12:30 Why Tim addresses the conflict thesis & new atheism 13:30 Christians suppressed knowledge? 13:40 Modern conflicts: Anti-evolutionism / Creationism (valid examples) 14:00 Library of Alexandria 14:37 Edward Gibbon 18:10 Galileo 18:30 Carl Sagan 19:05 Neil deGrasse Tyson 22:18 John William Draper 24:30 Publication of "Conflict between Religion and Science" 25:10 Andrew Dickson White & Cornell 30:50 Dissecting bodies 34:13 Calvin & fabricated footnotes 36:35 71% of college textbooks influenced by Draper & White 38:50 Draper & White's motivations & context 41:30 nuances in their definitions of religion 46:10 The irony - a strand of Protestantism became the historiographical foundations of popular/new atheism 46:50 Rehashed Puritan & anti-Catholic polemic 49:10 Draper wanted to reset Christianity to its "pure" form; White wanted to modernise it 53:30 Why did it catch on? 54:50 Mark Twain 55:40 Fundamentalist backlash reinforces binary thinking 1:00:20 The conflict thesis makes a good story 1:01:24 NB: People confuse *moments* of conflict with an epistemological (i.e. "fundamental") conflict 1:02:35 Simple good vs bad story is convenient and easier to believe than something that requires hard work, nuance and complexity - actual history
@johnkitchen4699
2 жыл бұрын
A first class discussion about the relationship of science and faith. Wisely avoids some of the simplistic arguments about creation, etc which are mostly easily explained by theologians Hutchings is a wonderful speaker snd pupils at Pocklington are very lucky to have him (I’m sure he would be in high demand as a public speaker)
@hadescerberus8322
2 жыл бұрын
Loved this episode of unbelievable, very informative and answered questions I've had for awhile now. I've heard people quote these books so much over the years and now I know where it's from. Ty for your hard work and hope for more great episodes. 👍
@adreaminxy
2 жыл бұрын
One of the best episodes. Thanks all
@TrueShepardN7
Жыл бұрын
As a historian myself, it seems like most of the new atheists ignore or cherry-pick their history to fit their conflict narrative, when many of my atheist historian friends reject that. Many of them adopt the complexity narrative because history is almost always complicated just like modern life.
@offcenterconcepthaus
2 жыл бұрын
Good to see Tim on the show.
@thomasc9036
2 жыл бұрын
I knew some info about John Draper and Andrew White but details are incredible. I didn't realize that both were liberal Protestants.
@fourteatwo5942
2 жыл бұрын
looking forward to the delivery of the book
@brygenon
2 жыл бұрын
Near the end, David rebukes simple-minded acceptance, then says that the Apostle Peter wrote the sentence in 2nd Peter 3:1, then goes back to condemning "unthinking Christianity". Outside unthinking branches of Christianity, scholarly consensus holds that 2nd Peter is pseudepigraphical; the Apostle Peter did not write it. Kind of undercuts the point, doing what he is speaking against.
@markmckeen5124
2 жыл бұрын
Justin, I enjoyed this show, always do, especially when atheists are on. Found it a very interesting topic. Enough so for me that I'll follow up myself to explore it further, to see where the truth lies. I thought the Best point of the day was made by your atheist guest towards the end, when he stated the difference between potential false history and the fact that there really are differences between science and religion. Us atheists can accept correct history and still have plenty of other issues w Christianity. If we All strive to learn and learn the truth, everyone will be better off. You do a wonderful job, keep up the good work. Mark in MICHIGAN
@uxigadur
2 жыл бұрын
Tim is amazing. I started reading him in Quora and truly he only care about history. So very often idiots (theists and atheists) got mad with him. He was not always polite (we all have a limit), but always honest. Just a cool person.
@durden91tyler
2 жыл бұрын
The truth for an atheist would be constant, the truth for a thiest just fits whatever is politically viable at the time.
@ianwragg8977
2 жыл бұрын
There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding what the conflict thesis is about here judging by some of the comments. Watch the video. As Tim O'Neill comments in the video, "People often confuse the conflict thesis as an historical idea with an epistemological idea. The conflict thesis is a statement about conflicts throughout history. That is another question about whether or not science and religion are epistemologically, methodologically compatible."
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
The conflicts through history have arisen from the fundamental incompatibility.
@jgmrichter
2 жыл бұрын
@@davethebrahman9870 Who do *you* think was doing science before the 1800s?
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
@@jgmrichter Christians (or at least people too scared to own up to being atheists). The Christian beliefs, as Nietzsche observed, contain the groundwork for their own disssolution. It is now no longer possible for intellectually curious people to be Christian.
@ianwragg8977
6 ай бұрын
@@davethebrahman9870 I don't think that you watched the video or understand O'Neill's quote above.
@davethebrahman9870
6 ай бұрын
@@ianwragg8977 You seem to think that anyone who watches the video will be compelled to agree with its assertions. That is simply false.
@moggpiano8043
2 жыл бұрын
There's no conflict for atheists. This is entirely about the religious (not exclusively Christians) adjusting the doctrines of their faith and the meaning of it's text so that it fits the modern world. As time goes on, this becomes more and more difficult. It becomes necessary to accept that conflicting conclusions exist alongside each other, or denial becomes the name of the game. Bertrand Russell.... "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
@davidjanbaz7728
2 жыл бұрын
LOL 😆 : The historical Christian views of Early Christianity wasn't the hyper literalist interpretations that you think Christians are now trying to reinterpret to agree with modern science !
@aelwyn1
2 жыл бұрын
Genesis's account of the creation of mankind and the theory (not hypothesis) of evolution, is an obvious conflict.
@Tzimiskes3506
2 жыл бұрын
No it isn't. But morality and atheism are...
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
If you take the literal reading, yes there is a conflict, But the reality is that most Christians and Jews do not read the passage that way, and that non-literal readings of Genesis 1 predate Darwin by at least 1500 years.
@paulmichael7194
2 жыл бұрын
You are spot on. Christians will twist into pretzels to defend their tribal war god and his supposed involvement in creating the world.
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@paulmichael7194 "tribal war god"?
@paulmichael7194
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 clearly fictional though.
@HopDavid
2 жыл бұрын
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Achilles Heel for The New Atheists. The man is first and foremost a showman. He will invest a great deal of time and effort to make his shows entertaining. But very little in researching his material to get it right. Being a popular entertainer has made Tyson a hero for The New Atheists. People like Dawkins and Novella are delighted that Neil gets their narrative out to such a large audience. Dawkins will be presenting Tyson an award on October 21, 2022 at a convention of self proclaimed skeptics in Las Vegas. And so much of his material is flat out wrong. He will study something with half his attention and build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often filled with errors. He is a source not only of invented history but also wrong math and science. For example when discussing Cantor's ideas he tells us there are more transcendentals than irrationals and that there are 5 orders of infinity. Or when discussing Lagrange points he tells us that the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at L2 in the earth's shadow so as to keep the sun's rays off the telescope (JWST is in a halo orbit around L2 and never comes close to earth's shadow). So far as I know Tyson repeats 5 false histories attacking religion: 1) Copernicus kept his ideas secret for fear of the church. Here I believe Tyson is repeating myths he's heard from others. 2) Medieval Christians were flat earthers. Again, he is probably repeating New Atheist urban legends, probably from Draper and White. 3) The Islamic Golden Age ended when Ghazali proclaimed math is the work of The Devil. Here Neil is repeating Orientalist talking points but adding to them. I believe Tyson invented the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of The Devil. Many modern scholars point out there was a lot of Islamic innovation in the centuries following Ghazali. Also Tyson exaggerates the accomplishments of the Arabs in the centuries from 800 to 1100. For example our base 10 numbering system comes from India, not the Arabs. Brahmagupta did a lot to develop the concepts of zero and negative numbers. Al Khwarizimi, the supposed father of algebra, owes a lot to Brahmagupta. 4) Newton could have easily done Laplace's n-body perturbation theory in an afternoon. After all Newton single handedly invented calculus *and* explained elliptical orbits -- in two months! -- on a dare! -- all before he turned 26. But Newton ceded his brilliance to God and just stopped. First off, Newton did not just stop. Luke Barnes writes how Newton invested a great deal of time and effort over his lifetime trying to model the 3-body system of the earth, moon and sun. As did Leonard Euler and Joseph Lagrange. Laplace built on the extensive efforts of Newton, Euler and Lagrange. Perturbation theory is not a simple extension of calculus that Newton could have done in one afternoon. Nor did Newton single handedly accomplish decades of collaborative efforts in two months on Halley's dare. Thony Christie points out that Halley made his "dare" in 1684 when Newton was in his 40s. And that Newton had been working on gravity and his laws of motion for decades. Thony also points out that Fermat, Descartes, Barrow, Cavalieri and others had laid the foundations of calculus in the generation before Newton and Leibniz. Regarding his history of Newton, I don't think Tyson is repeating myths. I believe he's made up his Newton fictions from whole cloth. 5) Bush and Star Names. Neil's false account of President Bush's 9-11 speech was a standard part of Tyson's routine for eight years. Tyson has Bush bragging that his God is the God that named the stars. Tyson called the speech "an attempt to distinguish we from they" Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque. Turns out that Tyson confused Bush's 9-11 speech with his eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. However in neither speech did Bush try to set Christians above Muslims. That false accusation came from Tyson's preconceived notions and vivid imagination. TL;DR Tyson is a source of quite a few falsehoods. Falsehoods that have been endorsed by Dawkins, Novella, Harris et al. Who cares if Tyson's stories are false if he's pushing the correct narrative? I am hoping the New Atheist clique will become widely known for their credulity and dishonesty.
@henrimourant9855
2 жыл бұрын
Ok I agree that Tyson has no idea what he's talking about often but Achilles heel of what exactly? Not all "new atheists" agree with each other and tbh I'm not a fan of them in general although I'm an atheist myself and a big fan of secularism. Unless you're saying that you wish people would stop taking them seriously but from what I've seen that's kinda already the case.
@HopDavid
2 жыл бұрын
@@henrimourant9855 I believe the term New Atheism was coined by journalist Gary Wolf to describe of group of strident and vocal anti-theists. Prominent figures are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. I also think of Hemant Mehta, Steven Novella, MIchael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss and others . This clique certainly doesn't represent all atheists. Tim O'Neill and Thony Christie are atheists and they are often critics of the history and talking points used by The New Atheists. Notice I capitalize the term -- it's a proper name for a sub group, not a term for atheists in general. And many of the people I mention do indeed put Tyson on a pedestal. They form a mutual admiration society -- appearing on each other's podcasts, writing glowing reviews of one another's books, etc. This October Neil Tyson will be receiving The Richard Dawkins Award from none other than Richard Dawkins himself. It will be at the CSIcon2022 in Las Vegas. Dawkins, Tyson, Krauss, Novella et al often advise us to question everything. Challenge every claim to see if it's supported by evidence, they tell us. And yet they seem to accept Tyson's false histories without question. Tyson likes to say scientific literacy empowers us to know when someone is full of shit. And yet these pop science celebrities seem powerless to know when Tyson is serving them a load of bull. So is it fair to say Dawkins, Shermer, Harris et ak are scientifically illiterate? I would say yes. By the way I am also for secular governments. I believe strongly in the separation of church and sate.
@YTPrule
2 жыл бұрын
Being presented an award by Dawkins? That’s a brand of shame. Dawkins is thoroughly unqualified on the vast majority of things he talks about. That’s like if Christian/Christine Weston Chandler presented you an award for succeeding at life.
@brygenon
2 жыл бұрын
With an Achilles heel like Tyson, who needs Thor's hammer?
@HopDavid
2 жыл бұрын
@@brygenon ? Your comment is hard to parse.
@paulmichael7194
2 жыл бұрын
The fields of history, biology, archaeology, geology, textual criticism and many more say the exact opposite. I once worshiped the tribal war god of Abraham just like you, until I did an honest review of the evidence.
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
You clearly haven't even watched the video, since it's not talking about the evidence for or against whatever fringe religion you used to worship but the complete myth that science and religion are necessarily incompatible and at odds with each other.
@Tzimiskes3506
2 жыл бұрын
Here we go with the atheist and evidence supposedly...
@paulmichael7194
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 sorry but they are most definitely incompatible. Take just the fields I listed and look at the work by the scientists in those fields. The vast majority agree that biblical claims are not supported. The only one who are considered to be performing pseudo science are the ones who are using their standing to announce that they have evidence that particular god claims and science are compatible(largely the Abraham faiths). These are the Stephen Myers of apologetics. On the other hand, Frances Collins is a scientist who separates out his personal faith from his work. Sure he uses beauty nature and the wonders of science to strengthen his stance. We need more like him. The only real evidence you have against the dis-harmony is found in the bible itself, where it conveniently warns against questioning the narrative. Circular argument.
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@paulmichael7194 Thank you for confirming that you haven't even watched the video, and that your initial criticism of it was pure ignorance. Literally nothing you have said in any of your comments relates to the issue that was being discussed. Even if the vast majority of scholars in a field claim that their field contradicts something in the Bible that doesn't prove that the field is incompatible with it. Even if the number is great enough to form an academic consensus (rather than an ongoing debate with a majority and minority position), it remains possible that the consensus is incorrect. To demonstrate an incompatibility you have to demonstrate that the axioms of that field are incompatible with Christianity (since I assume you're talking about my religion, rather than whatever religion you used to follow that thought Abraham's god was a tribal war god). If you want to discuss whether the Bible actually makes particular claims, whether those claims are a necessary part of Christianity and whether any of the fields of study you listed (most of which aren't actually science) contradict those claims, we can do that. But even if you have a reliable source for a headcount, that isn't a good methodology for determining truth. Also, if you're going to start attacking Young Earth Creationism, then it's worth noting that this is just one variety of Christianity (not the majority view), and that its interpretations of the Bible find little support in serious Biblical scholarship.
@waldemarbielecki200
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 Hi Stephen. I wonder if you can help me with this dilemma, please. This is my problem: Which branch of science nominates a particular text as "The Word of God"? With kind regards.
@hexa1905
2 жыл бұрын
What is there to invent ? Have you read genesis ? How can you not see this is all limited by the small knowledge of the time ?
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
If you'd actually watched the video you'd know what was invented. Genesis is only in conflict with science if you take a Young Earth Creationist interpretation. And the fact that the books of the Bible are written in ways that made sense to their original audience thousands of years ago isn't any kind of evidence that religion and science are in conflict.
@hexa1905
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 young earth creationists at least do know you are supposed to read it all literally. And it is not just in the old testament, a part of the teaching of jesus aka god is deeply anti scientific. Can you read matt 15 ? From memory: Nothing that enter you mouth can corrupt you, only what goes out. The Jewish tradition of washing hand before eating goes against the will of god. Do i need to introduce you to the germ theory of deseases or do you get it ?
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@hexa1905 YECs believe that the early chapters of Genesis are meant to be read literally. That doesn't mean that they're right. The reality is that they read a lot of their own ideas into the text in a way that would have been alien to the original audience. And you clearly haven't understood what Jesus was saying in Matthew 15:11. He's saying that moral corruption comes from the heart (in the metaphorical sense, in case you'd going to accuse me of being anti-science by using that word) rather than from eating non-kosher food. This teaching has nothing at all to do with hygiene, nor is it saying that washing hands before eating is against God's will. The only way you could get the meaning you claim from that passage is if you were deliberately looking for passages you could take out of context to "prove" the Bible is anti-science, or if you had heard the interpretation and not checked to see if it was consistent with the text in its original context.
@hexa1905
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 I will pay you the compliment of assuming you have not read matt 15. I will directly send it to you. That might help. Poeple back then beleived that deseases comes from evil spirit and magic words, and so did Jesus. 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”(B) 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a](C) and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b](D) 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.(E)’[c](F)” 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them,(G) but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”(H) 12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted(I) will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d](J) If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”(K) 15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”(L) 16 “Are you still so dull?”(M) Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart,(N) and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.(O) 20 These are what defile a person;(P) but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@hexa1905 Nothing in the entire chapter is talking about diseases. When the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his statement, he clearly and unambiguously says that he is talking about moral defilement - exactly the interpretation I gave. If you were familiar with the cultural and historical context, you'd be aware that the washing of hands in question is a ritual act that was thought to bring ritual purity. Not one word that Jesus says in this passage is in any way a statement against germ theory. Like many atheists, you are trying to read ancient texts as if they were commentary on modern science, whilst being utterly blind to the context. Finally, there is nothing in the gospels that shows Jesus believed that diseases came from demons or evil spirits. Yes, there are instances where Jesus is shown to cast demons out of people. But none in which that is how he cures a disease.
@josephinelucas5359
2 жыл бұрын
Instead of wasting your time watching fashion or comedy shows you can invest that little time into digital currency market where every little of your time spent counts
@cliffordbryant6604
2 жыл бұрын
nice worlds time is money bud haha
@bharatratna3321
2 жыл бұрын
@zechinko with lot of bills to pay and earnings little from my place of work. I was forced to venture into digital currency market some months ago today am driving my dream car and living a comfortable life.
@floydmax8586
2 жыл бұрын
wow those digital currency pays this much I've heard a lot about it
@changlee8083
2 жыл бұрын
@@floydmax8586 yes it pays all thanks to my expert Chris Adam Walter who guide me through the Market and today am making a living from it.
@toddpeterson5452
2 жыл бұрын
I also trade with Mr Adam Walter, all thanks to him and his team for helping me earn £23,000 every week of trade
@AR333
Жыл бұрын
A revised version of the conflict thesis has been put forward by Gregory Dawes. Surprised he hasn’t been on unbelievable yet
@robertmcclintock8701
2 жыл бұрын
A spy classifies himself. Whatever you desire they will help you with it. They gave me astrophysicist classification that I didn't ask for it but I like it. I'm not a scientist but I am an artist. They wanted an astrophysicist that was an artist. It's perfectly normal for the people to think like an artist with a simple mind. It's science that new that has complex mind that need expensive training.
@gabrielteo3636
2 жыл бұрын
Why don't you have any interviews with Tom Jump, Tjump?
@ytube777
2 жыл бұрын
Was Tim joking that he doesn't like Dave and James at all? He looked quite serious. I mean... kudos to you Tim for telling it like it is if so.
@ianwragg8977
2 жыл бұрын
He said on his Twitter page that they were nice blokes. Yes, Tim O'Neill does have a sense of humour. Quote: "But seriously, it was a good conversation with three very nice guys."
@moggpiano8043
2 жыл бұрын
"Science Vs Faith"? Let's not forget that there is more than one religion. Faith Vs Faith is equally relevant, and weakens the creation argument. As has been echoed many times, atheists believe in just one less god than most religious people.
@davidjanbaz7728
2 жыл бұрын
Actually that is a strawman based on bad fundamentalists interpretations of the Bible. The Bible does speak of other gods and Paul says there are other gods but for Us there is only ONE creator who created all the other Elohim ( gods).
@durden91tyler
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidjanbaz7728 the difference is you're talking about something human beings made up, and atheists are talking about observational reality.... See the difference.
@dentonhahn2907
2 жыл бұрын
@@durden91tyler I don't see the difference, the question of God is a philosophical question, atheist have no observed evidence that there is no god. And for an atheist to be honest he must first think through the evidence given for a god, and to say there is no evidence is naive.
@davidjanbaz7728
2 жыл бұрын
@@durden91tyler you're ignorance is overwhelming if you think science can detect a supernatural being with the scientific method. " Made up" what observational reality do you have to verify you're ignorant statement.
@CedanyTheAlaskan
2 жыл бұрын
I damn near physically cringed at your comment. Get your head out of atheist slogans The video isn't about other faiths, just the idea of Christianity and science are incompatible.
@edwardtbabinski
2 жыл бұрын
The author of a book I read on Historical Theology admits that it was “challenges” from the study of astronomy, geology and biology that splintered Christian believers into opposing camps over the meaning of Genesis 1-11. The O.T. depicts an underworld with the earth above it, smaller objects made and placed above the earth to light it and for signs and times of worship on earth, and above those, the heaven of the most high god with his angels (search the internet for, “The Holy Heavens of the Hebrews” and also, “The Structure of Heaven and Earth: How Ancient Cosmology Shaped Everyone’s Theology”). Verses throughout the Bible agree the earth is immovable. God holds it in place, except when God shakes it (earthquakes). Psalm 93:1: “The world also is established [or fixed] that it cannot be moved” (something Luther & Calvin emphasized). Psalm 96:10: “The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.” 1 Chronicles 16:30: “The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” Psalm 104:5 states “[God] laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Job’s earth that is “hung” by God likewise is never said to move, spin, nor even be shaped like a sphere. The Bible confirms the non-metaphorical meaning of such passages via additional passages that depict sun and stars as moving, or moved by God, but not the earth. The sun even returns to its place: Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises” (NIV). Compare Psalm 19:4-6, “In [the heavens] He [God] has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them.” Such a depiction is reminiscent of ancient Mesopotamian beliefs. In The Shamash Hymn, the Sun-god is said to “continuously cross the heavens, daily... pass over the vast earth,” and in a different text the sun is described as moving, “as far as the edge of heaven, as far as the edge of earth, from the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset.” Job 9:7, notes, “He [God] can command the sun not to rise.” That God would direct his command at the sun rather than the earth implies a belief in a stationary earth. Likewise, Joshua directed his commands at both the sun and moon, even commanding the sun to stand still “over Gibeon,” and the moon “over the valley of Aijalon” (Joshua 10:12) (also search for this excellent article, “The Day the Sun Stood Still: Interpreting the Miracle of Joshua 10”) Further passages that fit hand in glove with immovable earth passages include Judges 5:20 that says stars “course” through the sky each night. Another passage says God “brings them [the stars] out one by one” and “because of His great power not one of them is missing” (Isaiah 40:26). Compare Enuma Elish VII:130, that states, “He [Marduk] shall maintain the motions of the stars of heaven.” In addition, Job 38:31-33 (NASB) states that constellations are “led forth” by God, like when God asks Job rhetorically, “Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?” But anyone with knowledge of astronomy knows the reverse is true of what is found in the Bible. The sun does not “hurry back to where it rises;” the earth spins. Commanding “the sun” not to move, makes as little sense as someone in a moving car commanding the scenery not to move. The stars do not have “courses;” they only appear to move in a large circle round the pole star each night due to the earth’s rotation. God does not “bring the stars out one by one by His great power;” there is no “great power” involved, it is the diminishing intensity of the sun’s rays reflecting off the atmosphere that “brings out the stars.” (Though to St. Philastrius in the fourth century CE the words of Scripture were irrefutable divine teachings, including those about God bringing out the stars from his treasure-house and hanging them in the sky every evening, to deny which was heresy and “false to the Catholic faith.”) Nor do “none of the stars go missing” when God “by His great power brings them out” because sometimes stars do “go missing,” they explode into dust. Nor does God “lead forth,” and “guide” constellations; they only appear to move (and dip high, low, or vanish for months beneath the horizon) due to the earth’s rotation, axial tilt, and its revolution around the Sun. Some Christians and conservative Jews continue to defend geocentrism, asking their brethren, “Does the Bible depict God ‘commanding,’ ‘leading forth,’ and ‘stopping’ things that don’t really move?” They add that “God’s might is evidenced in His ability to maintain the immobility of, and also shake, the earth at will (Job 9:6; 2 Samuel 22:8; Joel 2:10; Isaiah 13:13; Revelation 6:12-13), and in His ability to lead forth and guide constellations, and direct His command at the sun to make it stop moving. Such actions are either demonstrations of God’s might, or, mighty deceptive language for God to have inspired.” Therefore, they say, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a geocentrist!” Ironically, the same point is made by creationists, “If you take the Bible at its word you ought to be a creationist!” Claiming one knows for sure what God “intended” or what the Bible “really teaches” is a game played by everyone from conservatives to liberals. All we can say for sure is that when it comes to immovable earth passages, their plain non-metaphorical meaning was shoved into the back closet after modern science moved into the apartment-after scientific observations and questions about the natural world took on lives of their own, separate from the ancient answer book known as “The Bible.” (Search for, “The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and the Wealth of Modern Knowledge/Information -- Where Do We Get Our Answers From Today? What Expands Our Minds the Most Today?”)
@jgmrichter
2 жыл бұрын
Fortunately, Tim has an article on the myth of Biblical literalism on his site as well: THE GREAT MYTHS 11: BIBLICAL LITERALISM
@davidjanbaz7728
2 жыл бұрын
The Bible isn't a Scientific text: you trying to make it so is pure incoherence and the hyper literalist reading of the Psalms which is Poetry put to music is laughable !
@edwardtbabinski
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidjanbaz7728 What the Bible is, is the very question that keeps Christians debating each other.
@edwardtbabinski
2 жыл бұрын
@@jgmrichter Biblical literalism is as much a part of Christian history from early on as non-literalism. Study historical theology. Even Origen proposed a literal Adam and Eve, Noah, Flood, etc.
@MRB-19
2 жыл бұрын
The brief allusion at ~1:01:30 with reference to a different framing of things in relation to epistemology could be helpfully explored in a future episode. It seems to me that it is on this criterion that a lot of the confusion exists and why this, different, misleading narrative persists. Really isn't it actually about the implicit underlying epistemology that this debunked narrative still has traction?
@waldemarbielecki200
2 жыл бұрын
Dear Friends. At 9 minutes mark Tim is very surprised and asks a question: "Who is the enemy?" Somehow itt has never occured to him that the enemy of humanity is RELIGION where unscrupulous human beings are trying to convince fellow human beings that they are the spokespersons for the supposed Creator of the Universe. What can be more sinister than that?
@PC-vg8vn
2 жыл бұрын
unless a particular religion reflects reality.
@waldemarbielecki200
2 жыл бұрын
@@PC-vg8vn My Dear Friend, with all due respectyou are wrong. If a job of a religious community is representing the supposed Creator of the Cosmos, then it follows that only the supposed Creator could point to a religion which is His/Her/Its spokesperson. But this supposed Being does not speak, so it follows that humanity does not know who the spokesperson of that supposed Being is. It's a dead end, the whole concept of the Personal Creator of the Cosmos is EMPTY. With regards.
@PC-vg8vn
2 жыл бұрын
@@waldemarbielecki200 Jesus is the One you should look to. He spoke quite a lot.
@waldemarbielecki200
2 жыл бұрын
@@PC-vg8vn My Dear Friend. Thanks for your response. I love discussions, they are the only way leading to truth. Unfortunately, in this instance, you are clearly mistaken. I said the supposed Creator never talks and you point out to a human being called Jesus. As you can see Jesus is a human being so my argument still stands. Of course we can call ourselves Creators of the Cosmos or other people can call/nominate some of us the Creators of the Cosmos but it doesn't change the fact that it's still people who are doing the talking not the supposed Creator and that's my whole point. John 19:7 "The Jewish leaders insisted: "We have a law, and according to that law Jesus must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." So even so called Holy Books confirm my argument that it's only human beings who talk, no talking snakes, trees, ghosts etc. in human experience. With regards.
@PC-vg8vn
2 жыл бұрын
@@waldemarbielecki200 Unless God became Jesus in human form. That would mean Jesus spoke the very words of God.
@jordanhenshaw
2 жыл бұрын
You know it’s gonna be unwatchable if the title alone is that cringeworthy.
@osmosisgratis5749
2 жыл бұрын
"..today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well Protestantism) moved many many early-modern intelectual to study nature systmatically. Historian have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious results." - Noah J. Efron (p.80-81) Numbers, Ronald L., ed. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press, 2009. "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions." - Joh Heilbron (p. 3) Heilbron, J. L.. The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Great Britain: Harvard University Press, 2001. Hannam, James. God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Publisher: Icon Books. 2009.
@pigzcanfly444
2 жыл бұрын
Considering that many people believe this concept it's unfortunate that it has to be said. Science and Theology do not conflict.
@ianwragg8977
2 жыл бұрын
You know that someone misunderstands the "Conflict Thesis" and has not watched the video when they make comments like the above.
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
@@ianwragg8977 Anyone who thinks the video has addressed the conflict between science and religion needs to stop watching videos and read a few books.
@jordanhenshaw
2 жыл бұрын
@@ianwragg8977 I commented before the video was released, so I guess you’re right???
@JungleJargon
2 жыл бұрын
Science could falsify God. All they have to do is to show matter or energy making and directing themselves. Show us magical matter. Show us magical morphing monkeys. Then you don’t have to have a Creator.
@coilnchamberlain6506
2 жыл бұрын
Suggested books for scientist atheist to read are Replacing Darwin and Traced by Dr Nathaniel T.Jeanson.
@SalemK-ty4ti
2 жыл бұрын
News flash - scientist are just called scientist, weather you believe or don't believe you are still a scientist. Note: I am not talking about the church of Christian Science, which is a religion and not science.
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
I suggest that you read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, Dawkins’s ‘The Blind Watcmaker’, Jerry Coyne’s ‘Why Evolution is True’ or any of the tens of thousands of research papers on the subject published every year.
@SalemK-ty4ti
2 жыл бұрын
@@davethebrahman9870 I think you meant this for someone else. I know evolution is a fact
@davethebrahman9870
2 жыл бұрын
@@SalemK-ty4ti Yes, it wasn’t for you, it related to the original post.
@mohamedali2858
2 жыл бұрын
The Bible, the Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scripture Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge by Maurice Bucaille
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
Why is a book that claims the Quran contains scientific miracles by reinterpreting obscure passages relevant to this issue?
@mohamedali2858
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 Many people adopt an idea because they hates people for their personal reasons , so they hates their thought accordingly, the truth is true, even if you hate it’s carrier , and falsehood is false, even if you love it’s carrier.
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@mohamedali2858 How does your reply relate at all to my question?
@mohamedali2858
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephengray1344 Your question is a question that I deplore and that was its answer, if I am wrong correct me
@stephengray1344
2 жыл бұрын
@@mohamedali2858 My question pointed out what the book does (gives novel interpretations for passages in the Quran that are considered a bit obscure in a way that claims they contain scientific miracles). It then asked why that book is relevant to this discussion about the myth of an inherent conflict between science and religion, which is based on alleged evidence of religion suppressing science. Your answer was to say that some people reject ideas because they dislike the person who' talks about them, rather than because they are bad ideas. That isn't an answer to my question, it isn't even a statement that is vaguely related to my question.
@jesuschristsaves1955
2 жыл бұрын
THE GOSPEL Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: - 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:13 KJV SAVALATION For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 KJV For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:17 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6 KJV Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Romans 5:10 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. - Mark 1:15 KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36 KJV Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2 Timothy 1:9
@TomorrowisYesterday
2 жыл бұрын
Let's all set aside a time in 3 days to have these 4 thoy boyz gaslight us into thinking, "Oh, no, religion and science are totally BFF's!"
@osmosisgratis5749
2 жыл бұрын
"..today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well Protestantism) moved many many early-modern intelectual to study nature systmatically. Historian have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious results." - Noah J. Efron (p. 80-81) Numbers, Ronald L., ed. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press, 2009. "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions." - Joh Heilbron (p. 3) Heilbron, J. L.. The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Great Britain: Harvard University Press, 2001. Hannam, James. God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Publisher: Icon Books. 2009.
@TomorrowisYesterday
2 жыл бұрын
@@osmosisgratis5749 You weren't allowed to study anything back then if you weren't religious, dumb*ss. Literally everyone was forced to be religious!!!
@Tzimiskes3506
2 жыл бұрын
Even atheism and science are BFFS! totally not sarcasm.
@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
2 жыл бұрын
Theistic religion broadly, and Christian theism specifically, are both good friends with science. Specific views of specific texts (eg YEC interpretation of creation narratives), not so much.
@drakevane2663
2 жыл бұрын
" we have telescopes so there is no god"- sam harris
@SalemK-ty4ti
2 жыл бұрын
Science & religions are diametrically opposed in every philosophical aspect. 1. Science is an investigative process designed to foster a pragmatic understanding of reality. Religions are cultural memes that seek only to propagate themselves from one generation to the next. 2. Science recognizes our basic psychological weaknesses and even takes active measures to expunge them from our thinking. Religions however openly exploit our cognitive biases as a means of deliberately engineering conformity in their membership. 3. Science presumes human fallibility meaning that any conclusions we may ever reach no matter how confident they may make us feel must always remain open to questioning testing revision and even possible dismissal. Many religious organizations will happily declare an unwavering conviction to their sacred dogma even to the point of admitting outright that no amount of evidence or logic will ever change their minds no matter what. This is exactly why religious apologists are always so awkwardly antagonistic whenever it comes to matters of science and scientific method the very rules which govern them are completely antithetical to their entire sense of epistemology. 4. Scientific discoveries are always directly challenging core theological claims. For instance if the Bible is interpreted literally as the true and inerrant Word of God then it necessarily follows that the earth is barely six thousand years old. All of its inhabitants having been specially created in the present forms we see today. The first human male was forged out of literal dust from the earth followed by the first human female out of the first man's rib. This single human couple then incestuously spawned the entire human race which expanded rapidly from its ancestral origins. Somewhere in the vicinity of the Euphrates River Valley. Then at some point along the way a talking snake came along and convinced the first woman to eat forbidden fruit from a magic tree thereby corrupting the entire natural world with a sudden outburst of sin. Finally the only way to rectify matters is naturally through a ritual blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of the entire world and redeem our species from an eternity of spiritual separation from our timeless immaterial creator. Now compare this view with our modern understanding of geology and evolutionary biology the earth is not 6,000 years old but well over four-and-a-half billion. Life is not the special creation of any cosmic immaterial agents but most likely an emergent property of organic chemistry operating on self-replicating nucleic acids. Human beings are not the product of some top-down organization but rather a long chain of inherited allele variations gradually molded by genetic mutation and natural selection. Humanity did not descend through a genetic bottleneck of only two individuals but instead branched off from earlier hominid populations distributed throughout Africa. There was nothing close to any mystical Garden of Eden and therefore no original sin no global flood no fall of man and no point in dragging out a savior to redeem us from it all in the first place.
@royhiggins7270
2 жыл бұрын
“We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk - that’s not in the Constitution.” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) Lauren Boebert calls for laws to enforce "biblical citizenship training" in our schools. “We’re not bending the knee to the two percent anymore,” said Andrew Torba, founder of the right-wing-friendly social platform Gab, referring to Jewish people in the United States. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, told a Christian gathering last November, “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God.” The 10-year-old Ohio girl who crossed state lines to receive an abortion in Indiana should have carried her pregnancy to term and would be required to do so under a model law written for state legislatures considering more restrictive abortion measures, according to the general counsel for the National Right to Life. Former President Donald Trump said during a speech on Saturday that "Americans kneel to God" alone, as the concept of Christian nationalism continues to gain traction among conservatives. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is attended a rally in Pennsylvania with state Sen. Doug Mastriano. Mastriano has praised Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab and a self-described Christian nationalist. Desantis is the most insidious of them all because he knows better. The Trump-Republican Taliban was created by the lie of Jesus! When the Civil War starts will you choose America or Theocracy?
@davidh5020
2 жыл бұрын
Not a myth
@Hhjhfu247
2 жыл бұрын
Too much Jerry Coyne's nonsense
@davidh5020
2 жыл бұрын
@@Hhjhfu247 WTF is Jerryu Coyne?
@osmosisgratis5749
2 жыл бұрын
"..today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well Protestantism) moved many many early-modern intelectual to study nature systmatically. Historian have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious results." - Noah J. Efron (p. 80-81) Numbers, Ronald L., ed. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press, 2009. "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions." - Joh Heilbron (p. 3) Heilbron, J. L.. The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. Great Britain: Harvard University Press, 2001. Hannam, James. God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. Publisher: Icon Books. 2009.
@Tzimiskes3506
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidh5020 It is a myth. A very big one that too.
@Tzimiskes3506
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidh5020 He would be an atheist like Dawkins. Philosophically and Historically illiterate.
@robertmcclintock8701
2 жыл бұрын
If you love the universe the birds will make you mentally ill so you fight with the environment to make it intelligent. Your supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God needed. God has been liberated and he is fully capable of evolving himself without any help. God don't want your worship he just wants to get married. Royal weddings is most watched thing on television. We fixed the video and audio for best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Пікірлер: 230