An Orthodox Christian Response to Atheism - Dr. John Mark Reynolds
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Session by Dr. John Mark Reynolds, President of St. Constantine School, Former Provost and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University, at the Missions Institute of Orthodoxy Christianity’s "Speaking to Secular America" Conference on October 29, 2015.
The Missions Institute of Orthodoxy Christianity’s "Speaking to Secular America" Conference was held at Hellenic College Holy Cross on October 28-30, 2015. Its aim was to explore how the Church is reaching out to the non-religious in our society in 21st century America.
The Missions Institute of Orthodox Christianity at Hellenic College Holy Cross promotes a vibrant mission consciousness, especially within our Orthodox Christian Theological Schools and Seminaries in the United States. Its primary focus is to instill an understanding of international cross-cultural missionary work. The Institute engenders a missions consciousness for the local setting through understanding evangelism and promoting participation and support for international and domestic cross-cultural missions.
To learn more, visit missionsinstitute.org
As Christians, we must remember that our atheist friends are still created in the Imago Dei and are worthy of love and dignity, even the rambling anti-theistic type.
@Kade Daivis TH-cam search will answer that🤦🏽♂️
Kade Daivis “Tell me can God create a rock not even he can lift?”🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I posted this comment over three years ago and my views have changed somewhat, I am now a deist.
Oscar Rincón Interesting, what made you change your mind?
@@ThiagoCT9 Mostly the realization that I was doing mental gymnastics to justify certain contradictions in the Bible and my struggle comprehending natural evil. I'm still interested in Christian philosophy though.
10:24 "A strain of anti-intellectualism exists inside of American thought, not just inside of Christianity, but in general. We are hostile to experts. We are hostile to people who challenge any kind of folk wisdom, particularly any kind of folk wisdom that gets in the way of our fun." I have never heard a more concise, precise, and profound analysis of the current state of affairs in this area. Well done, Dr. John Mark!
Not even radical skepticism can erase God's truth. Without the absolute, good, revelatory God who imbues reality with His essence through His works, nothing is knowable definitively, including one's own skepticism.
Says you?.....
Look at you...
What do you mean by the word "God" ? I don't think you know what you mean by it. The same with "truth". You don't know what you're talking about. Do I have you pegged? Ah hah ! I herby dub you "Peggy".
Stumbled upon Dr. Reynolds's talks via a handful of debates with nonbelievers. What immediately stands out is that most of what he shares as a means to support any or all of his positions may readily be applied in support of the numerous ideas held by any believers and nonbelievers alike.
E.g., Overwhelmingly, the best way to reach out to a person like that (a believer is Christianity), is to just live a good, thoughtful simple life and love your neighbour as yourself. This kind of person can often be won back to a position of lacking in a need for faith. Because in many ways, they are Methodological Naturalists in their behaviour with Christ.
I really like John. He is the thinking Christian. He finally is able to put plausibility to the Christian belief without drawing on old worn out arguments that have little or no validity.
"He is the thinking Christian."
Oxymoron...
"christians" Don't think. They copy and paste.
@@WilbertLek hmm. I dont know about that.
@@kurtjensen1790
I do. I'm an Atheist.
"He finally is able to put plausibility to the Christian..."
What do you not get about plausibility and fairy tales?...
@@WilbertLek your point is? You seem very quick to make assertions as if you are all knowing and cannot prove it. This is a common frustration I have with many of you guys. It almost sounds like a script. I could almost as easily say the same things but it would be just as bad. Its logically not satisfying.
I'm not type 1, 2, or 3. It would seem that Mr. Reynolds' experience is somewhat limited.
This talk makes no sense at all. The people most opposed to COVID vaccination are hard core Trump supporters and these people are almost exclusively Christian. So, claiming that being anti-science is related to atheism seems delusional at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Reasoning = skepticism? Not to me. Seems more like a strawman like his anti-science atheism claim.
I don't think a Christian would define faith as believing something that is impossible. However, do hear them claim that faith is accepting an assumption without any supporting evidence.
I think your arguments are weak, but I don't see that that has anything to do with your eyes or weight.
17:00 The assumptions behind atheist thought? Let's see if this is anymore accurate.
No, it wasn't. For example, Sagan's extraordinary claims assertion is something I never repeat.
But his arguments about experience just seem intellectually lazy.
24:00 The growth of modern scientific method depended on traditional Christianity? It will be interesting to see if he can defend that claim.
Revisionist history -- that's novel.
28:30 Numbers can't be discovered scientifically, only assumed? This probably explains a lot of his misunderstanding of science.
29:00 This is sad, very sad.
So much here is just an awful misunderstanding of his speech and on your point 28:30- Do you know he’s actually correct?!? How in science do you test or discover numbers !?!? Name any mathematician or logician that would agree with you numbers are discovered scientifically?! They do presuppose numbers because they apply mathematics to use science!! This is a key point in showing me you lack understanding in what SCIENCE actually means. Name a physicist who does use numbers but implies science would discover them in order to use them….
And your last point don’t even make sense.. that is what’s called appealing to emotion fallacy , just because it’s sad to you doesn’t mean it’s not true. Have you studied neuroscience?!
Im not claiming all atheist lack understanding of this … just you at this point.
@@JoshuaMSOG7
> So much here is just an awful misunderstanding of his speech . . .
Or, perhaps yours of science.
> They do presuppose numbers because they apply mathematics to use science!!
Congratulations, you've singlehandedly cured discalculia. Pat yourself on the back.
> This is a key point in showing me you lack understanding in what SCIENCE actually means.
That's interesting. What I do everyday is work on science theory -- it is my strong suspicion that you don't.
> Name a physicist who does use numbers but implies science would discover them in order to use them….
To be honest, I'm puzzled why you think this involves physics. At least if you got the correct field of science I might believe that you weren't just swatting at shadows.
> And your last point don’t even make sense..
There are scientific disproofs of an intelligent creator, life after death, and a soul. I think describing theism as hostile to these facts is an understatement. The fact that he believes that he can handwave this incompatibility away is very sad.
> Have you studied neuroscience?!
Yes.
Note: I later realized that you were probably referring to his claim that "you can't find 2 + 2 = 4 in the brain". This is partially correct if we limit the discussion to neuroscience. However, it doesn't require a supernatural explanation as he implies.
@@scientious You lasted longer that I did. I only got to the 20 minute mark before giving up on him.
Funny because as a Russian, I grew up around Orthodox Christians. Some of my best friends today are Orthodox. Yet here I am, an Atheist.
...it's different...persecution of people by roman-catholics or burning people by protestants does not represent philosophy of orthodox christianity...nor the anti-theist atheist persecution of believers or C. Hitchens's type of atheist does not represent atheists as a whole...прривет, братишка...
Same here bratan.... Same here.
@@user-qm5ch9jm5c
That's because there is no such thing as "Atheism".
It's actually called 'being an Atheist'.
Otherwise, tell me what kind of religion is tourism or electromagnetism?...
I suggest you a trip to Mount Athos
Folk atheism quite true. Few read-or have read-a religious book. Majority have never read a book of philosophy. Capacity for human beings to live out a life based on other people's experiences is,frankly, extraordinary. It is also sad.
I would say, having been a Baptist for 20 years and an atheist for 5, I've only met maybe 5 atheists who weren't former radicals who know their bible
@@josephernst709 I'm an atheist whos biblical scholarship is flatly terrible. I have been atheist since I was a kid.
It seems you're suggesting that the Bible is "God" Christianity existed before it was written. And the Old Testament had many Gods that were consolidated into one. Yahweh had parents. Anyway, the Bible itself isn't God. The worship of it is Idolatry.
Is this guy serious? This is like a philosophy for idiots lecture. For instance, at around 30:30 he starts talking about making assumptions and then generating secondary assumption, etc. from these. So what. That says nothing about the truth of the initial assumptions even if the logic is correct. This is a logically correct syllogism, though it produces a factually inaccurate conclusion: 1) All dogs are made of pizza; 2) Fido is a dog; therefore 3) Fido is made of pizza. The problem is that the first assumption is not only not based on any evidence; it is contrary to all evidence about dogs.
Do atheists know what a totally honest person look like? Christians do.
from what I see of christians is that they don't understand the concept of honesty.
fmanh What do you see of Jesus Christ?
Without God, honesty could not be objectively good.
For example when in the old testament God commands people to kill even after he commended them not to kill, do you consider the "you shall not kill" an objective and honest command? If yes then you have a different definition of what "objectively" means.
"NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped. "
Chris t then neither you nor your god are very moral. If your god commands you one thing then tells you to do the opposite that's the very definition of relative morality. Besides if you do heinous things because you think your god told you to do it, even though you know that what you're about to do is immoral, then you are not different from a dog who listens to his master's commands unable to exercise morality. If you think that God is that way you will not know how to distinguish Christ from Antichrist.
Argument from religious experience leads to absurd conclusions. Should I also fear monsters under my bed simply because I have the sensation and experience of the creeping shadows and rumbling noises coming from beneath my mattress? No and for understandable reasons. One such reason is because there is a plausible, naturalistic explanation for my experience. But why should we trust in the existence of the natural world? Much has been written on this question and it is no doubt a complicated one, but for my purposes, I only need to show that our religious experiences are not analogous to our ordinary senses for the same reason that our experiences of monsters are not analogous. They are not publicly verifiable in the same way that our natural experiences are (others can confirm whether or not an object in the world is a hallucination) and they have a plausible naturalistic explanation that does not require their reality. We should remain agnostic about these encounters.
Wow. Claim after claim…”Your body and soul are interlocked.” Or, “There is a spiritual realm and a material realm.”
Really? How do you know these things?
Thank you "lord geesas" for showing me every day how you don't exist and aren't necessary.
This man made a career to confirm his own bias.....he is bat shit crazy.
ApaX1981 like you🤣
@@JudithSanchez-ht6jn
Says a follower of a used car salesman for a socially accepted delusion.
@@WilbertLek “follower” of who? A used car salesman? Jesus Christ wasn’t a used car salesman
@@indianumberonecountry
No wonder you are a deluded sycophant. You can't even read...
I'm an atheist hostile to religion. I think religion (or any ideology that a person is over committed to) is inherently dangerous. A few points of order though. It's kinda hard to tell a hardline atheist from someone who is irreligious or simply spiritual. I think the hardliners like me are at 5% in the united states. Something like that.
The irreligious (those who believe but don't identify with a particular religion) are growing rapidly. Hardliners are growing too but not that fast.
9:30 He's doing the "this is a christian nation" thing. This is super tiresome to hear. I'm not even opposed to the idea that christianity was instrumental in creating our secular government. But the question you have to answer first is "How do you tell what is and is not the result of religious influence?" I have found believers don't like to engage with this question because it puts all religions on a level playing field. To be judged on verified merit alone.
11:30 Did he just attribute anti vax movements to atheists? Uhhh might wanna check your demographics on that one.
12:00 Ok hes claiming a distinction in expertise but isn't doing much to justify it. I understand that hes playing to a friendly audience but as an outsider this just looks like yet another person saying only their version of their religion is valid.
13:00 This right here is why you have no luck changing peoples minds. I'm as hardline atheist as they come, and I will tell you flat out that reason is not skeptisicm. Skepticism is simply applying scrutiny to claims. It involves reason but isn't itself reason. Faith (and i recently had a christian change my mind to this definition) is a commitment to an idea. That commitment isn't bound by evidence and therein lies the conflict. That's my understanding.
It's a shame that every self proclaimed "I talk to atheists all the time..." highly educated, philosophically literate, christian apologist, can't even get our positions right. It doesn't take much guy. Just ask.
Also you don't have to bicker with me over definitions. Just listen to what I believe regardless of what label you want to put on it. I'll do the same.
16:00 Ok now after proclaiming he talks to atheists all the time, he now advises against engaging with us. It's baffling how this insular approach lends people to think they are in any way reasonable or open minded.
16:50 This is the part where I really should just stop listening. Anyone who spends any time with american atheists at all, should know most of us are formerly very religious, or at least from religious families. To deny that most of us have considered christianity seriously is one of those claims that hallmarks someone either too ignorant to comment on the subject or someone who is simply lying. I don't see a third option.
Why is it so hard for believers to admit that large numbers of people, have sincerely looked at their faith, and through great effort and often great reluctance, they see that it just doesn't hold up? You don't have to agree with them to admit they really gave it an honest try. Oh wait I know why. It's because there's dogma saying that wont happen so you need an excuse because the dogma must never be wrong. Even at the expense of others. Even at the expense of your non believing family members.
Should I keep going? I doubt anyone will read this far but there is some catharsis in getting my thoughts out so I guess I will.
17:25 Strong religious belief can hurt any aspect of life that contradicts it. Science included. So if every observable piece of evidence we can find, says the earch is much older than the biblical timeline, you will still get people refusing to accept that in favor of their religion. Just take any example from another religion. Islam says the moon was split in half. That never happened. Sounds silly right? But when islamic believers defend the belief, they are making the same reality denying mistake christians do.
Case in point, the presenter identified as a young earth creationist in another video. Not sure if he still holds that view but it demonstrates the damage religion can do to someones understanding of the world.
This really is what makes religion dangerous. It honestly doesn't matter for most of us how old the planet is, or what the moon was doing a few hundred years ago. However religion doesn't stop there. It makes claims about other people. And when a claim about someone else, positive or negative, becomes immovable disaster follows.
Either paying for a faith healer to work his mag.... miracles. Or condemning someone from a different religion or no religion at all. It's the same basic mistake and you make it every time you stick to a claim you can't demonstrate.
Yea you do need evidence to back up your claims. Sorry, but its the only way we mortals can tell fact from fiction, even if we had a god.
Religious faith can't be based on evidence but that's my definition of faith talking. The bottom line is religious beliefs are resistant to change regardless of evidence presented. The resistance takes many forms such as scriptural reinterpretation, rationalizing unsupported explanations or flat out denial.
17:55 This should be a huge red flag to anyone watching. He is supporting perhaps the worst epistemological standard possible. To differ from evidence in favor personal intuitions is the very thing that can get you to a wrong answer and keep you there.
19:43 Oh look he knows reason and skepticism aren't synonyms. Gee who would have guessed. I had thoughts of just reviewing the entire presentation but that would likely involve writing a thesis in a youtube comment section. Pretty close to there already. The takeaway here is that this guy really can't be trusted about atheism nor epistemology... and hes fat so there. :)
If he is still a proponent of YEC then he shouldn't be taken seriously at all. I find his whole materialism vs. idealism dialogue to be entertaining but not much else. His sometimes overtly semantic disposition is rather clever and disarming. You'd find yourself agreeing with this guy and not really know what you were agreeing about.
Just remember that Dr. Reynold's personal hero (Plato) wasn't really a scientist. He was more a moral philosopher with a metaphysical bent (idealism). His pupil (Aristotle), one of the first real scientists, was beginning to find the correct way (empiricism and materialism).
I'm probably the only Christian here that read this whole thing 😆. In general I'd say no one can really change anyone else's mind about anything. I can't prove to you that God exists or that I walk by both faith and experience anymore than you can prove to me that God doesn't exist, they are both an exercise in faith. I also think you oppose religion itself more than the concept of God, and honestly that I can understand.
@@steelfalconx2000 Yeesh you really read it all? I was just venting. Sadly despite your generosity with your time you are still being dishonest.
Don't pretend our positions are in any way equal. They aren't. You propose something bonkers and I say I don't believe you.
Its the same as me saying "the earth is surrounded by cloaked romulan ships" and you saying "I don't think so."
An unfalsifiable position full of details you can't support isn't equal to one that sticks to what we can demonstrate. You're simply wrong.
@@steelfalconx2000 also... I can't convince you because thats what religion does to people. But you could convince me if you had real evidence.
@@valroniclehre193 "But you could convince me if you had real evidence."
I'm not convinced that you'd be convinced by any evidence presented by anyone else. Otherwise, you'd look for the evidence yourself. You're the guy who takes a class and then demand that a student from a another class write your paper for you. Go do it yourself. You know yourself better than others. You know what'll convince you or not. Quit being lazy.
I was an atheist, too, but the kind of atheist Dr. Reynolds described in the intro as the "Type 2 atheist." I got the evidence I needed on my own. I didn't demand the theists in my life to show me anything. It's called being proactive.
YOU SHOULDNT HAVE TO MAKE A CASE ALL GOD HAS TO DO IS PROVE HIMSELF
All caps & ignorant to philosophy good work
So you’re saying because I put all cabs and I don’t know philosophy that means that God is real and no matter what the facts are that it’s true who is the ignorant one most of the disciples didn’t know philosophy and they didn’t even know how to read or write so yeah who’s the idiot now
@@indianumberonecountry I’ll make sure and get the message out to everyone in the world who suffering and dying and that God won’t put his hand to save any of them I’ll make sure to tell them when they pray or write it down don’t put it all caps and learn philosophy and God will help you and reveal himself to you thanks for the info
@Eric H apparently im the son of a King doesnt he love me enough to show himself?
@Eric H also have u ever read the bible if he is real he is very evil lying commiting murder even inventing abortion