When science contradicts Scripture: how theists cope (part 3 of 3)

[VitiVxV]

I loved these mini series. You are the first Youtuber I watch who has provided the many sources you used to discuss a subject while at the same time telling a story. Very entertaining, informative, and convincing. I have subscribed.

[ToddAllenGates]

@VitiVxV

> Very entertaining, informative, and convincing.

I'm quite flattered: thank you!

[calmreason]

This is genius.

[ToddAllenGates]

@calmreason

> This is genius

TOO kind, but thank you!

[calmreason]

@ToddAllenGates My main reason for this statement is as follows:

I'm an active Atheist - I go exploring YouTube, looking for vids to comment on. By definition, these are usually apologetic vids (only any good if comments enabled).

I'd thought your's was a bizarre apologetics vid, trying to show how pointless and unnecessary applying scientific method to the realm of scripture.

It has got me thinking:

I'll pm you (run out of space).

[ToddAllenGates]

@wspol624

> Superman not only stopped the earth's rotation, he actally reversed it's spin to go back in time. God is a mere piker compared to Superman, but then again SM is SUPER after all!

Makes one re-think Pascal's Wager ... SM may be the safest bet.

[shandcunt]

Awesome, I forwarded it to my mom....

I never understand theists who disagree with science

1. you put yourself in a position where you cna be proven wrong....

2. u believe god made u in his image, that means god intended you to have a brain with logic and reason unlike any of his other creations, do you not think god wants you to use your brain to gain a better understanding of his creation and hence become closer to god?...

fkn idiot creationists

[ToddAllenGates]

@shandcunt

> I never understand theists who disagree with science

They're in trouble either way ... disagree with science, and, as you point out, you can be proven wrong and have to deny "god-given" (so to speak) logic.

But if they agree with science ... well, then they have to admit that the bible's written from the limited perspective of Bronze Age goat herders (who knew nothing about evolution, germs, the solar system, etc.).

[Icemario87]

Excellent series, thank you!

[ToddAllenGates]

@Icemario87

> Excellent series, thank you

Thanks!

[aprox23]

I think I was just surfing around youtube and kind of stumbled upon it.

[burninmunkeys]

And, Aristotle did not mean that in an allegorical way, he was stating what he could figure out at the current point in time with the current understanding of things at that time, with the technology available, which was very little. Unlike religion, science evolves over time and becomes more accurate, where as religion does the opposite. Instead, they blindly follow the same book for years and years on end.

[ToddAllenGates]

@burninmunkeys

> Unlike religion, science evolves over time and becomes more accurate, where as religion does the opposite. Instead, they blindly follow the same book for years and years on end

Well said!

[burninmunkeys]

@ToddAllenGates Thank you.

[aprox23]

Great job on the videos Todd, i shall subscribe!

[ToddAllenGates]

@aprox23

> Great job on the videos Todd, i shall subscribe!

Thanks! By the way--this video series is almost two years old, but it's suddenly been getting a wave of attention, and I've got a new wave of subs too. I'm not sure why ... was there anything in particular that brought your attention to this video?

[ScaryKid1015]

you kind of remind me of john malkovich, lol.

[SummerSunshine1988]

God does exist.

[burninmunkeys]

@SummerSunshine1988 Pffffhahahaha! Sorry, fairy tales have always made me laugh... But that was a good one about the sun being pulled across the sky in a chariot and Atlas carrying the earth around on his back wasn't it?

[SiriusMined]

Great series of vids. I just discovered you this morning, but I really like what I see.

[ToddAllenGates]

@SiriusMined

> Great series of vids.

Thank you!

> I just discovered you this morning, but I really like what I see.

I'm only making new videos once every few months right now, but have lots of old ones. Probably the central series is "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." The series starting with the #s 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, (etc.) are all extensions of that "Socratic Method" series.

[findo]

Come on dude.. do your homework - Psalm 93 (like virtually all of the Psalms) is of the genre of Hebrew Poetry (it's generally easy to spot - look for parallelism). Claiming that it would have been interpreted 'literally' (you seem to be speaking more about literalisticly actually) for 2000 years is simply not the case. The original readers would have seen straight away that this was a poem.

You are making the very same mistake of ignoring genre that your TrueBelievers(tm) do.

[ToddAllenGates]

@findo

1 of 5:

> Psalm 93 is of the genre of Hebrew Poetry

I acknowledge that much of Psalms is poetic, and yes, this passage alone does not offer convincing proof that the author was clueless about the earth's motion. But when you read the Bible as a whole, NOWHERE does it reveal an accurate understanding of the solar system. Instead, the Bible's "poetry" matches just what we find in other ancient mythologies:

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

. . . that the earth is still, that the sun orbits the earth, the stars are tiny, the moon shines its own light, etc.

QUESTION: Do you believe that biblical passages that refer to a sun that orbits a stationary earth are "poetry," but when ancient Greek mythology makes the same claim, it's due to the ignorance of the ancient Greeks?

After all, maybe "Zeus" was dictating poetry as well.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

Yet it seems to me that the most likely explanation for why ancient sacred scriptures matches the limited knowledge of ancient people is that ancient people—using nothing but unaided human creativity and guesswork—wrote each and every one of these so-called holy books: Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians, Hindus (etc.) alike.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

> Claiming that it would have been interpreted 'literally' for 2000 years is simply not the case.

So do you believe that the Creator of the Universe inspired the language of the poem that suggested the earth doesn't move—but this Creator's plan was that thousands of years later, science would discover otherwise, and after some initial persecution of science, *then* everyone would finally understand that all the passages about the earth's stillness was metaphorical?

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

Would you say the same is true about evolution? That God inspired the 6-day creation story as metaphorical—given that God of course *knows* He took billions of years to go from bacteria to humans—but The Plan was to wait for thousands of years for humans to figure out on their own that the story isn't true in the literal sense? (And in many parts of the world, He's still waiting.)

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates I believe you're bringing a whole swag of unwarranted assumptions to bear on the text, particular about what you think the author was intending to convey.

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates (2:2) ANSWER: I think it's obvious that are written from the writer's perspective. Again, if you'd done your homework you'd know that Christians don't believe the bible was dictated.

[ToddAllenGates]

@findo

> Christians don't believe the bible was dictated.

Okay, I should have used the word "inspired" instead of "dictated."

To quote 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching ..."

Still, if Scripture is "inspired" by God, doesn't that mean that it contains the words God wants it to contain? That God has control over the text—that He didn't allow human error to creep in? If so, the difference between "inspired" and "dictated" is minor.

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates

I think it would be helpful, if you're going to embark on a critique involving the doctrine of inspiration, to actually understand that doctrine. To suggest that there is little difference between inspiration and dictation is grossly inaccurate. I have neither the time, patience, and least of all the space here to go into any detail, so I suggest you just do your homework (from real theologians, not youtube). I would link to theopedia or monergism if I could do that here.

[ToddAllenGates]

@findo

1 of 9:

> if I say in a poem "my wife is a rose", I do not mean that to be understood literally, yet it still conveys and expression of truth. You have to seriously force your own agenda to think that I was talking about the physical make-up of my wife. Likewise here in the Psalms.

I agree that I would have to "seriously force my own agenda" to think that "my wife is a rose" means you married a plant.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 9:

But when you look at the multiple passages that refer to the universe from a primitive point of view (a 6-day creation, the sun orbits a stationary earth, etc.) I find many reasons for believing that's not the same thing:

- Jews and Christians interpreted such passages literally for thousands of years

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 9:

- Christians believed them so passionately that they persecuted scientists who said anything that contradicted scripture (e.g. Galileo's warning that he would be burned at the stake if he didn't recant his statement that the earth moves)

- MANY Christians *still* believe the 6-day creation tale is literal (one example of many: answersingenesisDOTorg/creatio­n/v18/i1/sixdaysDOTasp)

- *Moses* even believed it was literal (Exodus 20:11)

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 9:

So, rather than me "seriously forcing my own agenda" to believe it was literal, I think the more likely truth is that thinking-but-still-true-believ­ing theists have to "seriously force their own agenda" to find SOME way—any way—to both (a) accepts the facts of the world, and (b) hang on to their belief that their Holy Book truly is Holy.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 9:

> What is needed is humility and vigorous hermeneutics!

What's *also* needed is the underlying assumption that the Bible really IS sacred—that there's something special about it beyond what's special about the sacred texts of Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, etc.

[ToddAllenGates]

6 of 9:

Once you wholeheartedly accept the premise that the Bible is inspired by God, then yes, "vigorous hermeneutics" can come up with ingenious explanations for why God slips into metaphor mode anytime "The Word" contradicts fact (e.g. that bacteria-like life was all that existed for some two billion years).

[ToddAllenGates]

7 of 9:

> I have neither the time, patience, and least of all the space here to go into any detail, so I suggest you just do your homework (from real theologians, not youtube).

As for doing my homework, I have studied the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm, Martin Luther, Thomas Merton, C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, Lee Strobel, Lynn Anderson, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, Ravi Zacharias, and William Lane Craig.

[ToddAllenGates]

8 of 9:

And the conclusion I still reach is that humans throughout the world and throughout history (and pre-history) want answers to explain Creation, Suffering, rules for living, and what happens after we die. Humans make up stories, and the best stories are passed on and make their way into books that help form organized religion.

[ToddAllenGates]

9 of 9:

As for taking up your time, I agree that we've probably both made our points by now, and that it's unlikely we'll do anything from this point forward other than re-word the same arguments.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your feedback. In day-to-day life, people often don't even want to discuss these issues—so I enjoy the privilege of debating the subject with people such as yourself: those who disagree with me and can articulately defend their position.

[MrJamesbond22]

@ToddAllenGates That's why I'm an agnostic,not a Christian.I like you examined

the bible and their apologists and found them lacking. Much appreciate you and

others standing for reason and elucid thinking!

[ToddAllenGates]

@MrJamesbond22 > Much appreciate you and others standing for reason and elucid thinking!

Your appreciation is appreciated!

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates "But when you read the Bible as a whole NOWHERE does it reveal an accurate understanding of the solar system" - And why do you assume it should? when you read it as a whole you see that it's an progressively revealed redemptive meta-narrative (about God's kingdom - his people, in his place, under his rule). Explaining the mechanics of the universe has nothing to do with it. I've no doubt that the songwriter of Palm 92-97 had no idea about the mechanics of the solar system.

[ToddAllenGates]

@findo

1 of 3:

> why do you assume [the bible] should [reveal an accurate understanding of the universe]?

Because:

(1) This Creator supposedly designed this universe

(2) This Creator supposedly inspired a book that spells out how He did it (the details of course differ depending on which book you think God wrote, but according to those who think it was the Bible, it tells us that Day 1: light; Day 4: all the stars; Day 6: all the animals, etc.)

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

The fact that the alleged Creator of the Universe gets so many of the facts wrong (or at least, inspires metaphors that suggest a lack of awareness) has caused cognitive dissonance in *many* believers—and for good reason!

After all, I think it's reasonable to expect that if the Architect of the Universe inspired a book—and included details about how He accomplished His Handiwork—He'd get the details right.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

I realize that this alone may not be a sufficient reason for losing one's faith. Yet questions like "Why does the bible say all land animals were created on the same day, when in fact the last dinosaur and the first human were 65 millions years apart?" demand an answer.

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates I realise there are many questions, and given the nature of the genre (and the arguments about it!) I don't know that there are necessarily conclusive answers - though it doesn't help to be asking the wrong questions, as is often the case on this issue. What is needed is humility and vigorous hermeneutics!

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates again, you're simply forcing your own assumption that it's talking about 'facts'. I think it's pretty obvious, given the poetic refrains, symbolism and the fact there there are two creation accounts side by side, both different, that 'details' of mechanics is not the intention of the writer.

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates You're answer (2) is no more than a restatement of the assumption that I challenged. Why do you assume that Genesis is a book 'inspired to spell out how He did it'? To me that is just bringing a whole bunch of wrong assumptions about the nature and purpose of the text. It's a pre-scientific theological book, not a science book. It's interested primarily in the Who, not the How. (There's also issues of other historical texts it is prob. responding to).

[ToddAllenGates]

@findo

> I've no doubt that the songwriter of Palm 92-97 had no idea about the mechanics of the solar system

If so, then do you believe the songwriter of Psalm was writing completely independently of God? Then which parts of the bible are reliable Truths from God, and which passages were just written by ancient ignorant people? (And how are we to tell the difference?)

What about the 2 Timothy 3:16 line, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching ..."?

[findo]

@ToddAllenGates No, I don't think there's anything to indicate that the songwriter of Psalm 92-97 was writing about the mechanics of the universe. E.g - if I say in a poem "my wife is a rose", I do not mean that to be understood literally, yet it still conveys and expression of truth. You have to seriously force your own agenda to think that I was talking about the physical make-up of my wife. Likewise here in the Psalms.

[damianGray]

My responses seem to have gotten a bit jumbled in the system, I hope you are able to link them to the correct comments. If not perhaps you would prefer to take this to messages where we won't need to be limited to 500 chars?

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> My responses seem to have gotten a bit jumbled in the system, I hope you are able to link them to the correct comments.

YouTube makes it a little difficult, but your responses were quite clear.

> perhaps you would prefer to take this to messages where we won't need to be limited to 500 chars

It *would* be less awkward, but I also like keeping the dialogue public where others can read it and comment.

[damianGray]

False Dichotomy. There are other choices than simply between 'allegorical or literal' interpretations. For example: The writers of the Bible were simply writing from their own personal perspective (which they were). In which case, things don't necessarily have to be correct, in the same way that your example of Aristotle wasn't necessarily correct. It simply mirrored the ideas of the age it was written in. This whole 'The Bible is inerrant' idea that has pervaded Christianity is totally wrong.

[damianGray]

It is true that God's WORDS are inerrant. For the concept of a God to even exist, that is necessary. Otherwise God is simply a higher being than ourselves...an alien perhaps, but not God.

The Bible is simply a compilation of different texts ABOUT God and men to whom God was close to. It needs to be looked at in perspective, not with some magical glasses that remove all context. Your example from the Psalms for example. Those are songs and poetry! It's called 'poetic license' because it ...

[damianGray]

doesn't HAVE to be literal. That's the point. There are many stories in the Bible that were never meant to be taken literally OR allegorically but a mixture of both. David, the author of many of the psalms when talking about the immovability or the four corners of the earth was simply talking from his own perspective. His point wasn't that the earth was flat or fixed, he was merely using that as a literary device to make his actual point.

[damianGray]

There should be NO 'reinterpretation' of the Bible. It should be taken as what it is. An ancient text. To be taken and read in the same way as it was written. Through ancient eyes. Not reinterpreted with OR without its original context.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> There should be NO 'reinterpretation' of the Bible. It should be taken as what it is. An ancient text. To be taken and read in the same way as it was written.

I agree -- just as I agree that all other alleged books should be read that way. And in doing so, I feel the inevitable conclusion is that all these books were written by humans and humans alone.

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: "I feel the inevitable conclusion is that all these books were written by humans and humans alone."

Of course they were... the only way in which the Bible was inspired by God is the same way a landscape inspires a painter. God 'speaks' to christians through the Bible because he also spoke to the people in the Bible. The lessons they learned in their own personal lives as they walked with God is also applicable to christians today. There's really nothing mystical about it.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> David ... when talking about the immovability or the four corners of the earth was talking from his own perspective. His point wasn't that the earth was flat or fixed, he was using that as a literary device to make his actual point.

His actual point seemed to be that the earth is indeed immovable: a belief compatible with ancient knowledge. But had a Divine Creator been prompting David, I think he would have had a different "point."

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: "His actual point seemed to be that the earth is indeed immovable"

Actually that psalm (93 for reference) is completely about God and his attributes. If you've studied ancient Hebrew poetry then you get a feel for this.

"But had a Divine Creator been prompting David"

Does your girlfriend prompt you to write poetry whenever you write poetry about her? How is this any different?

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> It is true that God's WORDS are inerrant.

Where do you find those inerrant words? I'm assuming you believe that the likes of the Rig Veda and the Koran and the Avesta (etc.) don't hold God's inerrant words either.

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: "Where do you find those inerrant words?"

The Bible is only the beginning of a christian's walk with God. It would be a sad relationship if the only way you could speak to your girlfriend was through a massive manuscript that was written about you before the two of you even met. Those inerrant words are spoken by God himself, just as I am speaking to you now.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> The writers of the Bible were simply writing from their own personal perspective.

If you mean they were people making up stories to try to explain Creation, Suffering, Rules for living, and the Afterlife - then I agree.

> In which case, things don't necessarily have to be correct, in the same way that your example of Aristotle wasn't necessarily correct.

Agreed, b/c people are fallible - Aristotle & the bible's authors alike.

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: "If you mean they were people making up stories to try to explain Creation, Suffering, Rules for living, and the Afterlife - then I agree."

Not necessarily making up... that would imply that what they were speaking about was false ie. God doesn't exist, however, their descriptions about the universe and God would be more akin to putting a monkey in a spacecraft and getting him to write about his experience. ....

[damianGray]

You only get a general sense (if that) and many of the details aren't necessarily right, because while the monkey knows what he is experiencing, he has no or very little understanding of what or how to describe it.

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: "Agreed, b/c people are fallible - Aristotle & the bible's authors alike."

I have no arguments against this. It's completely irrelevant to the issue in my opinion.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

1 of 5:

> the only way in which the Bible was inspired by God is the same way a landscape inspires a painter. . . . Does your girlfriend prompt you to write poetry whenever you write poetry about her? How is this any different?

If you're saying, then, that the relationship between the Bible and the bible's "inspired" authors is similar to that between a landscape and an "inspired" painter or a girl and her "inspired" boyfriend (or a wanna-be boyfriend) . . .

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5: . . . then I agree that none of the arguments I present in this video series applies to you. This video series is referring to those who believe God expressed His specific Will: e.g., homosexuality is an abomination, slaves may be beaten but not to their death, whoever lusts after a woman in his heart has committed the sin of adultery, all land animals were created on the same day, etc.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

For these theists, the Bible is God's Perfect Word: certainly NOT akin to a monkey in a spacecraft trying to write about his experience. So when these theists see that the Bible contains factual errors—such as irrefutable evidence that all land animals did not pop into existence on the same day—they then seek refuge by declaring that God meant something different than what the bible appears to say.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

> their descriptions about the universe and God would be more akin to putting a monkey in a spacecraft and getting him to write about his experience.

Wouldn't this apply to the Koran and the Rig Veda and The Book of Mormon too? That the authors of these books were likewise painters inspired by the landscape?

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

Your view seems similar to that of M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled, Further Along the Road Less Traveled, etc.), who referred to himself as Christian because he thought Christianity was closer to the truths of God than the other religions, but did not believe that Christ was the only way. He felt there was much truth in other religions too, and that "God is bigger than theology."

(But please correct me if I'm interpreting your views incorrectly.)

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: In a sense I suppose from your description I am a bit like him. I have never read his works. I should say that I DO, however, believe that Christ is the only way. I completely agree with the statement "God is bigger than theology."

I've found in my own walk with God that theology often merely gets in the way of what God wants. It confines him to a box with a set of rules on how he does or doesn't operate when nothing could be further from the truth.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> I should say that I DO, however, believe that Christ is the only way.

The New Testament certainly contains select passages that affirm that, such as John 14:6. Yet John 5:29 says the criteria for judgment is people's deeds in life: the good will be resurrected to life, the evil will be resurrected to condemnation. Different passages support different conclusions (meaning the billions of Hindus & Muslims may still have a chance: the "good" ones anyway).

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: Here you're getting into muddy waters. The quick answer? I don't know... maybe. I personally don't think so, as my own view is that Christianity is exclusively right. "None shall come to the father but by me.." etc. Either Jesus was telling the truth when he said that, or he was lying. If he was lying the very foundation of christianity suddenly becomes undone, and as Paul said "our faith is for nothing".

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

1 of 2:

> my own view is that Christianity is exclusively right.

Yet you also likened the inspiration of the biblical authors to a poet inspired by his girlfriend. And the poet *could* get things wrong now and then (e.g. he writes of their mutual love, but she's thinking about leaving him). You also said "The whole 'The Bible is inerrant' idea that has pervaded Christianity is totally wrong." Couldn't the biblical authors, being human, have recorded John 14:6 inaccurately?

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

> Either Jesus was telling the truth when he said that, or he was lying.

I would say this is a false dichotomy. After all, the gospels were written some 40 years after Jesus' death. Maybe Jesus was just a pious Jew who was annoyed by all those who followed the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of compassion. Jesus might never have said half the stuff in the NT—maybe much of it was the result of oral legends that had grown over the decades.

[damianGray]

@ToddAllenGates: I think at this point, I should clear up the fact that there are some 'inspired' parts of the bible (yes that's pretty much exactly what I meant by inspired) and others that are written as historical accounts. Whether you believe they are accurate is beside the point, I'm simply saying that's how they were written. Further, often a lot of the literal writing has hyperbole in it (specifically in earlier OT texts), reflecting the literature of the time.

[damianGray]

@damianGray: I believe that God does 'express his will' through the teachings of Jesus and Paul, or rather that they provide a rather loose framework from which a christian can connect to God and build a relationship with God, to receive his will from himself for themselves.

[ToddAllenGates]

@damianGray

> . . there are some 'inspired' parts of the bible .. . and others that are written as historical accounts.

I acknowledge that some parts of the bible are historical: Herod, for example, is a historical figure.

> a lot of the literal writing has hyperbole in it (specifically in earlier OT texts), reflecting the literature of the time

Perhaps the part about God wanting those who gathered sticks on the Sabbath to be stoned to death?

[UrDevilsAdvocate]

Questions for theist. Religion has claimed science tries to pull ppl from god, only to accept its results later. Religion has also used science to back its claims. So isn't science useful. Why not let scientists work and accept the results? Are theist afraid they will be let down by religion? Differentiate religion from god, and, science cant prove/disprove any gods existence. Religion--- wont disprove and cant prove any gods existence. So why cant the two get along? Please respond.

[dom198013]

Who's interpretations of the Bible is he taking from? There are MANY different religions who claim that they have the true translation of scripture. Hence Bibles with less or more books.

[ToddAllenGates]

> There are MANY different religions who claim that they have the true translation

Does *any* translation mention that night & day comes from the earth turning on its axis, and that the seasons come from the earth's orbit around the sun?

> Hence Bibles with less or more books

If there was an Omnipotent God who wanted us to know His Word, I would think He would have a provided us with a strictly read-only tamper-proof file.

[dom198013]

What reason would we have to have faith in Him then? Let me simply state this.

Your reality ends where you can no longer see or understand something. My reality begins there. Faith is so much bigger than we are that it can only come as a gift from God. There's no explaining it. If I could talk you into faith, which isn't what I'm doing, someone else would come along and talk you out of it. But having faith changes everything. Until you experience that, don't judge what you can't understand.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Until you experience that, don't judge what you can't understand.

Yet if a particular religion actually represents the Word of a Divine Creator, it's certainly something I'd want to know, and obey.

I can't just force myself to "believe," and then expect to understand from there. The only thing I can do is examine religions--Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc.--from where I stand.

[dom198013]

Again I'll re emphasize my point. Your reality ends where mine begins. You had to have faith in science to pursue it... that's just the way it works. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm glad that you are happy with just science. That doesn't give you the right to judge others. That just shows me you're searching, trying to find reasons to deny the existence of God. Hence all those videos.. :) Remember I've observed the facts about your videos, and came to this conclusion. Now quit judging.

[ToddAllenGates]

> you're searching, trying to find reasons to deny the existence of God.

My beliefs are guided by what I see as the best evidence. Should I discover ond day that I've been blind to the evidence of God, I will happily convert -- to either Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Deism, etc.: wherever the evidence leads me.

[dom198013]

I am glad that you at least leave the door open. Bless you. That's different from any other form of atheist I've seen that's if you're an atheist to begin with.... So I wish you well.

[dom198013]

I hope what ever you want to do with your life, that it becomes a reality. I only wish good tidings to you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm only stating a fact that you are judging what you can't understand. So, if you don't mind, take all the videos you have of God, and take them out, until you've made a deep EFFORT in knowing and understanding God. But for that, you have to let Him in your heart. Are you willing to do that? If not then take em out... simple, or quit judging.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I only wish good tidings to you

Good tidings to you as well!

[Gnomefro]

Can you see how attempting to make up answers to questions you don't understand, and that therefore may be invalid, can lead you to awfully stupid and useless ideas about reality? I don't care how much you feel you're right. When you don't understand something, you are not qualified to have opinions about it. Appeals to "faith" has consistently led people to false ideas and we have every right to judge your faith as unsupported from the way you talk about things you admittedly don't understand.

[dom198013]

Thanks for judging me. I forgive you though. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. My facts aren't legitimate in your eyes because you are the one who is not open-minded. In the sense that there's something greater out there than you. Have you ever studied religion, theology, philosophy, the arts, or even mathematics? Because if you even studied ONE of those, you'd not made those inane comments. But free will lead you to do so. Take care! Good tidings to you as well.

[dgr812]

You know what? I'm tired of theist saying that we (non-believers) don't understand things and we can't unerstand things simply because we don't have faith. When has anyone ever understood anything by simply having faith? I agree that faith can make you "see" things that aren't actually there. It can also lead you to have some very interesting imaginary friends. What it cannot do is increase the knowledge of mankind about the universe; which is something science does all the time.

[dgr812]

We don't deny the existence of God. We simply say that according to the evidence we have there is no reason to assume that a god exists.

[dom198013]

@dgr812

You obviously haven't educated yourself enough then, because the more science you know, the more it proves there was a creation by a 'greater power'. It's funny how many atheist scientists start believing in God when they get to a certain point. Only the ignorant ones (Richard Dawkins=failed scientist for example) remain in their own little world... and I mean little world. They refuse to open their minds. I mean no harm or offense. I'm just stating facts. I can send you links or books.

[dom198013]

@dgr812

Please read previous posts. I wouldn't generalize all theists in one category. My comments are only in defense of falsehoods on God. Most people with a lack of understanding of Him will react exactly the way you have. Another excuse not to believe so as to be 'free' to do what ever one wants to do. As for not seeing what's not there. Well, it IS there. I see it, CLEARLY.  As for science, the more you educate yourself in it, the more it proves God's existence... keep on reading! :)

[Eddiethepizzaboy]

This is a fucking awesome argument, best i have ever heard!

It's something i knew but hadn't realized, lol! I hadn't joined it all up like that until this point!

Thanks man.

[ToddAllenGates]

> It's something i knew but hadn't realized, lol! I hadn't joined it all up like that until this point!

A great compliment--thanks Eddie!

[MG42pillbox]

Light did exist before the son, and at that point time most likely did not exist. God Is light,

[Eddiethepizzaboy]

Yes, light did exist before our sun.

And no, time existed before light, but there could be a time where time did not exist, crazy to think about, eh?

God is light? Does that mean they are interchangeable? If so then you are pretty much a pagan, lol. You worship that which bestows light.

Do you realize how old this thinking is, and ideas don't get better with age.

Only ideas which have been proven correct, with observations AND hard scientific evidence, improve with age.

[MG42pillbox]

I cant take anyone serious who takes this guy serious. Science has proved the bible correct. The bible doesnt say the earth isnt round. The Bible never said the earth doesnt rotate, or that the sun isnt the center of our solar system. Keep believing your evolution religion. And dont let your evolved emotions get in the way.

user/CreationMinistries#play/u­ploads/31/mU_orwlj8Eo

[Eddiethepizzaboy]

How about the flood and evolution, proved the bible wrong about that one, you just cant be bothered to get learning it. If you learned it you would understand what everyone has been telling you!

It's like your getting your news from a really old newspaper because it had your favorite news on it.

Because it's so out of date when you read today's paper the language has changed from words to numbers.

I can appreciate your problem here, you need to start understanding how we find things out..

[lotanddaughters]

The Bible says that anyone who works on the Sabbath MUST BE PUT TO DEATH. The Bible doesn't go into further detail on which TYPE or EXTENT of work would qualify someone to be put to death. This is just ONE example of VARIOUS BARBARIC IDIOCIES found in the Bible. If YOU think that the Creator of the universe came up with the bullshit that is found in the Bible, then YOU are a fucking FOOL. YOU can't HANDLE the truth, you Goddamned fucking IDIOT. YOU are the one who will not be taken seriously.

[mecca777]

the best video thesis I've seen yet!! Great work.

[ToddAllenGates]

> the best video thesis I've seen yet!!

TOO kind--thank you!

[sapiensape]

An excellent analysis of bible believers' ways of reconciling (rationalizing/harmonizing)sci­ence's findings to biblical statements.

[ToddAllenGates]

> An excellent analysis ...

Thanks sapiensape!

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Excellent series and an amazing channel! Thank you.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Excellent series and an amazing channel! Thank you.

Thank *you* bamboo4tameshigiri!

[DodoPandemic]

Good series, very well put.

[ToddAllenGates]

> Good series, very well put.

Thank you DodoPandemic!

[CrosshairJack]

I have just had a massive debate with a creationist over youtube and this guy just refused to see reason.

Why is that? I presented logical arguments and reasoning based on evidence, but this guy didn't seem to grasp what I was talking about.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I have just had a massive debate with a creationist over youtube and this guy just refused to see reason. Why is that?

I've had similar experiences. And when I get the sense that I'm talking to a wall I tend to move on quickly. Life's too short!

[hugesinker]

I believe the real issue here is their "appeal to consequence". That being.. the first couple minutes of many Kent Hovind videos, where he essentially says: "If evolution is true: You are worthless. Life has no reason or purpose. If it feels good, do it. There is no ultimate justice. and- When you die, you're going to the grave."

Even though it is fallacious, this is the most important point to confront because you need to defuse the emotion. Try discussing: How does life have a purpose? etc.

[hugesinker]

This is hardly the kick in the balls for creationism that I was expecting. You focus on one example of how bible literalism is ridiculous and it is even one that modern Christians generally accept :P.

Come on.. Samson caught 300 foxes, tied their tails together, lit them on fire and had them run through the fields because he was mad that his wife left him. I mean, this happened, in reality. It wasn't a cartoon or anything like that.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> You focus on one example of how bible literalism is ridiculous and it is even one that modern Christians generally accept.

Modern literalists are forced to reject *some* passages as literal (e.g. those about the earth being unmoving), but they're still clinging tight to literalism when it comes to passages that are equally unscientific, such as all animals popping into existence on Days 5 & 6 of creation.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

> This is hardly the kick in the balls for creationism that I was expecting.

It's not my intention to deliver that kick---I was hoping that such a kick might be self-delivered by Christians who are gradually realizing how "bendy" their logic has to be if they want to hold tight to their belief that "the Bible *can't* be wrong!"

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

> Samson caught 300 foxes, tied their tails together, lit them on fire and had them run through the fields because he was mad that his wife left him. I mean, this happened, in reality.

If the Bible said so, it must have!

(Or . . . it was a "metaphor" about the danger of losing one's temper. Or according to Stephen Colbert, the main lesson of Samson is to not let your girlfriend cut your hair.)

[hugesinker]

I hadn't watched this series until I heard you got voteboted... I figured you must have delivered some huge blow to creationism that was significant enough to "merit" their shenanigans. So I was surprised how common-ground this series is. I can't see a point for them to even argue over here.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I can't see a point for them to even argue over here.

Same here --- but that rests under the premise that they actually watched it! My guess is that the title only was enough.

[DickJohnson3434]

I was getting bored with my subscribers.

Rabidape's new enthusiasm and his bringing you to my attention has apparently solved that problem.

Do you ever offer these videos as response videos to the apologists?

[ToddAllenGates]

> Rabidape's ... bringing you to my attention has apparently solved that problem.

Thank you!

> Do you ever offer these videos as responses to the apologists?

Because of time limits (due to work & family), I unfortunately don't have the time to get actively involved with apologists: that is, I don't make specific responses to their videos. I've posted some of my existing videos to apologists when the topics are relevant (e.g. to Jezuzfreek and Veritas48), but none have responded.

[natewheatshelf]

Comment for support.

[RabidAp3]

comment

[Verrimgard]

This is awesome. Way more articulate and informative than I am - which is why theists argue with people like me instead of you. :)

5 stars

[ToddAllenGates]

> This is awesome. Way more articulate and informative than I am - which is why theists argue with people like me instead of you. :) 5 stars

Ha-ha --- and thank you!

[AbbeyNormal]

It's really hard to defend that "sun hurries back to where it rises" phrase as figurative. I can accept that some things in ancient texts were meant figuratively- we use figurative speech now so why not then. However I have no reason to think the ancient Hebrews understood the heliocentric model before anybody else did. Certainly nothing in the language suggests they did.

[ToddAllenGates]

> However I have no reason to think the ancient Hebrews understood the heliocentric model before anybody else did.

If they had, I think Galileo would have had a much easier time when "talking things over" with the Inquisition!

[BlueEye222]

In a discussion between Dawkins and Bishop Harries, Harries admits that he selectively chooses which stories really need to be true in order for it to be possible to be a Christian believer. hence the resurrection is a must for him... this of course says nothing about how true it is, just because "it's really important that it be true" - and the fact the stories are nested with those that he decides are not true, or neccessary, explains a lot, Hitchens calls this casuistry

[ToddAllenGates]

> Harries admits that he selectively chooses which stories really need to be true in order for it to be possible to be a Christian believer.

The human capacity for double-think never fails to astound me!

[banion5]

Great work, Todd. This is some really great material, and your approach is refreshing. I enjoy some Dawkins, but I feel that countering religious dogmatism with scientific dogmatism leaves both on opposite sides of a chasm. You do a wonderful job of presenting without intention of offending. I hope all is well in the meanwhile.

Peaces,

Dan

[ToddAllenGates]

> You do a wonderful job of presenting without intention of offending.

Thank you, Dan, and good to hear from you. Hope all's well with you as well.

- Todd

[kalsolarUK]

great conclusion to another trio of excellent videos.

[ToddGates]

> great conclusion to another trio of excellent videos.

Thank you ... this was a remake of my 2007 series, then called "Science, Religion, and truth vs. Truth." Next on my re-make schedule is my 2007 series on "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers."

[CorndogMaker]

I thought it was funny how the religious thinking scientists you mentioned, who only view the evidence that corresponds with their previously held beliefs, actually do exist in the form of Creationism and Baraminology.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I thought it was funny how the religious thinking scientists you mentioned ... actually do exist in the form of Creationism and Baraminology

I'd never heard of Baraminology before, and have just been reading up on it - AMAZING is all I can say!!

[CorndogMaker]

It is amazing! Whats more, I don't think anyone has ever made a YouTube video tackling that "subject" before, at least not directly, but once someone does, I think there might be a snowball effect. (wink)

[zebruh]

"... Believers can always look to science to figure out what God really meant ..."

That is one of the most awesome quotes I've ever heard! Absolutely stupendously put.

[ToddAllenGates2]

> That is one of the most awesome quotes I've ever heard!

A high compliment indeed: thank you!!

[kalsolarUK]

agreed, thats a classic quote!

[AbbeyNormal]

Geez, it's almost as though we don't really need God to say anything at all :)

[unassumption]

There actually were literalistic interpretations of Aristotle for millennia :I

I know you were (possibly) dealing with the non-literal, Plantinga style "people are fallible" interpretation of the bible in your hypothetical examples at the end but... are you planning a more open critique of this defense in future? It smells like Hick's defence of religious pluralism / "new-age religion" so would your arguments against that work against Plantinga?

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 3:

> There actually were literalistic interpretations of Aristotle for millennia

Yes, but I don't believe it was for the "Aristotle is always right, irrespective of evidence" religious type of reasoning---given the ancient world's limited knowledge (no telescopes, no awareness that the earth is blanketed by an atmosphere that spins along with us, etc.), the "earth-doesn't-move" idea simply adhered to the known evidence.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

> I know you were (possibly) dealing with the non-literal, Plantinga style "people are fallible" interpretation of the bible in your hypothetical examples at the end but... are you planning a more open critique of this defense in future?

*If* you're asking about a more thorough critique of the "humans are too finite to comprehend the Infinite Mind of God!" argument, I address that argument in several of my other video series:

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

---such as:

Part 4 of "The Problem of Suffering: the Supernatural Answers vs. the Naturalistic"

Part 6 of "New Age Spirituality--all religions are One!"

Part 5 of "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers"

[JesusSavesAtCitibank]

Great series!

[ToddAllenGates]

> Great series!

Thank you!