Coming into this channel for the first time it was clear and obvious to me that this video was not going to be representative of this man's scholarship, but instead a lighthearted attempt at highlighting his colorful personality. I had never heard of Hart, and therefore realized a modicum of research would probably be required to understand his arguments and position. That being said, the outline of his thought illustrated here leads me to conclude that doing so will be worth my time. This seems to me a reasonable response when superficially encountering an unfamiliar thinker for the first time. The fact that there are people here in the comments that are stupid and prejudiced enough to draw a full conclusion about this man based on a series of comedic 10 second clips is absolutely astounding, and I think perfectly reflects the nature of the degradation of intellectual inquiry in the age of the internet.
Thanks for the well-written comment, Adam! There's definitely no shortage of idiocy on the internet, haha. I look forward to reading your thoughts again.
You're right. As a gay right-wing fascist christian, I think my side of politics has no excuse for it's anti-intellectualism at all. There is nothing but blind hatred and constant denial of anything that even seemingly challanges deeply held beliefs.
"Calvin, in telling us that hell is populated with babies not a cubit long, merely reminds us that within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence." I laughed out loud because of how true this statement is.
@@cbogue418 It means that the god of calvinism is really no better than the devil, he's just more powerful. Thankfully, the real God is not the god of calvinism, He is wholly good, benevolent, loving and just (and I don't mean "just" in the twisted way that calvinists and most evangelicals, I mean actually just).
@@hislove4ever7 Sure. Calvinists and most American Evangelicals have a distorted interpretation of God's justice, it's essentially a projection of human passions on theology which they took from Anselm of Canterbury. See, human beings are vexed and angered when they perceive themselves to be slighted and consider it a humiliation that only vengeance can remove, and Anselm projected this vexation onto God, imagining God as a medieval feudal lord. God, the Infinite Being was infinitely insulted and vexed by Adam's disobedience, the same way a feudal lord would be if one of his pesants said the wrong thing at the wrong time in his presence. But is this how God conceives of justice? Paying back slights? No. Just read Zechariah 7:9, "Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother". God's justice is about writing wrongs, bringing things back into balance and right order. It's not about payback. And it is not something that exists in tension with His love, mercy and compassion, as a sort of contradiction in His character that needs to be resolved on the Cross. It is an expression of His love, mercy and compassion poured out on the Cross.
@@markdaniels1730 Thank you for your lengthy response! I really appreciate it, especially considering how uncharitable most folk are on social media with good faith questions. I read the Institutes (1541 edition at least) several years ago, and though I wouldn't consider myself a 5-point Calvinist or double predestinationist quite in the manner of Calvin, I would say that I have a deep appreciation for his understanding of Union with Christ, the Spirit, and view of charity towards the neighbor. Much of his commentary on the commandments, for example, is quite beautiful and surprisingly radical in comparison to how certain American Evangelicals treat their neighbors (i.e., miserly and punitively), so I do not think Calvin can fully be targeted for their failure.. maybe more generally an incomplete view of what Calvin is saying even if there are good reasons to disagree with him. For example, I grew up with Baptist parents (rather typical American Evangelicals) and they would not identify themselves as "Calvinists", so I'm not sure Calvin is to blame wholesale for this error. As you mentioned, Anselm is more directly to blame chronologically speaking but is his idea of satisfaction not attested to in Scripture? (I have not gotten to read 'Cur Deus Homo' yet, so forgive me for any superficial statements here). All that said, over the last few years, I've been drawn quite strongly toward the Eastern church (have not been baptized, but have been going to an Anglican Church two years or so). My main issue here is how the experience of God's wrath and attestation of God's wrath, especially with Paul's understanding of Christ's justification, is squared with the Eastern understanding shared here. Are there certain texts within the tradition that you would recommend to deepen or clarify my understanding? Would you say it's mostly a confusion owing to translation or connotation errors? To be clear: My inclination has always been to put God's love, grace and mercy front and center to all of his actions; thus, I tend towards hopeful universalism. But certain parts of Sacred Scripture, and certain parts of Tradition, do not seem to make this so cut and dry, I'm afraid.
@@erint4383 "I do not think Calvin can fully be targeted for their failure.. maybe more generally an incomplete view of what Calvin is saying even if there are good reasons to disagree with him" I would agree that there are a lot of good things about Calvin's theology if we lay aside it's more brooding and pessimistic aspects, we can definitely find solid Christian thruth in his writings. In fact, just like Augustine who said "God does not delight in damning but in saving", in contradiction to his own theological system, sometimes Calvin too says stuff that is both a) good and b) contradictory to his own theology. For example, this passage from the Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life (1551): "If we cover and obliterate man’s faults and consider the beauty and dignity of God’s image in him, then we shall be induced to love and embrace him". If I hadn't given the source of this quote most people would not have guessed that John Calvin wrote those words. Recognizing the beauty and dignity of the image of God in man, and that even sinful deeds cannot do away with it completely runs counter to the idea of Total Depravity (at least the way it's popularly construed by his followers). So I don't deny that there is good in Calvin... he gets a lot of things really, really wrong, but he does get some things right every now and then. "Anselm is more directly to blame chronologically speaking but is his idea of satisfaction not attested to in Scripture?" Oh yes, the thing about the satisfaction theory is, if it is so plainly taught in Scripture, why was Anselm the first person to see it? The early Church Fathers taught that through Christ's suffering in humanity's place, he overcame and liberated us from death and the devil. They had access to St. Paul's writings back then, they were brilliant and faithful men who had excellent command of the Greek language. In my mind it strains credulity to think that they missed something so supposedly foundational to Christianity that was only to be discovered almost a thousand years later by a man who, though brilliant as well, was far removed from the original cultural context of the New Testament and did not speak it's original language as the early Church Fathers did. "I've been drawn quite strongly toward the Eastern church (have not been baptized, but have been going to an Anglican Church two years or so)" I'm pretty sure that Anglicans would still be considered the Western church. But I think I know why you would feel that way, a lot of people who were Anglicans end up moving to the East, it's like a process that some people who were raised evangelical go through. Perhaps the most famous Anglican of all time, C.S. Lewis actually had some very Eastern view on subjects like Hell and the Atonement. "My main issue here is how the experience of God's wrath and attestation of God's wrath, especially with Paul's understanding of Christ's justification, is squared with the Eastern understanding shared here." I'm not sure I completely understand the question. But with regards to the experience of God's wrath, what the Orthodox Church teaches that both Heaven and Hell are being in God's presence, and this presence is either enjoyment or suffering depending on the person's spiritual state in that presence. The saved and the damned will both experience God's light and love. However, the saved will experience it as Heaven, while the damned will experience it as Hell. The same way a person who has healthy eyes is able to enjoy daylight, whereas a person with a diseased eye would be in pain if exposed to sunlight. That is the Orthodox understanding of God's wrath, it is in essence the same as His love, only resisted. "The general teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church is that Paradise and Hell do not exist from God's point of view, but from man's. It is true that Paradise and Hell exist as two ways of life, but it is not God who created them. In the patristic tradition it is clear that there are not two ways, but God Himself is Paradise for the saints and God Himself is Hell for the sinners." - Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Life After Death, Chapter 6. PARADISE AND HELL, Section 2. The Fathers on Paradise and Hell I hope that helps. "Are there certain texts within the tradition that you would recommend to deepen or clarify my understanding? Would you say it's mostly a confusion owing to translation or connotation errors?" Definitely. "Ancestral Sin", by John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin and Heaven and Hell in Orthodox theology. The other book I quoted above "Life After Death" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, is also very good. However, if you would like a more easily accessible and popular level introduction to Orthodox theology on this subject, "The River of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros was what originally got me interested in Eastern Orthodoxy. "My inclination has always been to put God's love, grace and mercy front and center to all of his actions; thus, I tend towards hopeful universalism." I feel the same way. Hopeful universalism I would say is the most Christian viewpoint of all, God Himself is a hopeful universalist according to 1 Timothy 2:4. "But certain parts of Sacred Scripture, and certain parts of Tradition, do not seem to make this so cut and dry, I'm afraid." Exactly. That's why I'm not 100% on board with David Bentley Hart even though I love listening to him. But I do hope he's right...
☦Why are you behaving like clowns? You think the world is a playground? He's no Christian. Hart is the biggest heretic of our times along with Akin, and if you follow him instead of the Church you'll end up in the everlasting fire of Abhadon for all eternity, so you are warned🙏❤
@@djm.326 I would like to see a debate between a universal salvation position and an eternal hell position. Because one would think such an important doctrine would be settled by now.
It's the times where he drops all pretenses of being clever that hit the hardest. When he's putting effort into his roast, you know he has to, on some level, take his target seriously for one reason or another. But when he simply flatly and brutally states things like that, you know he genuinely could not hold these people in greater contempt, and I love it
Myself being an anarchist who believes in property rights and the existence of natural law, and as a Christian who believes in Ultimate restorationism as Hart does, I find it really odd that Hart would readily dismiss libertarianism. He seems to straw-man libertarianism with libertinism, in the pursuit some have in life of whimsical, selfish, or self-destructive goals. To Hart’s credit, he seems to be a mutualist type of socialist, and not a central State type of socialist. Mutualists are rare. But mutualists are also (barely) capitalistic in acknowledging property rights to a bare minimum and able-consent. Christian Universalism would perhaps reach farther if it weren’t seemingly confined into odd spaces, thanks to academic baggage.
Will definitely check out more of David Bentley Hart's talks. I think his criticism of Jordan is fair given David's apparent superior knowledge, but I think what makes Jordan popular is that he's closer to the archetype of the soulless western man searching for a way back to God.
Hart's highly critical of Jung as well, so it's no surprise he doesn't think very highly of Peterson. I wish he explained his "sandbox" comment, because his failure to recall the title of "Maps of Meaning" indicates to me that he hasn't read it. However, he is right in saying that Peterson's philosophy is neither Christian nor Jewish and that his biblical exegesis is less than scholarly. Peterson is quite clearly a beginner when it comes to navigating the Bible, but his training as a psychologist seems to give him the ability to highlight a lot of layers to the Bible that often goes unnoticed.
He doesn't like Peterson because he says that Peterson uses a mishmash of philosophy from philosophers he's clearly never read to create his worldview, he calls him a second rate scholar due to this. Nor does he like Jung because both try to reduce God to a psychological reality, for example, Christ, if there was such a person, clearly was not an archetype. He was a divine man. This is why he doesn't like them. They not actually talking about God or Christ.
Hart doesn't appreciate Dostoevsky either. The best and most powerful part of Petersons message is basically just a popularization of Dostoevskys ideas.
I suspect that D B Hart does not know very much about Pope Francis given his remark in this video. Elsewhere D B Hart says that John Paul II's Theology of the Body is fully congruent with the teaching of the Orthodox Church and he endorses it. Pope Francis, however, seems to be attempting to overturn this traditional ethical teaching. The fact that Pope Francis is beloved of the secular media should perhaps give D B Hart pause. I by no means "hate" Pope Francis; I merely have suspicions about what he is attempting to do during his tenure.
Decided to take a different turn with this video and whip up a quick highlight reel of Hart's best jokes/burns while I do research on other topics for more substantive videos in the future. I cut out his arguments from the videos I used because that wasn't the focus of this video, so if you're interested in his ideas then check the video sources and/or his books linked in the description. Thanks for watching. See ya next time!
He is a very smart man, but he definitely doesn't understand Peterson. He is probably just so use to being dismissive of non-theologians that he doesn't know when to turn it off.
@@CMBradley I listen to some more of DBH, he says all the right things. He is a very brilliant. Thanks for introducing. I don't believe he is saying anything dramatically different from JP or Jung. He just uses more strict theological and philosophical language. I don't know his veiws on Jung, but I hope he doesn't veiw him as a reductionist. Jung is literally one of the most anti reductionistic psychologists ever. Freud was the reductionist. "This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem.” Jung This qoute debunks what he thinks Jung may think. Jung never claimed omniscience, he was just sharing his thoughts
@@johncart07 Hey, glad that looked up a bit more about him! I actually do think Hart differs from Jung and Peterson rather dramatically, because matters of metaphysics and psychology--although they share some terrain--touch on totally different dimensions of reality. Hart wrote an article on Jung's "Red Book" back in 2013. He did label at least part of Jung's thought as "psychologistic reductionism." www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/jungs-therapeutic-gnosticism Personally, my interests in Hart and Peterson/Jung are totally different. I find Hart stimulating as it concerns theology, philosophy, and comparative religion; I find Peterson & Jung stimulating as it concerns the psychology of religion and certain aspects of anthropology. Thanks for the most thoughtful comment in the thread, btw! Always look forward to your thoughts :D
He has a good understanding of christianity. I don’t like that he has a tendency to overcomplicate things. All his teachings can be explain in the simply language. Generally he doesn’t like using common vocabulary
What exactly is he overcomplicating? Christ Himself spoke in parables. The fact is this, men are diverse and in fact they vary greatly in intelligence. Many things, in being “simplified” for “common” consumption, lose much of their nuance. In other words, if the person of average intelligence does have a right to have religious truths presented to them in a manner fitting their mentality, those of above average intelligence also have a right to have certain ideas and concepts presented to them with all their unsimplified nuances.
@@michaelcarden9623 He is always picking up the unusual fancy words There are commonly used synonymous with exactly this same meaning. His teaching is nothing else than the Vedanta philosophy put in the Christian frame. He is not right , the original , exactly classical Christianity didn’t teach that God is consciousness etc. Original teachings were via negativa : God cannot be comprehended or conceptualised at all. In India this same ;Vedanta is a philosophy which is not based on the real experience but scriptures and Logic. Yogic teachers would never say that God is this or that. But in the cataphatic sense he is right and he is right about the universalism of all religions and weirdness of the modern fundamentalism. Also is not true what he claims that fundamentalism wasn’t the case in old times: check the crusaders and they beliefs or Christian Anthropomorphites and so on. Full on fundamentalism and literalism.
The first is definitely true lol, but remember I just clipped together provocative comments of his that I found funny; this montage is not representative of how he argues.
@0:54 His comment on dawkins “he’s not interested in knowing what he’s talking about...”. I love it when we can see REAL mind reading in action... ultimately people pursue what they are interested in...
Well, if Former Tennis Player X writes multiple books and gives countless speeches over the course of a decade on how to play basketball, but doesn't know hardly a thing about the game, and every professional basketball coach and player says he's a fraud, would it then be reasonable to say that Former Tennis Player X is not interested in knowing what he's talking about?
C.M. Bradley you’re missing the point I’m making...DBH IS MAKING A KNOWLEDGE CLAIM ABOUT SOMETHING HE CANNOT KNOW...THE INTENT AND INTERESTS OF ANOTHER MIND...Dawkins wrote the selfish gene back in 1976....and another 23 books over FORTY YEARS ....does that honestly sound like a person who isn’t not interested? I’m seriously asking...
Oh, there's no denying Dawkins is interested in talking about religion. The claim Hart made, however--with which I agree--is that Dawkins is not interested in KNOWING what he's talking about when it comes to religion (or philosophy, even).
C.M. Bradley in·ter·est noun 1.the state of wanting to KNOW or LEARN about something or someone. You can’t both be interested in something and not want to KNOW/LEARN about it.... remember kids....it’s easy to make your point when you change the definitions of words ...
@@somethingforyourmindtoeat en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/interest 1.1 The quality of exciting curiosity or holding the attention. 1.2 [count noun] An activity or subject which one enjoys doing or studying. Dawkins is hilarious, fun to listen to, and a great writer. He clearly enjoys talking/writing about religion, just not intelligently.
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
I cut out the arguments because it's purely a comedy video. If you're interested in his arguments then I recommend checking the video sources or book links in the description. Of course, the books have more substance than the videos.
@@CMBradley Can you please point out the "comedy" bit? I gave up waiting for something funny after 3 minutes, but I am willing to give you a benefit of a doubt.
I can't find a debate between Hart and any of the people he criticizes probably because their philosophical foundations are so different that a discussion would be next to impossible.
Hart quotes from Calvin as to saying "Hell is copiously populated with babies not a cubit long..." I haven't been able to find where Calvin said this. Does someone know where Calvin said it? If so, can you reference it?
"Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death." Harmony of the Law Volume 2, John Calvin biblehub.com/library/calvin/harmony_of_the_law_volume_2/deuteronomy_13_12-17.htm
@@youngpilgrim5, yes he says reprobate kids will be damned to hell. It's interesting to see how his moral imagination is so twisted because even in the commentary, he says that our reasonable mind may cringe on the decision that God would send babies to hell but we should remember God's sovereign right
Calvin's theology demonstrates what happens when you start with bad first principles and take them to their logical conclusion. Calvin's God is a moral monster. To believe in Him, we must, by blind faith, ignore this and conclude He is loving and just. Sorry, no can do.
Pretty sad to see, considering that libertarians in the Rothbardian tradition are adamantly anti-war, believe in the nonaggression axiom and are for voluntary association. I also agree with Hart’s views on universalism. Before even coming to a universalist view, looking into a libertarian perspective on cultural and world events is what got me to reflect on being brought up in a Protestant/Evangelical upbringing and question the more legalistic views some would hold within those denominations.
I had never seen this guy before. Very interesting. It's hard not to notice that the majority of his argumentation seems to consist of casually mocking people and their work. And while hilarious, I'm not sure it constitutes a point.
I think a video like this creates a bad look because there's no context to a lot of the roasts, like his podcast roast of Peterson makes Bentley look pretty ignorant when compared to the transcripts of Peterson's biblical series and the abstractions Peterson lays out.
Yeah haha. In the description there's a link to the full video in which he says, "Don't be a Thomist. Don't be a Palamite." etc. He says his point is that a theology student should avoid being a static follower of a single theological paradigm, to put it roughly.
Well as a first mention of DBH. He doesn't come of very genuine (because this video is the only thing I have seen from him atm). I don't know if it was smart to make a compilation like this. If someone needs to call others *not very smart* or has to say *their books are bad* to strengthen their own position. That is a problem for me.
Hey RinZ, Like I said in the pinned comment, "I cut out his arguments from the videos I used because that wasn't the focus of this video, so if you're interested in his ideas then check the video sources and/or his books linked in the description." These are jokes, not arguments, and they are directed at an audience with a certain degree of philosophical, theological, and historical education. For example, his rip on naturalism assumes the listener has studied a bit about ontological necessity and contingency. Likewise, his rips on Calvinism assume the listener is at least faintly acquainted with Calvinism. Once more, his rips on the New Atheists assume the listener has read at least one introductory book on philosophy, religion, or history. If one isn't aware of just how ridiculous the New Atheists are, then sure, one isn't yet at the stage to appreciate this video. In that case, I'd recommend first reading "Atheist Delusions" (amzn.to/2Mp4wpG). You don't have to believe in God to appreciate rips on the New Atheists; you just have to know why it is the academic world sees them the same way the general public sees flat-earthers.
_"David Bentley Hart ROASTS Richard Dawkins"_ He says in the first 10 seconnds that Dawkins said that evolution answers the question of existence. I have tried to find when he actually said this or not and i have never found anything like that. So can somebody actually cite me this exact quote? Otherwise it's a lie (or a strawman) from Hart. Evolution does not even tackle the question of existence so.... i highly doubt he said anything like that.
Meh, I’m no Thomist, but if Thomism is so bad one wonders how it produced so many great theologians right down to our own day. One only need think of Peter Kreeft, who is a minor national treasure. I rate him above Hart. Also, Hart is being rather dense if he thinks traditionalist Catholics are disappointed in Pope Francis because Francis is “trying to be a Christian”. One wonders where this density comes from? I am only surmising here, but I think in converting to Orthodoxy Hart may be subject to an unfortunate desire to oppose much of what Western Christians say “just because that’s what an Orthodox should do”…of course I cannot get inside the man’s head, but there has long been enough of this petty back and forth between Eastern and Western Christians that it is not unthinkable that Hart himself is just being petty and ignorant here.
@@251rmartin You're clearly unfamiliar with the classical theism that Hart advocates for. For instance, he would never posit, as you say, "a god", because that would be an inaccurate depiction of what Hart and classical theists conceive of as God (i.e., being itself, not simply a being). Read his book 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss' if you actually want to familiarize yourself with his views instead of claiming he's a 'deist' or commits fallacies.
@@251rmartin No, you clearly haven't understood the classical theist position. You cannot call anything a god and that make it 'exist', because all things by their nature are finite and contingent upon something logically prior to themselves. The classical theist claim, however, is that God is infinite and the source of all things. In other words, He is infinite being from which all existing things (which are finite and contingent) receive their being. As you can see, it's not a matter of semantics. Again, I urge you to read the book by Hart that I cited before responding. Don't embarrass yourself any further by demonstrating your ignorance of classical theism.
@@251rmartin What do you mean "zero sound arguments"? How can you not see that the classical theist position necessarily makes sound contingency and ontological arguments? Honestly, you are clueless 🤦♂️
@@251rmartin For the third time, the arguments are in Hart's book. If you haven't even read the book and are unfamiliar with the arguments, how could you "gladly show" what is unjustifiable or fallacious? Your ignorance is astounding
Everything he says is true and very orthodox. But at the same time its horrible to listen to him because he lacks humility. There is nothing of the dessert fathers love and holy ghost power in him.
It’s unfortunate but apparent. The institutions of academia do a lot to intoxicate teachers, whether in a theological or secular bend. While I agree with Hart’s views on ultimate restoration as a christian theologically, it seems how he practices his profession is at odds with the ethics of what he professes to believe in. In the same ways non-believers as agnostics are turned away by some judgmental christians, other everyday christians are turned off by egotistical teachers and preachers who value their position and status being lorded over others. Jesus himself says that those who serve as teachers will be judged more strictly. Just because one can hold to a view that hell while brutal is finite, doesn’t mean that one who says they live as a christian won’t see rewards withheld from them. Worse yet, it’s no excuse to sin nor to excuse sin. Evil even if it’s temporal is still evil.
After years of listening to sophists like Dawkins and Harris, I can fully understand why Hart is not gracious towards them. Pretty sure mockery of heathens is allowed too. 🤷🏻♂️
That is there to say about Peterson, but it doesn't really amount to more than just his subjective opinion. It is just empty rhetoric actually. There is no such thing as a statistical average objective interpretation of the bible, maybe just the popular opinion of scholars. But popular opinion doesn't equal absolute truth. I think Martin Luther recognized this long ago. There are just ways to interpret the Bible, not a way. Anyone can easily create a dismissive narrative for anything Hart claims too. He is definitely missing something, that's for sure.
@Deacon Verter Debate me...… You seem to me like you might be an atheist, are you one? If so why did you become or decide to call yourself an atheist? What kind of atheist are you exactly? What really sells you on that? Do you believe your life, body, family and the ground you walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe they are all something else then what do you think they all are then? If you hypothetically found out tomorrow that the God of the Bible is in FACT REAL how do you think you would change your life or what do you think you should do differently in this situation?
Hart is not even good at ad hominem, which is all he throws at new atheists arguments in both discussion and his books. I came to his books with an open mind, but he isn’t trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him wholeheartedly
@@dillondoran4654 Come on buddy, unless you misunderstood or got filtered by the books you would not claim this. Dawkins when he was still active purposefuly refused to debate on any points raised by natural theology. DBH's book Atheist delusions is a destruction of that edifiice and I hope you re-read it.
@@CMBradley this guy "roasts" likes he's in middle school. "So and so isn't smart, I'm obviously smarter than them" is his obvious mantra. It's pretty sad, like he has a complex. In any case Sam Harris would destroy him in a debate, would be hilarious to watch.
I'm not sure what this video is. It's nothing but observational ad-hominem. No arguments or alternatives are offered to any of these people's views. For the first time ever seeing this person, he seems little more than a snark.
It's a comedy highlight reel of a particular scholar, so I elected to omit his arguments. If you're interested in the knowledge and arguments that led him to make the statements in this video, then check out his books linked in the description. He's actually a brilliant writer! Also, to make a slight correction, only arguments are subject to being fallacious via ad hominem. Insulting statements, by contrast, are not arguments, so are incapable of being logically fallacious as such.
@@CMBradley Ad-hominem is a strategy where rebuttal of arguments is replaced with personal attacks. So, the particulars he is responding to don't matter because he is not addressing them properly anyway. However, he IS addressing them, just with non-arguments, as you say. That's the fallacy.
@@TashiRogo , in an informal sense, sure. In Hart's defense, however, I chose to omit his arguments because they didn't fit the theme of the video. It's just a comedy video; it's not supposed to be taken seriously.
"they don't seem to have any arguments in them, they just have statements" This video perfectly summarized in his own words. Maybe Hart has good counter-arguments, but this video surely doesn't display them, unless you're impressed with ad hominems.
Idk much about Hart's political philosophy, but to my knowledge he is a socialist that attributes the horrid track record it has to philosophical materialism. Hence his odd comment about the pope too.
You call yourself "Rational Sceptic" and you put on that statement. Yeah, right, you should check the definition of delusion, as some of your idols should have done before use it, too.
@@rationalsceptic7634 Then again, you have not the slightest idea. Moreover, this is not the point, it is the horrendous and stupid statement you are proposing, based on a logical fallacy. Take apart your profile name or the use of "evidence" or "Gods" in order to satisfy your pretensions alone. I am not wasting my time on a person to whom I can´t posit enough intelligence, so he can understand simple notions. And, orthography is very important. THREE points to sing the end of an incomplete sentence.
@@davidlara993 You are just a self deluded Fool who doesnt understand Ancient Historian or Science..the majority agree with me The Bible is mostly forged fiction based on Myths and plagiarism
@@rationalsceptic7634 "The majority". You love to expose yourself intellectually and offer me biased sources from TH-cam as an authoritative evidences. I only want you to check simple notions, the reality of scientific method, historical one and why none has capacity to study God (you have started to add more epistemology you are absolutely ignorant of), don't use the comment section to widespread ignorance and SPAM, which, even if it was not stupid, is against the rules and respect yourself. You are the peak of ignorance and I am not even consider you from now. I can have a much more intelligent conversation with a child that could make a difference between statement and argument. Good luck , you need it.
Coming into this channel for the first time it was clear and obvious to me that this video was not going to be representative of this man's scholarship, but instead a lighthearted attempt at highlighting his colorful personality. I had never heard of Hart, and therefore realized a modicum of research would probably be required to understand his arguments and position. That being said, the outline of his thought illustrated here leads me to conclude that doing so will be worth my time. This seems to me a reasonable response when superficially encountering an unfamiliar thinker for the first time. The fact that there are people here in the comments that are stupid and prejudiced enough to draw a full conclusion about this man based on a series of comedic 10 second clips is absolutely astounding, and I think perfectly reflects the nature of the degradation of intellectual inquiry in the age of the internet.
Thanks for the well-written comment, Adam! There's definitely no shortage of idiocy on the internet, haha. I look forward to reading your thoughts again.
Ahmen
You got it. Hart is brilliant. I hope you've had the chance to engage with his written work.
You're right. As a gay right-wing fascist christian, I think my side of politics has no excuse for it's anti-intellectualism at all. There is nothing but blind hatred and constant denial of anything that even seemingly challanges deeply held beliefs.
is this a serious comment? I can't tell if you're trying to mimic Hart's bloviated speech or you're being genuine
"Calvin, in telling us that hell is populated with babies not a cubit long, merely reminds us that within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence."
I laughed out loud because of how true this statement is.
@@cbogue418 It means that the god of calvinism is really no better than the devil, he's just more powerful. Thankfully, the real God is not the god of calvinism, He is wholly good, benevolent, loving and just (and I don't mean "just" in the twisted way that calvinists and most evangelicals, I mean actually just).
@@markdaniels1730 can you expound on what you mean by not "just" in the "twisted manner" of Calvinists and most Evangelicals?
@@hislove4ever7 Sure. Calvinists and most American Evangelicals have a distorted interpretation of God's justice, it's essentially a projection of human passions on theology which they took from Anselm of Canterbury.
See, human beings are vexed and angered when they perceive themselves to be slighted and consider it a humiliation that only vengeance can remove, and Anselm projected this vexation onto God, imagining God as a medieval feudal lord. God, the Infinite Being was infinitely insulted and vexed by Adam's disobedience, the same way a feudal lord would be if one of his pesants said the wrong thing at the wrong time in his presence.
But is this how God conceives of justice? Paying back slights? No.
Just read Zechariah 7:9, "Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother".
God's justice is about writing wrongs, bringing things back into balance and right order. It's not about payback. And it is not something that exists in tension with His love, mercy and compassion, as a sort of contradiction in His character that needs to be resolved on the Cross. It is an expression of His love, mercy and compassion poured out on the Cross.
@@markdaniels1730 Thank you for your lengthy response! I really appreciate it, especially considering how uncharitable most folk are on social media with good faith questions. I read the Institutes (1541 edition at least) several years ago, and though I wouldn't consider myself a 5-point Calvinist or double predestinationist quite in the manner of Calvin, I would say that I have a deep appreciation for his understanding of Union with Christ, the Spirit, and view of charity towards the neighbor. Much of his commentary on the commandments, for example, is quite beautiful and surprisingly radical in comparison to how certain American Evangelicals treat their neighbors (i.e., miserly and punitively), so I do not think Calvin can fully be targeted for their failure.. maybe more generally an incomplete view of what Calvin is saying even if there are good reasons to disagree with him.
For example, I grew up with Baptist parents (rather typical American Evangelicals) and they would not identify themselves as "Calvinists", so I'm not sure Calvin is to blame wholesale for this error. As you mentioned, Anselm is more directly to blame chronologically speaking but is his idea of satisfaction not attested to in Scripture? (I have not gotten to read 'Cur Deus Homo' yet, so forgive me for any superficial statements here).
All that said, over the last few years, I've been drawn quite strongly toward the Eastern church (have not been baptized, but have been going to an Anglican Church two years or so). My main issue here is how the experience of God's wrath and attestation of God's wrath, especially with Paul's understanding of Christ's justification, is squared with the Eastern understanding shared here. Are there certain texts within the tradition that you would recommend to deepen or clarify my understanding? Would you say it's mostly a confusion owing to translation or connotation errors?
To be clear: My inclination has always been to put God's love, grace and mercy front and center to all of his actions; thus, I tend towards hopeful universalism. But certain parts of Sacred Scripture, and certain parts of Tradition, do not seem to make this so cut and dry, I'm afraid.
@@erint4383 "I do not think Calvin can fully be targeted for their failure.. maybe more generally an incomplete view of what Calvin is saying even if there are good reasons to disagree with him"
I would agree that there are a lot of good things about Calvin's theology if we lay aside it's more brooding and pessimistic aspects, we can definitely find solid Christian thruth in his writings. In fact, just like Augustine who said "God does not delight in damning but in saving", in contradiction to his own theological system, sometimes Calvin too says stuff that is both a) good and b) contradictory to his own theology.
For example, this passage from the Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life (1551): "If we cover and obliterate man’s faults and consider the beauty and dignity of God’s image in him, then we shall be induced to love and embrace him". If I hadn't given the source of this quote most people would not have guessed that John Calvin wrote those words.
Recognizing the beauty and dignity of the image of God in man, and that even sinful deeds cannot do away with it completely runs counter to the idea of Total Depravity (at least the way it's popularly construed by his followers). So I don't deny that there is good in Calvin... he gets a lot of things really, really wrong, but he does get some things right every now and then.
"Anselm is more directly to blame chronologically speaking but is his idea of satisfaction not attested to in Scripture?"
Oh yes, the thing about the satisfaction theory is, if it is so plainly taught in Scripture, why was Anselm the first person to see it? The early Church Fathers taught that through Christ's suffering in humanity's place, he overcame and liberated us from death and the devil. They had access to St. Paul's writings back then, they were brilliant and faithful men who had excellent command of the Greek language. In my mind it strains credulity to think that they missed something so supposedly foundational to Christianity that was only to be discovered almost a thousand years later by a man who, though brilliant as well, was far removed from the original cultural context of the New Testament and did not speak it's original language as the early Church Fathers did.
"I've been drawn quite strongly toward the Eastern church (have not been baptized, but have been going to an Anglican Church two years or so)"
I'm pretty sure that Anglicans would still be considered the Western church. But I think I know why you would feel that way, a lot of people who were Anglicans end up moving to the East, it's like a process that some people who were raised evangelical go through. Perhaps the most famous Anglican of all time, C.S. Lewis actually had some very Eastern view on subjects like Hell and the Atonement.
"My main issue here is how the experience of God's wrath and attestation of God's wrath, especially with Paul's understanding of Christ's justification, is squared with the Eastern understanding shared here."
I'm not sure I completely understand the question. But with regards to the experience of God's wrath, what the Orthodox Church teaches that both Heaven and Hell are being in God's presence, and this presence is either enjoyment or suffering depending on the person's spiritual state in that presence. The saved and the damned will both experience God's light and love. However, the saved will experience it as Heaven, while the damned will experience it as Hell. The same way a person who has healthy eyes is able to enjoy daylight, whereas a person with a diseased eye would be in pain if exposed to sunlight. That is the Orthodox understanding of God's wrath, it is in essence the same as His love, only resisted.
"The general teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church is that Paradise and Hell do not exist from God's point of view, but from man's. It is true that Paradise and Hell exist as two ways of life, but it is not God who created them. In the patristic tradition it is clear that there are not two ways, but God Himself is Paradise for the saints and God Himself is Hell for the sinners." - Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Life After Death, Chapter 6. PARADISE AND HELL, Section 2. The Fathers on Paradise and Hell
I hope that helps.
"Are there certain texts within the tradition that you would recommend to deepen or clarify my understanding? Would you say it's mostly a confusion owing to translation or connotation errors?"
Definitely. "Ancestral Sin", by John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin and Heaven and Hell in Orthodox theology. The other book I quoted above "Life After Death" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, is also very good. However, if you would like a more easily accessible and popular level introduction to Orthodox theology on this subject, "The River of Fire" by Alexandre Kalomiros was what originally got me interested in Eastern Orthodoxy.
"My inclination has always been to put God's love, grace and mercy front and center to all of his actions; thus, I tend towards hopeful universalism."
I feel the same way. Hopeful universalism I would say is the most Christian viewpoint of all, God Himself is a hopeful universalist according to 1 Timothy 2:4.
"But certain parts of Sacred Scripture, and certain parts of Tradition, do not seem to make this so cut and dry, I'm afraid."
Exactly. That's why I'm not 100% on board with David Bentley Hart even though I love listening to him. But I do hope he's right...
"You can only cling to that picture of the past if you scrupulously avoid knowledge of the past." 😂
Works for Steve Pinker.
☦Why are you behaving like clowns? You think the world is a playground? He's no Christian.
Hart is the biggest heretic of our times along with Akin, and if you follow him instead of the Church you'll end up in the everlasting fire of Abhadon for all eternity, so you are warned🙏❤
I'm not on board with 100 percent of his stances but I'll be damned if he isn't a devastating rhetorician
Exactly!
He is devastating though because of his intellect and spot on insights , not because of any natural quirk of personality
@@natashatomlinson4548 He can also back up what he says
Im not sure I agree with him politically, but the man is clearly on to many things.
@@djm.326
I would like to see a debate between a universal salvation position and an eternal hell position. Because one would think such an important doctrine would be settled by now.
"Their books are really bad..." hahaha
It's the times where he drops all pretenses of being clever that hit the hardest. When he's putting effort into his roast, you know he has to, on some level, take his target seriously for one reason or another. But when he simply flatly and brutally states things like that, you know he genuinely could not hold these people in greater contempt, and I love it
Its funny cause its true
@@Autobotmatt428 indeed it is, like Dawkins attributing like 7 pages to the 5 ways, wtf
@@gabepearson6104 Don't forget his profound miss understanding of them.
@@Autobotmatt428 exactly
Thanks for taking the time- and I imagine it involved a lot- to cut this together. You are truly a vessel of God's loving grace❤❤❤
"I would cut off my hand before voting for a damned libertarian" LMAO
Why is he against Libertarians?
@@dragoflamer786 4:25 it's not an "effective" vote?
th-cam.com/video/u6GfJNMRgPg/w-d-xo.html ok this is why
Myself being an anarchist who believes in property rights and the existence of natural law, and as a Christian who believes in Ultimate restorationism as Hart does, I find it really odd that Hart would readily dismiss libertarianism. He seems to straw-man libertarianism with libertinism, in the pursuit some have in life of whimsical, selfish, or self-destructive goals. To Hart’s credit, he seems to be a mutualist type of socialist, and not a central State type of socialist. Mutualists are rare. But mutualists are also (barely) capitalistic in acknowledging property rights to a bare minimum and able-consent.
Christian Universalism would perhaps reach farther if it weren’t seemingly confined into odd spaces, thanks to academic baggage.
@@Hibernial same
Will definitely check out more of David Bentley Hart's talks.
I think his criticism of Jordan is fair given David's apparent superior knowledge, but I think what makes Jordan popular is that he's closer to the archetype of the soulless western man searching for a way back to God.
Hart's highly critical of Jung as well, so it's no surprise he doesn't think very highly of Peterson. I wish he explained his "sandbox" comment, because his failure to recall the title of "Maps of Meaning" indicates to me that he hasn't read it. However, he is right in saying that Peterson's philosophy is neither Christian nor Jewish and that his biblical exegesis is less than scholarly. Peterson is quite clearly a beginner when it comes to navigating the Bible, but his training as a psychologist seems to give him the ability to highlight a lot of layers to the Bible that often goes unnoticed.
@@CMBradley Good analysis. Thanks for the vids, looking forward to more. Just yesterday I was checking your channel for new content. Cheers
Thanks, mate! Just doing a lot of research atm. There should be better stuff to come in February, Lord willing.
He doesn't like Peterson because he says that Peterson uses a mishmash of philosophy from philosophers he's clearly never read to create his worldview, he calls him a second rate scholar due to this. Nor does he like Jung because both try to reduce God to a psychological reality, for example, Christ, if there was such a person, clearly was not an archetype. He was a divine man.
This is why he doesn't like them. They not actually talking about God or Christ.
Hart doesn't appreciate Dostoevsky either. The best and most powerful part of Petersons message is basically just a popularization of Dostoevskys ideas.
That was a treat.
I enjoyed his quote on Naturalism.
Right!? That burdensome ontological contingency xD
That quote is powerful and makes a lot of sense.
@@gfujigo It’s simple and to the point.
You can’t help but grin at these digs there really good.
Loving this guy
I suspect that D B Hart does not know very much about Pope Francis given his remark in this video. Elsewhere D B Hart says that John Paul II's Theology of the Body is fully congruent with the teaching of the Orthodox Church and he endorses it. Pope Francis, however, seems to be attempting to overturn this traditional ethical teaching. The fact that Pope Francis is beloved of the secular media should perhaps give D B Hart pause. I by no means "hate" Pope Francis; I merely have suspicions about what he is attempting to do during his tenure.
Decided to take a different turn with this video and whip up a quick highlight reel of Hart's best jokes/burns while I do research on other topics for more substantive videos in the future. I cut out his arguments from the videos I used because that wasn't the focus of this video, so if you're interested in his ideas then check the video sources and/or his books linked in the description.
Thanks for watching. See ya next time!
He is a very smart man, but he definitely doesn't understand Peterson. He is probably just so use to being dismissive of non-theologians that he doesn't know when to turn it off.
Agreed! The sandbox comment is still pretty funny though xD
@@CMBradley He definitely got jokes.
@@CMBradley I listen to some more of DBH, he says all the right things. He is a very brilliant. Thanks for introducing. I don't believe he is saying anything dramatically different from JP or Jung. He just uses more strict theological and philosophical language. I don't know his veiws on Jung, but I hope he doesn't veiw him as a reductionist. Jung is literally one of the most anti reductionistic psychologists ever. Freud was the reductionist.
"This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem.” Jung
This qoute debunks what he thinks Jung may think.
Jung never claimed omniscience, he was just sharing his thoughts
@@johncart07
Hey, glad that looked up a bit more about him!
I actually do think Hart differs from Jung and Peterson rather dramatically, because matters of metaphysics and psychology--although they share some terrain--touch on totally different dimensions of reality.
Hart wrote an article on Jung's "Red Book" back in 2013. He did label at least part of Jung's thought as "psychologistic reductionism."
www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/jungs-therapeutic-gnosticism
Personally, my interests in Hart and Peterson/Jung are totally different. I find Hart stimulating as it concerns theology, philosophy, and comparative religion; I find Peterson & Jung stimulating as it concerns the psychology of religion and certain aspects of anthropology.
Thanks for the most thoughtful comment in the thread, btw! Always look forward to your thoughts :D
I’ve been waiting for this…
Where is the first clip from? I know it's closer to ruth but I'm not sure of the exact video.
"David Bentley Hart - Atheism's Best Arguments?"
th-cam.com/video/AQBfoneh97E/w-d-xo.html
He has a good understanding of christianity. I don’t like that he has a tendency to overcomplicate things. All his teachings can be explain in the simply language. Generally he doesn’t like using common vocabulary
What exactly is he overcomplicating? Christ Himself spoke in parables.
The fact is this, men are diverse and in fact they vary greatly in intelligence. Many things, in being “simplified” for “common” consumption, lose much of their nuance.
In other words, if the person of average intelligence does have a right to have religious truths presented to them in a manner fitting their mentality, those of above average intelligence also have a right to have certain ideas and concepts presented to them with all their unsimplified nuances.
@@michaelcarden9623 He is always picking up the unusual fancy words There are commonly used synonymous with exactly this same meaning. His teaching is nothing else than the Vedanta philosophy put in the Christian frame. He is not right , the original , exactly classical Christianity didn’t teach that God is consciousness etc. Original teachings were via negativa : God cannot be comprehended or conceptualised at all. In India this same ;Vedanta is a philosophy which is not based on the real experience but scriptures and Logic. Yogic teachers would never say that God is this or that. But in the cataphatic sense he is right and he is right about the universalism of all religions and weirdness of the modern fundamentalism. Also is not true what he claims that fundamentalism wasn’t the case in old times: check the crusaders and they beliefs or Christian Anthropomorphites and so on. Full on fundamentalism and literalism.
Stuck at work :-( looking forward to watching this later
The lady that laughs at 1:23
@C.M. Bradley 1:05 where is this audio from?
Pretty confident it's this interview: th-cam.com/video/wyQYpt6303E/w-d-xo.html
Each one a mic drop moment. Good on Bentley Hart❤😂🎉
You should put links to each interview
Two things are obvious about this guy: 1. He's arrogant 2. He relies on ad hominem rather than sound reasoning
The first is definitely true lol, but remember I just clipped together provocative comments of his that I found funny; this montage is not representative of how he argues.
@@CMBradleyfair enough, but to some extent, it IS. I'll grant you he may be much more reasonable on the whole though
It would be interesting and enlightening to watch all of these in the context.
Hart is the next step up,dont start with him or he will blow your mind.
He definitely blows. Altar boys if he could.
@@brianjanson3498 why do atheists always fantasize about child-abuse?
@0:54 His comment on dawkins “he’s not interested in knowing what he’s talking about...”. I love it when we can see REAL mind reading in action... ultimately people pursue what they are interested in...
Well, if Former Tennis Player X writes multiple books and gives countless speeches over the course of a decade on how to play basketball, but doesn't know hardly a thing about the game, and every professional basketball coach and player says he's a fraud, would it then be reasonable to say that Former Tennis Player X is not interested in knowing what he's talking about?
C.M. Bradley you’re missing the point I’m making...DBH IS MAKING A KNOWLEDGE CLAIM ABOUT SOMETHING HE CANNOT KNOW...THE INTENT AND INTERESTS OF ANOTHER MIND...Dawkins wrote the selfish gene back in 1976....and another 23 books over FORTY YEARS ....does that honestly sound like a person who isn’t not interested? I’m seriously asking...
Oh, there's no denying Dawkins is interested in talking about religion. The claim Hart made, however--with which I agree--is that Dawkins is not interested in KNOWING what he's talking about when it comes to religion (or philosophy, even).
C.M. Bradley
in·ter·est
noun
1.the state of wanting to KNOW or LEARN about something or someone.
You can’t both be interested in something and not want to KNOW/LEARN about it....
remember kids....it’s easy to make your point when you change the definitions of words ...
@@somethingforyourmindtoeat
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/interest
1.1 The quality of exciting curiosity or holding the attention.
1.2 [count noun] An activity or subject which one enjoys doing or studying.
Dawkins is hilarious, fun to listen to, and a great writer. He clearly enjoys talking/writing about religion, just not intelligently.
DBH looks like Orson Welles and talks like Jim Morrison.
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV)
10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
He's like the Christian Gore Vidal, who I enjoy listening to. Delightful.
Lol the sam Harris roast
David is so arrogant and I love it 🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I think it’s confidences
Rhetorically vicious atheism 😂
This does burn them but he doesn't get into refuting any arguments.
Ya it’s quite boring. Unfortunately a lot of people are interested in the burns and not the individuals ideas. They are all the rave on TH-cam.
I cut out the arguments because it's purely a comedy video. If you're interested in his arguments then I recommend checking the video sources or book links in the description. Of course, the books have more substance than the videos.
@@CMBradley Can you please point out the "comedy" bit? I gave up waiting for something funny after 3 minutes, but I am willing to give you a benefit of a doubt.
@@crankytec TRIGGERED
@@crankytec salty lol
I like it 😃
I can't find a debate between Hart and any of the people he criticizes probably because their philosophical foundations are so different that a discussion would be next to impossible.
Hart doesn't really do debates. He may have done a quasi-debate on "Unbelievable?" once, but his polemics are more so done through writing.
You legend.
Too little Calvin-roasting though.
Hart quotes from Calvin as to saying "Hell is copiously populated with babies not a cubit long..." I haven't been able to find where Calvin said this. Does someone know where Calvin said it? If so, can you reference it?
"Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death." Harmony of the Law Volume 2, John Calvin
biblehub.com/library/calvin/harmony_of_the_law_volume_2/deuteronomy_13_12-17.htm
@@youngpilgrim5, yes he says reprobate kids will be damned to hell. It's interesting to see how his moral imagination is so twisted because even in the commentary, he says that our reasonable mind may cringe on the decision that God would send babies to hell but we should remember God's sovereign right
@@fraserdaniel3999 And that sovereign God that creates babies to burn in hell might as well be a demon, that's what DBH is talking about.
Calvin's theology demonstrates what happens when you start with bad first principles and take them to their logical conclusion. Calvin's God is a moral monster. To believe in Him, we must, by blind faith, ignore this and conclude He is loving and just. Sorry, no can do.
“I’d cut my hand off before I’d vote for a damned libertarian.”
Pretty sad to see, considering that libertarians in the Rothbardian tradition are adamantly anti-war, believe in the nonaggression axiom and are for voluntary association. I also agree with Hart’s views on universalism. Before even coming to a universalist view, looking into a libertarian perspective on cultural and world events is what got me to reflect on being brought up in a Protestant/Evangelical upbringing and question the more legalistic views some would hold within those denominations.
Why not to be a palamite? What is the better alternative?
In that video he says basically just don't follow any one theologian, but put it provocatively to begin saying that.
The most monstrous ego in contemporary Christian theology. All that learning and it taught him nothing about humility.
I had never seen this guy before. Very interesting. It's hard not to notice that the majority of his argumentation seems to consist of casually mocking people and their work. And while hilarious, I'm not sure it constitutes a point.
Well the video is about "roasts" and not substantive arguments
He makes his arguments in plenty other places. That wasn't the point of this video.
I think a video like this creates a bad look because there's no context to a lot of the roasts, like his podcast roast of Peterson makes Bentley look pretty ignorant when compared to the transcripts of Peterson's biblical series and the abstractions Peterson lays out.
Did he say "don't be a Palamite" at the end?
Yeah haha. In the description there's a link to the full video in which he says, "Don't be a Thomist. Don't be a Palamite." etc. He says his point is that a theology student should avoid being a static follower of a single theological paradigm, to put it roughly.
@@CMBradley thanks for the clarification.
Oh, and you are perfect and all knowing. For someone who writes so much about God practicing one of his virtues, namely, humility is in order.
Well as a first mention of DBH. He doesn't come of very genuine (because this video is the only thing I have seen from him atm). I don't know if it was smart to make a compilation like this. If someone needs to call others *not very smart* or has to say *their books are bad* to strengthen their own position. That is a problem for me.
Hey RinZ,
Like I said in the pinned comment, "I cut out his arguments from the videos I used because that wasn't the focus of this video, so if you're interested in his ideas then check the video sources and/or his books linked in the description."
These are jokes, not arguments, and they are directed at an audience with a certain degree of philosophical, theological, and historical education. For example, his rip on naturalism assumes the listener has studied a bit about ontological necessity and contingency. Likewise, his rips on Calvinism assume the listener is at least faintly acquainted with Calvinism. Once more, his rips on the New Atheists assume the listener has read at least one introductory book on philosophy, religion, or history.
If one isn't aware of just how ridiculous the New Atheists are, then sure, one isn't yet at the stage to appreciate this video. In that case, I'd recommend first reading "Atheist Delusions" (amzn.to/2Mp4wpG). You don't have to believe in God to appreciate rips on the New Atheists; you just have to know why it is the academic world sees them the same way the general public sees flat-earthers.
Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance not its abandonment - that was his teaching!
Did you not read Acts or Galatians?
Darwin's theory makes a category error so profound that it verges on the infinite....
Lololol
He's talking about Richard Dawkins' understanding of religion, not Darwin's theory.
Nice try though.
_"David Bentley Hart ROASTS Richard Dawkins"_
He says in the first 10 seconnds that Dawkins said that evolution answers the question of existence. I have tried to find when he actually said this or not and i have never found anything like that. So can somebody actually cite me this exact quote? Otherwise it's a lie (or a strawman) from Hart. Evolution does not even tackle the question of existence so.... i highly doubt he said anything like that.
I'd be shocked if Dawkins has an IQ over 100.
Saying "you're ignorant and stupid" but in erudite ways
Not wrong lol
Meh, I’m no Thomist, but if Thomism is so bad one wonders how it produced so many great theologians right down to our own day. One only need think of Peter Kreeft, who is a minor national treasure. I rate him above Hart.
Also, Hart is being rather dense if he thinks traditionalist Catholics are disappointed in Pope Francis because Francis is “trying to be a Christian”. One wonders where this density comes from?
I am only surmising here, but I think in converting to Orthodoxy Hart may be subject to an unfortunate desire to oppose much of what Western Christians say “just because that’s what an Orthodox should do”…of course I cannot get inside the man’s head, but there has long been enough of this petty back and forth between Eastern and Western Christians that it is not unthinkable that Hart himself is just being petty and ignorant here.
Hart is not orthodox, and the distinctions between east and west are not insignificant.
"I know quite a lot of very traditionalist Catholics who hate the current Pope, largely because of his perverse desire to be a Christian." LOL
"Dennet just makes statements" pot kettle black
Hart does make a lot of statements, but in his defense I didn't include any of the footage of his arguments in this video.
@@CMBradley I think you would have included his arguments if they were any good
@@ndjm00 I would have included them if they were funny.
Funny bald man, I like
He doesnt make a single argument. He's simply making jokes about how he disagrees with them. What a joke. Make an argument.
What did you expect from a "BEST ROASTS" video, Gamer? A syllogism? 😂
@@251rmartin You're clearly unfamiliar with the classical theism that Hart advocates for. For instance, he would never posit, as you say, "a god", because that would be an inaccurate depiction of what Hart and classical theists conceive of as God (i.e., being itself, not simply a being). Read his book 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss' if you actually want to familiarize yourself with his views instead of claiming he's a 'deist' or commits fallacies.
@@251rmartin No, you clearly haven't understood the classical theist position. You cannot call anything a god and that make it 'exist', because all things by their nature are finite and contingent upon something logically prior to themselves. The classical theist claim, however, is that God is infinite and the source of all things. In other words, He is infinite being from which all existing things (which are finite and contingent) receive their being. As you can see, it's not a matter of semantics. Again, I urge you to read the book by Hart that I cited before responding. Don't embarrass yourself any further by demonstrating your ignorance of classical theism.
@@251rmartin What do you mean "zero sound arguments"? How can you not see that the classical theist position necessarily makes sound contingency and ontological arguments? Honestly, you are clueless 🤦♂️
@@251rmartin For the third time, the arguments are in Hart's book. If you haven't even read the book and are unfamiliar with the arguments, how could you "gladly show" what is unjustifiable or fallacious? Your ignorance is astounding
Everything he says is true and very orthodox. But at the same time its horrible to listen to him because he lacks humility. There is nothing of the dessert fathers love and holy ghost power in him.
It’s unfortunate but apparent. The institutions of academia do a lot to intoxicate teachers, whether in a theological or secular bend. While I agree with Hart’s views on ultimate restoration as a christian theologically, it seems how he practices his profession is at odds with the ethics of what he professes to believe in. In the same ways non-believers as agnostics are turned away by some judgmental christians, other everyday christians are turned off by egotistical teachers and preachers who value their position and status being lorded over others. Jesus himself says that those who serve as teachers will be judged more strictly.
Just because one can hold to a view that hell while brutal is finite, doesn’t mean that one who says they live as a christian won’t see rewards withheld from them. Worse yet, it’s no excuse to sin nor to excuse sin. Evil even if it’s temporal is still evil.
After years of listening to sophists like Dawkins and Harris, I can fully understand why Hart is not gracious towards them.
Pretty sure mockery of heathens is allowed too. 🤷🏻♂️
Hart is in fact not orthodox at all.
That is there to say about Peterson, but it doesn't really amount to more than just his subjective opinion. It is just empty rhetoric actually. There is no such thing as a statistical average objective interpretation of the bible, maybe just the popular opinion of scholars. But popular opinion doesn't equal absolute truth. I think Martin Luther recognized this long ago. There are just ways to interpret the Bible, not a way. Anyone can easily create a dismissive narrative for anything Hart claims too. He is definitely missing something, that's for sure.
You Peterson fanboy just can not stand criticism of the man. Even he would tell you how stupid and dangerous this is.
@@emmashalliker6862 Where did I explicitly state "don't criticize Peterson?" I was simply criticizing the critique.
Dawkins does NOT NOT NOT argue that evolutionary biology “explains existence,” David
Yes, he does.
He seems to be a standup comedian, not a theologian or a philosopher.
Obviously haven't read any of his work
Call that a roast.
If you want to be a Theologist don't be a Martian!!
Professional quote miner and opinionator.
Lol ok
This guy is a pretentious poser. I would debate him into the ground!
@Deacon Verter
Debate me...…
You seem to me like you might be an atheist, are you one? If so why did you become or decide to call yourself an atheist? What kind of atheist are you exactly? What really sells you on that?
Do you believe your life, body, family and the ground you walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe they are all something else then what do you think they all are then?
If you hypothetically found out tomorrow that the God of the Bible is in FACT REAL how do you think you would change your life or what do you think you should do differently in this situation?
Of course you would sweety. Here, have a cookie and go back to watching cartoons. The adults are speaking.
Hart is not even good at ad hominem, which is all he throws at new atheists arguments in both discussion and his books. I came to his books with an open mind, but he isn’t trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him wholeheartedly
The New Atheists' arguments are mostly ad hominem and sophistry. When they have a good argument, I'm sure he'll treat them accordingly.
@@Si_Mondo I disagree. Their arguments are far more convincing than any laid out by any theist I’ve seen.
You can disagree all you like. You're wrong.
@@dillondoran4654 Come on buddy, unless you misunderstood or got filtered by the books you would not claim this. Dawkins when he was still active purposefuly refused to debate on any points raised by natural theology. DBH's book Atheist delusions is a destruction of that edifiice and I hope you re-read it.
This dude is a joke. He's not "destroying" anyone, just doing the same tired ad hominem attacks that these types do.
Lol ok
There's a fine distinction between "roasting" and "destroying," my good man.
@@CMBradley this guy "roasts" likes he's in middle school. "So and so isn't smart, I'm obviously smarter than them" is his obvious mantra. It's pretty sad, like he has a complex. In any case Sam Harris would destroy him in a debate, would be hilarious to watch.
Okay, petition for it. I don't see that ever happening, though.
mirror mirror
I'm not sure what this video is. It's nothing but observational ad-hominem. No arguments or alternatives are offered to any of these people's views. For the first time ever seeing this person, he seems little more than a snark.
It's a comedy highlight reel of a particular scholar, so I elected to omit his arguments. If you're interested in the knowledge and arguments that led him to make the statements in this video, then check out his books linked in the description. He's actually a brilliant writer!
Also, to make a slight correction, only arguments are subject to being fallacious via ad hominem. Insulting statements, by contrast, are not arguments, so are incapable of being logically fallacious as such.
@@CMBradley Ad-hominem is a strategy where rebuttal of arguments is replaced with personal attacks. So, the particulars he is responding to don't matter because he is not addressing them properly anyway. However, he IS addressing them, just with non-arguments, as you say. That's the fallacy.
@@TashiRogo , in an informal sense, sure. In Hart's defense, however, I chose to omit his arguments because they didn't fit the theme of the video. It's just a comedy video; it's not supposed to be taken seriously.
@@CMBradley Fair enough. It just seems to me that you have eaten the crust and thrown the center away.
@@TashiRogo The only reason I find the crust appealing is because I've already eaten the center.
"they don't seem to have any arguments in them, they just have statements"
This video perfectly summarized in his own words. Maybe Hart has good counter-arguments, but this video surely doesn't display them, unless you're impressed with ad hominems.
Check the other comments. "Roasts" =/= arguments.
What's wrong with libertarians?
Idk much about Hart's political philosophy, but to my knowledge he is a socialist that attributes the horrid track record it has to philosophical materialism. Hence his odd comment about the pope too.
@@CMBradley Geeze, ya I mean I like some of the stuff this guy does/says but I think he may be misinformed on a couple things
What a self deluded Liar Hart is with his lame arguments...any Ancient Historian would destroy him!
You call yourself "Rational Sceptic" and you put on that statement.
Yeah, right, you should check the definition of delusion, as some of your idols should have done before use it, too.
@@davidlara993
There is no evidence for Gods or Religion that is corroborated by Science or Ancient history..
@@rationalsceptic7634 Then again, you have not the slightest idea.
Moreover, this is not the point, it is the horrendous and stupid statement you are proposing, based on a logical fallacy. Take apart your profile name or the use of "evidence" or "Gods" in order to satisfy your pretensions alone.
I am not wasting my time on a person to whom I can´t posit enough intelligence, so he can understand simple notions.
And, orthography is very important. THREE points to sing the end of an incomplete sentence.
@@davidlara993
You are just a self deluded Fool who doesnt understand Ancient Historian or Science..the majority agree with me
The Bible is mostly forged fiction based on Myths and plagiarism
@@rationalsceptic7634 "The majority".
You love to expose yourself intellectually and offer me biased sources from TH-cam as an authoritative evidences. I only want you to check simple notions, the reality of scientific method, historical one and why none has capacity to study God (you have started to add more epistemology you are absolutely ignorant of), don't use the comment section to widespread ignorance and SPAM, which, even if it was not stupid, is against the rules and respect yourself.
You are the peak of ignorance and I am not even consider you from now. I can have a much more intelligent conversation with a child that could make a difference between statement and argument.
Good luck , you need it.