder to understand the validity of others because we are is a constant state of doubt.
...huh? That's unintelligible. As intelligible, it's meaningless. Try saing it differently, maybe.
Well I mean it's not like atheist scholarship is going to be any less biased when they really want to destroy the faith.
some act like that.
@@Hhjhfu247 his name for me has become Dick Carrier and I won’t acknowledge his doctorate because of his insane nonsense. Look up criticism of Richard Carrier. People who are atheist historians get attacked by him for not agreeing with his views. (Lies)
@@Hhjhfu247 Spacesperm theory...Lol
@@Hhjhfu247 Why are people all of sudden "pseudoscientific", just because thry don't live up to your beliefs/opinions?
I'm glad you tackled this question, Mr. Jones, and I am humbled everyday to recognize that I have my own biases, and that everyone else has biases. I acknowledge it as a part of being fallen creatures, and that only the Father is free of bias.
Correct only Jesus is free of bias
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica , in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out if these things were so.
1 Thessalonians 5 :21, John 4;24, Romans 1:18, Isiah 55 :8, 2 Peter 3 :14-18
All material interpretations are bounded by metaphysical presuppositions.
Exactly
Are atheist scholars biased?
Someone should had told Newton, Euler, Leibniz and countless others that their faith commitments preclude them from making good science.
😂
You mean back when you couldn't get published without agreeing in the bible myth?
@@TheJimtanker you are missing the point by a mile and a half
@@moisessalazar4432 Then please explain it to me in very simple terms so I can understand.
@TheJimtanker I was refuting the modern atheist assertion that if a person held a faith commitment somehow that person is less able to held rational or scientific sound arguments. I just point case and historical evidence against that. The Genesis account and other controversies weren't mention by IP or my myself!
IP you are doing this Lord's work with this one. Thank you 🙂
Thank you
@@InspiringPhilosophy are you an atheist ?
Hell no
I’m biased in loving the knowledge I’m gaining from your videos. Another great one IP!
Nowhere near as biased as anti-Christian scholars
Hello there Triple P. I hope all is well. When is a new video popping out? I am looking forward to the next one.
@@computationaltheist7267 In the not-too-distant future
...ah, there you are!. Long time, no see, Mr. PPP. Did you ever manage to find a valid question ( i..e., one generated by an anomaly of intrinsic interest to Science) which can be explained with greater probability by a biblical claim of deity, than other possible explanations? Of course, you're aware (aren't you?) that if no such question exists, Christianity can be, and should be, dismissed as a fairy-tale...Right? -- You know that, right? So, again, what question have you managed to come up with? You know, ol' buddy, I've been quivering on the edge of my seat waiting for this! Have you at least come up with a question that only an actual historical Jesus can explain, so that we don't have to dismiss his historicity as s fairy-tale?
@@HegelsOwl Ah, welcome. Are you able to provide evidently that you're capable of rational thought?
The fact that you're even entertaining the idea of his existence being up for debate at this point is good indication that you're not. Come back when you've educated yourself in history
@Purple Pill Philosophy. You know, I really wasn't sure it was you, till you spoke with nothing but immature ad homs, "as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in MacBeth's bleak world. All you need is a question, instead of pretending that you're a philosopher.
Digging the background music. Not sure if that's your "theme" music for historical stuff, but it is a nice touch.
Brilliant video. Thanks for picking this topic, IP.
Thank you
Great video! Quick mention, there is a mistake at 17:24 where the Hebrew word eleph is incorrectly rendered as ףלא instead of the correct rendering אלף. Minor mistske overall, great video!
One of the first thing I learnt about academia is that you should be aware that everyone has a bias. If you write a papre you should be aware of your bias.
If you don´t, you unwillingly misconstrue things, work unprofessionally.
So pointing out that Christian scholars might have a bias is correct. Definitely.
But this doesn´t mean that all their work is twisted, the informations so strongly sifted to support their position that you shouldn´t read their works.
And it doesn´t mean that instead of reading these biased Christians, you should read the scholarly work of "unbiased" Atheists, Muslims or whatever.
This is a lazy intellectual trick. These people have biases, too.
We have to analyze each work on their own merit, not on the merit of a group.
And even biased works can have strong arguments. It just means that sadly these strong arguments are weakened due to the bias in information used.
This lazy intellectual trick is honestly annoying.
Very well said.
@@regpharvey Thanks!
Science doesnt speak for itself, scientists speak. Aquinas i think Has a good quote about this.
Superb video. I was thi king recently of christian anti-bias in culture and academia and wondered how enraged they'd be if I called them christianophobs, yet Im the intolerant one with my beliefs. Not to mention the legacy of Christianity - modern science & upside-down kingdom
For the record, I called them Christophobes before it was cool. 😉
@@caleblott399 ah dang. Am late to the party
What is upside-down kingdom?
@@malirk first will be last, last will be first basically
I have to agree with this presentation, and I would say a good job.
Ya know, I’m something of a Christian scholar myself.
IF God is real
IF the Bible is real and true, and says the truth
Then good theology IS good history.
If a person leaves and has a supernatural experience outside the faith they'll return. Give them time, give them time. Whoever reads this and feels touched by it, know the Lord hasn't forgotten you; keep praying and trust in him.
There is no bias from non Christian scholars? Of course they are! Everyone has a bias.
One of the biggest problem I have is the statements of faith that can prevent biblical scholars from acknowledging or teaching things that would go against the belief of the institution they work at. So by acknowledging things like evolution or inerrancy of parts of the Bible could result in them losing jobs or their position with the institution. This could prevent honest and true research.
IP, you are the best!
No you
Hi there, interesting briefs. Can discuss about the Cadaver Synod?
I'd love to see your take on academic Statement of Faiths. I think this is the most obvious example of how many of these Christian scholars are working under obviously biased conditions. For example George Fox only hires Christians (to be expected), however they also require them to commit to a statement of faith. An excerpt:
_The Bible. We believe that God inspired the Bible and has given it to us as the uniquely authoritative, written guide for Christian living and thinking. As illumined by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are true and reliable. They point us to God, guide our lives, and nurture us toward spiritual maturity._
I find it very hard to expect rigorous and unbiased inquiry when you scholars are committed to stating the Scriptures are true and reliable. A quick search shows some of these statements even go so far as to require you hold true that the bible is inerrant!
Saying Christian scholars are biased because of their commitent to proving the Bible to be true is like saying Evolutionist scholars are biased because of their commitment to proving the Theory of Evolution to be true.
Hypocrisy at it's finest and also contradictory on their part. I thought looking at the evidence involved looking at other people's perspectives and evidences they have.
Before watching, anyone with an agenda should be taken with scrutiny and at the very least “trust but verify.”
we all have biases and all need to admit them to have any chance of getting to unbiased truth.
0:30 What Kipp Davis said can also apply to him funnily enough.
Perhaps a better approach is to ask if the evidence presented by the other side are convincing enough to change my thinking on the subject.
Anyone who proposes such a notion is either ignorant of basic logic, in this case the genetic fallacy, or knowingly trying to deceive others.
Yes, I was going to mention the Genetic Fallacy as well.
During my Psychology major classes, it was apparent that everyone is biased. No scholarship or science is without bias.
I have a 2 question
First question:
Is the raelians'interpretation of the bible correct? According to the raelians, the elohim referred to in the bible are extraterrestrial scientists from another planet and not a supernatural God, because according to the raelians the true meaning of "elohim" or is "those who came from the sky". and also according to them the creation in the bible is not supernatural, it is scientific creation using the advanced technology of the extraterrestrial scientist (genetic engineering).
the founder of raelism religion is claude vorilhon, claude vorilhon said he encountered ufo and alien and introduced the alien and he is said to be the elohim that the meaning of "elohim" is those who came from the sky ", he the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, they just mistaken God because the ancient Israelites and prophets, could not explain the miracles they saw and they thought it was the work of God, but they did not know that it came from daw yun sa advanced technology ng elohim (extraterrestrial scientist), claude vorilhon say elohim gave the correct interpretation of bible
An example of their interpretation,
in Genesis 1:1 they say
"Is our world literally "created" as written in this verse or does it have a deeper interpretation with a science theme? the word "created" is not only for creation from nothing because creation from there can also be called created. The point of this verse is that our planet was discovered and organized and was not created from nothing like magic. So the author of genesis wrote the word "created" instead of "discovered" is because the ancient Israelites did not yet understand about astronomy and the solar system so they just assumed it was created by God (scientist from other planet) "this is what they said
They even say that the miracles of the prophets came from the advanced technology of the extraterrestrial scientist, they said the prophets only though that was a power of God because they dont know the advanced technology, and they also said that what moses spoke to on the mountain of sinai were aliens using the advanced technology, because moses did not yet know advanced technologies, he only mistaken God for what he saw, and they also say that Jesus Christ was an extraterrestrial scientist
I want to know if their interpretation of genesis is correct, and they said that the God in the bible is an extraterrestrial scientist because the word "elohim" in bible has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but its plural, which means "those who came from the sky", and they said that God in the bible is an alien, prophets only though that was God with supernatural power, because they dont know the advanced technology
Its that true?
This is the full video link of their interpretation in genesis
th-cam.com/video/mJCVH8ysDUM/w-d-xo.html
And this is the whole testimony of founder of raëlism
sites.pitt.edu/~dash/rael.html
And the second question
other say that Jesus is an extraterrestrial being. and they said that the miracles of Jesus came from advanced technology of extraterrestrial being. and they also say that the heaven or kingdom of God that Jesus says, is an extraterrestrial planet, and they said in Jesus birth the star in Bethlehem is came from the ufo, Is that true?
this is their interpretation for Jesus
th-cam.com/video/TTV5roAatVE/w-d-xo.html
And this is another one
th-cam.com/video/m-R1_b1QiBk/w-d-xo.html
Every human being is biased. Our senses provide far more data than our concious minds can hope to handle. Our biases are necessary to simplify things for our physical survival, and generally work quite well in that regard. However if we don't know they are there and what they are doing for us then they become our masters not our servants.
Good point. Also, insisting on a dichotomy between ''natural'' and ''supernatural'' explanations is misleading. I would contend that everything is ''natural'' as it is impossible for anything to exist outside of nature. It's just that our understanding of natural laws and processes is incomplete.There truly is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy.
I'm definitely sure everyone has a personal bias towards something, and it helps if that person once heald that view point like an ex-atheist, muslim... but at the end evidence is evidence so it just depends if the Christian isn't lying, or the atheist... and ofc whether they have the actual evidence and are better prepared on their case so depends I guess.😁✝️
I have Dr. Kitchen's and Dr. Falk's books in my bookshelf. Like they are among the best of the Biblical Scholars out there.
It really depends on the denomination. One can be educational extensively in the wrong way to perceive things.
IP really appreciate all you do, can you do a video on 1st Clement or The Martydom of Ignatius. I've been doing a little research and find these writings authentic, biblically sound, and inspiring.
What do you mean?
@@InspiringPhilosophy I suppose I want to know why they are not in the Bible, and are they truthful. Are there skeptics who consider those writings to be fraudulent (except for 2 Clement)
Do biblical scholars consider the writings to be inspired?
The fact that Ignatius and polycarp were direct disciples of John and both to me makes them very important figures and also adds to the credibility of scripture and gives it more authenticity and assurance of why we believe what we believe.
Hope that makes more sense.
@@bizmanpatrick214 in the ignatian epistles one, he speak of Jesus in a very non New Testament way but with more certainty he has a non biblical view on the bishops or elders in the church, opting for a single bidhop over all while the Bible has a polarity of elders. It’s directly against what the nt teaches
@@bizmanpatrick214 plurality* of elders
@@jordandthornburg Thank you for the clarity on The epistle of Ignatius.
1st Clement however does not seem to contradict the new or old testament (atleast from what I could tell) and is very epistle-like.
But I would agree that most other works from the early church fathers are best left outside the Bible because of doctrinal differences. But they still contain good historical content.
I NEED to know the name of the background music
If anyone walks into this question in honesty then there isn't any bias because one would only be looking for truth no matter the outcome
If anyone says they are bias free, or that the group that they vehemently disagree with has more bias than them (Which doesn't that hint at a kind of bias?), rest assured, they are liars or delusional fools.
Is the word bias necessarily a bad thing?
I agree we all have biases
As a progressive Christian, I deal with this a lot because there is a belief that all Christians are inclined to simplistic political views, which they get at the pulpit. People imagine that all Christians take a literalist view of the Bible as well. I think the media promotes this idea out of hostility towards Christianity in order to dismiss it. I also tihnk some Christians represent the faith poorly with some of their attitudes and wordly values such as materialism.
As a regressive Christian I agree.
@mysotiras 011 well when you got evangelical constantly telling you that what your doing is going to end up putting you in hell and hanging that over people head could lead to resentment
3:10 As I was listening to the possibility of bias, due to 90% of applicants are Protestant Christians,
I remembered funding for climate change research was granted to 90%+ of researchers who viewed global climate change as antrhopogenic.
Hey inspiring theology could you do a series on Anthony buzzard the biblical unitarian i think hes a false teacher denying the diety of christ and i could use some clarification
Hello there,
I agree that we all have biases and make no mistake I'm a Christian too, I was a young earth creationist. Don't take this the wrong way but even though I departed from such a thought, I nevertheless welcome their arguments in certain topics. Of course, on the one hand I may feel a little strange because of some of the things they say concerning certain events in the Holy Scriptures, they on the other hand offer me also things that make me think in a way that confirm my old earth creationist self. I like my mind to have a sense of 'fluidity' even with such a held belief. Another thing I like to point out is that because of the mistakes I made during the early stages of my defenses against not only atheism but also other faiths presenting a counterfeit gospel hence a counterfeit Christ, I tend to warn them never to do this or that bias because it wouldn't do him and more so to the both of us reach our conclusions otherwise I'll have no choice but to leave him a piece of advice and leave him be.
Thank you and God bless you.
The *jewish* scholar Pinchas Lapide, accepted the resurrection as a historical event.
He was NOT a Christian and he was NOT an atheist. He was neutral, as far as the resurrection was concerned.
Do I need to say more?
@@Hhjhfu247
The *jewish* scholar Barrie Schwortz, accepted the Shroud of Turin as the authentic and genuine burial cloth of Jesus.
"Deconverted". That's a new one on me. The Book of Hebrews describes it as follows:
Hebrews 6:4-6 - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Deconverted means more than mere backslidden. I was backslidden but, thanks be to God, I was not "deconverted". His mercy endureth forever!
I never trust Christian authors......which is really awkward cuz I'm a Christian & when I read what I write I don't trust it.....wait a minute!!! I wrote this..... soooooo....
Don’t dismiss them just because they’re Christian, take a look at the evidence that they offer and see if they’re right or not.
@@Nameless-pt6oj I think he was joking.
How do you find these papers?
Try to reverse search them online, I usually just type key words used in papers cited, the authors name and pdf in a search bar and something usually comes up alternatively you've actually gotta purchase these papers sorry about that. 🙏
Books exist
everyone has (a) bias/es
yes
Tabor and Carrier is pretty much an irony in this.
Tabor has some kind of classic Baur-esque belief that Paul changed Christianity and when his book examines an evidence to the contrary like Peter eating with Gentiles, his answer is an odd 'this is contradictive on what we knew about Peter' but we never knew much about Peter at the first place in the Pauline Epistles.
Carrier is even more ironic that he is an activist, so his worldview strongly is anti-Christian. He still buy to that Dark Ages - Rennaisance thing is a proof he's a whiggish preacher.
There's more of non-religious scholar that's probably a bit of irony as well, to name it like Robert M. Price and Thomas Thompson, the latter actually quotes Jesus Seminar is too 'CONSERVATIVE'.
I kept in reading this as “are Christian scholars based” yes. Yes they are.
Everyone is biased toward what they already know.
A Possible Answer To Life's Biggest Question “What is the meaning of life”...
Understanding that since we are made of exploded Stars and it's Dust. We somehow have become at least one way the Universe has come to know ITSELF...
Hello InspiringPhilosophy! I have a question. Is it true that Jesus spoke of Hell more than Heaven? I heard that this was FALSE as Jesus Spoke 3% of Hell and 10% Of Heaven. Let me know! Thank you.
I am one of them who is doubting Christian scholars and archaeologists and their evidences.Can’t wait to see it.Will there only be physological evidences,How about other evidences.What kind of evidences will you include in the video.
Evidence is evidence
@@Tzimiskes3506 okay.
Yes, I'll go over some studies. The video is live now.
@@Hhjhfu247 yes.I became skeptical because atheists are now attacking them.
@@InspiringPhilosophy okay.That’s a nice video.
Depends on what kind of Christians.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Give me my popcorn 🍿
The non-Christian Bible scholars I follow (and the Christian ones too, for that matter) all admit that everyone (themselves included) have interpretive lenses that shape the way they interpret the Bible. That said, especially when you read the interpretations of the non-Christian ones , you can see that any commitment to the view that the Bible is inerrant (and that it is internally consistent across all its books) is going to put ne at odds with the bulk of non-Christian scholarship, where those assumptions are not in play and where much of their work seems (to me) to focus on places where they think the Bible has made errors, where they believe different books mean different things inconsistent with modern beliefs, and where they believe "post-biblical" ideas are being retroactively read into the text (like the concept of the Trinity). But, taking the view that the Bible is not univocal and/or that it contains errors in its history and descriptions is no less an interpretive lens.
Appreciate your candour in admitting your bias against 'young earth creationism'. From what you said it sounds like you hold science in high regard and therefore accept the evolutionary timescale. The whole point of evolution is to explain the universe and natural world without a creator god.
But consider the scientific method and how well evolution fits against it, just how scientific is evolution really?
Look into the assumptions used for the dating methods. I'm a little sceptical about a dating method that will date a lava flow know to be from the 1700's at well over a million years old.
And of course I'm sure you're aware of the theological issue with having billions of years of death and struggle before the fall.
U gotta tell the truth, whether it contradicts ur beliefs or ur way of thinking.
I blame the really loud annoying ones that like being on TV...
I would like to see a similar study about other religions. Especially Islamic ones.
Michael Jones" excellent video presentation our videos series make my faith even stronger, Michael how I can contact you ?
Would you say that theism is A priori comprehensible and that Christianity is A posteriori comprehensible? What would you say is the best and recent Paper or Study that I can look upon to read? I've heard a lot of Atheists assert that theism is childhood indoctrination 🤔
Then they would have to find a reason for several famous Christians. Voddie Bauchum, C.S Lewis, Michael Heiser
@@jasonlambert2226 On mass, atleast superficially it seems to be the case that the belief in God is childhood indoctrination. I could just cite a few Atheist converts too as examples, but I don't think that matters.
Crediting James White with acknowledging textual variants? It is an indisputable fact that textual variants exists because we have said manuscripts and can count. Patting someone on the back for agreeing with that fact sounds disingenuous unless I am misunderstanding what you meant in this point.
Bias is an understatement
As a Christian, I noticed that I began to think that Atheist scholars are more intelligent and objective, and I even started to pay less attention to the Christian scholars. This video helped me a lot. Technically Atheist are biased too. Thanks IP.
It's not technical. Atheists are bias in the very same way as the Christians are. It just a different theology they are biased towards.
Atheists love to portray their own observations as objective and neutral while everybody who deviates from them has to explain themselves. But who said that they are the ultimate judge of truth?
Their claim to truth is that they only observe naturalistic processes while non-Atheists also propose additional things. Einstein said that we should make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. If the supernatural truly exists, then if someone excludes half the possible explanations just because of their naturalistic precommitment then they will be so biased that they are never able to make a correct statement of anything that is not in the field of phyiscs.
If christian scholars don't take into account the patristic interpretation of the scriptures and by that I don't mean Augustine only, but the eastern fathers as well as the western, and also church tradition, then their work is only petulant mind gymnastic.
How can naysayers claim that there's no diversity among xtian analysis yet also object to the 30+ thousand some denominations?
Can you trust researchers on Christianity?
What is the value of paying attention to non-believers interpretation of scripture?
What is the value of paying attention to anti-Christians interpretation of scripture?
One value might be that it helps when engaging with unbelievers who do pay attention to them.
The value is in the fact that we could be wrong. Most people believe they are right about these things and therefore close down their minds to what would demonstrate they aren't actually right. To maintain a rational belief system it is imperative that we give counter arguments and evidences a fair shake.
@@blusheep2 sounds more like nieveity to think that the closed minded and agenda against Christianity driven people can add an valid value when their acertions, and presumptions are untrustworthy and flawed to begin with.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but the research on Emotional intelligence is shoddy at best.
emotional intelligence is mostly general intelligence+extraversion. I do believe the semi spontaneous, "anti formalism" (anti liturgical) forms of worship favored by most evangelical congregations strongly encourage extraversion, perhaps to the point of discouraging people with less extraverted personalities.
I've long sinced stopped checking whether people are biased or not. Of course everyone is biased. That's not the point. The point is this: whose bias is useful and constructive for the work that's being done? And when it comes to biblical scholarship, Christian bias is the most useful and constructive bias one can have.
It's not like there are many atheists out there looking for biblical evidence, is it? Who are the ones constantly digging, constantly examining, and constantly reading in search of biblical evidence? It's Christians, isn't it?
So an atheist is the least important and meaningful person to consult concerning biblical scholarship. That would be like consulting a vegan on the nutritional value of meat. If they give you a helpful answer, then they won't actually be a vegan, will they? In the same way, the day that an athiest actually says something helpful or insightful or meaningful with regards to biblical scholarship, will be the day that I call him a Christian, or at least a fraud athiest.
But I even wonder what an athiest hopes to gain by spending years of his life arguing that something that he doesn't believe is false. But of course, many of them do actually make lots of money from that by convincing lots of people to waste their time reading or listening to why they shouldn't believe what they already don't believe. They do write bestsellers after all.
Would that mean that people who study ancient Greek or Egyptian mythology have nothing to contribute unless they believe in the mythology to some degree?
Also the reason why some atheists are so committed to disproving Christianity is because Christianity is very wide spread and impacts our laws and communities. If one person believes in unicorns, few people would care, but if the majority of your community believes in a faith that you believe is false and that impacts the culture, and the legal system you are subjected to, that is cause for concern. In addition, evangelical christians and mormons seek to convert and spread their faith, which often puts atheists in direct conflict with them.
@@august4114 As I said, everyone has bias. And bias is basically a set of preconceived beliefs about a subject.
Picture a mathematician who does not believe that numbers hold any real significance for example. How good a job do you think he can he do in understanding and teaching advanced mathematics? Or picture a scientist who does not believe in the theory of evolution, and keeps ridiculing it in public every chance he gets. Would he be your primary source if you wanted to learn about evolution?
Would you pick a Christian scientist who believes in creation to instruct you in the theory of evolution? So why would a biblical student pick an atheistic biblical scholar to instruct him about the bible?
Bias is inevitable in all walks of life, but there is bias that is useful, and bias that is useless or counterproductive. If I want to learn about Islam, I will attempt to consult an Imam with a reputation for being strong in the Muslim faith. If I want to learn about Americans, I will not consult a North Korean who hates America; I will consult a patriotic American who is knowledgeable about all things America. To me, this is common sense.
And lastly, after I have consulted whomever I am consulting, I will conduct personal experiments by myself to test if what has been said is actually true. The only way to discredit Christianity, is actually to practice it, in order to say "I did all that the bible said I should do to the letter, but nothing happened according to what was written". But how many athiests can actually say this? I'm yet to encounter even one athiest saying "I sought God with all my heart, but did not find Him; I loved my neighbour as myself, and this was such a horrible experience for me that I now believe that God does not exist". No, it's usually: "No, I haven't read the bible because it's not true" (well, then how did you come to the conclusion that it isn't true)? "No, I haven't sought God, because I don't believe He exists" (how did you come to the conclusion that He doesn't exist before even looking for Him)?
Their thought process is this: "God does not exist, so I won't even seek Him; and see, until today I have not encountered God, therefore He doesn't exist." This is similar to the thought process of many who are unemployed, for example. They say: "Jobs are hard to find, so I won't bother looking for a job; and see, until today I haven't found a job, so this proves that jobs are hard to find; I was right all along." You see, it's preconceived bias which leads to preconceived or predetermined conclusions. So in the same way, if you consult an atheistic "biblical scholar", do not be surprised that you came to the conclusion that the bible is not to be trusted.
You may have covered social sciences and humanities, but what science? They claim objectivity in their research, and are the ardent proponents of naturalism. Also reject Christian or faith-based research. Can one say they are “less biased” than others? My instinct is to say no, but the STEM fields tend to argue they are objective. What’s your take?
Study like a Berean. Study to shew thyself a workman well approved.
From memory so maybe not exactly the correct wording. Love from Britain 🇬🇧♥️
Wow, I thought the first comment would be a closeminded atheist response of “Yes”
John Dominic Crossan is shown when this video says non-Christian scholars, but he is one of the most prominent living Christian theologians today. Also, Rudolf Bultmann was a Lutheran and one of the most prominent Christian scholars of the 20th Century. Many of the others mentioned or shown are Christians or began as Christians and remained so when they did their work, only to later move away from the faith. Is the concept being promoted here that one must be an American-style Evangelical Christian to be truly Christian? If so, then most of Christians through the centuries were not Christians and only those who have adopted a uniquely recent American style of Christianity are "real" Christians. I'm not so sure about this video.
Literally everyone has a theological bias. One way, or another.
Everyone is biased... and so are you for not thinking so.
I didn't say they were not
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think he might be addressing people in general who may have that view, probably not you specifically. Love this video btw!
Also not all Christian scholars are evangelicals or believe in inerrancy
Can you give us studies that you are sure, biased against Christianity? Or atleast in historical point of views that you think are true or not or just pure absurdity because it does not support Christianity?
There are two types of researchers, there are those researchers that honestly want to research all the data from reliable sources to learn and to educate, without any bias whatsoever, only factual information from real evidence for the purpose of educational knowledge and advancement of mankind. And then there are those researchers that are trying to defend or support a particular agenda, such as politics, religion, or conspiracy theories of sorts. And will distort, rearrange, or misinterpret real factual information to fit their agenda
To think that all the centuries of proven studies and accumulated accurate knowledge of the educational system as a whole has been misinformed, duped, and wrong is a grotesque assumption of a weak mind. There's just too much evidence in favor of science to rely on mythology and religion for the answers that the methods of science will eventually discover later, as it has countless times already, as we continue to advance in education and not religious apologetic misinterpreted pseudoscience.
Belittling someone for their biases are just engaging in ad hominems
There’s going to be biased research on both sides of any argument and that’s just a fact.
Let God be true and every man a liar!
I don’t see an easy solution to this issue. Ancient history is so unreliable to begin with that even most secular history is basically just glorified guess-work backed by a fancy degree. But whichever worldview you come to history with, you will be motivated to interpret it in a way that fits with what you already believe.
Woah, timeout! Hold my beer! IP: an ex-Young-Earth-creationist? 😬Yo… dats a secret I would keep to my grave…
Jokes aside, you might have been mentioned elsewhere before in videos I haven’t had the chance to watch, but dang, you never know, the best of us can have quite interesting backgrounds 🤔
He has actually made videos criticizing young earth creationists and he has debated Hovind.
The thing is that, can you really trust research from non-Christians either? :p