By the way, I can see how my video may be seen as an all or nothing approach to good scholarship. I want to say that I don't think the scholarship is black and white in terms of good scholars. As Dale C. Allison Jr has mentioned before on MythVision, "Harmonizers have been defeated for centuries in the scholarly arena." This is not to say that some of the material in the NT doesn't harmonize, but that so many of these more conservative academics go out of their way to harmonize texts which are clearly not harmonious. At the end of the day, take this video as my personal jab back at what Craig is doing as an apologist. You may disagree with my position on the scholarship and find that several more conservative scholars and possibly even some apologists find other apologists as doing bad scholarship. That is to be expected. My opinions on this matter stem from the more critical scholars in the field and their perception has become mine in several ways. I find their arguments convincing and not seen in the more conservative scholarly world.
And what are Derek's credentials? That's right, he claims he used to be a Christian and only has "out there scholars" or people who claim they used to be "serious" christians but found supposed contradictions (that have all been debunked). Also, he drools all over Paulogia so that he could turn him into a cartoon. 😆
Thanks so much for being such a great host Paul. This was such a surprise waking up to this. I hope people find this video helpful. You're the man Paul!
It's funny that Derek blames the historical Christian scholars of bias in there research to conclude to there own theological presupposition, yet we are to believe that the Unbelieving historical scholars conclusions are completely organic and without bias or presuppositions?
@@hudsontd7778They are not “completely” without bias, but yes, that is exactly what the aim critical scholarship is. No human can help but have some biases that colour his or her vision of the world. But the aim of all scientific or academic pursuit is to put that aside and follow the evidence, whatever conclusion it may lead you to. Whilst any individual researcher may be blinkered by their own bias, the process of peer review and ongoing critical re-evaluation and re-testing of each other’s evidence, analysis and conclusions is a corrective to that. Over time, as new scholars keep going over and re-checking and re-evaluating previous scholars’ work, those prejudice based mis-steps should be weeded out, and the field overall is moved closer to the truth. This is quite different to apologetics, where the principle is to start with your conclusion - Biblical inerrancy - and then try to construct a narrative that makes the evidence fit that conclusion, even if it does so far less well than it fits some other conclusion. This is why critical scholars don’t accept the arguments of apologists. They are engaged in a fundamentally different pursuit. The critical scholars may not be perfect in their neutrality, but they try as hard as they can on an individual level and put in place practices to help at a systemic level, whilst apologists fundamentally reject the entire concept of neutrality.
I'll never get over how incredibly condescending Craig is. Someone will tear his positions apart and he'll respond by saying they're naive or they just dont read enough, like he's talking about some petulant kid-- but he'll say it with a big, dumb grin so other Christians can marvel at his fake civility. It's gross and nobody should take him seriously.
William Lane Craig, the "if there is a one-in-a-million chance of it being true, it's worth of belief" William Lane Craig, calling someone naive? Now that is rich.
if they at least applied this reasoning to any plausibly true scenario that would result in a blissful afterlife, then they would be weighed down by all of the rosaries and turbans and yarmulkes that they could adorn themselves with. It is not a faith statement. it is special pleading for an emotionally reassuring & thought terminating narrative.
It makes sense that Christian Apologetics is academically irrelevant since the overwhelming majority of believers who become or engage with apologetics did not come to their religious beliefs via academic study in the first place. As a result, they start with conclusions they already believe to be true and then work backward from there to try and provide cover for their personal beliefs - it's not academia, it's motivated reasoning.
like a good traditional christion they also wallow in the persecution myth. A myth btw that emerged in history when the christians became persecutors themselves bigscale.
It was my thinking about t what the Bible said in historical context that mostly led to my active disbelief.looked at in that light the whole Jesus myth just really looks made up designed: to appeal to certain cultural prejudices Christ is the only son in a patriarchal society where losing an only son was catastrophic the:only daughter had no value.
Phil papers survey shows 68% of academic philosophers are atheist, just 14% are Christians, i bet even less than that are apologists, of course they are academically irrelevant, they are a minority in academia. Internet "philosophers" insists reading about philosophy will convert people to Christianity, bu the evidence shows the opposite.
@38:58 Pinecreek asked the exact same thing to Gary Habermas, and was told that Habermas could provide him with a number of secular scholars who converted to Christianity because of their academic research. After the discussion, Habermas rescinded the offer to provide names.
It must rub Low Bar up the wrong way to sleep in a secular bed in a secular house, eat secular cereal, then drive his secular car to the secular store to buy more secular cereal, etc.
Derek is always such a great guest. He always brings receipts and marshals his arguments well. Shout out to Paul here as well. Paul listens to WLC's podcasts so the rest of us don't have to.
And if these apologists are upset they aren't given more respect in the academic community of ancient mythologies, they would probably be aghast at how little they are thought of in any related scientific study like geology, biology, astronomy, and so on - as in being ignored and laughed at and pitied.
To be honest, I think they'd find the absolute truth even worse than "ignored, laughed at, and pitied." In a lot of those fields their existence probably doesn't even rise to the level of "something I've chosen to ignore" but rather "something I wasn't even aware was a concern in the first place." Which is to say, I don't think they've brought enough to the table for a lot of people in those fields to even know *to* ignore them.
Tbf, what they are upset about is their flock finding out that they are not the serious academics they pretend to be. Apologetics is all about assuaging doubts and reassuring the believers that their faith is based on facts and not on fantasy.
Craig says “Christian scholars” need to “take back lost ground” in academia. Derek makes the critical distinction between “scholars who are Christians” and what Craig really means when he says “Christian scholars”…biblical inerrantist types. The reality is that NT scholarship is overwhelmingly Christian. It just isn’t a Christianity WLC recognizes.
If apologists like Craig want to get published in mainstream scholarly books and journals, they need to actually do the work and make meaningful contributions to our knowledge of the Bible. For some reason, they seem to be incapable of that.
I discovered Mythvision a few months ago and it's been months binging on content, it's amazing. I'm listening to the Mormon history mega series and I'm astonished at how few views the videos have considering they're so fun and fascinating, I really hope the channel keeps growing, just grade A content.
I have been following Mythvision for years. Derek puts out so much content that there’s no way I can watch everything. I pick the topics I am more interested in. 😊
I heard recently, "Historians are people who just love gossip." The Mormon history series is juicy gossip! (It also has serious application to the modern world).
Paul I have so much respect for these videos where you heavily feature a guest. I can tell a lot of your questions and prompting are cut out to really put the apotlight on the guest. Your understated, minimal commentary is really effective, and reminds me a lot of Brady Haren who films the numberphile channel. I love your more talking heavy solo works too, but you really are a great interviewer and it shows.
@@Paulogia Decent video, It's not my area of expertise, there are others that were more my interest. Good work though. Here's what I'm not clear on The Bible claims that it goes from the beginning in Genesis 1:1 God created the Heavens and the earth to the end (our future) Revelation 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” Now a massive chunk of the Bible is prophetic in nature, almost entire books, chapters, passages, etc. about 1/3 of the Bible deals with the time preceding Jesus's supposed return. (Our future). I was wondering can you recommend a scholar who has written about our future, whether they believe it from a biblical standpoint? As far as I know, I'm not aware of any that claim to lay out the future for us based on their study of the Bible, although I admit reading scholars is not my area of expertise. I have the same issue with apologists today so I'm not biased. Just asking because you and your guest seem to know a lot of expert scholars. I don't really care about the past. To me, it's easier to see if Christianity is true or not if we can see what was written in the past and see it happening or not when it claims it'll happen since so much of the Bible deals with the future. Thanks.
Awesome team up. That conflation of WLC's, of apologists with Christian scholars, was painfully dishonest. If folks like him want to be taken seriously on a scholarly level, they need to at the least, stop requiring statements of faith in their institutions.
WLC is so dishonest that when he tries to deal with the problem of evil he just says that's been solved and now he'll show you how to solve the probabilistic version of it 😂
When I heard the testimony of J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel atheists that looked into this and came convinced I took them at their word. And I was like "wow you don't need faith if people look into this with an open mind they will know." It wasn't until I found out about Dr. Bart Ehrman's and Dr. Josh Bowen's journey that I had to take a step back and look at this critically and not let apologists spoon feed me the answers but ask myself if this is a satisfactory answer to a question I have.
No one works harder than Derrick. And no one articulates better. He is the glue that is bringing reality and truth into this world we live in. What a pleasure and delight he is!
I recall Thunderf00t did a video many years ago about how Craig was basically a nobody academically. For a while he referred to him as "Two Citations Craig", owing to Craig's average citations per paper. There were single papers out there at the time with more citations than Craig's entire career. I can't really remember the title of the video, but it may have been something like "William Lane Craig: Academic Midget".
I'm a new subscriber to mythvision, and now I'm a subscriber to Paulogia because of it!, you guys are great, I love the content, you specifically bring a funny and witty edge to your breaking down biblical narratives, and with the deadpan stare of your cartoon avatar 😅 it's great.
As a former Christian apologist I can confirm Derek's assertion that it's about convincing YOURSELF. I don't personally see any unique value to the NT or biblical narrative. Virtually all of the 'good stuff' (Beatitudes, wise sayings, etc.) is found in other belief systems and ideologies. It could be argued that such are essentially humanist ethics, even if humanism as such didn't exist until the Enlightenment.
You know it’s going to be a good day when there’s a brand new Paulogia video. Thanks Paul. Your uploads are not only informative but super fun to watch as well. ✌️
My two big things about Bill’s statements; if your literal job title that everybody calls you and recognizes you as, an apologist, makes you feel as if you’re not being taken seriously in alternative circles, perhaps that should make you think on the validity of your work. My second thing is, even when he talks about the importance of Christian scholarship, Paul has had literal Christian scholars that identify as Christian which entirely disagree with the methods in which Bill and others of his ilk attempt to force historical facts to fit the Bible. What is important is GOOD scholarship, not specifically CHRISTIAN scholarship
I have two friends who have PhD's in Philosophy, one who earned her PhD from Cambridge and one who earned his PhD from Brown University. I asked them a number of years ago what they thought of William Lane Craig and what they said was outside of Christian Apologist circles Dr. Craig is not taken seriously, ignored, unknown or a joke. This was well before Low Bar Bill made an appearance; I wonder how far has Dr. Craig has fallen?
@@TheMahayanist The only people who take Dr. Craig seriously seem to be theists while outside of Christian apologetics circles it's Dr. William Lane Craig Who?
I found Mythvision when I was deconstructing and Derek spoke right to my story and background. So it’s weird to find out he wasn’t widely recognized until recently. I think I found you both simultaneously! And have been on both of your channels consistently since.
Here we have two Atheists who walked the walk and talked the talk buying none of it and showing us the smoke and mirrors behind the curtain. Don't stop now as we have the "apologists" on the run. BTW doing it without a PhD. Love you both, Paul and Derek
Derek's "two cents" at the end are similar to how I feel. Fictional stories can have value, but dont need to be historically accurate. Much love to both of you!
The thing that shook my faith the most wasn't going to college and talking to aithiest professors, it was when I started working in sales. The fact that I could just talk to someone and convince them that buying this thing or object is a good idea, made me realize how powerful marketing is. Even churches do a lot of marketing. It's been an interesting realization.
Derek is on fire these days, honestly I'm glad he's on our side. The apologists can handle the fact that secular scholarship doesn't pick a side, it's all about finding out, factually that 2+2=4 while sadly the Christian Apologists refuse to even consider doing the math. It's like "we don't need that, Scripture already has all the answers". You try passing a math exam by just giving the answers, if you don't write out, how you arrived you'll fail.
Derek as mother of the internetz I am proud to see you Make it onto Paulogia. From where you were to where you are now and what you have build and seeing your early stuff and where you are now makes me very proud of you. Good job.
Guys this is more than a great service to people in both communities. I have been deconverting from all the religious forms that held me in thier small ponds. Thank you for giving me a better understanding of both processes . The analysis or the pond and ocean is clear, I cannot do a deep dive in a pond as I can in an ocean. In the religious pond I must abandon myself, disown myself, and finely disconnect from my true self. To be in an ocean of freedom, means to be who I am and not dictated to . I am, and that means that" I am free".
Craig says that Evangelical scholars are not well-read but I don't think that's the case. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God (even though he's not an Evangelical) currently clocks 1605 citations on Google Scholar, Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has 1136 citations. I once pulled all records from the Society of Biblical Literature' database of publications in Biblical studies, I took books published three years before and after Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and manually checked the number of citations for each publication. Turns out Bauckham's book is the *fourth* most frequently cited in that sample.
Notice what's said here: _Craig says that Evangelical scholars are not well-read_ Is a non-sequitor to the claim that legit non-religious people are citing the work (as this is the claim, not that the are not citations by the religious). I'm not making a claim here, as I have no idea, just pointing out that you cannot compare citations from different sources and not distinguish the difference.
Hi Paul, just some feedback on your thumbnail... the red bar at the bottom made me think I had already watched this video. I'd hate to see you loose out on views from something like that, because I love your content, and hope you get as many eyes as you deserve!
For both of your considerations: A "commercial" at the end of a few of your presentations to enjoin other atheist RUclipsrs in putting together a petition (or whatever it is called) for their viewers to sign with the Church of Latter Day Saints to baptise William Lane Craig. Because if there is just one chance in 2 million that he will either go to heaven, or better, have his own Celestial Kingdom, then he should be more than happy to believe it !! Just the thought of having Dr Low Bar hearing about this (and maybe receiving a certificate of being in the church) may have him feel the same way we do about his apologetics ! What do you think ? Mr Deity and Aron Ra are former mormons...it would be great to have them help out make this happen !!!!
One thing that I like about Ehrman is that he doesn’t try to ridicule opponents. I grew up in John Shelby Spong’s diocese and was influenced by him. Erhman disagrees with Spingvon a particular subject and admits that there isn’t proof either way (did Judaism follow a strict calendar of events at the time of Jesus), but called Spong a gift to mankind. Spong if you don’t remember was the first Episcopal bishop to ordain women and gays. He was one vote from being removed from his position. A spilt in the denomination followed. I expanded my views to include Miller and Erhman mostly by being a biologist to review the evidence. One of my early pushes was a record album banned by the Church of England. Aqualung by Jethro Tull was the banned record album. The lyrics that struck me to this day is “He’s not the type that needs to be wound up on Sundays” in reference to Jesus. Now, I am more of an agnostic or deist.
Thanks, Derek, for calling out WLC’s bait and switch. As a former student of Nicholas Wolterstorff (and a classmate of his youngest child) I can say unequivocally that Wolterstorff is not a Fundamentalist, Evangelical apologist or like WLC. Although in his retirement now, he is still a serious academic philosopher. As with the other serious academics whose coattails WLC is trying to ride, Wolterstorff is also a Christian. There is plenty that I disagree with in the scholarship of these academic Christians, but those disagreements are still a long way removed from the scale and scope of the disagreement and distaste I have for WLC and the small pond apologists.
Paulogia is one of my favorite go to RUclips channels for concise and intellectual discussion. But I have most enjoyed Derek’s Mythvision, interviews of True scholars. And it’s been amazing to watch the education of Derek unfold through the years of his videos. He has always been astute and articulate and a great interviewer/questioner, but watching the quality and depth of his questions grow as he learns more and more about his subject. That’s been a joy to watch. Can’t help but love the guy for all that he’s been through and all that he’s grown to become.
I'm no psychologist, or authority on human behavior, body language, speech oaterns etc. But IMO, the authoritative tone in WLC's voice is a giveaway. As uf hes speaking on-higb down to those under him. He puts too much effort into his personal power of persuasion in an effort to convince others that he is correct. That's why i find it so hard to listen to him. Very disingenuous, IMO.
Dipping my toes into these waters this year. My partners family keep trying to convert me to Christianity. Both your channels have been instrumental in my learning - Cost me a lot of money in books too 😂 Miller's was exceptional. Looking forward to signing up to your courses - great job guys.
At least it’s your partners family. My dad came down a couple months ago, first time I’ve seen him since Covid. The only thing he really wanted to talk about was Christianity. It’s annoying when I’m 24 at 34 it’s just dismissive.
Love that Derek’s cartoon character hustles just as hard as real life Derek. Gotta get the branded shirt on there!! My two favorite channels!! PaulOOOHgia and mythvision!
33:08 - Exactly, this is something I specifically accused Cameron Bertuzzi of doing. He thinks that probing questions are emotional manipulation, because they make him feel like his beliefs are false. He assumes everyone else is in the business of emotional manipulation, because that's the entire goal of his own activities.
Been watching Derek for years and he's scholarly studies helped me work through Islamic doubts (every flavor of apologetics is inherently the same). It's eye opening to watch hes work over time and see a persons ideas, approaches and understanding evolve as the knowledge and worldview expands.
idk about that. Apologists should just be honest: they didn't get to christianity through some honest intellectual pursuit. They got there because the society they live in is predominantly christian, or maybe it was some "spiritual experience" that led them there along with some motivated reasoning. People worthy of respect don't lie about themselves.
@@rapdactylyou know what? I watched a lot of apologetics and I've come to your same conclusion,faith is just a belief and if you believe fine, just don't pretend it's science.
This makes me nostalgic to again listen to the Sean Carroll debate with Craig. Basically, S.C. said, you're in MY wheelhouse, you don't get to stand there and MAKE ISH UP.
Ah, but the point of apologetics isn't to prove anything, it's to convince the already believing not to question what they didn't come to by questioning.
This savior (salesman pats the son of god of the shoulder) can handle up to 12 apostles and has enough storage in the trunk for all the loaves and fishes you can handle. He's only had 1 previous owner that did take great care of him for 30ish years with virtually nothing to report during that time. Now there is some wear and tear with the stigmata, but I really think that just adds character to the savior. So what do I need to do to get you into this 2,000 year old cult today? How about an interest rate of tithing only 10% of your income for the rest of your life plus being busy every Sunday morning during that time?
The red line at the bottom of the video is the same color as the one that the RUclips mobile app uses to indicate how far one has watched in a video that was partially watched. I recommend changing it.
On my way out of Christianity, which I had no idea that was actually happening, my last apologist was WLC, who for years I did not like because I was always a Text person learning the languages, and Commentaries were my main studies. I decided to go to the Popular Apologists and see what they had to offer. I never relied on them but I had my own apologetic method and it all depended on who I was 'debating' with and then I would decide which method works best for me to defend the faith. Long story short. I bought his books and listened to all his podcasts and even took the 'course' and also went further in my studies of Molinism. Ahh, I see NT Wright mentioned just now. He was another one who I read all his books and Audiobooks before I left the faith. Well, the rest of my story is captured in this video, ;-) Seems my story is not unusual at all. Very close to both of your experiences. Great job here guys. My evergreen tree of studies has 'branched out' into an oak tree of scholars like Miller, Allison, Litwa, Stavrakopoulou, Tabor, Moss, Fredriksen, Walsh, ... and many, many others.
Perfect. I am going to sit back and enjoy this. I have no idea what kind of religion is being promoted by WLC, but it in no way matches the Christianity in which I was raised. Maybe this is a North American thing? But really, some of the stuff coming out WLC's mouth... I image a little old Charwoman following WLC around with a mop and bucket, cleaning up the mess. The old dear must be exhausted by now.
@@tomsenior7405 The somewhat funny thing is that a lot of American Chistianity has roots in the christians that the English could not get along with. The Puritans is the typical example of immigrants who settled in the US to flee religious persecution in Britain.
@@unknowndane4754 Yes indeed, we Brits have experienced Puritanism first hand. And no, it was not the Brits who persecuted the Puritans. Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell; a devout Puritan was the man who took charge after he killed the King. Cromwell Cancelled Christmas, Banned Gifts, Dancing, Parties, Killed Catholics en masse, banned alcohol and took the joy out of worshipping god. I can not believe that North American Christians would allow anyone to take Christmas away from them. Britain and the US did not exist yet. Catholic Scots and Catholic Irish were the ones who suffered excessively under Puritan rule. Cromwell would have been one of the Puritans who led the charge to change religion in the Colonies, had he not killed a King instead. I do not consider it funny at all.
This is so fun! On his channel, Derek mostly limits himself to directing questions so that his guests can get maximum talk time. I appreciate that did the same with Derek and let him go off like this.
I literally wrote this before watching the video: "Are there any highly regarded Cosmologists referencing Craig's work the way Craig references theirs?". Paulogia's content is some of what got me on the right track. Now I'm off to subscribe to MythVision. I'm gonna be busy.
They really don't get how what apologists are doing is different from critical researchers. It really is simple, apologists start with a conclusion and use facts to fit that conclusion. Critical scholarship starts with questions, and builds cases to unknown answers.
*Addl Fredriksen Quote on Wright* “(NT Wright) works largely with snippets of various ancient biblical texts, *recombining them in imaginative patterns* to produce what he calls the ‘grand narrative,’” …
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
By the way, I can see how my video may be seen as an all or nothing approach to good scholarship. I want to say that I don't think the scholarship is black and white in terms of good scholars. As Dale C. Allison Jr has mentioned before on MythVision, "Harmonizers have been defeated for centuries in the scholarly arena." This is not to say that some of the material in the NT doesn't harmonize, but that so many of these more conservative academics go out of their way to harmonize texts which are clearly not harmonious.
At the end of the day, take this video as my personal jab back at what Craig is doing as an apologist. You may disagree with my position on the scholarship and find that several more conservative scholars and possibly even some apologists find other apologists as doing bad scholarship. That is to be expected. My opinions on this matter stem from the more critical scholars in the field and their perception has become mine in several ways. I find their arguments convincing and not seen in the more conservative scholarly world.
And what are Derek's credentials? That's right, he claims he used to be a Christian and only has "out there scholars" or people who claim they used to be "serious" christians but found supposed contradictions (that have all been debunked). Also, he drools all over Paulogia so that he could turn him into a cartoon. 😆
@@jamiehudson3661Gee… you sound emotionally invested. ALSO, your bias is oozing through your childish attack.
@coreyc490 So, what are his credentials? Also, you are biased as well, and it oozes through.
I don't claim to have any credentials, my resume of scholars I have interviewed speaks for itself. @@jamiehudson3661
Thanks Derek for Your hard work and dedication 👍🏻👍🏻
We.... Are....Mythvision...😊
Thanks so much for being such a great host Paul. This was such a surprise waking up to this. I hope people find this video helpful. You're the man Paul!
Says Derek the scholar. 😆
It's funny that Derek blames the historical Christian scholars of bias in there research to conclude to there own theological presupposition, yet we are to believe that the Unbelieving historical scholars conclusions are completely organic and without bias or presuppositions?
@@hudsontd7778 Bingo!!!
@@hudsontd7778 Yes.
@@hudsontd7778They are not “completely” without bias, but yes, that is exactly what the aim critical scholarship is. No human can help but have some biases that colour his or her vision of the world. But the aim of all scientific or academic pursuit is to put that aside and follow the evidence, whatever conclusion it may lead you to. Whilst any individual researcher may be blinkered by their own bias, the process of peer review and ongoing critical re-evaluation and re-testing of each other’s evidence, analysis and conclusions is a corrective to that. Over time, as new scholars keep going over and re-checking and re-evaluating previous scholars’ work, those prejudice based mis-steps should be weeded out, and the field overall is moved closer to the truth.
This is quite different to apologetics, where the principle is to start with your conclusion - Biblical inerrancy - and then try to construct a narrative that makes the evidence fit that conclusion, even if it does so far less well than it fits some other conclusion. This is why critical scholars don’t accept the arguments of apologists. They are engaged in a fundamentally different pursuit. The critical scholars may not be perfect in their neutrality, but they try as hard as they can on an individual level and put in place practices to help at a systemic level, whilst apologists fundamentally reject the entire concept of neutrality.
I'll never get over how incredibly condescending Craig is. Someone will tear his positions apart and he'll respond by saying they're naive or they just dont read enough, like he's talking about some petulant kid-- but he'll say it with a big, dumb grin so other Christians can marvel at his fake civility.
It's gross and nobody should take him seriously.
“Brain dead faith”
Agreed: like Lennox & others, he comes across as a supercilious man yet their followers lap it up. Sad.
@christopher7725 That's his thought-terminating cliche / go-to insult for Christians who criticize him. Also terrible.
He often resorts to insults and lies to defend his religion.
@@idesel and yet he was convinced by a cheerful girl in high school. Wow.
William Lane Craig, the "if there is a one-in-a-million chance of it being true, it's worth of belief" William Lane Craig, calling someone naive? Now that is rich.
"So you're telling me there's a chance" - Jim Carrey "Dumb and Dumber"
Oh, man, thanks for the laugh. @@MythVisionPodcast
"Far from raising the bar, ir epistemic standard that Christianity needs to beat, I lower it!"
He kinda killed his credibility with that one.
if they at least applied this reasoning to any plausibly true scenario that would result in a blissful afterlife, then they would be weighed down by all of the rosaries and turbans and yarmulkes that they could adorn themselves with. It is not a faith statement. it is special pleading for an emotionally reassuring & thought terminating narrative.
I used to believe in a 1 in 38 chance, now i'm broke. These guys should try playing roulette for a while before they talk about probability
It makes sense that Christian Apologetics is academically irrelevant since the overwhelming majority of believers who become or engage with apologetics did not come to their religious beliefs via academic study in the first place. As a result, they start with conclusions they already believe to be true and then work backward from there to try and provide cover for their personal beliefs - it's not academia, it's motivated reasoning.
like a good traditional christion they also wallow in the persecution myth.
A myth btw that emerged in history when the christians became persecutors themselves bigscale.
It was my thinking about t what the Bible said in historical context that mostly led to my active disbelief.looked at in that light the whole Jesus myth just really looks made up designed: to appeal to certain cultural prejudices Christ is the only son in a patriarchal society where losing an only son was catastrophic the:only daughter had no value.
Phil papers survey shows 68% of academic philosophers are atheist, just 14% are Christians, i bet even less than that are apologists, of course they are academically irrelevant, they are a minority in academia.
Internet "philosophers" insists reading about philosophy will convert people to Christianity, bu the evidence shows the opposite.
I want a t shirt that says" intelligent design another myth take."
Ten out of ten, I can't improve on that.
I’m so happy that Derek is finally getting the widespread recognition he deserves
Most of the Atheist RUclipsrs I watch are fairly well known and successful, but one guy I like who isn't well known is UnApologetic Skeptic.
@@pineapplepenumbra I’ll check him out. My new favorite unknown channel is Reason to Doubt
Thanks!
@@patrickjohneby1306 And I shall now check out Reason to Doubt. Thank you.
Thanks for the new RUclipsrs to look up!
There's very few things that would hurt William Lane Craig more than people going, "William Lane who?" The man's ego is vast, but fragile.
#LowBarBill
If LBB/WLC's feelings get hurt he goes back to his christian university and the sincophants there will boost his ego back to full arrogant mode again.
@38:58 Pinecreek asked the exact same thing to Gary Habermas, and was told that Habermas could provide him with a number of secular scholars who converted to Christianity because of their academic research. After the discussion, Habermas rescinded the offer to provide names.
Yes he did.
@@MythVisionPodcast Yes he provided the list or yes he rescinded the offer?
Gosh, what a surprise. From the man who claims to have spent thousands of hours researching a non-existent resurrection.
@@AlphaBeta-cf5wfhe rescinded the offer
A Mythvision and Paulogia team up is what I needed this morning! Next up we need Paul on Data Over Dogma
And Doc. Miller and a cameo by Matt. O glorious morning!
Has Paulogia been on Religion for Breakfast or vice versa?
I know I've seen Holy Koolaid over there at least once.
For shizzle!
a secular campus ? No, it's just a campus, Craig.
it's is implying their "Christian Universities" are at the same level as regular science, while the are more at the level of Mud Flood University.
It must rub Low Bar up the wrong way to sleep in a secular bed in a secular house, eat secular cereal, then drive his secular car to the secular store to buy more secular cereal, etc.
Well… No, they are secular campuses. Not that it’s the insult he thinks it is, « religiously neutral/blind » is if anything a compliment.
@@ziploc2000with all the secular air circulating through his lungs and sad, lonely secular brain cells.
Derek has a Paulogia cartoon character. You know you've made it when you get one.
Facts! I'm deified now.
Derek is always such a great guest.
He always brings receipts and marshals his arguments well.
Shout out to Paul here as well.
Paul listens to WLC's podcasts so the rest of us don't have to.
Paul is the mediator between Hell and earth ;)
Hearing WLC say "It's an insult" should be an eye opener to his followers. It won't be. But it should be.
And if these apologists are upset they aren't given more respect in the academic community of ancient mythologies, they would probably be aghast at how little they are thought of in any related scientific study like geology, biology, astronomy, and so on - as in being ignored and laughed at and pitied.
To be honest, I think they'd find the absolute truth even worse than "ignored, laughed at, and pitied." In a lot of those fields their existence probably doesn't even rise to the level of "something I've chosen to ignore" but rather "something I wasn't even aware was a concern in the first place." Which is to say, I don't think they've brought enough to the table for a lot of people in those fields to even know *to* ignore them.
The irony is that they proclaim to be the foremost experts in each of those fields.
I don't see why they would be pitied for making a lot of money from lying; despised, possibly, but not pitied.
Tbf, what they are upset about is their flock finding out that they are not the serious academics they pretend to be. Apologetics is all about assuaging doubts and reassuring the believers that their faith is based on facts and not on fantasy.
Like when he debated Sean Carroll on cosmology. That was embarrassing (for Craig, that is).
Craig says “Christian scholars” need to “take back lost ground” in academia. Derek makes the critical distinction between “scholars who are Christians” and what Craig really means when he says “Christian scholars”…biblical inerrantist types. The reality is that NT scholarship is overwhelmingly Christian. It just isn’t a Christianity WLC recognizes.
Thank you for spelling that out a bit in this comment.
The only way they'll do that is the present Florida method: using force to make sure they're the only ones talking.
If apologists like Craig want to get published in mainstream scholarly books and journals, they need to actually do the work and make meaningful contributions to our knowledge of the Bible. For some reason, they seem to be incapable of that.
Great comment
@@InquisitiveBible Or is it that one school of thought only holds a monopoly on what gets considered “solid” scholarship?
Derek is the hardest working man in show biz for sure. I’m glad he’s reaping some rewards from that.
Seriously appreciate that!
@@MythVisionPodcastI agree
Agreed
Thanks for all the entertainment from Mythvision Derek🔥
Love from Ireland 🍀
I discovered Mythvision a few months ago and it's been months binging on content, it's amazing. I'm listening to the Mormon history mega series and I'm astonished at how few views the videos have considering they're so fun and fascinating, I really hope the channel keeps growing, just grade A content.
Awww, thanks my friend!
I have been following Mythvision for years. Derek puts out so much content that there’s no way I can watch everything. I pick the topics I am more interested in. 😊
I heard recently, "Historians are people who just love gossip." The Mormon history series is juicy gossip! (It also has serious application to the modern world).
Derek is a phenomenon, no doubt.
Thank you both for your channels. You are doing a great service.
Paul is truly amazing! Thank you.
Christian apologists the mental gymnastics champions🏆🏆🏆
I describe it as a ... Game of linguistic gymnastics. I always use the Trinity as my example of linguistic gymnastics.
Those gymnists sure have talent 👏 Feel sorry for Simon though. Poor girl. 😏
Paul I have so much respect for these videos where you heavily feature a guest. I can tell a lot of your questions and prompting are cut out to really put the apotlight on the guest. Your understated, minimal commentary is really effective, and reminds me a lot of Brady Haren who films the numberphile channel.
I love your more talking heavy solo works too, but you really are a great interviewer and it shows.
You have good instincts. I appreciate the affirmation.
@@Paulogia Decent video, It's not my area of expertise, there are others that were more my interest. Good work though.
Here's what I'm not clear on The Bible claims that it goes from the beginning in Genesis 1:1 God created the Heavens and the earth to the end (our future) Revelation 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
Now a massive chunk of the Bible is prophetic in nature, almost entire books, chapters, passages, etc. about 1/3 of the Bible deals with the time preceding Jesus's supposed return. (Our future).
I was wondering can you recommend a scholar who has written about our future, whether they believe it from a biblical standpoint? As far as I know, I'm not aware of any that claim to lay out the future for us based on their study of the Bible, although I admit reading scholars is not my area of expertise.
I have the same issue with apologists today so I'm not biased. Just asking because you and your guest seem to know a lot of expert scholars.
I don't really care about the past. To me, it's easier to see if Christianity is true or not if we can see what was written in the past and see it happening or not when it claims it'll happen since so much of the Bible deals with the future. Thanks.
Awesome team up.
That conflation of WLC's, of apologists with Christian scholars, was painfully dishonest.
If folks like him want to be taken seriously on a scholarly level, they need to at the least, stop requiring statements of faith in their institutions.
WLC is so dishonest that when he tries to deal with the problem of evil he just says that's been solved and now he'll show you how to solve the probabilistic version of it 😂
WLC loves his conflations, like how he regularly conflates arguments with evidence
When I heard the testimony of J. Warner Wallace and Lee Strobel atheists that looked into this and came convinced I took them at their word. And I was like "wow you don't need faith if people look into this with an open mind they will know."
It wasn't until I found out about Dr. Bart Ehrman's and Dr. Josh Bowen's journey that I had to take a step back and look at this critically and not let apologists spoon feed me the answers but ask myself if this is a satisfactory answer to a question I have.
No one works harder than Derrick. And no one articulates better. He is the glue that is bringing reality and truth into this world we live in. What a pleasure and delight he is!
I recall Thunderf00t did a video many years ago about how Craig was basically a nobody academically. For a while he referred to him as "Two Citations Craig", owing to Craig's average citations per paper. There were single papers out there at the time with more citations than Craig's entire career. I can't really remember the title of the video, but it may have been something like "William Lane Craig: Academic Midget".
Thunderf00t made some fantastic videos while demolishing the stupid arguments of the little WLC Christian wannabe know it all, VenomFang.
I'm a new subscriber to mythvision, and now I'm a subscriber to Paulogia because of it!, you guys are great, I love the content, you specifically bring a funny and witty edge to your breaking down biblical narratives, and with the deadpan stare of your cartoon avatar 😅 it's great.
Craig is becoming a bit of a Kent with his "whack an atheist" pieces. Not a good look, but fun to watch you rebut 😁
Derek nailed it right at the start. If you don’t agree with their ideas you are attacking them. No
Wonder they have that martyr syndrome.
That complex is built into the worldview more often than not.
It's my dudes! Together in the same place.
I guess Paulogia is the only sane person to voluntarily listen to WLC's podcast.
The hero we need not the one we deserve.
I commented elsewhere I'd rather ram a screwdriver in each ear. My hat's off to Paulogia.
He dies for our sins every WLC episode and is raised again.
As a former Christian apologist I can confirm Derek's assertion that it's about convincing YOURSELF.
I don't personally see any unique value to the NT or biblical narrative. Virtually all of the 'good stuff' (Beatitudes, wise sayings, etc.) is found in other belief systems and ideologies. It could be argued that such are essentially humanist ethics, even if humanism as such didn't exist until the Enlightenment.
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!
-Mark Twain
Facts
You prove that it is a lie.
@@TheMilitantMazdakite prove that what is a lie?
@@Quinn37 You imply religion is a lie. Prove it.
@@TheMilitantMazdakite I don't know what "religion is a lie" even means. Religions frequently make false/unfalsifiable claims.
You know it’s going to be a good day when there’s a brand new Paulogia video.
Thanks Paul.
Your uploads are not only informative but super fun to watch as well. ✌️
My two big things about Bill’s statements; if your literal job title that everybody calls you and recognizes you as, an apologist, makes you feel as if you’re not being taken seriously in alternative circles, perhaps that should make you think on the validity of your work. My second thing is, even when he talks about the importance of Christian scholarship, Paul has had literal Christian scholars that identify as Christian which entirely disagree with the methods in which Bill and others of his ilk attempt to force historical facts to fit the Bible. What is important is GOOD scholarship, not specifically CHRISTIAN scholarship
This was excellent. Derek is going to be huge. He is a crucial voice among the noise and he's PASSIONATE about truth
I have two friends who have PhD's in Philosophy, one who earned her PhD from Cambridge and one who earned his PhD from Brown University. I asked them a number of years ago what they thought of William Lane Craig and what they said was outside of Christian Apologist circles Dr. Craig is not taken seriously, ignored, unknown or a joke. This was well before Low Bar Bill made an appearance; I wonder how far has Dr. Craig has fallen?
Same thing happened with my senior year in philosophy. Nobody cares about Craig.
@@TheMahayanist The only people who take Dr. Craig seriously seem to be theists while outside of Christian apologetics circles it's Dr. William Lane Craig Who?
I found Mythvision when I was deconstructing and Derek spoke right to my story and background. So it’s weird to find out he wasn’t widely recognized until recently. I think I found you both simultaneously! And have been on both of your channels consistently since.
9:00 ish - AronRa put it best, "They aren't answering questions, they're questioning answers"
DEREK AND PAUL??? No way! This is better than any marvel cameo.
Only better combo is Derek and Clive.
hahaha
Here we have two Atheists who walked the walk and talked the talk buying none of it and showing us the smoke and mirrors behind the curtain. Don't stop now as we have the "apologists" on the run. BTW doing it without a PhD. Love you both, Paul and Derek
Derek's "two cents" at the end are similar to how I feel. Fictional stories can have value, but dont need to be historically accurate. Much love to both of you!
The thing that shook my faith the most wasn't going to college and talking to aithiest professors, it was when I started working in sales. The fact that I could just talk to someone and convince them that buying this thing or object is a good idea, made me realize how powerful marketing is. Even churches do a lot of marketing. It's been an interesting realization.
The fact that you were selling a real product probably helped.
Fantastic work gents! How did I miss this???
Derek is on fire these days, honestly I'm glad he's on our side. The apologists can handle the fact that secular scholarship doesn't pick a side, it's all about finding out, factually that 2+2=4 while sadly the Christian Apologists refuse to even consider doing the math. It's like "we don't need that, Scripture already has all the answers". You try passing a math exam by just giving the answers, if you don't write out, how you arrived you'll fail.
Exactly.
This may be my favorite collab. All hail the algorithm, and thanks Paul & Derek for the work y'all do!
Derek as mother of the internetz I am proud to see you Make it onto Paulogia. From where you were to where you are now and what you have build and seeing your early stuff and where you are now makes me very proud of you. Good job.
Thank you so much for this great compliment.
That must have been a rough job mothering the internet. Lots of late nights walking the floor. Thanks for your service ☮️❤️🔥
Yeah you try hard but some of them fall through the cracks. But there are tons of good ones!@@riseofdarkleela
Guys this is more than a great service to people in both communities. I have been deconverting from all the religious forms that held me in thier small ponds. Thank you for giving me a better understanding of both processes . The analysis or the pond and ocean is clear, I cannot do a deep dive in a pond as I can in an ocean. In the religious pond I must abandon myself, disown myself, and finely disconnect from my true self. To be in an ocean of freedom,
means to be who I am and not dictated to . I am, and that means that" I am free".
Craig says that Evangelical scholars are not well-read but I don't think that's the case. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God (even though he's not an Evangelical) currently clocks 1605 citations on Google Scholar, Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses has 1136 citations. I once pulled all records from the Society of Biblical Literature' database of publications in Biblical studies, I took books published three years before and after Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and manually checked the number of citations for each publication. Turns out Bauckham's book is the *fourth* most frequently cited in that sample.
Notice what's said here: _Craig says that Evangelical scholars are not well-read_
Is a non-sequitor to the claim that legit non-religious people are citing the work (as this is the claim, not that the are not citations by the religious).
I'm not making a claim here, as I have no idea, just pointing out that you cannot compare citations from different sources and not distinguish the difference.
Thanks for this comment Kamil. I hope my position on this episode sits well with you bro.
Hi Paul, just some feedback on your thumbnail... the red bar at the bottom made me think I had already watched this video. I'd hate to see you loose out on views from something like that, because I love your content, and hope you get as many eyes as you deserve!
"Used Jesus Salesman" makes me laugh every time I look at the thumbnail, lmfao.
So a guy with long hair a beard 7n a business suit. 😄
Nice to see Mythvision and Paulogia working together again.
For both of your considerations: A "commercial" at the end of a few of your presentations to enjoin other atheist RUclipsrs in putting together a petition (or whatever it is called) for their viewers to sign with the Church of Latter Day Saints to baptise William Lane Craig. Because if there is just one chance in 2 million that he will either go to heaven, or better, have his own Celestial Kingdom, then he should be more than happy to believe it !!
Just the thought of having Dr Low Bar hearing about this (and maybe receiving a certificate of being in the church) may have him feel the same way we do about his apologetics !
What do you think ? Mr Deity and Aron Ra are former mormons...it would be great to have them help out make this happen !!!!
One thing that I like about Ehrman is that he doesn’t try to ridicule opponents. I grew up in John Shelby Spong’s diocese and was influenced by him. Erhman disagrees with Spingvon a particular subject and admits that there isn’t proof either way (did Judaism follow a strict calendar of events at the time of Jesus), but called Spong a gift to mankind. Spong if you don’t remember was the first Episcopal bishop to ordain women and gays. He was one vote from being removed from his position. A spilt in the denomination followed.
I expanded my views to include Miller and Erhman mostly by being a biologist to review the evidence.
One of my early pushes was a record album banned by the Church of England. Aqualung by Jethro Tull was the banned record album. The lyrics that struck me to this day is “He’s not the type that needs to be wound up on Sundays” in reference to Jesus.
Now, I am more of an agnostic or deist.
William Lane Craig is to Academia as Judge Jeanine is to the Law.
This was a great topic and Derrick had great insight to the discussion. Adding some of his vids to Watch later n check out later. 👍
Thanks, Derek, for calling out WLC’s bait and switch. As a former student of Nicholas Wolterstorff (and a classmate of his youngest child) I can say unequivocally that Wolterstorff is not a Fundamentalist, Evangelical apologist or like WLC. Although in his retirement now, he is still a serious academic philosopher. As with the other serious academics whose coattails WLC is trying to ride, Wolterstorff is also a Christian. There is plenty that I disagree with in the scholarship of these academic Christians, but those disagreements are still a long way removed from the scale and scope of the disagreement and distaste I have for WLC and the small pond apologists.
Paulogia is one of my favorite go to RUclips channels for concise and intellectual discussion. But I have most enjoyed Derek’s Mythvision, interviews of True scholars. And it’s been amazing to watch the education of Derek unfold through the years of his videos. He has always been astute and articulate and a great interviewer/questioner, but watching the quality and depth of his questions grow as he learns more and more about his subject. That’s been a joy to watch. Can’t help but love the guy for all that he’s been through and all that he’s grown to become.
Such a good analysis of the dark world of modern day apologists and apologetics.
Thanks
This is an amazing conversation, very stimulating. Thank~you, both so much.
I'm no psychologist, or authority on human behavior, body language, speech oaterns etc. But IMO, the authoritative tone in WLC's voice is a giveaway. As uf hes speaking on-higb down to those under him. He puts too much effort into his personal power of persuasion in an effort to convince others that he is correct. That's why i find it so hard to listen to him. Very disingenuous, IMO.
Awesome episode! Also, I'm gonna check out those courses mentioned at the end! 🙌
They are seriously amazing courses.
The difference is honesty
I love mythvision. And I found it through your channel Paul.... which I also love. Thanks to you two for elevating the discourse!
"Apologetics against apologetics" feels like when bigots and racists try to flip the narrative to call those criticizing them, equally "intolerant."
Cough, Trump rally😆
What a great Pod!!! I have been following Derek for a while over at MythVision. What a great collab. ❤
Dipping my toes into these waters this year. My partners family keep trying to convert me to Christianity.
Both your channels have been instrumental in my learning - Cost me a lot of money in books too 😂 Miller's was exceptional.
Looking forward to signing up to your courses - great job guys.
Get them a copy of Fox's book of martyrs. The inquisition chapters should alter their view on 'gods love'
At least it’s your partners family. My dad came down a couple months ago, first time I’ve seen him since Covid. The only thing he really wanted to talk about was Christianity. It’s annoying when I’m 24 at 34 it’s just dismissive.
You’re with the wrong partner if they need you to change for them
@@onlyme972it probably wouldn’t. Most if all will say “it’s divine plan or god works in mysterious ways”
Thanks my friend.
Love that Derek’s cartoon character hustles just as hard as real life Derek. Gotta get the branded shirt on there!! My two favorite channels!! PaulOOOHgia and mythvision!
Derek has made it into the Pauloverse!
Indeed my friend.
Ahhh WLC as a "teenager" is so cursed!
33:08 - Exactly, this is something I specifically accused Cameron Bertuzzi of doing. He thinks that probing questions are emotional manipulation, because they make him feel like his beliefs are false. He assumes everyone else is in the business of emotional manipulation, because that's the entire goal of his own activities.
Been watching Derek for years and he's scholarly studies helped me work through Islamic doubts (every flavor of apologetics is inherently the same).
It's eye opening to watch hes work over time and see a persons ideas, approaches and understanding evolve as the knowledge and worldview expands.
Do you want to prove that "All apologetics are the same"
@@TheMilitantMazdakite 🙄
@@caffetiel What does that even mean?
@@TheMilitantMazdakite Means 'I
don't really care for sealions. Could really do without'
It was nice having Paul on your show Derek. You guys tag teamed well. 😉
"I'm very sorry about my religion" should be the only kind of x-ian apologist
idk about that. Apologists should just be honest: they didn't get to christianity through some honest intellectual pursuit. They got there because the society they live in is predominantly christian, or maybe it was some "spiritual experience" that led them there along with some motivated reasoning. People worthy of respect don't lie about themselves.
@@rapdactylyou know what? I watched a lot of apologetics and I've come to your same conclusion,faith is just a belief and if you believe fine, just don't pretend it's science.
@@TopoIl12 I say dump the whole religion in the dustbin of history.
@@Cajek2 for some people, like me, religion is personal because I've grown up in it,you can't just leave it point blank (for me at least)
@@TopoIl12 You simply haven't had a traumatic experience in your religion... yet.
This makes me nostalgic to again listen to the Sean Carroll debate with Craig. Basically, S.C. said, you're in MY wheelhouse, you don't get to stand there and MAKE ISH UP.
I’ve contended that apologetics defeats the purpose of Christianity. If you’re taking something on faith, by definition you don’t require proof.
Ah, but the point of apologetics isn't to prove anything, it's to convince the already believing not to question what they didn't come to by questioning.
Former pastor of 20 years here and your content has been so refreshing to me.
This savior (salesman pats the son of god of the shoulder) can handle up to 12 apostles and has enough storage in the trunk for all the loaves and fishes you can handle.
He's only had 1 previous owner that did take great care of him for 30ish years with virtually nothing to report during that time. Now there is some wear and tear with the stigmata, but I really think that just adds character to the savior. So what do I need to do to get you into this 2,000 year old cult today? How about an interest rate of tithing only 10% of your income for the rest of your life plus being busy every Sunday morning during that time?
Fine print: Evidence not included
One caveat, I think flavor to the savior would've been a fun almost rhyme
Excellent video! Great points! Thank you for your hard work. Both you and Derek.
Literally LOL at teenage "WLC" 😂😂😂
I preferred his looks in his chad full beard phase.😂
Wow! Just wow! Fantastic, between the eyes truth delivery.
They're called apologists because they're essentially 'apologising' for their ludicrous beliefs.
We come upon troubled waters 💧
Similar to how the other side apologizes for secularism, liberalism and naturalism.
What a scathing review. Thanks for sharing that, Derek!
Your'e welcome.
I could be an apologist for Unicorns, and provide just as many reasons as to why Unicorns are the foundation for reality.
🦄🙌🏼🦄
I see stars of gray, colors too and I think to myself what a wonderful world 🌎😆
The red line at the bottom of the video is the same color as the one that the RUclips mobile app uses to indicate how far one has watched in a video that was partially watched.
I recommend changing it.
*Pats cross* _You can fit so much salvation in this baby. Wanna go for a test ride?_
Thank you for videos like this and taking the time to share the information.
Kevin Nontradcath says apologetics aren't usually aimed to change minds but to reinforce already held beliefs. I think he's correct.
For me it was counterproductive unfortunately
Welcome to Paulovision
Praise Juan and the holy Sombrero.
Juanita the famous!😄
On my way out of Christianity, which I had no idea that was actually happening, my last apologist was WLC, who for years I did not like because I was always a Text person learning the languages, and Commentaries were my main studies. I decided to go to the Popular Apologists and see what they had to offer. I never relied on them but I had my own apologetic method and it all depended on who I was 'debating' with and then I would decide which method works best for me to defend the faith.
Long story short. I bought his books and listened to all his podcasts and even took the 'course' and also went further in my studies of Molinism.
Ahh, I see NT Wright mentioned just now. He was another one who I read all his books and Audiobooks before I left the faith.
Well, the rest of my story is captured in this video, ;-) Seems my story is not unusual at all. Very close to both of your experiences.
Great job here guys.
My evergreen tree of studies has 'branched out' into an oak tree of scholars like Miller, Allison, Litwa, Stavrakopoulou, Tabor, Moss, Fredriksen, Walsh, ... and many, many others.
Perfect. I am going to sit back and enjoy this. I have no idea what kind of religion is being promoted by WLC, but it in no way matches the Christianity in which I was raised. Maybe this is a North American thing? But really, some of the stuff coming out WLC's mouth... I image a little old Charwoman following WLC around with a mop and bucket, cleaning up the mess. The old dear must be exhausted by now.
Bible belt Christianity
@@TheMahayanist Excellent. Got it. A facsimile of England in the Middle Ages.
@@tomsenior7405 The somewhat funny thing is that a lot of American Chistianity has roots in the christians that the English could not get along with. The Puritans is the typical example of immigrants who settled in the US to flee religious persecution in Britain.
@@unknowndane4754 Yes indeed, we Brits have experienced Puritanism first hand. And no, it was not the Brits who persecuted the Puritans. Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell; a devout Puritan was the man who took charge after he killed the King. Cromwell Cancelled Christmas, Banned Gifts, Dancing, Parties, Killed Catholics en masse, banned alcohol and took the joy out of worshipping god. I can not believe that North American Christians would allow anyone to take Christmas away from them. Britain and the US did not exist yet. Catholic Scots and Catholic Irish were the ones who suffered excessively under Puritan rule. Cromwell would have been one of the Puritans who led the charge to change religion in the Colonies, had he not killed a King instead. I do not consider it funny at all.
This is brilliant! Puts the difference between Christian scholars and apologetics in proper perspective.
I read a book about a trip I took. I could read anything. Reading rainbow 🌈
What does walking a dog and listening to William Lane Craig's podcast have in common? Answer "You scoop a lot of poop along the way"
This is so fun! On his channel, Derek mostly limits himself to directing questions so that his guests can get maximum talk time. I appreciate that did the same with Derek and let him go off like this.
Mythvision is a great channel.
Thank you
@@MythVisionPodcast Derek, thank _you._
This was very well presented. I must agree with Derek. You can do your apologetics, but don’t sell it as true. Sell it as what it is, your opinion.
I literally wrote this before watching the video: "Are there any highly regarded Cosmologists referencing Craig's work the way Craig references theirs?". Paulogia's content is some of what got me on the right track. Now I'm off to subscribe to MythVision. I'm gonna be busy.
They really don't get how what apologists are doing is different from critical researchers. It really is simple, apologists start with a conclusion and use facts to fit that conclusion. Critical scholarship starts with questions, and builds cases to unknown answers.
*Addl Fredriksen Quote on Wright*
“(NT Wright) works largely with snippets of various ancient biblical texts, *recombining them in imaginative patterns* to produce what he calls the ‘grand narrative,’” …
Hey, William Alston was mentioned! I wrote my undergraduate thesis on his book on the epistemology of religious experience.
Two of my fav channels ❤❤❤ great video 🎉🎉