David Bentley Hart - God, gods, and fairies
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- An excerpt from David Bentley Hart's book, "The Experience of God."
For those interested, I invite you to join the "Fans of David Bentley Hart" Facebook group, where you can post/discuss DBH material. Feel free to join here: / 552331154934653
This is good timing, I just read this section of the book last week lol
Richard Dawkins should have heard this before he wrote his nonsense.
Actually The God Delusion is a fantastic book and a bestseller.. It clearly demonstrates the problem with man made gods.. Richard Dawkins is dead on correct.
*****
playboy was a bestseller... it doesn't mean anything that something is a bestseller. Different beliefs about the same Creator do not equal man made gods. This is Dawkins delusion...and now we see it has poisoned you with the same nonsense also.
Question everything.
Question everything... Yes that is what science taught me.. And that's interesting about Playboy magazine, just makes me like it even more.. But seriously there really is no god.. I hope you understand this and live your one life one day.. Take care.
***** science should have taught you that there is a Creator.
No it shouldn't have... We have moved past all those ancient myths. There are no god or gods.. The universe just exists it's a brute fact.. Anyway I hope you understand this one day, best wishes enjoy the one life you have. Take care.
that was great. thanks.
Superb!
What book is this from?
Dustin Quick The Experience of God
... Then what would be the point of XC.
more!!!!
Is this Dungeons and Dragons Orthodoxy?
I find this excerpt both interesting and incredibly frustrating, because it amounts to 1) an important conceptual distinction, and 2) a sophisticated dodge. Yahweh, the God of ancient Judean piety and the Father of Jesus according to the New Testament, IS A DEMIURGE. He does not create ex nihilo (if you check the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and conpare to other Near Eastern origin myths). He has a body, passions, and plans which can be changed. He is not "Being Itself" or "pure Act." Scholastic theology has done the conflating via allegory and word games; it is not the atheists who are really at fault for blurring the two God-concepts. Ordinary people can hardly be faulted either for taking Scripture at its word, and regarding Yahweh the same way as a Hindu would Shiva or Vishnu: a being among beings. Would love to read the whole book but Hart's personality flaws are even reflected in this excerpt...eternally persuaded that what he has in his mind is higher and better than what's in the minds of the comparably intelligent people whom he belittles.
The theist has to just explain how something can literally exist separate from space and time and show their working.
Can you please explain how can I prove anything, including the existence of the universe, to someone who sees NO evidence the brain they are using to think with has a Creator?
@@smidlee7747 I don't really mind how you prove it. I don't understand music theory, but I know someone who does understand music theory would be able to give me a basic understanding. Just give me a basic understanding of how you know something can have a thought without having a brain.
@@andydee1304 You can't prove to a blind man the color red exist. The same you can't prove to a hyper-skeptic that the universe exists.
@@smidlee7747 'I'm more of a hypo-skeptic. You merely have to show how you know something.
@@andydee1304 That's impossible. Again it's like trying to prove to a blind man that I see red and refuses to believe red exist. How am I explain what red is. Yes, I've actually tried to explain what red is to a blind man IRL. He told me he has studied and read all the science about sight but still have no clue how we can see colors or what colors are.
You don't experience the outside world directly.
The human brain created cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, computers, internet, cellphones, highways, tall buildings, bridges, art ,music, movies, books and even do science. You claiming you see NO evidence the brain you are using to think with has a Creator right?
You gotta watch out for those mono-poly-theists
Hey, interesting video! I sent you a PM to discuss a business inquiry with you.
Yeah every religion, even induism, thinks there's a single God creator of everything etc, and then some immanent gods. But even the same one trascendent God has different features in every religion, he wants different things from us and give us different destinies after death (you'll go the paradise or hell / you'll be an animal in this world). So it is totally useless to talk about God if we don't choose a specific religion. Choosing any specific religion, is not a rational, logical choice.
ado fonconi As in all things, we should use evidence and reason to determine which religion is most true. Catholic Christianity makes specific historical, philosophical and theological claims that are open to reasoned scrutiny. Weigh the evidence for the claims of each religion. I think Universal Christianity comes up trumps.
@@blakemoon123 Yep 👍😎
@@blakemoon123 Good point. Although I would say that classical Christianity (the Christianity at the core of Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Ethiopian and Coptic Christianity and Catholicism) makes historical, logical and philosophical claims that are open to scrutiny.
Christianity is true.
Bizarre take, but whatever...🤦♂️
Every religion is blatantly artificial.
15 minutes wasted. Guy sounds like Jordan Peterson and Deepak Chopra.
You’re confused
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Yes I am. I'm confused as to why you left that comment with no further explanation.
His arguments and positions don't come close to resembling those of Chopra and Peterson, who he dislikes btw. Completely different arguments and approaches. Peterson likely doesn’t even believe in God, and he and Chopra don’t know the philosophy of religion literature.
What, specifically, did you have in mind when you made the comparison?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Dude I just realized that my comment was from a year ago, it's very unlikely that I'd remember.
I'm not going to listen to the entire 17 min again so I listened to about 4 min 30s and I see why I said that. He was using the language of "woo" by going through all this convoluted wordplay about "capital G" god and "lower case g" god, which is a distinction without a difference, while also trying to make a case that several dflifferent religions are related in the sense that they are talking about the same "God" and "gods". Oh and then he said that "God" is not a being like everything else but is the source of other beings.
So far we've got woo talk, special pleading, question begging, and a misunderstanding of the mutually exclusive nature of some of the religions he mentioned.
@@whatwecalllife7034 Classical theism and the "gods" of polytheism are completely different concepts, and not merely in number/quantity. The gods of polytheism would be contingent super-human creatures within an already-existing framework and aren't analogous to the (logically) First Member of the causal and explanatory *hierarchical* (or "essentially ordered") series in reality portrayed in classical theism. Philosophical arguments for the conclusion "classical theism is true" do *not* support or have any relevance to the concept of the "gods" in polytheism-- THAT was the point.
I can see why DBH's use of "being" might sound similar to Chopra, but Hart is interested in deductive philosophical arguments (which he admittedly doesn't discuss in THIS clip) and would be horrified if he knew you were confusing his approach with either Chopra or Peterson (who he calls a "hack").
There's so much more to say, but it's not worth it. The "woo" part is also completely out of place, at lest given my understanding of what the term is supposed to mean. In this video, there isn't a single instance of question begging or special pleading, and the only misunderstanding is yours. I guarantee Hart isn't saying what you think he's saying.