Einstein on Jesus: "I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can read the gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life".
I teared up at the end. I was that child, humbled by life to ask the GOD I didn't know.. and HE revealed HIMSELF in a way I can't unsee, unhear or "unthink". Praise the LORD!
I hope you never stop making videos Gavin. I read your grandmother’s book Disciplines of a Beautiful Woman last year and it changed my prayer life. She would be so proud of you! In terms of this video, one thing my mother taught me was as life goes on science and faith will come closer together. This makes me happy when I come across a person who states science is their truth. Well then you must be a believer!
Thank you for your excellent work, Gavin. One thing I appreciate about your channel is that you never use click-bait titles, choosing instead to treat your viewers as adults. With that said, I thought it very funny that you made an exception for this video, turning it into a parody of the now all-pervasive TH-cam-custom of using what is essentially old gossip magazine-techniques for making people click. Please keep being a light of wholesomeness in this online circus.
Dr. Ortland your videos have blessed me so much. Not only the wisdom you bring to the table, but the lighting of a fire for the search of truth. In light of that would it be possible for you to make a video on Covenant Succession? I am under the persuasion it is true in a sense and I would like to hear your thoughts. And if covenant succession is true why or why not would that then follow up with infant baptism. It seems to me that children are made holy by a believing parent, but I also understand it’s not holiness that permits baptism but rather profession of faith. Thank you for all that you do.
This video holds a special place for me personally, because in the time that I held strongly to an atheist ideal, i still always respected Einstein. The realization that Einstein, as well as other scientists I admired, auch as Newton, and Galileo, are Christians, or at least believed a God was out there changed my paradigm on Christianity entirely, and eventually led me to the strong connection with an intimate and personal God. Another great video! 👍
6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4
Incredible video, every time I see a title of one of your videos and think- why that? By halfway in I'm always convinced that it is a great topic choice that will reassure many souls.
Beautiful video Dr. Ortlund. I love the ideas you’re sharing and the connections you’re pointing out between a humble mystical deism and Christian thought. I really see the goals of your ministry in this video, re-enchanting the world and growing in unity through truth. God bless
Thank you for your channel! My father brought me here and I have loved over the past few months watching your videos. I have had some recent “intellectual anxiety” but have been doing research here and there to settle those hesitations. I’ve found a handful of other channels, a mix of Christian and atheist, that have been great learning experiences for me. The Christian channels (like Daily Dose of Wisdom) have been great because I’ve heard straightforward answers to a wide variety of concerns, and I’ve also enjoyed watching Alex O’Connor and formulating responses to his and Dawkins’s arguments. I haven’t been able to answer everything yet, but the great majority of them have simple, fatal flaws and I’m really glad to learn these rebuttals. And I’ll be praying for God to remove all my intellectual anxiety and make me a confident believer for the years ahead! I went on a slight tangent there, but my encouragement is to keep up the great work! Thank you so much for what you’ve done for God and His Kingdom!
I'm curious to know how long you study for each video, and how you get materials you use. I'm blown away every single time. May the Lord bless you with more ideas. 🙌🏽
Thanks! It's different every time. Often I'm pulling from prior research. Some videos (divine hiddenness, icon veneration) took long periods of study. Others I whip together from old blog posts or something I've already though through. But I try to make them clear, organized, and accessible each time! I don't want to waste the viewer's time.
@@TruthUnites As a 23-year-old Nigerian who hopes to have a faith-based TH-cam channel in the nearest future, I have learnt a lot from your videos. May the Lord be your strength. ❤️
The printing is present in the audio. If I turn my volume all the way up I can hear the shriek. But under normal volume conditions it's essentially not there, so I wouldn't worry about it.
I enjoy watching your videos, and I'm especially enjoying this series. Thank you for all the hard work you put into them, and for Irenic approach you strive for. Also, I could not hear the printer either.
Excellent video. It’s interesting because I’ve noticed that some atheists who espouse science as supplanting religion usually quote some principle from QM or relativity and it usually happens that they don’t actually understand either. Truly understanding these mysteries can only help plunge us further into the mind of God.
I’m an atheist myself so you probably won’t be surprised to hear that I prefer philosophical videos over theological, especially since my loss of faith was (almost?) entirely philosophical in nature. I’ve never met a Christian who accepts that fact, but that’s how I remember it!
This video was of interest to me. Thank you for your gracious work. Please do a video which explains that if there is a God he must be personal and not a some impersonal force as Einstein seems to be inferring.
Hey brother, thanks for the great video. Are you planning to do anything on the debate between presuppositionalism and other methods? Or perhaps you have already?
Wow, this video couldn’t have come at a better time. God is so good. Lately (like within the past couple weeks, it’s a very recent problem) I’ve been having intrusive thoughts about death and whether or not God is truly real and my home when I die. I will strive to pray with humble sincerity when I have these doubts. Thank you so much for sharing
You can see Einstein had a great reverence for creation and the humility to recognize he was only discovering the established laws of nature, not creating them. There is a mystical aspect to finding yourself in a reality waiting to be personally discovered, it is like a book in how it has a story, speaks its own language. I can see why simply on this basis Einstein would limit his faith only on these established facts of his experience, that there is a complex universe in front of him that operates independent of his efforts.
Love this series on science and religion, it is a huge issue with people today, and they need to understand that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. These videos are much more in line with the title of your channel, and are so necessary in today’s world!
I think the death of Scientism is best characterized by Star Trek's optimism being replaced with the Cyberpunk genre. We all know technology and science won't save us now.
Yes. This should inform Christians as well. Too many have accepted the modernist dynamic where the physical reality is distinct from any divine presence. They seem to tend toward a neo-Gnosticism where the material universe is an enemy of God. In fact, the scriptures point us to the reality that material existence is moment by moment being sustained by the mind and power of God, by Word and by Breath. Whether it be the incarnation or the Eucharist or the new birth by the Spirit, there are spiritual mysteries that interlink the divine with all contingent, created reality.
How can my POSITION of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - be "intellectually dead"? Please explain.
Explain your default position that nonintelligence is the first cause ( source of all intelligence, including yours ) that seems totally irrational to me . But you defending that seems to be an example of Oxymoron thinking.
I have long believed that this is the essence of what Jesus meant when he told the Pharisees, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.” Science reveals God as we dig deeper to uncover His creation. The evidence of a creator is in the order and makeup of creation.
Romans 1:20 English Standard Version 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
0:36 Davies said this 38 years ago. Where is the shift in cosmology to be looking for this transcendent designer? There isn't one. There is a reason why you had to reach back to the year the first laptop computer was invented to defend your position.
I have a problem with Gavin’s suggestion of praying for God to show/reveal himself. That sounds like testing God. Also, it seems that many atheists that I know who have done this never receive a satisfactory answer. Heck even when I have felt like this it doesn’t seem to be answered. I don’t know if God answers prayers that way
One thing I've said, Gavin, is that Wonder Increases With Knowledge. As knowledge increases, wonder increases (and therefore reverence & awe in and for God). Knowledge and wonder are directly proportional. There is a misconception "out there" that as our knowledge increases, then wonder and the need for God decreases. It seems to me that's an atheistic fantasy.
Hello. Many scientists have come to understand that a force or perhaps some form of God ie:Supernatural being exists. They are not just materialists and believe only the physical world but something else must be involved in our universe. I am constantly being feed by your videos and reasoning facilities. Take care and God bless.
The prayer from Matthew 7:7, in a truly humble prayer, is true. I tested it from the statement of God from Jeremiah 33:3. He said it and did it. I have hard time believing anyone could pray in such a way, in true crying out humility, and it not be true for them as well
No. However the new testament also says this: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: Matthew:7:7
The title is hilarious, but for the love of God please don’t make it a norm. I hate watching Christian apologetics where a believer is having a casual conversation with someone of a non Christian faith, respectfully and the title is something over the top and egregious
This video made me think alot about Tarkovsky's movies specifically Stalker and The Sacrifice which might as well be like wizard of oz. The more significant aspect of what he aims to show at times is the divine had the vantage point of the human race in christ despite the tensions and problems of science and religion that. With Little Man abit in the Sacrifice and Monkey especially in Stalker. With how the room that grants wishes is shown in the movie to just be inside the child Monkey.
Three of the four greats: GALILEO NEWTON MAXWELL believed in the Christian Creator-God and Einstein was either a pantheist or moved between pantheism deism and theism.. Note Hawking's last words were "there is no God, no one controls the universe" yet God had the first and last word - Hawking was born on Galileo's death date and he died on Einstein's Birthday!
how do scientists explain enlightening do a video on that and the way our dreams come for the universe when dream believe following a path of God you become a priest or whatever heart desires love or faith universe can bring
Einstein is by far not the only modern scientist who stated this. For example Schroedinger, the father of the quantum was a Christian and stated that scientific research clearly supports the believe in God. The same statement came from Heissenberg, Bohr, the father of space travel Werner von Braun, Charles Darwin and others. The father of science Aristotle already stated this. Issac Newton stated this. To believe that science is proving that God does not exists is a very strange idea.
No one is doubting that there are individuals who believe in a god. We don't need science to determine this. My question addresses the _reality_ of a god. Science doesn't provide any evidence of such a being, nor would it be expected to. Are you stating that scientific research clearly supports the reality of this 'God'?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Yes, I state that natural scientific research supports the existence of a creator god. If you want, I can explain this to you. But this would be better done through email than the comments section on TH-cam. Alternatively, you can read the book “There is no god - how the most notorious atheists changed his mind” from Anthony Flew. - The short version is that you have to give up to ask the questions natural science ask to maintain that there is no creator god. Theses questions are: Why does something exists and why does it have the characteristics it has. And this is not something new. The father of science Aristoteles, who first formulated these questions and also formulated the rules of logic, stated this 2300 years ago. And his statement has never been disproven. There are enough interviews with atheistic scientist on TH-cam where they admit this. And the reason I talk about atheistic scientists is because theistic scientist of course state that this is true. And there are enough theistic scientists too.
@user-ur8ql7xm8v You seem to believe this format is suitable to present detailed dialog as you have just demonstrated, so let's remain here in our discussion. Are you asserting that there is a peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited academic journal that states in its conclusion that a "creator god" exists? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Hi Theo, before I can answer your question, I need to know what you define science. Are you defining science only as natural science (Chemistry, Physic, Biology etc.) or are you also including the science of humanities (philosophy, history, philology, musicology, linguistics, theater studies, literary studies)? Please let me know then I can answer your question. I also would like to to know if you use a PC, laptop, tablet or cellphone to write your comment. Can you please let me know.
@user-ur8ql7xm8v I am (at the moment) referring to all disciplines that involve any of the methodologies of scientific inquiry - name the testing of a stated null hypthesis. Yes, The would be limited to the natural sciences. Now, please answer my straightforward question. I am typing my responses on a blindshell (android device for the sight impaired). I can only see 11 characters per screen.
This video of yours IS based!...But seriously, it's very well done. Can we make one important adjustment though, which I believe is SUPER RATIONAL (and irenic)? The One who designed and authored the library can indeed reach out and speak to the many children who enter it. But He doesn't have to do so in the same way to every child. To make the argument that Christianity is the only good news, or the only way that God could communicate to human beings is arbitrary and immodest. Judaism is the sacred, divine path for Jews and Islam for Muslims. There are Eastern faiths and Indigenous ones and so forth. Gavin, it makes a much stronger case for theism if one religion isn't proclaiming that all the others are fundamentally wrong, and it alone has the whole truth.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Perhaps...but this relates to the broader topic of distinguishing the Ortlundianian Trinity. There's Ortlund, the Man himself ("Ortlund the Father"), there's Ortlund the Persona ("Ortlund the Son"), and finally there's the Ortlund Ideology-ie Ortlundism-("Ortlund the Spirit"). Ortlund the Persona is indeed affable, irenic, etc, and all those good things. But Ortlundism is a curious postmodern mix that includes, among other things, Calvinism, which is inherently divisive and condemns those on the other side of the arbitrarily drawn up dividing lines. But the overarching postmodern theme of Ortlundism renders unclear the degree to which a full-throated Calvinism should be seen as part of the ideology. Moreover, working backwards, it also renders unclear the degree to which the positive traits seen in Ortlund the Persona reflect Ortlund the Man. It takes a postmodernist to recognize one (as well as understand the nature of the games they play), and I confess, those snotty French eggheads did indeed leave their mark on my soul
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg First, I think the likely and pleasing adjective, in this context, would be Ortlundarian. Second, when it comes to Ortlund, I confess I'm a Modalist-there is only one true Ortlund, albeit, I'm sure, with different expressions of himself in different settings. But isn't this the case for most people, at least to some degree? I would need to see evidence for the distinct and separate hypostases you posit. Third, I don't consider myself an expert in postmodernism, but isn't one of the primary features of that viewpoint the rejection of "grand meta-narratives" which explain and underwrite the meaning of our existence? On that definition, Ortlund is certainly no postmodernist.
@@KingoftheJuice18 to be given the spiritual eyes to perceive postmodernism in unlikely subjects, you have be indwelled by the Postmodern Spirit. The "wind blows where it will", so I can't actually give you "evidence", as such, I can only preach a bit of the Postmodern Gospel, and whether or not you become sufficiently Regenerate to see it in Ortlund is ultimately a matter of Fate or Predestination. Indeed, in that sense, I'm a Postmodern Calvinist. Anyway: The Gospel of No Meta Narratives would be something like this: Given the slippery nature of words and language, you can pretty much construct an airtight proof of anything by tweaking definitions and such, so that pinning down any real substantive truth with language is something of a lost cause right out the gate. "Truth" isn't really a relevant part of the discussion, so it's one person's narrative vs another, and it all boils down to rhetoric and influence. Not the worst mindset for a professional debater, perhaps. This sort of "functional relativism" is especially applicable to historical research, insofar as spin, bias, and revisionism infuse any data or published results to the point of "Total Depravity". Therefore, it's really no issue at all to reject the conventional narrative that Church History aligns with the Catholics or the Orthodox. You could just as easily make an airtight case for alignment with Protestantism or even the Baptist faith. Hell, a clever enough Ortlundian could probably show that the Church Fathers were all Scientologists. Moreover, say you settle on becoming a Baptist Apologist. There would be no reason you'd have to accept the conventional narratives about the Baptist faith. You could just as easily reach into the magical Historical Hat and pull out such rabbits as the Real Presence and profession of the Nicene Creed
I personally am not impress with Einstein views on spiritual matters when, from I've been told, he forsook his own children. He was a smart scientist but a dead beat dad. No wonder he didn't believe in a personal God. I believe our goal is not to get people to believe in the existence of God. James 2:19 "Thou believe that there is one God; thou does well: the devils also believe and tremble."
Or, to extend a figurative trope stolen from C. S. Lewis: there's one author of the books, and in He can show us that we (I, you, Sally, Frederick, ...) show up in them; we're characters in the narrative volumes. (Risks there, I understand, but like all metaphor, we learn from the relevant bits [that reveal something otherwise elusive or hard to express].) // As always, thanks, Gavin. -- j.a.c.
So Einstein held a number of opinions on a variety of topics. I would be interested to know what his first wife thought about them. She does have right of audience.
In the vein of humble inquiry, I’m curious what Dr. Ortland thinks about the Flavian hypothesis. Given the NT clearly has a pro-Roman theme, I mean even Josephus was adopted into the Flavian family after being defeated by the Roman army in 70AD… how can the Flavian court NOT be considered as the likely architect behind the drafting of the gospels and NT writings? For those who claim, “wait, what about Rome’s blatant persecution of Christians in the early church?” Several Biblical scholars are pointing to the persecution of messianic Jews who were counting on a warrior messiah, not the persecution of pacifist Jews (ie, Christians). Doesn’t this hypothesis make infinitely more sense than, “we don’t know how but God wrote the holy book we call the Bible.” (Which leads us to ask if God had a hand in writing the holy books for other faith traditions as well.)
2:19 The laws of the unvierse are not alive in any real sense. If you want to talk about how they are metaphorically alive and that they are made metaphorically alive by a metaphorical god, go for it, but metaphores are just that: metaphores.
One of the most revered an influential scientists of the 20th century, probably one of the smartest people to ever live realized that atheism is non tenable. That puts him in the same camp as about half the world's population following Judaism Christianity or Islam. Reputation of the new atheist position that science supplants religion.
@@geraldbritton8118 How does it put him in the same camp as only the Abrahamic religious people??? you know what a deist is right? they believe there is a supreme being who DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE WORLD. Literally nothing like Judaism, Christianity or Islam Even if you were right, saying "there must be a supreme being" is not the same as "I believe The God of the Old, New testament or Quran is the one true Supreme being" Religious people really love their confirmation bias, even when its blatantly wrong
Einstein was closer to nontheism than to theism. What’s your point? Many have, and still do, take atheism as solely the position of stating that no gods exist, but that is too narrow. Atheism also includes those who do not believe in any gods but also do not claim to have knowledge that no god exists. Agnostic atheism, if you will. This latter meaning may be more recent, which can cast some potential light on Einstein’s rejection of atheism and also theism.
Dr. Ortlund, you're philosophically closer to many scientists than you are to many of your fellow Christians. Roger Penrose, for example! But, we won't tell anybody. Mum's the word. =D
Always appreciative of your excellent content Brother Gavin! By the way, speaking of the history of science and religion, have you encountered historian Peter Harrison’s 6-part Gifford lectures (perfect if you have 7hrs of insomnia on your hands)… eye-opening and speaks much to how we got to our current state of de-enchantment: th-cam.com/play/PLN1ZlOHE5TadjjqTUxaArt3ufiiGgCXxX.html&si=Qr47OuWQaqO5rW9P
I believe I can slightly out Ortlund Ortlund and actually show Einstein was not only a vague "theist" but also a Calvinist. Einstein's God--the eternal Principle ordering the universe--is absolutely Sovereign, and does not "play dice". Moreover, those called into communion with Him are the select few given the miraculous gift of mathematical genius. Einstein's basically said that if you haven't made any earth-shattering discoveries by 30, you never will (and hence, are of the "massa damnatta"). Unfortunately, Einstein appears to be more of a Presbyterian or classical Calvinist rather than a Reformed Baptist, insofar as Einstein elsewhere hints that this salvific mathematical spirit is bestowed upon birth. But perhaps a better Ortlundist than I could make the case that his academic performance earlier in life implies he had a dramatic conversion expierience a bit later
Now, as a Catholic, I can't stand for this, so I will switch hats and apply Ortlundism to show that Einstein was more of an orthodox Augustinian than a Calvinist. First, we observe that the mathematical spirit is received and then "worked out in love" to varying degrees. For example, some people only nurture this spirit to the point of becoming cashiers or accountants. Now, mathematical achievement even to a low degree is always a real and true grace, but ultimately only God knows who the elect are and what level of attainment is sufficient. Nonetheless, mediocrity will certainly never get you canonized with a university chair, as Einstein would surely agree
On the other hand, this is a post Vatican 2 world, so I should also issue a Joint Declaration in solidarity with my separated Ortlundist brothers who insist Einstein was a Lutheran. Specifically: We fundamentally agree that Einstein would say (read: can be made to say) the gift of mathematical ability confers a wholly unmerited communion with the Eternal Order, regardless of what research contributions follow
No, no, no! You guys are all amateur Ortlundists. You hear the "no dice" thing and instantly run to Calvin, Augustine, or Luther. It's clear from Einstein's correspondence with Bohr that he believed in Hidden Variables as intrinsic to the omniscience of the Eternal Order. Since we humans don't have the comprehensive lab equipment of true Divinity, we can only go so far in ascertaining the counterfactuals of what a particle WOULD do in an exact situation. We can only make good faith measurements. Therefore, Einstein was obviously a Jesuit
0:31 Your claim is demonstrably false. There is a negative correlation between theism and knowledge of how reality works. Theism among the general public is around 80%. Theism among those who have the most study in the sciences is about half that. Claiming that knowledge of how reality works leads one to faith, while it can happen, is the overwhelming exception, not the norm.
80%? In the US maybe 😊. Here in Germany I'd guess more like 50 but I'd have to look it up. And there's a lot of variation between different sciences when it comes to the question if scientists believe in God. Most of them also don't think science and religion are incompatible. At least there was a global study from 2016, I think, that came to this conclusion. They interviewed over 20,000 scientists worldwide.
@@MrSeedi76 The general public refers to the entire world population. One can be religious and still do science, of course. I never said otherwise. What I showed is that his claim that advanced learning of how reality works leads to theism is false. If it did, we would expect more theism among scientists, not less.
Einstein on Jesus: "I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can read the gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life".
Einstein was a genius, but I guess he didn't read very widely.
@@FleurPillager Gavin wont read that so he cant pretend Einstein was a christian
I love that Dr. Ortlund asked if anyone had a title suggestion and now I see it went completely overboard. It’s awesome
I missed that! Wasn't my suggestion sadly 😂
He took it away! 😳
@@KingoftheJuice18
It’s alright. A joke only lasts so long
@@levifox2818 I mourn for those who will never see it 😉
Delighted to hear Einstein had integrity and humility on this topic
Just checking in to say I didn't hear the printer 😂
if this video accomplishes nothing else, now I know I have stress free printing.
I see you’re leaning in to the absurd TH-cam clickbait titles 😂 I love it!
The library analogy is breathtaking. The author of the books became a child to speak to the child!
I teared up at the end. I was that child, humbled by life to ask the GOD I didn't know.. and HE revealed HIMSELF in a way I can't unsee, unhear or "unthink".
Praise the LORD!
Hallelujah!
I hope you never stop making videos Gavin. I read your grandmother’s book Disciplines of a Beautiful Woman last year and it changed my prayer life. She would be so proud of you!
In terms of this video, one thing my mother taught me was as life goes on science and faith will come closer together. This makes me happy when I come across a person who states science is their truth. Well then you must be a believer!
What a blessed family and legacy the Ortlunds are! Thank God for their faithfulness throughout their generations!
Thank you for your excellent work, Gavin. One thing I appreciate about your channel is that you never use click-bait titles, choosing instead to treat your viewers as adults. With that said, I thought it very funny that you made an exception for this video, turning it into a parody of the now all-pervasive TH-cam-custom of using what is essentially old gossip magazine-techniques for making people click. Please keep being a light of wholesomeness in this online circus.
Lol! Gavin asked for video title suggestions and we suggested click bait. So blame his supporters for lowering standards 😂
Dr. Ortland your videos have blessed me so much. Not only the wisdom you bring to the table, but the lighting of a fire for the search of truth.
In light of that would it be possible for you to make a video on Covenant Succession? I am under the persuasion it is true in a sense and I would like to hear your thoughts. And if covenant succession is true why or why not would that then follow up with infant baptism. It seems to me that children are made holy by a believing parent, but I also understand it’s not holiness that permits baptism but rather profession of faith.
Thank you for all that you do.
This video holds a special place for me personally, because in the time that I held strongly to an atheist ideal, i still always respected Einstein. The realization that Einstein, as well as other scientists I admired, auch as Newton, and Galileo, are Christians, or at least believed a God was out there changed my paradigm on Christianity entirely, and eventually led me to the strong connection with an intimate and personal God. Another great video! 👍
Incredible video, every time I see a title of one of your videos and think- why that? By halfway in I'm always convinced that it is a great topic choice that will reassure many souls.
Wait did you change the title of this video??? Hilarious 😂😂😂😂
Right? Briefly thought it might be a collaboration with Cameron Bertuzzi based on that title.
@@ottovonbaden6353 Noticed this myself lol. Remind me, what was the original title? Was it 'Einstein's Perspective on God'?
@@cornelswinfen8025 Something like that, yep.
@@cornelswinfen8025Einstein on God and Religion
Haha what was the clickbaity title? Seems to be pretty unremarkable now.
Could not hear the printer..
Thank you for the hard work in putting these videos together. Bless you Brother!
Beautiful video Dr. Ortlund. I love the ideas you’re sharing and the connections you’re pointing out between a humble mystical deism and Christian thought. I really see the goals of your ministry in this video, re-enchanting the world and growing in unity through truth. God bless
Wonderful video and thought provoking. Reminds of me of two of my favorite Lewis essays, ‘on living in an atomic age’, and ‘man or rabbit’
Thank you for your channel! My father brought me here and I have loved over the past few months watching your videos. I have had some recent “intellectual anxiety” but have been doing research here and there to settle those hesitations. I’ve found a handful of other channels, a mix of Christian and atheist, that have been great learning experiences for me. The Christian channels (like Daily Dose of Wisdom) have been great because I’ve heard straightforward answers to a wide variety of concerns, and I’ve also enjoyed watching Alex O’Connor and formulating responses to his and Dawkins’s arguments. I haven’t been able to answer everything yet, but the great majority of them have simple, fatal flaws and I’m really glad to learn these rebuttals. And I’ll be praying for God to remove all my intellectual anxiety and make me a confident believer for the years ahead!
I went on a slight tangent there, but my encouragement is to keep up the great work! Thank you so much for what you’ve done for God and His Kingdom!
Now there’s a title.
I'm curious to know how long you study for each video, and how you get materials you use.
I'm blown away every single time. May the Lord bless you with more ideas. 🙌🏽
Thanks! It's different every time. Often I'm pulling from prior research. Some videos (divine hiddenness, icon veneration) took long periods of study. Others I whip together from old blog posts or something I've already though through. But I try to make them clear, organized, and accessible each time! I don't want to waste the viewer's time.
@@TruthUnites
As a 23-year-old Nigerian who hopes to have a faith-based TH-cam channel in the nearest future, I have learnt a lot from your videos. May the Lord be your strength. ❤️
This warmed my soul, thank you.
New logo? Nice
Thanks as always
The printing is present in the audio. If I turn my volume all the way up I can hear the shriek. But under normal volume conditions it's essentially not there, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Great video as per usual Gavin
Loved this! So good and needed for modern apologetic discussions.
Once again a wonderful episode! 😊
So good! Thank you! I did not hear the printer at all.
I enjoy watching your videos, and I'm especially enjoying this series. Thank you for all the hard work you put into them, and for Irenic approach you strive for.
Also, I could not hear the printer either.
The title is wild 😂
Lol why did the title change get me to watch this?
real
Clicked believing I was taking a bait, turns out the title is simply 100% accurate
Hooray. We suggested he use true click bait
This is Paul at the Areopagus.
I love you embracing meme video titles now lol. Good on you Gavin!
Good seeing you go into other content.
I just read Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard and I would love to see you do a video interacting with this book.
Excellent video. It’s interesting because I’ve noticed that some atheists who espouse science as supplanting religion usually quote some principle from QM or relativity and it usually happens that they don’t actually understand either. Truly understanding these mysteries can only help plunge us further into the mind of God.
I’m an atheist myself so you probably won’t be surprised to hear that I prefer philosophical videos over theological, especially since my loss of faith was (almost?) entirely philosophical in nature. I’ve never met a Christian who accepts that fact, but that’s how I remember it!
I’m a Christian and I love philosophy and I agree I want him to do more philosophy videos. Hopefully we’ll both see that come to fruition.
Can you do why good things happen to bad people? I really want to see your ideas on this topic.
This video was of interest to me. Thank you for your gracious work. Please do a video which explains that if there is a God he must be personal and not a some impersonal force as Einstein seems to be inferring.
Thank you.
Hey brother, thanks for the great video. Are you planning to do anything on the debate between presuppositionalism and other methods? Or perhaps you have already?
beautiful teaching
Best title ever
As a physics fan, I was excited for this one!
This is a great video. Would love more of this type😅
lol the video title is hilarious, good job Dr. Ortlund
what was it?
@@davecorns7630 it was something like “Based Einstein DESTROYS atheism while being SUPER IRENIC (Best video in the history of TH-cam)
Excellent title
Wow, this video couldn’t have come at a better time. God is so good.
Lately (like within the past couple weeks, it’s a very recent problem) I’ve been having intrusive thoughts about death and whether or not God is truly real and my home when I die. I will strive to pray with humble sincerity when I have these doubts. Thank you so much for sharing
I was putting off watching this video, but then I saw the new title.
Well, here I am...
Nobody hears your wife using the printer, except you.
lesson learned!
I heard the printer (I was listening through headphones). It wasn't too obvious.
You can see Einstein had a great reverence for creation and the humility to recognize he was only discovering the established laws of nature, not creating them.
There is a mystical aspect to finding yourself in a reality waiting to be personally discovered, it is like a book in how it has a story, speaks its own language.
I can see why simply on this basis Einstein would limit his faith only on these established facts of his experience, that there is a complex universe in front of him that operates independent of his efforts.
Love this series on science and religion, it is a huge issue with people today, and they need to understand that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. These videos are much more in line with the title of your channel, and are so necessary in today’s world!
I think the death of Scientism is best characterized by Star Trek's optimism being replaced with the Cyberpunk genre. We all know technology and science won't save us now.
Yes. This should inform Christians as well. Too many have accepted the modernist dynamic where the physical reality is distinct from any divine presence. They seem to tend toward a neo-Gnosticism where the material universe is an enemy of God.
In fact, the scriptures point us to the reality that material existence is moment by moment being sustained by the mind and power of God, by Word and by Breath. Whether it be the incarnation or the Eucharist or the new birth by the Spirit, there are spiritual mysteries that interlink the divine with all contingent, created reality.
Eistien was agnostic, ATHEISM DESTROYED!
*Deist
Wonder what the next title will be😂
The summary is "we don't know".
Einstein definitely was not a materialist
I think he just had an escape hatch, his views are not very different from the common reconstructionist jew position at the time
@@Qwerty-jy9mj so none of Einstein's comments on God were honest?
I did hear the printer both times, but I thought it was just Johan Gutenberg printing bibles for the people in their own language.
Didn't hear the printer at all
I hate that the clickbait title worked on me, but it did.
How can my POSITION of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - be "intellectually dead"? Please explain.
Explain your default position that nonintelligence is the first cause ( source of all intelligence, including yours ) that seems totally irrational to me .
But you defending that seems to be an example of Oxymoron thinking.
@@davidjanbaz7728 That isn't my default position.
Ooh! Intesting topic!
I have long believed that this is the essence of what Jesus meant when he told the Pharisees, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.” Science reveals God as we dig deeper to uncover His creation. The evidence of a creator is in the order and makeup of creation.
Romans 1:20
English Standard Version
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Why is everyone talking about the title? I'm pretty sure it isn't the one I see rn, so can somebody clarify? 😁
0:36 Davies said this 38 years ago. Where is the shift in cosmology to be looking for this transcendent designer? There isn't one. There is a reason why you had to reach back to the year the first laptop computer was invented to defend your position.
Reminds me of the supposed quote by a Russian cosmonaut, "we flew into space and God wasn't there." Makes about as much sense, too.
I have a problem with Gavin’s suggestion of praying for God to show/reveal himself. That sounds like testing God. Also, it seems that many atheists that I know who have done this never receive a satisfactory answer. Heck even when I have felt like this it doesn’t seem to be answered. I don’t know if God answers prayers that way
No, I did not hear the printer
One thing I've said, Gavin, is that Wonder Increases With Knowledge. As knowledge increases, wonder increases (and therefore reverence & awe in and for God). Knowledge and wonder are directly proportional. There is a misconception "out there" that as our knowledge increases, then wonder and the need for God decreases. It seems to me that's an atheistic fantasy.
"wonder increases with knowledge" -- I like that
Hello. Many scientists have come to understand that a force or perhaps some form of God ie:Supernatural being exists. They are not just materialists and believe only the physical world but something else must be involved in our universe. I am constantly being feed by your videos and reasoning facilities. Take care and God bless.
How exactly do you 'destroy' atheism?
The prayer from Matthew 7:7, in a truly humble prayer, is true. I tested it from the statement of God from Jeremiah 33:3. He said it and did it.
I have hard time believing anyone could pray in such a way, in true crying out humility, and it not be true for them as well
I love it
Is someone asking God to reveal Himself to them different than asking God for a sign?
No. However the new testament also says this:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew:7:7
The title is hilarious, but for the love of God please don’t make it a norm. I hate watching Christian apologetics where a believer is having a casual conversation with someone of a non Christian faith, respectfully and the title is something over the top and egregious
Never expected to see the click baity title from you but hey. I'm open minded.
Is God the librarian of the books...or the author?
This video made me think alot about Tarkovsky's movies specifically Stalker and The Sacrifice which might as well be like wizard of oz. The more significant aspect of what he aims to show at times is the divine had the vantage point of the human race in christ despite the tensions and problems of science and religion that. With Little Man abit in the Sacrifice and Monkey especially in Stalker. With how the room that grants wishes is shown in the movie to just be inside the child Monkey.
Three of the four greats: GALILEO NEWTON MAXWELL believed in the Christian Creator-God and Einstein was either a pantheist or moved between pantheism deism and theism..
Note Hawking's last words were "there is no God, no one controls the universe" yet God had the first and last word - Hawking was born on Galileo's death date and he died on Einstein's Birthday!
how do scientists explain enlightening do a video on that and the way our dreams come for the universe when dream believe following a path of God you become a priest or whatever heart desires love or faith universe can bring
...I declined leadership of Israel on relatively moral grounds.
Einstein is by far not the only modern scientist who stated this. For example Schroedinger, the father of the quantum was a Christian and stated that scientific research clearly supports the believe in God. The same statement came from Heissenberg, Bohr, the father of space travel Werner von Braun, Charles Darwin and others. The father of science Aristotle already stated this. Issac Newton stated this. To believe that science is proving that God does not exists is a very strange idea.
No one is doubting that there are individuals who believe in a god. We don't need science to determine this.
My question addresses the _reality_ of a god. Science doesn't provide any evidence of such a being, nor would it be expected to.
Are you stating that scientific research clearly supports the reality of this 'God'?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Yes, I state that natural scientific research supports the existence of a creator god. If you want, I can explain this to you. But this would be better done through email than the comments section on TH-cam. Alternatively, you can read the book “There is no god - how the most notorious atheists changed his mind” from Anthony Flew. - The short version is that you have to give up to ask the questions natural science ask to maintain that there is no creator god. Theses questions are: Why does something exists and why does it have the characteristics it has. And this is not something new. The father of science Aristoteles, who first formulated these questions and also formulated the rules of logic, stated this 2300 years ago. And his statement has never been disproven. There are enough interviews with atheistic scientist on TH-cam where they admit this. And the reason I talk about atheistic scientists is because theistic scientist of course state that this is true. And there are enough theistic scientists too.
@user-ur8ql7xm8v You seem to believe this format is suitable to present detailed dialog as you have just demonstrated, so let's remain here in our discussion.
Are you asserting that there is a peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited academic journal that states in its conclusion that a "creator god" exists? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Hi Theo, before I can answer your question, I need to know what you define science. Are you defining science only as natural science (Chemistry, Physic, Biology etc.) or are you also including the science of humanities (philosophy, history, philology, musicology, linguistics, theater studies, literary studies)? Please let me know then I can answer your question. I also would like to to know if you use a PC, laptop, tablet or cellphone to write your comment. Can you please let me know.
@user-ur8ql7xm8v I am (at the moment) referring to all disciplines that involve any of the methodologies of scientific inquiry - name the testing of a stated null hypthesis. Yes, The would be limited to the natural sciences.
Now, please answer my straightforward question.
I am typing my responses on a blindshell (android device for the sight impaired). I can only see 11 characters per screen.
What was the original title?
BASED Einstein DESTROYS Atheism while being SUPER IRENIC (Greatest Video in the History of TH-cam)
This video of yours IS based!...But seriously, it's very well done. Can we make one important adjustment though, which I believe is SUPER RATIONAL (and irenic)? The One who designed and authored the library can indeed reach out and speak to the many children who enter it. But He doesn't have to do so in the same way to every child. To make the argument that Christianity is the only good news, or the only way that God could communicate to human beings is arbitrary and immodest. Judaism is the sacred, divine path for Jews and Islam for Muslims. There are Eastern faiths and Indigenous ones and so forth. Gavin, it makes a much stronger case for theism if one religion isn't proclaiming that all the others are fundamentally wrong, and it alone has the whole truth.
Amen! But c'mon, this is Ortlund, here. He's all about division and polemics. It's inherent in the job title "Protestant Apologist" lol
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg I do believe Gavin is more reasonable and interested in genuine dialogue than most apologists.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Perhaps...but this relates to the broader topic of distinguishing the Ortlundianian Trinity. There's Ortlund, the Man himself ("Ortlund the Father"), there's Ortlund the Persona ("Ortlund the Son"), and finally there's the Ortlund Ideology-ie Ortlundism-("Ortlund the Spirit"). Ortlund the Persona is indeed affable, irenic, etc, and all those good things. But Ortlundism is a curious postmodern mix that includes, among other things, Calvinism, which is inherently divisive and condemns those on the other side of the arbitrarily drawn up dividing lines. But the overarching postmodern theme of Ortlundism renders unclear the degree to which a full-throated Calvinism should be seen as part of the ideology. Moreover, working backwards, it also renders unclear the degree to which the positive traits seen in Ortlund the Persona reflect Ortlund the Man.
It takes a postmodernist to recognize one (as well as understand the nature of the games they play), and I confess, those snotty French eggheads did indeed leave their mark on my soul
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg First, I think the likely and pleasing adjective, in this context, would be Ortlundarian. Second, when it comes to Ortlund, I confess I'm a Modalist-there is only one true Ortlund, albeit, I'm sure, with different expressions of himself in different settings. But isn't this the case for most people, at least to some degree? I would need to see evidence for the distinct and separate hypostases you posit. Third, I don't consider myself an expert in postmodernism, but isn't one of the primary features of that viewpoint the rejection of "grand meta-narratives" which explain and underwrite the meaning of our existence? On that definition, Ortlund is certainly no postmodernist.
@@KingoftheJuice18 to be given the spiritual eyes to perceive postmodernism in unlikely subjects, you have be indwelled by the Postmodern Spirit. The "wind blows where it will", so I can't actually give you "evidence", as such, I can only preach a bit of the Postmodern Gospel, and whether or not you become sufficiently Regenerate to see it in Ortlund is ultimately a matter of Fate or Predestination. Indeed, in that sense, I'm a Postmodern Calvinist. Anyway:
The Gospel of No Meta Narratives would be something like this: Given the slippery nature of words and language, you can pretty much construct an airtight proof of anything by tweaking definitions and such, so that pinning down any real substantive truth with language is something of a lost cause right out the gate.
"Truth" isn't really a relevant part of the discussion, so it's one person's narrative vs another, and it all boils down to rhetoric and influence. Not the worst mindset for a professional debater, perhaps.
This sort of "functional relativism" is especially applicable to historical research, insofar as spin, bias, and revisionism infuse any data or published results to the point of "Total Depravity". Therefore, it's really no issue at all to reject the conventional narrative that Church History aligns with the Catholics or the Orthodox. You could just as easily make an airtight case for alignment with Protestantism or even the Baptist faith. Hell, a clever enough Ortlundian could probably show that the Church Fathers were all Scientologists.
Moreover, say you settle on becoming a Baptist Apologist. There would be no reason you'd have to accept the conventional narratives about the Baptist faith. You could just as easily reach into the magical Historical Hat and pull out such rabbits as the Real Presence and profession of the Nicene Creed
I personally am not impress with Einstein views on spiritual matters when, from I've been told, he forsook his own children. He was a smart scientist but a dead beat dad. No wonder he didn't believe in a personal God.
I believe our goal is not to get people to believe in the existence of God. James 2:19 "Thou believe that there is one God; thou does well: the devils also believe and tremble."
Did you let Redeemed Zoomer pick the video title? 😂
Or, to extend a figurative trope stolen from C. S. Lewis: there's one author of the books, and in He can show us that we (I, you, Sally, Frederick, ...) show up in them; we're characters in the narrative volumes. (Risks there, I understand, but like all metaphor, we learn from the relevant bits [that reveal something otherwise elusive or hard to express].) // As always, thanks, Gavin. -- j.a.c.
So Einstein held a number of opinions on a variety of topics. I would be interested to know what his first wife thought about them. She does have right of audience.
In the vein of humble inquiry, I’m curious what Dr. Ortland thinks about the Flavian hypothesis. Given the NT clearly has a pro-Roman theme, I mean even Josephus was adopted into the Flavian family after being defeated by the Roman army in 70AD… how can the Flavian court NOT be considered as the likely architect behind the drafting of the gospels and NT writings?
For those who claim, “wait, what about Rome’s blatant persecution of Christians in the early church?” Several Biblical scholars are pointing to the persecution of messianic Jews who were counting on a warrior messiah, not the persecution of pacifist Jews (ie, Christians). Doesn’t this hypothesis make infinitely more sense than, “we don’t know how but God wrote the holy book we call the Bible.” (Which leads us to ask if God had a hand in writing the holy books for other faith traditions as well.)
2:19 The laws of the unvierse are not alive in any real sense. If you want to talk about how they are metaphorically alive and that they are made metaphorically alive by a metaphorical god, go for it, but metaphores are just that: metaphores.
Einstein rejected theism, but not deism. So was he an atheist, but not an adeist?
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
BASED EINSTEIN
he didnt believe in a god. he believed in universe and had a spiritual relation to it.
8:22 More like sophistry.
Pantheist, Spinoza did not believe in "supernatural"
He was a deist, and that's a win for Christians how?
One of the most revered an influential scientists of the 20th century, probably one of the smartest people to ever live realized that atheism is non tenable. That puts him in the same camp as about half the world's population following Judaism Christianity or Islam. Reputation of the new atheist position that science supplants religion.
@@geraldbritton8118 How does it put him in the same camp as only the Abrahamic religious people???
you know what a deist is right? they believe there is a supreme being who DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE WORLD. Literally nothing like Judaism, Christianity or Islam
Even if you were right, saying "there must be a supreme being" is not the same as "I believe The God of the Old, New testament or Quran is the one true Supreme being"
Religious people really love their confirmation bias, even when its blatantly wrong
Einstein was closer to nontheism than to theism. What’s your point? Many have, and still do, take atheism as solely the position of stating that no gods exist, but that is too narrow. Atheism also includes those who do not believe in any gods but also do not claim to have knowledge that no god exists. Agnostic atheism, if you will. This latter meaning may be more recent, which can cast some potential light on Einstein’s rejection of atheism and also theism.
Dr. Ortlund, you're philosophically closer to many scientists than you are to many of your fellow Christians. Roger Penrose, for example! But, we won't tell anybody. Mum's the word. =D
Roger Penrose - What Things Really Exist?
th-cam.com/video/H9Q6SWcTA9w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Epshnk66TSoegmuQ
Always appreciative of your excellent content Brother Gavin! By the way, speaking of the history of science and religion, have you encountered historian Peter Harrison’s 6-part Gifford lectures (perfect if you have 7hrs of insomnia on your hands)… eye-opening and speaks much to how we got to our current state of de-enchantment:
th-cam.com/play/PLN1ZlOHE5TadjjqTUxaArt3ufiiGgCXxX.html&si=Qr47OuWQaqO5rW9P
I believe I can slightly out Ortlund Ortlund and actually show Einstein was not only a vague "theist" but also a Calvinist. Einstein's God--the eternal Principle ordering the universe--is absolutely Sovereign, and does not "play dice". Moreover, those called into communion with Him are the select few given the miraculous gift of mathematical genius. Einstein's basically said that if you haven't made any earth-shattering discoveries by 30, you never will (and hence, are of the "massa damnatta"). Unfortunately, Einstein appears to be more of a Presbyterian or classical Calvinist rather than a Reformed Baptist, insofar as Einstein elsewhere hints that this salvific mathematical spirit is bestowed upon birth. But perhaps a better Ortlundist than I could make the case that his academic performance earlier in life implies he had a dramatic conversion expierience a bit later
Now, as a Catholic, I can't stand for this, so I will switch hats and apply Ortlundism to show that Einstein was more of an orthodox Augustinian than a Calvinist. First, we observe that the mathematical spirit is received and then "worked out in love" to varying degrees. For example, some people only nurture this spirit to the point of becoming cashiers or accountants. Now, mathematical achievement even to a low degree is always a real and true grace, but ultimately only God knows who the elect are and what level of attainment is sufficient. Nonetheless, mediocrity will certainly never get you canonized with a university chair, as Einstein would surely agree
On the other hand, this is a post Vatican 2 world, so I should also issue a Joint Declaration in solidarity with my separated Ortlundist brothers who insist Einstein was a Lutheran. Specifically: We fundamentally agree that Einstein would say (read: can be made to say) the gift of mathematical ability confers a wholly unmerited communion with the Eternal Order, regardless of what research contributions follow
No, no, no! You guys are all amateur Ortlundists. You hear the "no dice" thing and instantly run to Calvin, Augustine, or Luther. It's clear from Einstein's correspondence with Bohr that he believed in Hidden Variables as intrinsic to the omniscience of the Eternal Order. Since we humans don't have the comprehensive lab equipment of true Divinity, we can only go so far in ascertaining the counterfactuals of what a particle WOULD do in an exact situation. We can only make good faith measurements. Therefore, Einstein was obviously a Jesuit
0:31 Your claim is demonstrably false.
There is a negative correlation between theism and knowledge of how reality works. Theism among the general public is around 80%. Theism among those who have the most study in the sciences is about half that.
Claiming that knowledge of how reality works leads one to faith, while it can happen, is the overwhelming exception, not the norm.
80%? In the US maybe 😊. Here in Germany I'd guess more like 50 but I'd have to look it up.
And there's a lot of variation between different sciences when it comes to the question if scientists believe in God. Most of them also don't think science and religion are incompatible. At least there was a global study from 2016, I think, that came to this conclusion. They interviewed over 20,000 scientists worldwide.
Name of the study was: Religion among Scientists in International Context
@@MrSeedi76 The general public refers to the entire world population.
One can be religious and still do science, of course. I never said otherwise. What I showed is that his claim that advanced learning of how reality works leads to theism is false. If it did, we would expect more theism among scientists, not less.
@@FleurPillager Can, sure. Often? Not among actual scientists, no.