Regarding the house metaphor, I recently heard this quote by C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity that really hit home: Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Oh boy, people arent gonna like the guests saying Christianity isnt 100% obvious to everyone 😂 Gavin, i would be interested in hearing you talk more about how the centrality of doxastic states (beliefs, things that we think are true) in Christianity might be in tension with religious ambiguity to the extent that you see it. I think you would be uniquely equipped to cover this topic well. Good vid btw 🙏
It's moreso that they act like Christianity looks obviously untrue and advocate that we start off on a backfoot position of submissiveness to the claims of the unregenerate.
If you are coming from a perspective that we must start and end the convo with clarifying orthodox Christian doctrine, that likely is an entirely different vantage point and end goal. This goal likely will create inherent “dividers” between people that can be problematic in our highly connected world today. Our ever increasing interconnecteness as a world isn’t a “cosmetic issue” in this conversation (meaning irrelevant on the deepest level). It is a new reality we have to adjust to knowing my belief system is now on a stage of variance, interaction, and critique like no other time. In this new reality of increased interactions with those who are completely different than us, evangelical belief systems have to come to terms with the perceived and perhaps real posture of elitism over those who don’t have “the truth” yet (that posture is almost a given if one sees themselves as having THE truth or even some unquestionable truth; possessing any “unquestionable truth” means the perception of one’s view is “right.”) Contrastingly, a person whose frame of reference and aim are geared more towards unity and appreciating the interconnectedness of us all - this person may constantly have to wrestle with these inherent “dividers” created by faith claims/dogmas, and the uncomfortable sense of elitism in sharing “truth” which is a sense of unquestionable rightness. I am more comfortable with perceiving one’s position as “*best*, yet totally open to being wrong” because I think we’re all currently operating with what we think is “best.” This unity/connection focused vantage point might value a greater idealogical flexibility. I do have trouble seeing how one reconciles the goal of clarifying orthodox doctrine and the goal pursuing greater unity. Those aims will always see things entirely differently.
I think many people don’t realize that fundamentalism also has a main floor. Its not just an attic. It’s a very multi-faceted tradition. I would recommend Kevin Bauder’s work on the subject.
Fundamentalism is an unhelpful term. I think most people, when they hear fundamentalist think legalism. Most Christians hold to fundamental Christian beliefs, it’s the more staunch churches, that are referred to when people say fundamentalist
@@benjaminwatt2436 I don’t disagree that the term has lost value. Some of this is the fault of the fundamentalist moment. It’s also true that many Christians are careless with the term and don’t take the time to actually understand fundamentalist theology and history. At the risk of being self-promoting, I address some of this on my channel.
Churches that “frame Christianity as common sense and the obvious belief” is an attitude I’ve encountered a lot having moved to Texas. Coming as a Christian from the Seattle area, that mindset is very foreign to me.
Pretending that the truth isn't obvious is a very foreign mindset to me. I can't see how this approach wouldn't be detrimental to someone's daily walk with Christ. It seems like it would be akin to working at a power plant but sometimes doubting that electricity exists.
Being from Texas, you have to understand the culture. Texas is almost entirely main line Protestant. People largely identify as Christian. It a part of our history and life. So churches work under that mentality. We expect people to either believe Jesus is God or at least claimed to be God. We expect people to have basic biblical knowledge, like of characters or common parables…etc. so the mind set comes from a culturally Christian back ground. It always saddens me to hear places like Seattle have drifted that far
Thanks for the discussion. Mark 9:24 has been liberating for me. I do appreciate the encouragement for humility, respect and consideration. The scripture instructs those who are strong to bear with those who are weak and sometimes we can find ourselves in either category so being patronizing and condescending does not help.
From what I gather, he seems to be closest with cumulative case apologetics. Since he doesn't feel like he fits in any particular camp (i.e. video with Revealed Apologetics w/ Eli Ayala on Church History), he is unlikely to delve into the particulars of any specific view. :)
To Gavin: how would you define a fundamentalist? I consider myself to be one, and I've noticed that you and some of your guests portray fundamentalists in a negative light, and it is a bit off-putting for me. So, I would like some clarification on this. Thank you.
I think fundamentalism is generally used to describe very conservative Baptists who staunchly hold to the "dogmas" of American Evangelicalism: young-earth creationism, strict Scriptural inerrancy, dispensationalism, sacramental memorialism, anti-Romanist sentiment, etc. More extreme types might veer into legalism regarding things like alcohol and dress.
I'd be curious to hear about this as well. Sometimes in the academic and/or apologetic space, “fundamentalist” seems to be shorthand for “anyone who makes Christianity look foolish to the secular world.” And while I can be sympathetic to the frustration of people who want to be taken seriously by the world…1 Corinthians 1! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That said, that may be an unfair characterization. It may be that the associated purity tests and exclusivity of certain fundamentalists (“You can’t even be saved if you don’t agree with me on [insert tertiary issue here]!”) is the real source of distaste. Full disclosure: I come from a fundamentalist background and have deep love and sympathy for fundamentalism. I would happily self-identify as a fundamentalist in any secular context, even if I don't actually share some fundamentalist views.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 I think you are right that this is how most people view the term. But I believe that much of what you list above would also cover most, if not all, of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. I had always taken the label as this, a movement to be more in line with the earliest Christians. Still, I know that there are those within this movement that cause problems. :( Thank you for your thoughts on this.
Interesting question! I hope he does cover this in future but I'd also like to know how you define your fundamentalism. When I think of it I think of an extremely rigid, literal, kind of Christianity. For example the belief that the creation literally took seven days because that's what Genesis says. I'm open to a more metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, myself.
Rhett and Link played the "Fabulous Bentley Brothers" on Phil Vischer's series "What's in the Bible with Buck Denver?" Their songs were quite good, even powerful at times. It was a great series for kids. I was discouraged when I saw them "deconstruct." I didn't know them outside that series until they left the faith.
Dr O, you absolutely must get Rhett and Link on your TU channel! So glad you got Josh and Jack on, and I'm looking forward to reading their book. How great is TU?! You've introduced me to four intelligent and thoughtful guys that I'd never heard of two weeks ago. Something good always shakes out when I follow your channel!
Great convo. I like their language of “coercive” evidence or arguments for Christianity, and their contention that we don’t have such evidence, either for or against Christianity. This leads to the unavoidable implication that all of us, Christian or not, have to make a choice regarding our ultimate worldview commitments and the kind of life we are going to live. This seems deeply in line with the message and call of Jesus in thenGospels. And I wish they would have given more weight to the role of desire in our overall worldview calculus. We are lovers first and foremost, not just brains on a stick, and often our rationalizing comes in afterward to justify the worldview that appeals to us at a deep level. And I think we are morally accountable for that which we desire and how we interact with those desires
When it comes to the question of 100% certainty I always find that educated Christians seem to set a higher bar, true philisophical certainty, than what the average believer or unbliever would set the bar at, more reasonable and effectual than other options. For me personally, due to the content of this channel and many others plus countless hours put into studying scripture, I find myself not having any real doubts anymore. I feel I have seen too much, know too many answers and seen the logical outcomes of opposing views for me to come to any other conclusion than Jesus is the Christ and my God. Being nondenominational and using a love and background in philosophy I have struggled with the big questions of life as well as big debates in the church like infant baptism, speaking in tongues, soteriology, etc. I enjoy the process of not only seeing what scripture says on these topics but making sure there is no conflict implied or in outcomes from the different views within scripture so all the views I hold are holistic and don't contracdict one another, something not even many mainline denominations can do with creeds and even the magisterium. I mention all that to say, it is possible to have an incredibly overwhelming sense of certainty in Christianity and His promises, one that leaves essentially no room for doubt and I say that having had a major loss in the last year. Mental struggle or emotional pain, I have seen too much, come too far to truly have doubts in the truth of the gospel and I wish we had more church leaders willing to make the case for people to see. Don't assume it and don't say it is impossible to have that kind of faith either, share it and demonstrate it.
Amen to this, and I'd go further and say that a submissive posture towards secularism and materialism in regards to discussion and epistemology is an impediment to be overcome both for evangelizing and our daily walk with Christ. I think it amounts to a gaslighting of Christians that diminishes our effectiveness and limits our potential. If the Prowling Enemy can make us feel like it's inappropriate -- or even make us feel ashamed -- to behave as though God is real, how does that not make it harder to have a close relationship with Jesus and boldly proclaim Him to others?
I wish more people would react to Link's deconstruction story. I see lots of great reactions to Rhett's story. This is probably because Rhett makes a lot of philosophical arguments and cites reading and research that he's done. Link's story is more "emotional" (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) and focussed on relationships with people. I think Link's story would more compelling to a lot a people than Rhett's is, and it deserves to be addressed.
I take the video to be about comparing the wagers of Rhett-style Open Spirituality and Main Floor Christianity. In a strong sense, someone has a position/wager/posture/belief/commitment when they take a definite view and, thus, have a burden of proof. For example, I could have a particular thesis statement in an essay or vote for the Green Party candidate. In a weak sense, the view that I should find a view or continue looking is a wager. Likewise, choosing the Not Applicable or Abstain category in a vote/survey is also a vote. The weak sense, though, is relatively innocuous. This leads me to two puzzles in comparing where to wager. Betting Broad: Wagering on Open Spirituality Rhett plausibly wagers in the weak sense. This is akin to someone who has a view when looking for articles and books for a thesis in the library or a person who voted when they choose to abstain from voting. One concern I have is that the video's response that we should go for wagers or abductive arguments works assuming, say, Rhett thinks 99% confidence is not good enough. Does he have such a high demand for certainty? That is a very strong claim to make about his standards of argumentative success! It seems easily uncharitable and inaccurate. Rather, in charity to Rhett, he plausibly thinks the evidence is ambiguous; the abductive case, even when he includes existential, historical, etc. considerations, does not point in favor of Christianity. Open Spirituality has an advantage here. It plausibly has fewer posits or, to go back to the essay example, more blank space left in the essay for new sources without committing to one particular direction. A more modest wager is plausibly better: betting on evens in roulette is far more likely to win than betting on number 19. A vague position or a more generic posit is plausibly more resilient during inquiry. So, it looks like, even if Rhett must wager, the Open Spirituality wager is better than Christianity given his current evidential and existential base of information. For more information on this, see John Schellenberg on faith in skeptical religion. Perhaps, though, the 'payout' of wagering on God makes the more particular posit worthwhile. That is my second puzzle. Betting Big: Christianity's Moral/Existential Advantages It seems the authors think explaining the value of universal benevolence is a Christian advantage. On the question of moral foundations, it looks as if we are heading back to the attic to defend the house. What do I mean by this? The moral arguments for theism are profoundly controversial even amongst (especially?) top theistic ethicists, with some like Terence Cuneo suggesting the field of metaethics oftentimes just overlooks the potential of theistic ethics, seeing it as exhausted. Rather than historians like Holland or Taylor, metaethicists are the ones who discuss what explains morality. My concern is similar to yours with the academic-apologetic divide on creation, YEC having an outsized influence on those with little background on the topic. Moral arguments for theism are mainly popular amongst those with little background in the relevant areas and near pariahs in professional settings. It looks like the generic wager of OS pays out the same. The Open Spirituality supporter, like Rhett, could recognize and value the contributions Christianity made *historically* to ethical insights without thinking that gives Christianity a patent to, say, explaining the value of universal benevolence *theoretically* . This would be similar to valuing contributions to democratic ideals from Greek polytheists while thinking you do not have to be a Greek polytheist to explain or ground the value of democracy. Simply put, it looks like Rhett can make a moral wager without "stealing from God" to use Frank Turek's phrase. To move from Christianity's *historical* value in showing us ethical insights to thinking those insights require belief in/wagering on Christianity for grounding *theoretically* seems like going back to a room in the attic of parochial views of worldview comparison. It might rely on far too controversial a moral argument. For more on this, see Joe Schmid's list of mistakes in moral arguments and comments on your video on MATs. It looks like Rhett should stay outside the house. If he must wager, he can bet big by betting broad.
Very interesting! Your comment has evoked "The Holy Order of the Inverted Pyramid"'s attention. ❤ ruclips.net/video/VRpiRz7_EMM/видео.htmlsi=taQFbhKlsVLwgIo7
“Open” spirituality can be an unhelpful misnomer when put in conjunction with Christian belief. This can dichotomize the fact that we ALL are in the process of synthesizing and formulating a contextual, cultural, “open” and malleable interpretation of life, God, morals, and meaning. Rhett (and I for that matter) might better communicate if he said instead of having “NO HOUSE,” he is inhabiting “LESS” of a fixed space because he doesn’t have as many immovable, fixed points, such as the words of the Bible and Christian tradition as authoritative scaffolding. It is true to say we ALL “inhabit a space.” Rhett does and it can be critiqued/discerned as well. But it is also, perhaps, true to say Rhett may have LESS immovable anchor points or scaffolding seen as near to “unquestionable.” I see a classic argument impasse, where in reality, we share a space of ranging flexibility in our discernment about life and meaning, each position needing open critique. Christian belief does have more “fixed points” yet still possesses an inherent flexibility of discernment to determine the authoritative hierarchy of each premise of the Bible; some divine imperatives we pass over now without a second thought (exodus 22:18, for one example). We can track an evolving consciousness of discernment at work as we see Christian postures and positions over time having become less dogmatic and more open, receptive, & malleable .
Why are these guys Rhett and Link, so important? I am outside the US, so I might be unfamiliar, but there doesn't seem to have been anything uniquely Christian in their content anyways.
(from Wikipedia) They met in first grade, in high school wrote plays, comedy sketches together. "In 1996, they started college and were roommates at North Carolina State University, where Link studied industrial engineering and Rhett studied civil engineering. Rhett graduated magna cum laude in December 2000, and Link graduated summa cum laude in May 2001. They worked in their respective fields for a time, Link at IBM and Rhett at Black & Veatch. They also made videos and performed comedy sketches for a religious organization, Cru. [formerly known as Campus Crusade]. During their time at Cru, they began developing their signature comedy style as a duo, subsequently deciding to become full-time entertainers. Rhett & Link quit their jobs as engineers soon after graduating from college to shift their focus to their Christian evangelism with Cru. They made comedic videos for meetings and conferences after being inspired by the host at the first weekly Cru meeting they attended as freshmen at North Carolina State University. Later, they transitioned to making comedic RUclips videos full-time, without Christian ministry."
well known. But... I don't know how popular... the chronically online don't discuss GMM or R&L much. (popularity being not just subscriber count but the number of discussions and video essays, debates etc generated by their content) @@quickattackfilms7923
They were involved in Christian media early on (they did some songs for the 'What's In The Bible?' kids series etc) and have spoken about their faith from time to time. Their faith informed their 'family-friendly' content style back in the day (as far as I'm aware, what can be considered family friendly on their channel has changed somewhat over time due to their changing beliefs). Because of this they had a pretty big Christian contingent in their fanbase. Then a few years ago they came out with a couple of long podcast videos talking about their deconstruction which went viral, and naturally caused some controversy - also added fuel to the fire of the 'spiritual deconstruction' trend which was just kicking off in the mainstream at the time, almost becoming the poster boys for it.
Catholic challenge for Gavin: how can Protestants turn the prevalent impulse toward personal deconstruction into an opportunity for personal reconstruction-ie, reformation. Of all the branches of Christianity, Protestantism should be particularly adept at doing this-semper reformandi-yet it seems to be particular inept at the moment.
Thanks. I think there's a great deal of value in the discussion and agree that we wager all the time on the 'best course ' or best explanation without certainty. Nevertheless I wonder whether, as per this conversation, the apostle Paul would be labelled 'coercive.' 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.' Romans 1v 18-20. Now of course the point about not assuming to know the motivation of others is wise. We cannot know the internal life of others nor where they are on their journey.Nevertheless the Bible does not present failure to worship the God of scripture as morally neutral. Here's a conversation which I'm pretty confident we won't witness on judgement day: Man: Wow. God of the Bible! You exist. Of course if you'd given decent reasons to believe in and worship you I would of course have done so. God: Fair enough. In you come.
I would be VERY hesitant to say “we cannot prove Christianity”. The Bible seems to disagree. (Acts 17 and 18) Paul uses reason to argue his case before multiple groups.
The truth of Christianity would be obvious if its value were obvious. But it's not. From the outside looking in, it appears to hold as much value as any other religion, so Christians change the subject to history, inerrancy, ontology, and on and on.
Although the middle chapters on oral tradition can feel like a slog (even to me who is fascinated by it) , Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is certainly within a smart college graduate's comprehension - I don't think graduate work is required at all. Highly recommended. Most of it is not only compelling but really draws you in. The closing chapters on the identify of the Beloved Disciple reads like a great detective story to me.
5:40 This isn't aimed at Gavin, but if you're a fan of Greg Bahnsen, then you know that Christianity is the common sense rational position to hold. Rationality does not exist outside of God.
@@tomasrocha6139 classic misconception. It argues that God exists based on the fact that only the Christian God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.
God has provided a smorgasbord of nutritious food. Not everyone is going to appreciate particular dishes, but there is something else there that suffices. Just because you don't like the frogs legs isn't good reason to leave the restaurant.
I find it confusing when to use reason and evidence and when to rely on God not my own understanding. When I went through doubts in faith and had those doubts answered and learned there was reason behind faith in Christ that seemed to go beyond the Wish fufillment and idiot claims of aithiests. But recenly I have been seeing that there are times where its not needed you know everything and can have faith like with supposed bible contradictions or Gods goodnesss in spite of things like evil in the world. But people have used this like Catholocism saying if you trust God and the bible this way you should trust the Catholic Church this way and not ask for evidence for everything and you cannot know whats in the bible unless infallably told and the opposite of rigid reason pushing straight up modernist and its bad to have reason with faith. So I get confused when to rely on these things.
I've been curious to know what the religious beliefs are of doctors in various fields. No offense to pastors or to pop skeptics, but they are really not experts in astrophysics, evolutionary biology, or ancient literature. Sampling the beliefs of these experts could be a means of balancing the probability of theism vs atheism, as Carson and Chatraw are describing. Are most physicists persuaded by the fine tuning or cosmological arguments? Do most archaeologists believe in a young earth? Do most historians actually agree with the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection? These stats could be very revealing regarding the credibility of these common Christian apologetics.
You'll find the whole gamut of beliefs among the STEM fields. Majority opinion on such matters is likely to be deceptive as most will have never given thought to how theological and philosophical debates might work within their specialty. Much better to evaluate the arguments from particular specialists that have thought enough about the topics to give their opinion and the reasons for it.
If the inquiry is indeed simply out of curiosity, then that would be interesting. However, this sort of idea being used as a gauge of credibility seems to be a very strange form of democratization of your views to whatever "current science" is on any partiular Christian doctrine. It would be the very definition of an appeal to authority.
@@brando3342 It's a landscape that has many hurdles & a lot of fog. Even if there's no resolution, the exercise gets me thinking about the methodology used in analyzing historical claims. =]
@@thomasrutledge5941 Sure, there are several factors to consider, but I do believe with an objective viewing of the evidence, one can easily have a probability above 50 percent 👍
@@thomasrutledge5941 A couple factors being the evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross, the fact of the empty tomb, the testimony of the woman who discovered it empty etc.
We shouldn't make fun of anyone who holds a different worldview than us, well, except maybe for the critical theorists. We may want to make fun of them, but no one else.
Is it just me, or do the guests not understand that the Gospel is not neutral, faith is a gift from God, and God is also the source of all true knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Ephesians 2, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 2 lay this out pretty clearly. The natural man cannot understand things of the Spirit unless the Spirit reveals it to them. This is not neutral territory, so I don’t understand why these guys are acting like it is. Gavin, I know you know better based on your reformed theology. You should teach them Also, Paul used evidence in evangelizing ALL the time
I’m not reformed, but a reformed person could say that arguments and sharing evidence can be means God uses to impart faith. Plenty of reformed people have been classical or evidentialist in their apologetics.
The Holy Spirit is pursuing everyone. The individual has to yield themselves to the pursuing in order to believe in the gospel. There, faith exists. The Calvinistic approach isnt the best way to understand faith.
@@chriscalhoun380I agree with you. Those approaches are biblical and the Spirit uses those means. That’s different than what these guys are talking about. They are comparing Christianity to any other view or belief as if it is neutral and God is not involved in beliefs from rationality or otherwise
Ok. How about this. Forget reformer or not. Forget Calvinism too. Read Romans 1, Ephesians 2, and 1 Corinthians 2. The Word says it all Of course we should use reason, evidence, and evangelize. But we must understand that the Gospel is NOT neutral. The light uncovers the darkness. If Christ is not Lord, someone or something else is.
@@inseinenstudios6404 _If Christ is not Lord, someone or something else is_ I thought that's exactly what the guests were saying in a nutshell. i.e. You're inevitably going to adopt a myth, might as well adopt the true myth rather than the false ones.
I don’t mean this in a derisive way but I think they’re missing the central question. Is Christ Lord of your life? If the answer to that question is no, all other points are largely irrelevant.
I agree with you Caleb. To me it is like learning about how to swim from a book without ever getting in the water and practicing what you learned. We need to deny ourselves and follow Christ and make him Lord of our life. We need a personal relationship with God where he is the heart of our desire and the treasure that we seek.
It's more like a marriage. You know when you love someone and give your all? Except on this case we Christians are the bridesmaid and Christ is the groom. Which then makes us servants of Him.
Just realized that in a year of watching many apologist vids in many channels, I've yet to see one female theologian. It's all a man's game apparently.
@@brando3342Is it bad that women don't seem to care about theology, like, at all? Whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or EO, they do not care. Is it bad, or is it good? Or is it bad that men are so fixated on theology? Or is that good? Or does it not matter? I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions. I just think it's a tiny bit remarkable that of all the many such vids I've seen on theology, it's always dudes.
@@joeoleary9010 So, it’s just an observation, you don’t have an opinion about that observation? Anyway. Generally I would say it is a psychological gender difference thing. I’m pretty sure men are more likely to be interested in history, and straight logical argumentation. There are some female theologians, but not many, and I believe that is at least partially the reason.
@@joeoleary9010 Have you watched Melissa Dougherty? Sure, she's a little more pop-level, but I'd say she definitely counts as a woman who's interested in theology. And here I am, a woman, commenting on this video....Statistically we're less represented, but there are definitely some of us out there...
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Regarding the house metaphor, I recently heard this quote by C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity that really hit home:
Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
That's a beautiful and excellent illustration of what God is doing to us and through us.
Love that quote. I think of it often as the demolitions seems to be endless…
Love that. Thank you for sharing. What a treasure C.S Lewis was and is still today.
Loving this, Gavin. My favourite RUclips at the moment is bright people having thought-provoking discussions. Bonus when the focus is Christianity.
Augustine's journey to faith alone would be a great example for any skeptical mind. Unfortunately, few actually read Augustine anymore.
Oh boy, people arent gonna like the guests saying Christianity isnt 100% obvious to everyone 😂
Gavin, i would be interested in hearing you talk more about how the centrality of doxastic states (beliefs, things that we think are true) in Christianity might be in tension with religious ambiguity to the extent that you see it. I think you would be uniquely equipped to cover this topic well.
Good vid btw 🙏
The sooner people honestly appraise what they believe, and why, the better for the future of Christianity.
It's moreso that they act like Christianity looks obviously untrue and advocate that we start off on a backfoot position of submissiveness to the claims of the unregenerate.
If you are coming from a perspective that we must start and end the convo with clarifying orthodox Christian doctrine, that likely is an entirely different vantage point and end goal. This goal likely will create inherent “dividers” between people that can be problematic in our highly connected world today. Our ever increasing interconnecteness as a world isn’t a “cosmetic issue” in this conversation (meaning irrelevant on the deepest level). It is a new reality we have to adjust to knowing my belief system is now on a stage of variance, interaction, and critique like no other time. In this new reality of increased interactions with those who are completely different than us, evangelical belief systems have to come to terms with the perceived and perhaps real posture of elitism over those who don’t have “the truth” yet (that posture is almost a given if one sees themselves as having THE truth or even some unquestionable truth; possessing any “unquestionable truth” means the perception of one’s view is “right.”)
Contrastingly, a person whose frame of reference and aim are geared more towards unity and appreciating the interconnectedness of us all - this person may constantly have to wrestle with these inherent “dividers” created by faith claims/dogmas, and the uncomfortable sense of elitism in sharing “truth” which is a sense of unquestionable rightness. I am more comfortable with perceiving one’s position as “*best*, yet totally open to being wrong” because I think we’re all currently operating with what we think is “best.” This unity/connection focused vantage point might value a greater idealogical flexibility.
I do have trouble seeing how one reconciles the goal of clarifying orthodox doctrine and the goal pursuing greater unity. Those aims will always see things entirely differently.
Love these videos responding to Rhett and link
I think many people don’t realize that fundamentalism also has a main floor. Its not just an attic. It’s a very multi-faceted tradition. I would recommend Kevin Bauder’s work on the subject.
Fundamentalism is an unhelpful term. I think most people, when they hear fundamentalist think legalism. Most Christians hold to fundamental Christian beliefs, it’s the more staunch churches, that are referred to when people say fundamentalist
@@benjaminwatt2436 I don’t disagree that the term has lost value. Some of this is the fault of the fundamentalist moment. It’s also true that many Christians are careless with the term and don’t take the time to actually understand fundamentalist theology and history. At the risk of being self-promoting, I address some of this on my channel.
Churches that “frame Christianity as common sense and the obvious belief” is an attitude I’ve encountered a lot having moved to Texas. Coming as a Christian from the Seattle area, that mindset is very foreign to me.
Pretending that the truth isn't obvious is a very foreign mindset to me. I can't see how this approach wouldn't be detrimental to someone's daily walk with Christ. It seems like it would be akin to working at a power plant but sometimes doubting that electricity exists.
Being from Texas, you have to understand the culture. Texas is almost entirely main line Protestant. People largely identify as Christian. It a part of our history and life. So churches work under that mentality. We expect people to either believe Jesus is God or at least claimed to be God. We expect people to have basic biblical knowledge, like of characters or common parables…etc. so the mind set comes from a culturally Christian back ground. It always saddens me to hear places like Seattle have drifted that far
Thanks for the discussion. Mark 9:24 has been liberating for me. I do appreciate the encouragement for humility, respect and consideration. The scripture instructs those who are strong to bear with those who are weak and sometimes we can find ourselves in either category so being patronizing and condescending does not help.
Gavin could you do a video on presuppositional vs Classical/evididentialist apologetics?
From what I gather, he seems to be closest with cumulative case apologetics. Since he doesn't feel like he fits in any particular camp (i.e. video with Revealed Apologetics w/ Eli Ayala on Church History), he is unlikely to delve into the particulars of any specific view. :)
To Gavin: how would you define a fundamentalist? I consider myself to be one, and I've noticed that you and some of your guests portray fundamentalists in a negative light, and it is a bit off-putting for me. So, I would like some clarification on this. Thank you.
I think fundamentalism is generally used to describe very conservative Baptists who staunchly hold to the "dogmas" of American Evangelicalism: young-earth creationism, strict Scriptural inerrancy, dispensationalism, sacramental memorialism, anti-Romanist sentiment, etc. More extreme types might veer into legalism regarding things like alcohol and dress.
I'd be curious to hear about this as well. Sometimes in the academic and/or apologetic space, “fundamentalist” seems to be shorthand for “anyone who makes Christianity look foolish to the secular world.” And while I can be sympathetic to the frustration of people who want to be taken seriously by the world…1 Corinthians 1! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That said, that may be an unfair characterization. It may be that the associated purity tests and exclusivity of certain fundamentalists (“You can’t even be saved if you don’t agree with me on [insert tertiary issue here]!”) is the real source of distaste.
Full disclosure: I come from a fundamentalist background and have deep love and sympathy for fundamentalism. I would happily self-identify as a fundamentalist in any secular context, even if I don't actually share some fundamentalist views.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 I think you are right that this is how most people view the term. But I believe that much of what you list above would also cover most, if not all, of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. I had always taken the label as this, a movement to be more in line with the earliest Christians. Still, I know that there are those within this movement that cause problems. :(
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
@@edr245 I think you and I are on the same page with this topic. Thank you for responding, and God bless.
Interesting question! I hope he does cover this in future but I'd also like to know how you define your fundamentalism.
When I think of it I think of an extremely rigid, literal, kind of Christianity. For example the belief that the creation literally took seven days because that's what Genesis says. I'm open to a more metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, myself.
Rhett and Link played the "Fabulous Bentley Brothers" on Phil Vischer's series "What's in the Bible with Buck Denver?" Their songs were quite good, even powerful at times. It was a great series for kids. I was discouraged when I saw them "deconstruct." I didn't know them outside that series until they left the faith.
Dr O, you absolutely must get Rhett and Link on your TU channel! So glad you got Josh and Jack on, and I'm looking forward to reading their book.
How great is TU?! You've introduced me to four intelligent and thoughtful guys that I'd never heard of two weeks ago. Something good always shakes out when I follow your channel!
Great convo. I like their language of “coercive” evidence or arguments for Christianity, and their contention that we don’t have such evidence, either for or against Christianity. This leads to the unavoidable implication that all of us, Christian or not, have to make a choice regarding our ultimate worldview commitments and the kind of life we are going to live. This seems deeply in line with the message and call of Jesus in thenGospels. And I wish they would have given more weight to the role of desire in our overall worldview calculus. We are lovers first and foremost, not just brains on a stick, and often our rationalizing comes in afterward to justify the worldview that appeals to us at a deep level. And I think we are morally accountable for that which we desire and how we interact with those desires
I hope rhett watches this
When it comes to the question of 100% certainty I always find that educated Christians seem to set a higher bar, true philisophical certainty, than what the average believer or unbliever would set the bar at, more reasonable and effectual than other options. For me personally, due to the content of this channel and many others plus countless hours put into studying scripture, I find myself not having any real doubts anymore. I feel I have seen too much, know too many answers and seen the logical outcomes of opposing views for me to come to any other conclusion than Jesus is the Christ and my God. Being nondenominational and using a love and background in philosophy I have struggled with the big questions of life as well as big debates in the church like infant baptism, speaking in tongues, soteriology, etc. I enjoy the process of not only seeing what scripture says on these topics but making sure there is no conflict implied or in outcomes from the different views within scripture so all the views I hold are holistic and don't contracdict one another, something not even many mainline denominations can do with creeds and even the magisterium. I mention all that to say, it is possible to have an incredibly overwhelming sense of certainty in Christianity and His promises, one that leaves essentially no room for doubt and I say that having had a major loss in the last year. Mental struggle or emotional pain, I have seen too much, come too far to truly have doubts in the truth of the gospel and I wish we had more church leaders willing to make the case for people to see. Don't assume it and don't say it is impossible to have that kind of faith either, share it and demonstrate it.
Just wanted to say that this is such a great comment. God bless you.
Amen to this, and I'd go further and say that a submissive posture towards secularism and materialism in regards to discussion and epistemology is an impediment to be overcome both for evangelizing and our daily walk with Christ. I think it amounts to a gaslighting of Christians that diminishes our effectiveness and limits our potential. If the Prowling Enemy can make us feel like it's inappropriate -- or even make us feel ashamed -- to behave as though God is real, how does that not make it harder to have a close relationship with Jesus and boldly proclaim Him to others?
This is the best comment thread for this video. This is the heart of the matter.
Just make sure every Evangelical kid reads Chesterton before they turn 18, that should do the trick!
I wish more people would react to Link's deconstruction story. I see lots of great reactions to Rhett's story. This is probably because Rhett makes a lot of philosophical arguments and cites reading and research that he's done. Link's story is more "emotional" (I don't mean this in a derogatory way) and focussed on relationships with people. I think Link's story would more compelling to a lot a people than Rhett's is, and it deserves to be addressed.
I take the video to be about comparing the wagers of Rhett-style Open Spirituality and Main Floor Christianity. In a strong sense, someone has a position/wager/posture/belief/commitment when they take a definite view and, thus, have a burden of proof. For example, I could have a particular thesis statement in an essay or vote for the Green Party candidate. In a weak sense, the view that I should find a view or continue looking is a wager. Likewise, choosing the Not Applicable or Abstain category in a vote/survey is also a vote. The weak sense, though, is relatively innocuous. This leads me to two puzzles in comparing where to wager.
Betting Broad: Wagering on Open Spirituality
Rhett plausibly wagers in the weak sense. This is akin to someone who has a view when looking for articles and books for a thesis in the library or a person who voted when they choose to abstain from voting. One concern I have is that the video's response that we should go for wagers or abductive arguments works assuming, say, Rhett thinks 99% confidence is not good enough. Does he have such a high demand for certainty? That is a very strong claim to make about his standards of argumentative success! It seems easily uncharitable and inaccurate. Rather, in charity to Rhett, he plausibly thinks the evidence is ambiguous; the abductive case, even when he includes existential, historical, etc. considerations, does not point in favor of Christianity.
Open Spirituality has an advantage here. It plausibly has fewer posits or, to go back to the essay example, more blank space left in the essay for new sources without committing to one particular direction. A more modest wager is plausibly better: betting on evens in roulette is far more likely to win than betting on number 19. A vague position or a more generic posit is plausibly more resilient during inquiry. So, it looks like, even if Rhett must wager, the Open Spirituality wager is better than Christianity given his current evidential and existential base of information. For more information on this, see John Schellenberg on faith in skeptical religion. Perhaps, though, the 'payout' of wagering on God makes the more particular posit worthwhile. That is my second puzzle.
Betting Big: Christianity's Moral/Existential Advantages
It seems the authors think explaining the value of universal benevolence is a Christian advantage. On the question of moral foundations, it looks as if we are heading back to the attic to defend the house. What do I mean by this? The moral arguments for theism are profoundly controversial even amongst (especially?) top theistic ethicists, with some like Terence Cuneo suggesting the field of metaethics oftentimes just overlooks the potential of theistic ethics, seeing it as exhausted. Rather than historians like Holland or Taylor, metaethicists are the ones who discuss what explains morality. My concern is similar to yours with the academic-apologetic divide on creation, YEC having an outsized influence on those with little background on the topic. Moral arguments for theism are mainly popular amongst those with little background in the relevant areas and near pariahs in professional settings. It looks like the generic wager of OS pays out the same.
The Open Spirituality supporter, like Rhett, could recognize and value the contributions Christianity made *historically* to ethical insights without thinking that gives Christianity a patent to, say, explaining the value of universal benevolence *theoretically* . This would be similar to valuing contributions to democratic ideals from Greek polytheists while thinking you do not have to be a Greek polytheist to explain or ground the value of democracy. Simply put, it looks like Rhett can make a moral wager without "stealing from God" to use Frank Turek's phrase. To move from Christianity's *historical* value in showing us ethical insights to thinking those insights require belief in/wagering on Christianity for grounding *theoretically* seems like going back to a room in the attic of parochial views of worldview comparison. It might rely on far too controversial a moral argument. For more on this, see Joe Schmid's list of mistakes in moral arguments and comments on your video on MATs.
It looks like Rhett should stay outside the house. If he must wager, he can bet big by betting broad.
Very interesting!
Your comment has evoked "The Holy Order of the Inverted Pyramid"'s attention. ❤
ruclips.net/video/VRpiRz7_EMM/видео.htmlsi=taQFbhKlsVLwgIo7
Cool
“Open” spirituality can be an unhelpful misnomer when put in conjunction with Christian belief. This can dichotomize the fact that we ALL are in the process of synthesizing and formulating a contextual, cultural, “open” and malleable interpretation of life, God, morals, and meaning. Rhett (and I for that matter) might better communicate if he said instead of having “NO HOUSE,” he is inhabiting “LESS” of a fixed space because he doesn’t have as many immovable, fixed points, such as the words of the Bible and Christian tradition as authoritative scaffolding.
It is true to say we ALL “inhabit a space.” Rhett does and it can be critiqued/discerned as well. But it is also, perhaps, true to say Rhett may have LESS immovable anchor points or scaffolding seen as near to “unquestionable.” I see a classic argument impasse, where in reality, we share a space of ranging flexibility in our discernment about life and meaning, each position needing open critique. Christian belief does have more “fixed points” yet still possesses an inherent flexibility of discernment to determine the authoritative hierarchy of each premise of the Bible; some divine imperatives we pass over now without a second thought (exodus 22:18, for one example). We can track an evolving consciousness of discernment at work as we see Christian postures and positions over time having become less dogmatic and more open, receptive, & malleable .
Excellent way of putting this. I was thinking something similar, but couldn't quite put it into words.
@@ajrthrowawaythanks! Gotta say it’s taken years to be able verbalize that way, but glad to know it’s helpful in some way.
That was quite elegant.
Not to take away from that fact, but is "mailable" intended to be "malleable"?
@@FalconOfStorms thanks. And haha probably. Didn’t spell check and rarely have to spell that word!!
Is discernment in a state of evolution or decay?
Why are these guys Rhett and Link, so important? I am outside the US, so I might be unfamiliar, but there doesn't seem to have been anything uniquely Christian in their content anyways.
They are super popular RUclipsrs and they used to be Christians. They could heavily affect the culture
(from Wikipedia) They met in first grade, in high school wrote plays, comedy sketches together.
"In 1996, they started college and were roommates at North Carolina State University, where Link studied industrial engineering and Rhett studied civil engineering. Rhett graduated magna cum laude in December 2000, and Link graduated summa cum laude in May 2001. They worked in their respective fields for a time, Link at IBM and Rhett at Black & Veatch.
They also made videos and performed comedy sketches for a religious organization, Cru. [formerly known as Campus Crusade]. During their time at Cru, they began developing their signature comedy style as a duo, subsequently deciding to become full-time entertainers.
Rhett & Link quit their jobs as engineers soon after graduating from college to shift their focus to their Christian evangelism with Cru. They made comedic videos for meetings and conferences after being inspired by the host at the first weekly Cru meeting they attended as freshmen at North Carolina State University.
Later, they transitioned to making comedic RUclips videos full-time, without Christian ministry."
well known. But... I don't know how popular... the chronically online don't discuss GMM or R&L much. (popularity being not just subscriber count but the number of discussions and video essays, debates etc generated by their content) @@quickattackfilms7923
They were involved in Christian media early on (they did some songs for the 'What's In The Bible?' kids series etc) and have spoken about their faith from time to time. Their faith informed their 'family-friendly' content style back in the day (as far as I'm aware, what can be considered family friendly on their channel has changed somewhat over time due to their changing beliefs). Because of this they had a pretty big Christian contingent in their fanbase. Then a few years ago they came out with a couple of long podcast videos talking about their deconstruction which went viral, and naturally caused some controversy - also added fuel to the fire of the 'spiritual deconstruction' trend which was just kicking off in the mainstream at the time, almost becoming the poster boys for it.
I’m inside the US and I’ve never heard of them, although I don’t watch “RUclipsrs,” so that’s probably why.
Which resources were recommended by Richard Bauckham? It was breaking up a bit. I got the "Jesus and the eyewitnesses", but what was the other one?
I think the Richard Bauckham "introduction to the Gospels" they are talking about is "Jesus: A Very Short Introduction."
You should also read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton. Also, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is a good one too.
@@brando3342 Yes those are great, thx. 👍
@@skyorrichegg Thank you!
Catholic challenge for Gavin: how can Protestants turn the prevalent impulse toward personal deconstruction into an opportunity for personal reconstruction-ie, reformation. Of all the branches of Christianity, Protestantism should be particularly adept at doing this-semper reformandi-yet it seems to be particular inept at the moment.
Thanks. I think there's a great deal of value in the discussion and agree that we wager all the time on the 'best course ' or best explanation without certainty.
Nevertheless I wonder whether, as per this conversation, the apostle Paul would be labelled 'coercive.'
'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.'
Romans 1v 18-20.
Now of course the point about not assuming to know the motivation of others is wise. We cannot know the internal life of others nor where they are on their journey.Nevertheless the Bible does not present failure to worship the God of scripture as morally neutral.
Here's a conversation which I'm pretty confident we won't witness on judgement day:
Man: Wow. God of the Bible! You exist. Of course if you'd given decent reasons to believe in and worship you I would of course have done so.
God: Fair enough. In you come.
I would be VERY hesitant to say “we cannot prove Christianity”. The Bible seems to disagree. (Acts 17 and 18) Paul uses reason to argue his case before multiple groups.
The truth of Christianity would be obvious if its value were obvious. But it's not. From the outside looking in, it appears to hold as much value as any other religion, so Christians change the subject to history, inerrancy, ontology, and on and on.
Although the middle chapters on oral tradition can feel like a slog (even to me who is fascinated by it) , Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is certainly within a smart college graduate's comprehension - I don't think graduate work is required at all. Highly recommended. Most of it is not only compelling but really draws you in. The closing chapters on the identify of the Beloved Disciple reads like a great detective story to me.
5:40 This isn't aimed at Gavin, but if you're a fan of Greg Bahnsen, then you know that Christianity is the common sense rational position to hold. Rationality does not exist outside of God.
I'm about halfway through now and yeah, these other two gentlemen need to listen to listen to a few Bahnsen lectures.
Presuppositionalism begs the question. It assumes that God exists in order to argue that God exists
@@tomasrocha6139 classic misconception. It argues that God exists based on the fact that only the Christian God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.
@@Shane_The_Confessor That's a baseless assertion assertion, not a fact
@@tomasrocha6139 No, it's an argument. You're supposed to engage with it.
God has provided a smorgasbord of nutritious food. Not everyone is going to appreciate particular dishes, but there is something else there that suffices.
Just because you don't like the frogs legs isn't good reason to leave the restaurant.
I find it confusing when to use reason and evidence and when to rely on God not my own understanding. When I went through doubts in faith and had those doubts answered and learned there was reason behind faith in Christ that seemed to go beyond the Wish fufillment and idiot claims of aithiests. But recenly I have been seeing that there are times where its not needed you know everything and can have faith like with supposed bible contradictions or Gods goodnesss in spite of things like evil in the world. But people have used this like Catholocism saying if you trust God and the bible this way you should trust the Catholic Church this way and not ask for evidence for everything and you cannot know whats in the bible unless infallably told and the opposite of rigid reason pushing straight up modernist and its bad to have reason with faith. So I get confused when to rely on these things.
I've been curious to know what the religious beliefs are of doctors in various fields. No offense to pastors or to pop skeptics, but they are really not experts in astrophysics, evolutionary biology, or ancient literature. Sampling the beliefs of these experts could be a means of balancing the probability of theism vs atheism, as Carson and Chatraw are describing. Are most physicists persuaded by the fine tuning or cosmological arguments? Do most archaeologists believe in a young earth? Do most historians actually agree with the minimal facts surrounding the resurrection? These stats could be very revealing regarding the credibility of these common Christian apologetics.
You'll find the whole gamut of beliefs among the STEM fields. Majority opinion on such matters is likely to be deceptive as most will have never given thought to how theological and philosophical debates might work within their specialty. Much better to evaluate the arguments from particular specialists that have thought enough about the topics to give their opinion and the reasons for it.
If the inquiry is indeed simply out of curiosity, then that would be interesting. However, this sort of idea being used as a gauge of credibility seems to be a very strange form of democratization of your views to whatever "current science" is on any partiular Christian doctrine. It would be the very definition of an appeal to authority.
Dr. Molly Worthen thinks the probability of the resurrection is greater than 50% [p>0.50]? WTH?
How did she get there?!
@@thomasrutledge5941 It is greater than 50 percent. You get there by studying the relevant evidences.
@@brando3342 It's a landscape that has many hurdles & a lot of fog. Even if there's no resolution, the exercise gets me thinking about the methodology used in analyzing historical claims. =]
@@thomasrutledge5941 Sure, there are several factors to consider, but I do believe with an objective viewing of the evidence, one can easily have a probability above 50 percent 👍
@@thomasrutledge5941 A couple factors being the evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross, the fact of the empty tomb, the testimony of the woman who discovered it empty etc.
We shouldn't make fun of anyone who holds a different worldview than us, well, except maybe for the critical theorists. We may want to make fun of them, but no one else.
Is it just me, or do the guests not understand that the Gospel is not neutral, faith is a gift from God, and God is also the source of all true knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Ephesians 2, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 2 lay this out pretty clearly.
The natural man cannot understand things of the Spirit unless the Spirit reveals it to them. This is not neutral territory, so I don’t understand why these guys are acting like it is.
Gavin, I know you know better based on your reformed theology. You should teach them
Also, Paul used evidence in evangelizing ALL the time
I’m not reformed, but a reformed person could say that arguments and sharing evidence can be means God uses to impart faith. Plenty of reformed people have been classical or evidentialist in their apologetics.
The Holy Spirit is pursuing everyone. The individual has to yield themselves to the pursuing in order to believe in the gospel. There, faith exists.
The Calvinistic approach isnt the best way to understand faith.
@@chriscalhoun380I agree with you. Those approaches are biblical and the Spirit uses those means.
That’s different than what these guys are talking about. They are comparing Christianity to any other view or belief as if it is neutral and God is not involved in beliefs from rationality or otherwise
Ok. How about this. Forget reformer or not. Forget Calvinism too.
Read Romans 1, Ephesians 2, and 1 Corinthians 2. The Word says it all
Of course we should use reason, evidence, and evangelize. But we must understand that the Gospel is NOT neutral. The light uncovers the darkness.
If Christ is not Lord, someone or something else is.
@@inseinenstudios6404 _If Christ is not Lord, someone or something else is_ I thought that's exactly what the guests were saying in a nutshell. i.e. You're inevitably going to adopt a myth, might as well adopt the true myth rather than the false ones.
Second
I don’t mean this in a derisive way but I think they’re missing the central question. Is Christ Lord of your life? If the answer to that question is no, all other points are largely irrelevant.
I agree with you Caleb. To me it is like learning about how to swim from a book without ever getting in the water and practicing what you learned. We need to deny ourselves and follow Christ and make him Lord of our life. We need a personal relationship with God where he is the heart of our desire and the treasure that we seek.
So it's all just a gamble?
Yup. Any way you choose to live your life isn't based on certainty but on the best bet
Precisely.
It's more like a marriage. You know when you love someone and give your all?
Except on this case we Christians are the bridesmaid and Christ is the groom. Which then makes us servants of Him.
@@J4bb3rW0ok13 You're married to someone you never seen?
@@CrazyUncleSam24 So you might go to hell for betting on the wrong religious lottery number. Glad you admitted that.
🤨
First
...and yet you'll get the same pay as the last ones to land here 😁.
Very Manley of you 😁
Just realized that in a year of watching many apologist vids in many channels, I've yet to see one female theologian. It's all a man's game apparently.
There are, just not many in evangelical “rooms” of the “house”.
Even if that were the case…. So what? Is that bad?
@@brando3342Is it bad that women don't seem to care about theology, like, at all? Whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or EO, they do not care. Is it bad, or is it good? Or is it bad that men are so fixated on theology? Or is that good? Or does it not matter? I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions. I just think it's a tiny bit remarkable that of all the many such vids I've seen on theology, it's always dudes.
@@joeoleary9010 So, it’s just an observation, you don’t have an opinion about that observation?
Anyway. Generally I would say it is a psychological gender difference thing. I’m pretty sure men are more likely to be interested in history, and straight logical argumentation. There are some female theologians, but not many, and I believe that is at least partially the reason.
@@joeoleary9010 Have you watched Melissa Dougherty? Sure, she's a little more pop-level, but I'd say she definitely counts as a woman who's interested in theology.
And here I am, a woman, commenting on this video....Statistically we're less represented, but there are definitely some of us out there...