It's almost worse. With superpositions you have two states simultaneously (sorta don't @ me physicists). But here Dan is accused of being Mormon, not Mormon and bad at being Mormon all at the same time. We're gonna need some new physics for this one.
It is much simpler than that. "Scholarly Dan" reasons about what the preponderance of "critical scholars" believe or could reasonably be expected to come to believe, with only the most vaporous connection to what is or isn't really true or correct. "Mormon Dan" has simply no interest in any of the above, and actively avoids ever reconciling them.
Thanks for all you do. I genuinely appreciate your scholarship and presenting the "state of the field" on many of the topics commonly discussed. Just thanks. 🎉
Thanks, Dan. Your videos help me explore my own assumptions and internal biases as an atheist, a socialist, and a secular humanist regarding the way I construct my own cognitive framework or communicate about my understanding of how all this works with all my neighbors. It's not your focus or the primary intent with your content, I know, but your examination of dogma v/ data in religion has helped me apply similar thoughtfulness to where my own secular/atheist/socialist beliefs and values may rest on dogmas within my communities. I can't be as methodologically rigorous, of course, likely just fumbling with similar tools, but it's still rewarding. Keep up the good work. Keep up the fun fit checks.
Is there a valid reason that some people are flipping it? For example, did someone recently popularize an inversion to make some profound point, or just to be clever? Or is it just an ignorant flub because they dont know any better?
@@jonathonpolk3592 the latter. Both versions have been used before and the have/eat version is most common these days. The way Dan uses it here, however, is the most common way it was originally used and makes the most sense, logically.
@@brettandersson3206 But have … eat means the same thing and is funnier and more thought provoking. My grandad (for example) would never say something in a straightforward way if he could find a way of saying it that made your brain hurt, so he'd have no motive to use it in the form the OP considers “correct”. Some people are literal communicators, some people are wordsmiths. Some people, I grant, are fools.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond to his accusations (since they are not really critiques) instead of pointing out that he's just mimicking your own argumentation. I wish I knew the term for it (I assume there is one) but this sort of Socratic Whataboutism that hopes to catch you in a gatcha is just so annoying. Easily side-stepped when you have the expertise and knowledge to do so, about impossible to avoid when you are just regurgitating other's ideas. That's why it's so popular in the online discourse, since there are so many non-experts simply regurgitating other's ideas. That's a hidden danger when discourse is so open and has so many participants.
"...instead of pointing out that he's just mimicking your own argumentation." I get *a lot* of push back from atheists when I do that to _them._ They insist that they have no burden of proof because they make "no" claims. Yet, because arguments are comprised of claims, if one is arguing, one is making claims by default. They just may not be making a claim about the (non)existence of a deity, specifically.
Thank you for your openness and honesty. I love what you do here to the point that I find it hard to listen to anyone else. I feel very informed but also lost, in that I don’t what minister to follow if I need to at all. Maybe just studying in my own with the books and information you provide will be enough.
This is the best 6min video, Dan is so knowledgeable. That knowledge pales to how methodical the foundation built up to this knowledge. Dan is an iceberg of knowledge we only see 10%
I don't think so. I think Dan is well educated and have a strong working memory (I don't mind his moral positions as well, come to think of it). But the "unseen nintety percent of the iceberg, I think is the scholarly consensus and the scientific method (together with the historical method and a bit of psychology). That stuff tends to lift ones presentation to lofty heights 😁
@@AgapeSignal I have seen a lot of Dan videos and I have never seen him try to "discredit" anybody. He tend to CRITICIZE interpretations of the Bible that, according to his expert opinion, cannot be surmised FROM the Bible (based on current knowledge of the text and the archeology available). Inspiring Philosophy engaged with this endevour making claims with the same premises (what you can conclude from the Scriptures based on the evidence available). They disagree about what conclusions can be made. Faith is a separate issue altogether. It is presumably GOD who determines which type of Christian faith is "real or genuine," and since the day of judgment, when such a decision would be made, has not yet occurred, perhaps we should leave judgement to him and give each other a break, no?
I think it's hard for lay people to understand and separate Dan's biblical scholarship and what Dan actually believes because he doesn't share his religious belief. It took me a while to understand why Dan does this.
It took me a while to understand as well. After seeing Neil of Gnostic Informant's video, I understand completely. Dan's resistance to admitting to the Hellenistic and classical influences on christianity indicates an apologetic agenda.
2 місяці тому+5
@@winter816 Dan has no such resistance. He frequently talks about Hellenistic influence on the Bible. If you mean he doesn't accept whack job conspiracy theories, then you are right.
Could you point to an example of Dan ignoring or denying Hellenistic influences on christianity (or explain what you think the difference is between "Hellenistic influences" and "classical influences)?
@@winter816 He has specifically highlighted the Greco-Roman influence on early Christian beliefs about sexual mores, the afterlife, concepts of divinity, and so on. It comes up a lot, in fact. I think your "understanding" is less complete than you feel like it is
We're all influence by our beliefs - I'm sure Dan is influenced by his Mormonism. But as best I can tell, he does an excellent job minimizing that influence.
I’d really like a video about how your academic arguments do or don’t change your personal beliefs (regardless of what those beliefs are, I don’t think that part’s important).
And, just like that, bingo! The pieces fell into place for me. When I was a fundie/evangelical, the hot take from the pulpit was "Mormons deny the deity of Jesus," and the proof text was John's Gospel 1:1. Listening to both your presentations, as well as Dr. Kipp's videos, this issue has begun to make sense to me. I now better understand the images of God in the Bible. The process of untangling dogma from data is necessary, but at times, it is quite difficult to accomplish. Since I have no academic training in Biblical scholarship, as I listen to actual scholars, I can now see more clearly how and why I was misled by the preachers in my former sect of Christianity. Thank you for this video, Dan!
To be pedantic, of the earliest known uses of this phrase, more of them have it in the eat/have order, so it's arguable that Dan's usage is MORE correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
Spider Dan, Scholar Dan. Taking on a bearded man. What a fun video. Thought I'd stop and say hello. Hey Dan! I love dogs, not dogmas. Cats over catechism. Was Jesus just a maaaaannn?
I think you are going to lose some people under a certain age with that diddy. Though I had a friend in junior high who did a version about Mac machines (you know where you get money out) as we had Owl machines where I live also. So the song goes ' mac machine, mac machine does the same as an owl machine. Use your card, take out money, their all the same, it's OK honey, WATCH OUT here comes the mac machine.'😂😂😂😂
@@lde-m8688 we still had an example of that song in the 90s with the Spider-Man game on the PS1/N64, so it might have a little more shelf-life than you think
I think many are coming at this from an assumption that Mormonism is inherently orthodox by nature - which entails "right belief." In other words, many Christian sects maintain that you must believe in their dogmas to genuinely identify as "Christian." However, as much as I do value Dan's insights into the Hebrew Bible, I don't personally jive with holding to scholarly positions on one hand while simultaneously going along with the Mormon crowd. Is it a kind of social club for Dan? Fine, but there's likely a ton of other better options available, in my opinion.
@@josephpercy1558 But I could turn that around and point it back at your espousal just as easily. You operate from the position that one cerebral adulterant is superior, but bias is omnipresent for sapient creatures and your suggestion regarding "better options" paints you as far more 'obtuse' than I, does it not? Btw, I'm an agnostic atheist, so this isn't spiritually motivated. I hear what you're saying, but Dr. Dan has yet to produce or advocate for anything academically unsound (to the contrary, much of his public facing media flies in the face of conventional LDS belief/practice as the data indicate). Thus I feel your angle is a tad hypocritical, friend. Tbh, it _is_ weird - to me, anyhow. And gave me pause at first. But he's clearly a highly intelligent individual whom doesn't seem likely to be swayed by nonsense, so he must have a good reason (hell, atheist Christians and the like are becoming more and more common). So as long as he continues to adhere to his credo, that reason is really none of my business, y'know? 🤷
Don't take this the wrong way Dan, but I don't give a single winking bat's eyeball about what your personal beliefs are. They don't seem to have an influence on your research, which is what I tune in for. I don't understand how you harmonize your dogma with the data you study, but again - I don't care because it's not getting in your way.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai Anything actually ridiculous would not set y'all off. But this one topic does, reliably. _Why is that?_ We know why Ehrman et al. take to giggling: admitting that evidence for existence, by the most generous possible analysis, is at best equivocal would reliably tank their online course enrollment.
I expect part of the reason folks latch onto these erroneous and/or twisted accusations is that they have zero idea how to reconcile someone holding a religious faith that is flatly contradicted by all the evidence they present. It's a pipe dream, but I really do wish he would help us out by explaining his ability to have religious convictions, and what that looks like.
I can’t conceive of how it’s reconciled, either. Without meaning any judgment, I am imagining two possibilities. Either (1) he remains Mormon because of family and community. He keeps the traditions while understanding how the religion was a human invention with a mythology; or (2) he continues to still hold a belief system while devoting his life’s work to arguing against many of its tenets daily. The former makes sense to me, but when I see him address these questions he seems to present it as though the latter is no problem at all.
You’re presuming that Dan’s religious faith (an indeed the religious faith of practicing Latter-day Saints) abhors contradiction and cannot abide inconsistency. Why should that be the case? For the record, I’m a practicing, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My participation is not at all because of social or familial reasons, but because I actually believe it. And yet! I can still enjoy Dan and Bart and others who take a scholarly approach to the texts that I profess faith in. In fact, I have taught courses on the Bible as literature (I’m a former English professor) at a major midwestern state university in which I stated at every class that the Bible is a work of literature and that we would treat it just like we’d treat Shakespeare or Hemingway. For example, when discussing Isaiah and a student would mention Jesus, I would correct them: “This is the Hebrew Bible, and there’s no Jesus here…” When they would talk about the Holy Spirit, I would point out that we don’t have that character in the book until we get to Acts. Etc etc etc Yet still, in my personal, devotional reading of the Bible I can see Isaiah talking about Jesus all over the place. I can read it BOTH WAYS because I contain multitudes. Can I look at the Bible objectively and say, “yup, there’s no evidence in this text that God in the OT is also Jesus in the NT”? Yes, yes I can because THAT’S WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS. This is not a threat to me. I see that is the case, and I acknowledge it. I can read Isaiah and see evidence of three (3?) authors there, because that’s what the evidence seems to show. These are not threats to me. Why should they be? This is triply true for Mormons. We don’t have to take the Bible as a perfect document, because we have the Book of Mormon. We don’t even believe that the Book of Mormon is perfect-the text actually admits as much. I don’t think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Russell M. Nelson are perfect (because, well, obviously). That’s just not the way Mormonism works. Call it dogma, call it cognitive dissonance, call it what you like. But know this: Latter-day Saints are philosophically very different from Evangelical Christians. And while we’re not perfect at it, and while there are plenty of embarrassing examples to the contrary, our official doctrine holds that intellectual rigor and honesty are important, that asking uncomfortable questions is good, and that doubt is natural. What Dan’s doing feels like a great example of someone who is trying to live as a full, believing Latter-day Saint. No hypocrisy necessary. Dan’s not “arguing against the tenets daily” or Mormonism, but he’s embodying intellectual honesty. And that’s a fine Mormon ideal to uphold.
@@JeffreyWindsor I appreciate the thoughtful response. "You’re presuming that Dan’s religious faith (and indeed the religious faith of practicing Latter-day Saints) abhors contradiction and cannot abide inconsistency." Not quite-I'm saying I don't understand how religious faith can coexist with outright contradiction and inconsistency. It obviously can (since Dan exists), but my upbringing is thoroughly Evangelical, and such philosophies are often incomprehensible. I love the more progressive "yes and" approach to Scripture (which, coincidentally, I find also in Judaism and Catholicism), but I have little way to anchor a conviction without a defensible foundation. I've seen it be a massive struggle in critical, skeptical, and "recovering" Christian spaces.
@@AurorXZ I hear you. My guess is that if your bent is toward pure logic that these things are difficult (impossible?) to reconcile. The nature of faith is not logical and relies on other factors, of which emotion is one but also personal history, convenience, and wishful thinking. To many skeptics the idea that we would base any decisions on emotion or hope is absurd. I get it. But I also acknowledge that a pure skeptic is a lot like a rational economic agent: they're a myth. We get married, make political decisions, and yes, choose faith based on these things. And marriage (and religion!) makes many people happy. Not everyone, but most people. For me, the literalist reading of scripture is impossible because of the inconsistencies, but that doesn't destroy my belief exactly because I don't depend on perfect consistency. Actually, if you want to get into the weeds on Mormon theology and what makes it possible, a lot can be explained by the doctrine of heaven. The way it's typically understood today is that there is no hell. There are only degrees of glory, and basically everyone will self-select based on their level of comfort. There are, as to be expected, blessings that one can receive based on obedience to ordinances and covenants, but no one is condemned. The natural progression of this is that there's a LOT of ambiguity and flexibility here. The "many mansions" language means that you'll get a mansion even if you never become a Mormon, and I'll get one, even though I am. My favorite Church quote is actually from a Catholic (Sister Corrita Kent! Woohoo!), but has been repeated over the pulpit from LDS leaders so I can now claim that it's ours, too: "In heaven, we believe that all the rules are fair but there will be wonderful surprises." So, while we are rife with inconsistencies (as humans), there's still room for both logic and faith. We can take down IP's absurd absolutism, we can point out inconsistencies in the text of the Bible and of Church leaders, and still believe.
One of the reasons I love your content is your setting aside of personal beliefs in order to explore what the data shows. I'm an atheist, so don't share faith, but I do share your desire to examine evidence carefully and in context.
Dan would be obliged to parrot official LDS doctrine, regardless of his own beliefs, assuming he has even evolved any. Initiative is inherently dangerous, in the much same way that doubting CCP correctness is dangerous in China: cognitive dissonance can trigger fatal errors. A Chinese diplomat can freely explain accurately what Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela believed about good governance, but expressing personal opinions or objective facts about the real world risks being found out of step with currant cant.
@@jameskpolk9137 All brands of Christianity are, as with communism, fundamentally at odds with honesty. Doublethink rules. Dan does astonishingly well, considering. He will be unable to tolerate Jesus mythicism until it passes into the mainstream like Moses mythicism, some decades on.
Hey man I’m a non religious person myself but I’ve been following you for a while and I always respect and appreciate your look on things and how you use logic and common sense to defend your stances when being attacked.
Hello Mr. McClellan, 😀 I am an atheist. And I love your scholarly work. It is spot on. I think it is great that you can keep your personal beliefs separate from your professional work. I recommend your channel all the time. Please keep up the good work. Thank you
That you approach the text with Mormon dogmatic assumptions is definitely not a criticism that can be made of your videos. As I recall, you once said the resurrection isn't a possible explanation of the facts. That's a materialistic presupposition not an LDS one.
Ha that guy thought he could just use the same phrases Dan uses, against Dan himself. Haha What he forgot was substance and evidence. This was actually a really eye opening video, I had no idea your book explores such a fascinating concept about how paradoxical divine images were. I can’t wait to read it.
There's one up above. It's funny. The IP videos were so vicariously embarrassing, IP's performance and argumentation so awkward and ill-conceived, that I had a hard time watching them. It's wild to think someone watched the same thing and thought "Wow this IP guy really took him to the cleaners."
As a former Later-day Saint, I have two observations about creators who criticize Dan's arguments by mentioning his Mormonism. First, calling attention to Dan's Mormon faith is usually indicative of the weakness of the critic's argument. If the argument were stronger, no mention of Mormonism would be necessary. Second, anyone who would argue that Dan's scholarly arguments are baised because he is a Latter-day Saint clearly knows little about Mormon doctrine. Dan does an excellent job of analyzing the Bible in a critical, scholarly, and unbiased approach without presupposition of dogma of any kind. This is true even when the scholarly consensus contradicts popular Mormon interpretation. Dan has made clear on a number of occasions that when he speaks of the scholarly consensus that he is not necessarily stating his personal beliefs. Dan has also made clear both on his social media and in appearances on others' social media that he doesn't discuss his personal beliefs in this public setting. If you have a problem with Dan's arguments, speak up. But know that bringing up Dan's church affiliation is really an admission that you haven't done your homework or that you expect your audience to share your prejudice against Mormons. Either way, you are deminstrating that you likely have little to contribute to the conversation. I'll still hear you out, but you've already handicapped yourself in the debate. FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm no longer LDS, but I'm a total Dan stan.
I heavily dislike the LDS for claiming Joseph smith was a prophet and their pseudoscience of the golden plates Heck the American who prophesied the event that happened to Donald Trump back in July was a far more accurate “prophet” than anything Joseph smith did
This was illuminating. I didn't understand that thought process from his book. I don't understand the issue he is trying to resolve, though. The people of the time were probably not up to speed on Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction, and certainly hadn't heard cogito, ergo sum from Descartes; so whether or not they could be both simultaneously wasn't even considered, much less acceptable or unacceptable. It seems to me that to them all for things were the same and weren't the same and that was the obvious way that it would be that no one thought to question.
As an Atheist, I have never encountered a scholar as honest as Dan. I have nothing but loathing for Evangelical apologists. In a lifetime of interacting with Mormon’s and Evangelicals, It’s the Mormon’s who better demonstrate the virtues of Christianity than most Evangelicals that I have encountered.
As an atheist who has seen Mormons move into companies, get onto hiring boards, and then ensure they hire only mormon's and unqualified ones at that, I assure you that Mormons do not demonstrate a single virtue of Christianity, if there is such a thing, whatsoever. Don't mistake niceness with being ethical.
@@AlexADalton Agreed!! ...I am biased against Evangelicals, they lie about everything, just like I am biased against Felon McFatty and his brainwashed MAGA Cult.
This reminds me of how I kept hearing how Obama was a Muslim, atheist, and a radical Christian from the same crowd. You can pick one of those at most, not all three.
I'm beginning to think people forgot how to think. It is being done with the causation of The Younger Dryas, Pleistocene / Holocene abrupt transition where everything is correct, The Sun, The Comet, Plasma, Aliens, Planet X, Super Nova pulse, God throwing the snow ball, debauchery, etc. I used to work with a REAL Mormon, anyone who would work in 125 F sunshine all day with clothing under his clothing has to be the real thing. I still often wonder how he put up with my heathenism. Super nice guy all the way around.
Just to confirm Dan's statement about staying impartial dogma-wise I am only here for the Mythology, a subject I love discussing and dissecting for intellectual pleasure This page is the only place I have seen where the " Abrahamic Mythology " can be so treated WITHOUT dogma being slipped in, or have to worry about some true believer yelling about " smiting unbelievers "
Tbf, it's pretty rare to see any smiters. Usually they're just copy pastaing quote mined Bible passages into the void. I think that even the most indoctrinated people are self aware enough to know that they're going to look like a pompous fool if they run around on the internet talking about smiting anything. At least, I like to hope that this is the case.
Esoterica is great youtube channel run by a Jewish Scholar who clearly keeps his beliefs outside the academic door. He did at least one session with Dan and there is an excellent video called Who is Yahweh?
I appreciate his work and he is so impressive in his work. His knowledge on the topic is amazing but how you know what Dan knows and remain religious is mind blowing. How does he not suffer from cognitive dissonance? If I knew 20 years ago what he knows now I would have been an atheist a lot sooner.
2 місяці тому
everyone has cognitive dissonance. we are born as a bundle of conflicting impulses.
Start from the position that people, even inspired ones who have received revelation, are imperfect and their understanding of eternal truth is affected by their personal and cultural biases. This is more consistent with scripture than the assumption that religious leaders and writers of scripture have a full understanding of divine truth.
@@TheFranchiseCA Precisely. Even easier when you can realize that the Bible is chock-full of all of the same literary and rhetorical devices as any other literature and accept the fact that just because somebody wrote that down doesn't mean it's an endorsement.
@@TheFranchiseCA Add to this the understanding that language is always insufficient. No text has been nor can be read identically by all the possible audiences. Language can be a blunt object, especially when it’s wielded across more than two thousand years of time. Even if the Bible was univocal (which it clearly isn’t), trying to understand it from here would be a difficult task. Even understanding the person sitting across the table from you requires effort, because language can be messy.
As an atheist or if you will a non-theist (for all those semantic quibblers) I appreciate Dan's compartmentalization of his personal religious beliefs and his research towards the Bible!
Short back and sides, big long square beard. It's the mark of the western chauvinist, drawing on both conservative biblical and neo pagan motifs. It's like holding a big banner with the words, 'I'm about to say something either ignorant or bigoted - or both', written on it in gothic script.
@@Cornelius135 I don't think that's the spirit of that laudable suggestion. If these folks all had a penchant for wearing white hoods - I think that would be something to comment on.
I will say again that I was only vaguely aware that you are Mormon at all, and that I cannot detect any particular dogma in your videos, but rather a consistency in thought and analysis.
because Latter-day Saints believe in study (data) and faith (dogma). dan presents the data and leaves out his personal dogma. pretty much all Latter-day Saints do this in academic settings and don't have a problem with it. it's only an issue for fundamentalist Christians.
@@sk7ecd that's not what "study and faith"' referred to originally. That's just another dogma to pretend like the data can be postured to fit the dogma. When the data overrules the dogma, why insist on clinging to dogma?
@@jAAbRON you're incorrectly applying the term now. data doesn't overrule dogma if you're dogma allows for data. in latter-day saint theology, data is allowed. in other sects, it largely is not. most other Christians claim that the data informs their dogma (meaning that faith is not required), an idea that the saints do not subscribe to. latter-day saint theology does not pigeon hole dogma into data, or data into dogma. there's a reason why they hold to standard academic methodologies that other Christians openly reject (such as creationism vs. evolution, likelihood of the resurrection, etc.).
@@sk7ecd Mormon dogma does not allow for data. This is one of the reasons I left. I have read countless Mormon apologetics that pretend to hold to academic standards but they are never published in any reputable journal. The Book of Breathings is extant data that refutes Mormon dogmas of magical translation powers. The clear archaeological line of proto-Olmec to Aztec and Mayan civilizations precludes Book of Mormon history. No Jew in 600 BC believed in baptism or Jesus Christ. These are data that Mormons simply ignore, and that is by definition an anti-science dogma.
I seem to remember that Dan has mentioned a video where he talks about his own personal views on religious matters, can anyone point me toward that, if I'm remembering correctly. He's super prolific and I've not been able to find it. The fact that I honestly have no real idea what those positions are, aside from apparently, perhaps, being based in LDS, should tell the doubters that his analysis is pretty darned unbiased and fact-based. (I'm just curious, if anyone is wondering why).
Equivocation/Word concept fallacy. You can do better. The word "god" in the Bible does not just depict the one triune God, it can depict several things like false gods, human judges, etc.
This makes me wonder, what is your status in the LDS church? One of the questions that the bishop asks you when being interviewed for a temple recommend is, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Given that you clearly do hold positions that contradict the doctrine as taught by the church, do you have an active recommend?
I don’t know Dan personally, and everything I know about him is from social media exchanges like this and what I’ve read of his scholarship. I have asked that question to many, many people in the past, and (based on what I have seen here) I would have no problem signing off on Dan’s temple recommend. To say “the data say that X” is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church. That’s just facts.
I appreciate your work so much! I totally agree that the data of scripture alone does not plainly assert the trinity or the divinity of Christ. That's why we have to take it inward and ask... What if Christ is somehow divine and in unity with the source of everything from the beginning until the end? Then the prayer of oneness begets the theology of "Jesus is God become man, so that man can become God." Not by reaching new knowledge from within duality, but through spiritual surrender and with the guidance of The Holy Spirit (Sophia, Lady Wisdom), we are led to the tree of life that is Jesus Christ. The only "gnostic" truth, as it were, is the experiential reality of the non-dual mystery resting deep in each of our hearts. The character of God is revealed in the lamb slain before the foundation of the cosmos. A love so selfless and unconditional that all fear of death and punishment is cast out, and we are only beloved children of the almighty resting in eternal bliss. This is obviously not intellectually provable, but I highly encourage all to pursue it. I join in the chorus of witnesses, living and dead, who proclaim it as truth you can experience personally. Even right now, it’s available to all through the divine heart, not the intellectual mind. I have become firmly convinced in my belief in Christ’s divinity and the tri-une Godhead through these personal, mystical encounters with the resurrected Lord. Now I can’t help, but see Jesus struggling to teach it and his followers struggling to accept and convey it, all throughout scripture. The author of Colossians puts it very well - Christ is the image of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation who made all things by, through and for himself... in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell... made peace with all things through the cross... and has revealed the mystery of the ages... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. So, concerning the prayer of oneness in John, I see it as the spiritual ascension of humanity or as the fathers understood it - Theosis. It’s not sola scriptura that gets us there or liturgy or sacraments alone, though they help, but the intense inward seeking of the mystical presence of Christ through the gateway of the cross. It’s through meditating on the union of heaven and earth, flesh and spirit, humanity and divinity in one person, Jesus Christ. Thanks again for your academic rigor and open sharing of your findings! All things will come to light and the truth will set us free! Peace and love to you.
Anyone else notice how the other person used a lot of Dan-esque phrases? "Gin up", talking about proving what is "not impossible" (like how Dan talks about apologetics), etc.? It is fun to watch.
Thats what I love about Dan the Data Dude, he proves all over the place that we cares above all about the facts and the data, and thats what makes him so trustworthy.. He simply shares what most scholars agree on, even if it does contradict his own faith, and to me that is a good thing, because thats how truth seekers should act.. In a way the Bible agrees, since it states that God is truth, and that we shall seek after truth.. so, great job and weak attack by the dude with the bigger beard, but the lesser wisdom
Hi Dan McClellan. Concerning your comments about Christ being both the Deity and not the Deity (the Divine Image). Couldn't this ALSO apply to the elohim (gods) in Psalms 82? What I am thinking here is that those who would argue that these elohim are actually human judges and not truly gods but yet people like the late Michael Heiser would argue that these elohim are actually divine beings. I'm wondering, if it's possible that they were more like Christ in that they were actually human judges who also bore the divine image and were thus seen (in their divine role as judges over Israel) as elohim or "sons of God". Jesus Christ being our template or guide in understanding that the elohim in Psalms 82 held dualistic roles that can be both human and divine, thus allowing for an interpretation where they are both human judges who bore the divine image and therefore could die like men (Psalms 82:6-7). Thoughts?
Your talk of Divine images reminded me of the Elder Scrolls. YHWH is like the missing god, Lorkhan, and Jesus was like Tiber Septim, trying to achieve CHIM by mantling him. 😁
Re: divine images: Have you considered thinking about this is relation to theater? I've been playing with this idea over the last 6 years or so(?), in response to the problem of parasociability online and the cognitive behaviors around "fame" it accentuates, that humans have a particular instinctive class of "real but NOT real" ppl that they can slot ppl into that's specifically for fictive agents; the panther that MIGHT be that sound in the bushes, the spirit of this tree providing me with fruit and shade, the person who makes it rain, made-up ppl in a story they're telling around the campfire, "Oedipus" who the actor is embodying on stage. Idk this idea just seemed close to what you're talking about leading up to the 4min mark ^v^ ^v^
Wild that his entire word salad is stuff Dan has shown other creators to have done. This hilarious Uno Reverse card is all these people have. They don’t even under stand the arguments. It’s just NO U. Children and their fee fees.
i like that he's even trying to copy the way you talk lol, "ginning up" and things like that to try to sound like he's actually on the same level hahaha. ppl should try doing any amount of actual research if they wanna talk abt scholarly topics with scholars!
JaMarcus Russell was a Raider and a bad Raider at that. Drafted as the first overall pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, he had a disappointing career with the team due to poor performance, work ethic issues, and struggles with weight and fitness. His tenure with the Raiders is frequently considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. And the Raiders aren't even a real football team.
I am an atheist. As an atheist I have found that I respect what Dan is doing and he has not given me any reason to doubt anything he has said in the videos I have watched so far.
I’ve noticed Dan’s critics keep peppering in “dogma,” and this creator is aping him by saying he’s trying to “gin up” excuses that are “not impossible.” These types never hear what he actually says, and just want to steal what they think is good argumentative rhetoric.
Well I may be grasping at straws here but the riddle might be found in the "Shama" Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The idea that Jesus was respecting the law which unified all?
the question i return to, time and time again is...dan, WHAT is the impetus for these dogmas lodged not only against you BUT critical biblical scholarship ACTUALLY doing? Like, WHO watches these videos attempting to flag your content? what is this audience? I love watching your videos for the critical studies and wit but I can't help but feel the ever-present tug of reactionary media pulling at my soul. have people like these (who try and make up shit about you and your breadth of knowledge) EVER actually change their mind?
I imagine it must be tedious to constantly have to rebuke ad hominem attacks. I can understand why you do it, but it can't be fun. Do you ever feel a bit like Sisyphus?
Come on, that guy is so profoundly mistaken about Dan, it's so cringe. I never lived in the US but I still know what the LDS believe, Dan never involves any of the LDS dogmas in his research, these accusation are ridiculous.
There is a channel called Esoterica ran by a Jewish Scholar and he did an excellent video on Who is Yahweh? He made the statement then when you step into the academic stage, you leave your faith outside the door otherwise "When we allow our faith to dictate history, we really just betrayed both". I know that the Dogmas of my faith are - at face value - at odds with the data. Is it an issue? Not really. I can see where the dogmas came from and where they are probably moving too. Most have no real impact on our daily lives. Others work well only within certain context. Just as Newton's laws work up to a point before Einstein's relativity needs to kick in. I do feel though - that social media has become far too focused proving god exists, encouraging people to do or think stupid things, justifying acts or rhetoric "because the bible says so". Yesterday I saw a post by someone saying "IF god told me to me to kill 1000 kids, I would do it because I have faith". That is clearly an apologetic "everything that god commands id good" dogma going wayyyyyy too far. So this needs to be reeled in by recognizing that this is just a dogma, people should not go over board with it, especially when the data says it's bloody wrong to do so. IF you accept god exists then god clearly gave us an intellect to think otherwise he would have created robots if he just needed people to follow commands! (and some of the angels in the bible really do sound like robots to modern eyes).
Oh man... this creator citing John as though that supports his own dogma is kinda sad. _The data_ is that John says _some of_ what he said, and _also_ says that Jesus is less than the god of the New Testament, is not speaking with his own authority, is not conveying a message that belongs to him, and is only "god" in a way that everyone else can be as well. So his performative parody of Dan in talking about "ginning up" some "not impossible" is a pretty hard faceplant as an argument.
I have a question that I don’t think Dan would like because I have hear him say he doesn’t like definitions. Or at least that’s what I understood. But what exactly is a Christian? It seems like Christians have believed different things at different times. So is there some sort of core to being a Christian. Or is it Christian whatever you want it to be?
I like to know what words mean. Sometimes in order to have conversations with people, you have to understand what words mean to them. I guess it could mean different things for different people and you have to find out what that means for that individual person I don’t know.
Dan, fellow Latter Day Saint here, I have a big question that I don’t think you have ever addressed (to my satisfaction at least (after all NY satisfaction is what’s important)). If you believe the data firmly (or at least generally) point in a direction, and you actively believe and follow something that goes against that, isn’t that just cognitive dissonance? Aren’t you lying to yourself, and by extension in some ways, your audience? I would love a response and some insights on this, thank you.
I think this is kinda the problem of interpreting "Gnosticism" if you run across someone that constantly says things that are in conflict with what it is interpreted when they say what they do believe. It implies some sort of hidden knowledge, because it begs the question, "Why do you believe, if there's so much evidence to the contrary?" The next thing I say is probably going to sound offensive, but it's not intended that way, but it does kinda give Jordan Peterson vibes because it seems that you're abstracting concertation in religion so broadly as to question "meaning" on a meta-level. Such that any question becomes unanswerable about "personal views" because we're gonna spend 100 hours on "what do you mean by X?" You and Peterson both share that hatred of definitions, but you need to accept that, what you're talking about is an idealization. The authors of these religious text were writing to some sort of "truth" that they believed in and could define. So I think your approach may be skewed from the onset. Because you're always gonna end up at your "Image of God" because "God" isn't defined, as you stated. It is a biproduct of the problem that these people can't agree on the definition of what they believe in, not a solution.
I could be wrong, but I'm relatively certain that Dan absolutely accepts that the authors of the Bible had a specific conceptions of what God was and definitions they could make to try to explain what those conceptions entailed. I believe that's kind of the entire point of his "Divine Images" book. He's doing his best to try and reconstruct what THOSE people conceived of as being God or divine and how those categories worked. His point about definitions is just that finding the way those authors conceived of God or the divine does not result in us coming to know the "true" or "correct" reality of what God and the divine is. Hence his quoting of the pretty widely accepted fact that "definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive". To me, the difference between Dan and Jordan Peterson is the Jordan uses the fuzziness of definitions to purposefully blur boundaries, and then try to accuse others of being inconsistent if they don't accept his broad definitions while using those broad definitions to try to support his significantly more specific belief set. Dan, on the other hand, tries to get others to recognize the fuzziness of the definitions they are using as a weapon to exclude, marginalize, or diminish those that they disagree with to try to help break down barriers and increase acceptance of those different from ourselves.
The Wannabe Mormons is the name of my Switchfoot cover band
Followed
You, fellow human, are very funny
@@Salamander_falls why, thank ye!
Moderate depth cut.
😂best comment all day
Gotta love when people seem to think Dan is Schrödinger's Mormon.
It's almost worse. With superpositions you have two states simultaneously (sorta don't @ me physicists).
But here Dan is accused of being Mormon, not Mormon and bad at being Mormon all at the same time. We're gonna need some new physics for this one.
Schrödinger's Mormon 🤣
Did someone fart in here I smell a Bible scholar
@@rainbowkrampushe is a Mormon
It is much simpler than that. "Scholarly Dan" reasons about what the preponderance of "critical scholars" believe or could reasonably be expected to come to believe, with only the most vaporous connection to what is or isn't really true or correct. "Mormon Dan" has simply no interest in any of the above, and actively avoids ever reconciling them.
It's remarkably easy to keep your story straight when you're honest.
Thanks for all you do. I genuinely appreciate your scholarship and presenting the "state of the field" on many of the topics commonly discussed. Just thanks. 🎉
Thanks, Dan. Your videos help me explore my own assumptions and internal biases as an atheist, a socialist, and a secular humanist regarding the way I construct my own cognitive framework or communicate about my understanding of how all this works with all my neighbors.
It's not your focus or the primary intent with your content, I know, but your examination of dogma v/ data in religion has helped me apply similar thoughtfulness to where my own secular/atheist/socialist beliefs and values may rest on dogmas within my communities. I can't be as methodologically rigorous, of course, likely just fumbling with similar tools, but it's still rewarding.
Keep up the good work. Keep up the fun fit checks.
Loved reading every bit of this. Very honest.
i'm not too nietzchean, but the famous moustache once said "every conviction is a prison".
It always makes me irrationally happy when someone uses the idiom “eat your cake and have it too” correctly.
Me too
It certainly is a clearer way of saying that idiom
Is there a valid reason that some people are flipping it? For example, did someone recently popularize an inversion to make some profound point, or just to be clever? Or is it just an ignorant flub because they dont know any better?
@@jonathonpolk3592 the latter. Both versions have been used before and the have/eat version is most common these days. The way Dan uses it here, however, is the most common way it was originally used and makes the most sense, logically.
@@brettandersson3206 But have … eat means the same thing and is funnier and more thought provoking. My grandad (for example) would never say something in a straightforward way if he could find a way of saying it that made your brain hurt, so he'd have no motive to use it in the form the OP considers “correct”. Some people are literal communicators, some people are wordsmiths.
Some people, I grant, are fools.
I love the story of your academic journey!
I appreciate this bearded creator for setting Dan up to summarize his academic history and his motives behind that research. What a fantastic video!
If nothing else, I can say, he's got a pretty magnificent beard.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond to his accusations (since they are not really critiques) instead of pointing out that he's just mimicking your own argumentation. I wish I knew the term for it (I assume there is one) but this sort of Socratic Whataboutism that hopes to catch you in a gatcha is just so annoying. Easily side-stepped when you have the expertise and knowledge to do so, about impossible to avoid when you are just regurgitating other's ideas. That's why it's so popular in the online discourse, since there are so many non-experts simply regurgitating other's ideas. That's a hidden danger when discourse is so open and has so many participants.
"...instead of pointing out that he's just mimicking your own argumentation."
I get *a lot* of push back from atheists when I do that to _them._ They insist that they have no burden of proof because they make "no" claims. Yet, because arguments are comprised of claims, if one is arguing, one is making claims by default. They just may not be making a claim about the (non)existence of a deity, specifically.
Dan might just be my favorite person on youtube
Thank you for your openness and honesty. I love what you do here to the point that I find it hard to listen to anyone else. I feel very informed but also lost, in that I don’t what minister to follow if I need to at all. Maybe just studying in my own with the books and information you provide will be enough.
This is the best 6min video, Dan is so knowledgeable. That knowledge pales to how methodical the foundation built up to this knowledge. Dan is an iceberg of knowledge we only see 10%
I don't think so. I think Dan is well educated and have a strong working memory (I don't mind his moral positions as well, come to think of it).
But the "unseen nintety percent of the iceberg, I think is the scholarly consensus and the scientific method (together with the historical method and a bit of psychology).
That stuff tends to lift ones presentation to lofty heights 😁
But did you see IP owning Dan in logic and wisdom?
@@AgapeSignal "Owning?" Is that the goal of Inspiring Philosophy, to "own" interlocutors?
@@busylivingnotdying no but Dan challenged him and tried to discredit real christian faith... and then he got owned.
@@AgapeSignal I have seen a lot of Dan videos and I have never seen him try to "discredit" anybody. He tend to CRITICIZE interpretations of the Bible that, according to his expert opinion, cannot be surmised FROM the Bible (based on current knowledge of the text and the archeology available).
Inspiring Philosophy engaged with this endevour making claims with the same premises (what you can conclude from the Scriptures based on the evidence available).
They disagree about what conclusions can be made.
Faith is a separate issue altogether. It is presumably GOD who determines which type of Christian faith is "real or genuine," and since the day of judgment, when such a decision would be made, has not yet occurred, perhaps we should leave judgement to him and give each other a break, no?
I think it's hard for lay people to understand and separate Dan's biblical scholarship and what Dan actually believes because he doesn't share his religious belief. It took me a while to understand why Dan does this.
It took me a while to understand as well. After seeing Neil of Gnostic Informant's video, I understand completely. Dan's resistance to admitting to the Hellenistic and classical influences on christianity indicates an apologetic agenda.
@@winter816 Dan has no such resistance. He frequently talks about Hellenistic influence on the Bible. If you mean he doesn't accept whack job conspiracy theories, then you are right.
Could you point to an example of Dan ignoring or denying Hellenistic influences on christianity (or explain what you think the difference is between "Hellenistic influences" and "classical influences)?
@@winter816 He has specifically highlighted the Greco-Roman influence on early Christian beliefs about sexual mores, the afterlife, concepts of divinity, and so on. It comes up a lot, in fact. I think your "understanding" is less complete than you feel like it is
We're all influence by our beliefs - I'm sure Dan is influenced by his Mormonism. But as best I can tell, he does an excellent job minimizing that influence.
I’d really like a video about how your academic arguments do or don’t change your personal beliefs (regardless of what those beliefs are, I don’t think that part’s important).
And, just like that, bingo! The pieces fell into place for me. When I was a fundie/evangelical, the hot take from the pulpit was "Mormons deny the deity of Jesus," and the proof text was John's Gospel 1:1. Listening to both your presentations, as well as Dr. Kipp's videos, this issue has begun to make sense to me. I now better understand the images of God in the Bible. The process of untangling dogma from data is necessary, but at times, it is quite difficult to accomplish. Since I have no academic training in Biblical scholarship, as I listen to actual scholars, I can now see more clearly how and why I was misled by the preachers in my former sect of Christianity. Thank you for this video, Dan!
Dan is so oriented toward logical detail that he flips the saying about cake, so that it makes sense logically.
It makes sense logically either way
To be pedantic, of the earliest known uses of this phrase, more of them have it in the eat/have order, so it's arguable that Dan's usage is MORE correct. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
Spider Dan, Scholar Dan. Taking on a bearded man. What a fun video. Thought I'd stop and say hello. Hey Dan! I love dogs, not dogmas. Cats over catechism. Was Jesus just a maaaaannn?
I sang it in my head, the metre is perfect, 10/10 world read again.
I think you are going to lose some people under a certain age with that diddy. Though I had a friend in junior high who did a version about Mac machines (you know where you get money out) as we had Owl machines where I live also. So the song goes ' mac machine, mac machine does the same as an owl machine. Use your card, take out money, their all the same, it's OK honey, WATCH OUT here comes the mac machine.'😂😂😂😂
@@lde-m8688 we still had an example of that song in the 90s with the Spider-Man game on the PS1/N64, so it might have a little more shelf-life than you think
@kuno3336 maybe. I'm 54 (well, I will be in a few weeks lol) and I remember the original version cause I'm old as dirt
Masterful!
I think many are coming at this from an assumption that Mormonism is inherently orthodox by nature - which entails "right belief." In other words, many Christian sects maintain that you must believe in their dogmas to genuinely identify as "Christian." However, as much as I do value Dan's insights into the Hebrew Bible, I don't personally jive with holding to scholarly positions on one hand while simultaneously going along with the Mormon crowd. Is it a kind of social club for Dan? Fine, but there's likely a ton of other better options available, in my opinion.
If it doesn't influence his scholarship/facilitate bias (which it clearly does not), then who gives a toot? You're not his mom, are you?
@@kvjackal7980 Oh, so I suppose he just magically operates in a scholarly space vacuum without any outside influences. Are you really that obtuse?
@@josephpercy1558 But I could turn that around and point it back at your espousal just as easily. You operate from the position that one cerebral adulterant is superior, but bias is omnipresent for sapient creatures and your suggestion regarding "better options" paints you as far more 'obtuse' than I, does it not?
Btw, I'm an agnostic atheist, so this isn't spiritually motivated. I hear what you're saying, but Dr. Dan has yet to produce or advocate for anything academically unsound (to the contrary, much of his public facing media flies in the face of conventional LDS belief/practice as the data indicate). Thus I feel your angle is a tad hypocritical, friend.
Tbh, it _is_ weird - to me, anyhow. And gave me pause at first. But he's clearly a highly intelligent individual whom doesn't seem likely to be swayed by nonsense, so he must have a good reason (hell, atheist Christians and the like are becoming more and more common). So as long as he continues to adhere to his credo, that reason is really none of my business, y'know? 🤷
Don't take this the wrong way Dan, but I don't give a single winking bat's eyeball about what your personal beliefs are. They don't seem to have an influence on your research, which is what I tune in for. I don't understand how you harmonize your dogma with the data you study, but again - I don't care because it's not getting in your way.
In fact it _is_ getting in his way. Any mention of Jesus being an ahistorical, fictional construction sets him off like nobody's business.
@@Akio-fy7ep maybe because that’s a ridiculous assertion?
I care, but only out of curiosity. I sorta wish he had a separate account where he talked about his personal beliefs, but I understand why he doesn't.
@@Lola839 You interpret evidence based on your paradigm.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai Anything actually ridiculous would not set y'all off. But this one topic does, reliably. _Why is that?_
We know why Ehrman et al. take to giggling: admitting that evidence for existence, by the most generous possible analysis, is at best equivocal would reliably tank their online course enrollment.
This was one of your most interesting videos. I really need to get around to reading your book.
“Wanna be Mormon” 😂😂 that’s too funny.
I expect part of the reason folks latch onto these erroneous and/or twisted accusations is that they have zero idea how to reconcile someone holding a religious faith that is flatly contradicted by all the evidence they present. It's a pipe dream, but I really do wish he would help us out by explaining his ability to have religious convictions, and what that looks like.
I can’t conceive of how it’s reconciled, either. Without meaning any judgment, I am imagining two possibilities. Either (1) he remains Mormon because of family and community. He keeps the traditions while understanding how the religion was a human invention with a mythology; or (2) he continues to still hold a belief system while devoting his life’s work to arguing against many of its tenets daily. The former makes sense to me, but when I see him address these questions he seems to present it as though the latter is no problem at all.
You’re presuming that Dan’s religious faith (an indeed the religious faith of practicing Latter-day Saints) abhors contradiction and cannot abide inconsistency. Why should that be the case?
For the record, I’m a practicing, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My participation is not at all because of social or familial reasons, but because I actually believe it. And yet! I can still enjoy Dan and Bart and others who take a scholarly approach to the texts that I profess faith in. In fact, I have taught courses on the Bible as literature (I’m a former English professor) at a major midwestern state university in which I stated at every class that the Bible is a work of literature and that we would treat it just like we’d treat Shakespeare or Hemingway. For example, when discussing Isaiah and a student would mention Jesus, I would correct them: “This is the Hebrew Bible, and there’s no Jesus here…” When they would talk about the Holy Spirit, I would point out that we don’t have that character in the book until we get to Acts. Etc etc etc
Yet still, in my personal, devotional reading of the Bible I can see Isaiah talking about Jesus all over the place. I can read it BOTH WAYS because I contain multitudes. Can I look at the Bible objectively and say, “yup, there’s no evidence in this text that God in the OT is also Jesus in the NT”? Yes, yes I can because THAT’S WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS. This is not a threat to me. I see that is the case, and I acknowledge it. I can read Isaiah and see evidence of three (3?) authors there, because that’s what the evidence seems to show. These are not threats to me. Why should they be? This is triply true for Mormons.
We don’t have to take the Bible as a perfect document, because we have the Book of Mormon. We don’t even believe that the Book of Mormon is perfect-the text actually admits as much. I don’t think that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Russell M. Nelson are perfect (because, well, obviously). That’s just not the way Mormonism works.
Call it dogma, call it cognitive dissonance, call it what you like. But know this: Latter-day Saints are philosophically very different from Evangelical Christians. And while we’re not perfect at it, and while there are plenty of embarrassing examples to the contrary, our official doctrine holds that intellectual rigor and honesty are important, that asking uncomfortable questions is good, and that doubt is natural. What Dan’s doing feels like a great example of someone who is trying to live as a full, believing Latter-day Saint. No hypocrisy necessary. Dan’s not “arguing against the tenets daily” or Mormonism, but he’s embodying intellectual honesty. And that’s a fine Mormon ideal to uphold.
@@JeffreyWindsor I appreciate the thoughtful response. "You’re presuming that Dan’s religious faith (and indeed the religious faith of practicing Latter-day Saints) abhors contradiction and cannot abide inconsistency." Not quite-I'm saying I don't understand how religious faith can coexist with outright contradiction and inconsistency. It obviously can (since Dan exists), but my upbringing is thoroughly Evangelical, and such philosophies are often incomprehensible. I love the more progressive "yes and" approach to Scripture (which, coincidentally, I find also in Judaism and Catholicism), but I have little way to anchor a conviction without a defensible foundation. I've seen it be a massive struggle in critical, skeptical, and "recovering" Christian spaces.
@@AurorXZ I hear you. My guess is that if your bent is toward pure logic that these things are difficult (impossible?) to reconcile. The nature of faith is not logical and relies on other factors, of which emotion is one but also personal history, convenience, and wishful thinking.
To many skeptics the idea that we would base any decisions on emotion or hope is absurd. I get it. But I also acknowledge that a pure skeptic is a lot like a rational economic agent: they're a myth. We get married, make political decisions, and yes, choose faith based on these things. And marriage (and religion!) makes many people happy. Not everyone, but most people.
For me, the literalist reading of scripture is impossible because of the inconsistencies, but that doesn't destroy my belief exactly because I don't depend on perfect consistency.
Actually, if you want to get into the weeds on Mormon theology and what makes it possible, a lot can be explained by the doctrine of heaven. The way it's typically understood today is that there is no hell. There are only degrees of glory, and basically everyone will self-select based on their level of comfort. There are, as to be expected, blessings that one can receive based on obedience to ordinances and covenants, but no one is condemned. The natural progression of this is that there's a LOT of ambiguity and flexibility here. The "many mansions" language means that you'll get a mansion even if you never become a Mormon, and I'll get one, even though I am.
My favorite Church quote is actually from a Catholic (Sister Corrita Kent! Woohoo!), but has been repeated over the pulpit from LDS leaders so I can now claim that it's ours, too: "In heaven, we believe that all the rules are fair but there will be wonderful surprises."
So, while we are rife with inconsistencies (as humans), there's still room for both logic and faith. We can take down IP's absurd absolutism, we can point out inconsistencies in the text of the Bible and of Church leaders, and still believe.
It’s simply a matter of NOT letting your personal shit get in the way of your scholarship, and an academic integrity.
One of the reasons I love your content is your setting aside of personal beliefs in order to explore what the data shows. I'm an atheist, so don't share faith, but I do share your desire to examine evidence carefully and in context.
I really admire the commitment to making access to the data public. But I would love to see a video about Dan’s religious beliefs I’m just so curious
Dan would be obliged to parrot official LDS doctrine, regardless of his own beliefs, assuming he has even evolved any. Initiative is inherently dangerous, in the much same way that doubting CCP correctness is dangerous in China: cognitive dissonance can trigger fatal errors. A Chinese diplomat can freely explain accurately what Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela believed about good governance, but expressing personal opinions or objective facts about the real world risks being found out of step with currant cant.
Maybe you’re right but I want to believe he’d be honest
@@jameskpolk9137 All brands of Christianity are, as with communism, fundamentally at odds with honesty. Doublethink rules. Dan does astonishingly well, considering. He will be unable to tolerate Jesus mythicism until it passes into the mainstream like Moses mythicism, some decades on.
@@Akio-fy7ep That is pure and utter nonsense.
@@Akio-fy7ep You are definitively wrong.
Hey man I’m a non religious person myself but I’ve been following you for a while and I always respect and appreciate your look on things and how you use logic and common sense to defend your stances when being attacked.
Hello Mr. McClellan, 😀
I am an atheist. And I love your scholarly work. It is spot on. I think it is great that you can keep your personal beliefs separate from your professional work. I recommend your channel all the time. Please keep up the good work. Thank you
That you approach the text with Mormon dogmatic assumptions is definitely not a criticism that can be made of your videos. As I recall, you once said the resurrection isn't a possible explanation of the facts. That's a materialistic presupposition not an LDS one.
it isn't a presupposition it is observed reality
Interesting stuff. Eric Neumann had some interesting on the subject of being and non being in his origin of consciousness as well.
Ha that guy thought he could just use the same phrases Dan uses, against Dan himself. Haha
What he forgot was substance and evidence.
This was actually a really eye opening video, I had no idea your book explores such a fascinating concept about how paradoxical divine images were. I can’t wait to read it.
I'm waiting for the random people from IP's channel to come over and say: "Ha ha IP destroyed you" or something like that.
There's one up above. It's funny. The IP videos were so vicariously embarrassing, IP's performance and argumentation so awkward and ill-conceived, that I had a hard time watching them. It's wild to think someone watched the same thing and thought "Wow this IP guy really took him to the cleaners."
As a former Later-day Saint, I have two observations about creators who criticize Dan's arguments by mentioning his Mormonism.
First, calling attention to Dan's Mormon faith is usually indicative of the weakness of the critic's argument. If the argument were stronger, no mention of Mormonism would be necessary.
Second, anyone who would argue that Dan's scholarly arguments are baised because he is a Latter-day Saint clearly knows little about Mormon doctrine. Dan does an excellent job of analyzing the Bible in a critical, scholarly, and unbiased approach without presupposition of dogma of any kind. This is true even when the scholarly consensus contradicts popular Mormon interpretation.
Dan has made clear on a number of occasions that when he speaks of the scholarly consensus that he is not necessarily stating his personal beliefs. Dan has also made clear both on his social media and in appearances on others' social media that he doesn't discuss his personal beliefs in this public setting.
If you have a problem with Dan's arguments, speak up. But know that bringing up Dan's church affiliation is really an admission that you haven't done your homework or that you expect your audience to share your prejudice against Mormons. Either way, you are deminstrating that you likely have little to contribute to the conversation. I'll still hear you out, but you've already handicapped yourself in the debate.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm no longer LDS, but I'm a total Dan stan.
As a (Former LDS) Mormon, I completely agree!
Might wanna fix your unfortunate typo in the word "Mormons." (I'll delete this comment afterwards!)
@@weebunnymight not be an accident
@@weebunny My bad. Fixed.
I heavily dislike the LDS for claiming Joseph smith was a prophet and their pseudoscience of the golden plates
Heck the American who prophesied the event that happened to Donald Trump back in July was a far more accurate “prophet” than anything Joseph smith did
This was illuminating. I didn't understand that thought process from his book. I don't understand the issue he is trying to resolve, though. The people of the time were probably not up to speed on Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction, and certainly hadn't heard cogito, ergo sum from Descartes; so whether or not they could be both simultaneously wasn't even considered, much less acceptable or unacceptable. It seems to me that to them all for things were the same and weren't the same and that was the obvious way that it would be that no one thought to question.
As an Atheist, I have never encountered a scholar as honest as Dan. I have nothing but loathing for Evangelical apologists. In a lifetime of interacting with Mormon’s and Evangelicals, It’s the Mormon’s who better demonstrate the virtues of Christianity than most Evangelicals that I have encountered.
As an atheist who has seen Mormons move into companies, get onto hiring boards, and then ensure they hire only mormon's and unqualified ones at that, I assure you that Mormons do not demonstrate a single virtue of Christianity, if there is such a thing, whatsoever. Don't mistake niceness with being ethical.
@@hughb5092 loathing is just admission of your own bias.
@@AlexADalton Agreed!! ...I am biased against Evangelicals, they lie about everything, just like I am biased against Felon McFatty and his brainwashed MAGA Cult.
This reminds me of how I kept hearing how Obama was a Muslim, atheist, and a radical Christian from the same crowd.
You can pick one of those at most, not all three.
I'm beginning to think people forgot how to think. It is being done with the causation of The Younger Dryas, Pleistocene / Holocene abrupt transition where everything is correct, The Sun, The Comet, Plasma, Aliens, Planet X, Super Nova pulse, God throwing the snow ball, debauchery, etc. I used to work with a REAL Mormon, anyone who would work in 125 F sunshine all day with clothing under his clothing has to be the real thing. I still often wonder how he put up with my heathenism. Super nice guy all the way around.
Maybe it's like the trinity
Just to confirm Dan's statement about staying impartial dogma-wise
I am only here for the Mythology, a subject I love discussing and dissecting for intellectual pleasure
This page is the only place I have seen where the " Abrahamic Mythology " can be so treated
WITHOUT dogma being slipped in, or have to worry about some true believer yelling about " smiting unbelievers "
Tbf, it's pretty rare to see any smiters.
Usually they're just copy pastaing quote mined Bible passages into the void.
I think that even the most indoctrinated people are self aware enough to know that they're going to look like a pompous fool if they run around on the internet talking about smiting anything. At least, I like to hope that this is the case.
Esoterica is great youtube channel run by a Jewish Scholar who clearly keeps his beliefs outside the academic door. He did at least one session with Dan and there is an excellent video called Who is Yahweh?
I appreciate his work and he is so impressive in his work. His knowledge on the topic is amazing but how you know what Dan knows and remain religious is mind blowing. How does he not suffer from cognitive dissonance? If I knew 20 years ago what he knows now I would have been an atheist a lot sooner.
everyone has cognitive dissonance. we are born as a bundle of conflicting impulses.
Start from the position that people, even inspired ones who have received revelation, are imperfect and their understanding of eternal truth is affected by their personal and cultural biases.
This is more consistent with scripture than the assumption that religious leaders and writers of scripture have a full understanding of divine truth.
@@TheFranchiseCA Precisely.
Even easier when you can realize that the Bible is chock-full of all of the same literary and rhetorical devices as any other literature and accept the fact that just because somebody wrote that down doesn't mean it's an endorsement.
@@TheFranchiseCA Add to this the understanding that language is always insufficient. No text has been nor can be read identically by all the possible audiences. Language can be a blunt object, especially when it’s wielded across more than two thousand years of time. Even if the Bible was univocal (which it clearly isn’t), trying to understand it from here would be a difficult task. Even understanding the person sitting across the table from you requires effort, because language can be messy.
As an atheist or if you will a non-theist (for all those semantic quibblers) I appreciate Dan's compartmentalization of his personal religious beliefs and his research towards the Bible!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Exactly this.
Short back and sides, big long square beard.
It's the mark of the western chauvinist, drawing on both conservative biblical and neo pagan motifs.
It's like holding a big banner with the words, 'I'm about to say something either ignorant or bigoted - or both', written on it in gothic script.
As my mother would say, don't mock the afflicted.
You are being unfair to the "baseball cap, shades and video in a car" crowd.
“Do not harass or report this creator or comment on their appearance or speech”
@@Cornelius135
I don't think that's the spirit of that laudable suggestion. If these folks all had a penchant for wearing white hoods - I think that would be something to comment on.
I will say again that I was only vaguely aware that you are Mormon at all, and that I cannot detect any particular dogma in your videos, but rather a consistency in thought and analysis.
As an ex-Mormon myself, how is Dan still an active member of the Mormon church?
That’s a really great question.
because Latter-day Saints believe in study (data) and faith (dogma). dan presents the data and leaves out his personal dogma. pretty much all Latter-day Saints do this in academic settings and don't have a problem with it. it's only an issue for fundamentalist Christians.
@@sk7ecd that's not what "study and faith"' referred to originally. That's just another dogma to pretend like the data can be postured to fit the dogma. When the data overrules the dogma, why insist on clinging to dogma?
@@jAAbRON you're incorrectly applying the term now. data doesn't overrule dogma if you're dogma allows for data. in latter-day saint theology, data is allowed. in other sects, it largely is not. most other Christians claim that the data informs their dogma (meaning that faith is not required), an idea that the saints do not subscribe to. latter-day saint theology does not pigeon hole dogma into data, or data into dogma. there's a reason why they hold to standard academic methodologies that other Christians openly reject (such as creationism vs. evolution, likelihood of the resurrection, etc.).
@@sk7ecd Mormon dogma does not allow for data. This is one of the reasons I left.
I have read countless Mormon apologetics that pretend to hold to academic standards but they are never published in any reputable journal. The Book of Breathings is extant data that refutes Mormon dogmas of magical translation powers. The clear archaeological line of proto-Olmec to Aztec and Mayan civilizations precludes Book of Mormon history. No Jew in 600 BC believed in baptism or Jesus Christ. These are data that Mormons simply ignore, and that is by definition an anti-science dogma.
It appears Dan has become somewhat of a target for the apologist community.
FWIW, I appreciate what you do.
I seem to remember that Dan has mentioned a video where he talks about his own personal views on religious matters, can anyone point me toward that, if I'm remembering correctly. He's super prolific and I've not been able to find it. The fact that I honestly have no real idea what those positions are, aside from apparently, perhaps, being based in LDS, should tell the doubters that his analysis is pretty darned unbiased and fact-based. (I'm just curious, if anyone is wondering why).
If polytheist trinitarians count how many people/angels were called Gods in the Bible, they will probably end up with 20+ Gods...
And lots of pseudodemons, that never were demons but they were lumped together to form 'the devil'
But they hand-wave that all away for the sake of their dogma. The same can be said for their commonly held views of Satan.
Equivocation/Word concept fallacy. You can do better. The word "god" in the Bible does not just depict the one triune God, it can depict several things like false gods, human judges, etc.
@@ayo123Or real gods, like Chemesh. Or at least the israelites seemed to think it was real.
@@ayo123 Which does not help your trinitarian case.
"Petty and Naive Sectarianism" is a great name for a garage band
This makes me wonder, what is your status in the LDS church? One of the questions that the bishop asks you when being interviewed for a temple recommend is, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Given that you clearly do hold positions that contradict the doctrine as taught by the church, do you have an active recommend?
I don’t know Dan personally, and everything I know about him is from social media exchanges like this and what I’ve read of his scholarship. I have asked that question to many, many people in the past, and (based on what I have seen here) I would have no problem signing off on Dan’s temple recommend.
To say “the data say that X” is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church. That’s just facts.
Dan McClellan is "The Dogma Whisperer".
I appreciate your work so much! I totally agree that the data of scripture alone does not plainly assert the trinity or the divinity of Christ.
That's why we have to take it inward and ask... What if Christ is somehow divine and in unity with the source of everything from the beginning until the end? Then the prayer of oneness begets the theology of "Jesus is God become man, so that man can become God." Not by reaching new knowledge from within duality, but through spiritual surrender and with the guidance of The Holy Spirit (Sophia, Lady Wisdom), we are led to the tree of life that is Jesus Christ. The only "gnostic" truth, as it were, is the experiential reality of the non-dual mystery resting deep in each of our hearts. The character of God is revealed in the lamb slain before the foundation of the cosmos. A love so selfless and unconditional that all fear of death and punishment is cast out, and we are only beloved children of the almighty resting in eternal bliss.
This is obviously not intellectually provable, but I highly encourage all to pursue it. I join in the chorus of witnesses, living and dead, who proclaim it as truth you can experience personally. Even right now, it’s available to all through the divine heart, not the intellectual mind. I have become firmly convinced in my belief in Christ’s divinity and the tri-une Godhead through these personal, mystical encounters with the resurrected Lord. Now I can’t help, but see Jesus struggling to teach it and his followers struggling to accept and convey it, all throughout scripture. The author of Colossians puts it very well - Christ is the image of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation who made all things by, through and for himself... in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell... made peace with all things through the cross... and has revealed the mystery of the ages... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. So, concerning the prayer of oneness in John, I see it as the spiritual ascension of humanity or as the fathers understood it - Theosis. It’s not sola scriptura that gets us there or liturgy or sacraments alone, though they help, but the intense inward seeking of the mystical presence of Christ through the gateway of the cross. It’s through meditating on the union of heaven and earth, flesh and spirit, humanity and divinity in one person, Jesus Christ.
Thanks again for your academic rigor and open sharing of your findings! All things will come to light and the truth will set us free!
Peace and love to you.
Hi Dan please make a video about the Sabbath and the law and his validity or abolition :)
Anyone else notice how the other person used a lot of Dan-esque phrases? "Gin up", talking about proving what is "not impossible" (like how Dan talks about apologetics), etc.? It is fun to watch.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!
Eat its cake and have it, too... well done.
Thats what I love about Dan the Data Dude, he proves all over the place that we cares above all about the facts and the data, and thats what makes him so trustworthy.. He simply shares what most scholars agree on, even if it does contradict his own faith, and to me that is a good thing, because thats how truth seekers should act.. In a way the Bible agrees, since it states that God is truth, and that we shall seek after truth.. so, great job and weak attack by the dude with the bigger beard, but the lesser wisdom
Hi Dan McClellan. Concerning your comments about Christ being both the Deity and not the Deity (the Divine Image). Couldn't this ALSO apply to the elohim (gods) in Psalms 82? What I am thinking here is that those who would argue that these elohim are actually human judges and not truly gods but yet people like the late Michael Heiser would argue that these elohim are actually divine beings. I'm wondering, if it's possible that they were more like Christ in that they were actually human judges who also bore the divine image and were thus seen (in their divine role as judges over Israel) as elohim or "sons of God". Jesus Christ being our template or guide in understanding that the elohim in Psalms 82 held dualistic roles that can be both human and divine, thus allowing for an interpretation where they are both human judges who bore the divine image and therefore could die like men (Psalms 82:6-7). Thoughts?
Your talk of Divine images reminded me of the Elder Scrolls. YHWH is like the missing god, Lorkhan, and Jesus was like Tiber Septim, trying to achieve CHIM by mantling him. 😁
Re: divine images: Have you considered thinking about this is relation to theater? I've been playing with this idea over the last 6 years or so(?), in response to the problem of parasociability online and the cognitive behaviors around "fame" it accentuates, that humans have a particular instinctive class of "real but NOT real" ppl that they can slot ppl into that's specifically for fictive agents; the panther that MIGHT be that sound in the bushes, the spirit of this tree providing me with fruit and shade, the person who makes it rain, made-up ppl in a story they're telling around the campfire, "Oedipus" who the actor is embodying on stage. Idk this idea just seemed close to what you're talking about leading up to the 4min mark ^v^ ^v^
I thought only Americans were conditioned to have a low opinion of knowledge, education and scholarship. 🤣
We aren't the only ones, of course, although we have perfected it.
Duetero-Isaiah, have you ever created a video explaining what that means?
If you can’t make an argument, you pick a fight. Kids, literally, learn this.
Wild that his entire word salad is stuff Dan has shown other creators to have done.
This hilarious Uno Reverse card is all these people have. They don’t even under stand the arguments. It’s just NO U.
Children and their fee fees.
i like that he's even trying to copy the way you talk lol, "ginning up" and things like that to try to sound like he's actually on the same level hahaha. ppl should try doing any amount of actual research if they wanna talk abt scholarly topics with scholars!
Thanks Dan. ❤
JaMarcus Russell was a Raider and a bad Raider at that. Drafted as the first overall pick in the 2007 NFL Draft, he had a disappointing career with the team due to poor performance, work ethic issues, and struggles with weight and fitness. His tenure with the Raiders is frequently considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. And the Raiders aren't even a real football team.
It’s like Sam shamoun calling Dan an Arian just because he dosent believe in the trinity
This creator deserves a trophy for his beard and if that isn't interesting enough his accent is so delicious!!
Your academic positions play no role in my religious beliefs either Dan. Thank you!
I am an atheist. As an atheist I have found that I respect what Dan is doing and he has not given me any reason to doubt anything he has said in the videos I have watched so far.
I came to just see the fit but left feeling glad to not be religious
So far I have been loving your videos; I may just need a bit to process how you see Jesus Himself.
For the love of sanity. 🤣
He was who he said he was "the second person of the trinity".
When did Jesus ever use that language?
So bizarre that somehow that creator is trying to smear with a framing device that actually makes me (and probably others) respect you more.
Is this the great awakening?
I’ve noticed Dan’s critics keep peppering in “dogma,” and this creator is aping him by saying he’s trying to “gin up” excuses that are “not impossible.” These types never hear what he actually says, and just want to steal what they think is good argumentative rhetoric.
Did you notice how another one of these creators is swiping Dan's style? Imitation and all that, Dan. 😁
Well I may be grasping at straws here but the riddle might be found in the "Shama" Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The idea that Jesus was respecting the law which unified all?
I would love a layman's guide to how cognitive linguistics and the cognitive language of religion have affected your understanding of faith generally.
This is really weird. The guy even uses Dan's own familiar phrases to make these weird accusations!
How many tshirts do you own?
He did a catalogue video maybe a month ago, and had about 80.
Somewhere between too many on the low end, with an upper bound of not enough.
and Jehovahs witnesses agree with Bart Erman as a premise
I'm going to the store to get some popcorn, salt then butter, and some ice cold jelly 🥥. 🕶️#illbeback to the comments section. ⚖️
the question i return to, time and time again is...dan, WHAT is the impetus for these dogmas lodged not only against you BUT critical biblical scholarship ACTUALLY doing? Like, WHO watches these videos attempting to flag your content? what is this audience?
I love watching your videos for the critical studies and wit but I can't help but feel the ever-present tug of reactionary media pulling at my soul. have people like these (who try and make up shit about you and your breadth of knowledge) EVER actually change their mind?
They're just saying you're a walking contradiction and you don't like that...Mr theosebeia
What do you feed your dogmas? I hope lamb and rice!
it's as if he took all of your criticisms of other creators & turned them all on you, which makes no sense
Dang, Dan, you’re just super complex. 😂 Maybe in future, we just don’t respond to people in overalls…
Are you folks just protesting razor companies?
I imagine it must be tedious to constantly have to rebuke ad hominem attacks. I can understand why you do it, but it can't be fun. Do you ever feel a bit like Sisyphus?
What is the accent of the guy with the epic beard? He sounds Finnish.
It's hard to take this creator seriously. Sounds a lot like "I know you are but what am I?"
It sounds like a parody tbh.
Come on, that guy is so profoundly mistaken about Dan, it's so cringe. I never lived in the US but I still know what the LDS believe, Dan never involves any of the LDS dogmas in his research, these accusation are ridiculous.
Is he going to give any examples of his accusations?
Thank you
There is a channel called Esoterica ran by a Jewish Scholar and he did an excellent video on Who is Yahweh?
He made the statement then when you step into the academic stage, you leave your faith outside the door otherwise "When we allow our faith to dictate history, we really just betrayed both".
I know that the Dogmas of my faith are - at face value - at odds with the data. Is it an issue? Not really. I can see where the dogmas came from and where they are probably moving too. Most have no real impact on our daily lives. Others work well only within certain context. Just as Newton's laws work up to a point before Einstein's relativity needs to kick in.
I do feel though - that social media has become far too focused proving god exists, encouraging people to do or think stupid things, justifying acts or rhetoric "because the bible says so".
Yesterday I saw a post by someone saying "IF god told me to me to kill 1000 kids, I would do it because I have faith". That is clearly an apologetic "everything that god commands id good" dogma going wayyyyyy too far.
So this needs to be reeled in by recognizing that this is just a dogma, people should not go over board with it, especially when the data says it's bloody wrong to do so.
IF you accept god exists then god clearly gave us an intellect to think otherwise he would have created robots if he just needed people to follow commands! (and some of the angels in the bible really do sound like robots to modern eyes).
Oh man... this creator citing John as though that supports his own dogma is kinda sad. _The data_ is that John says _some of_ what he said, and _also_ says that Jesus is less than the god of the New Testament, is not speaking with his own authority, is not conveying a message that belongs to him, and is only "god" in a way that everyone else can be as well. So his performative parody of Dan in talking about "ginning up" some "not impossible" is a pretty hard faceplant as an argument.
I have a question that I don’t think Dan would like because I have hear him say he doesn’t like definitions. Or at least that’s what I understood.
But what exactly is a Christian?
It seems like Christians have believed different things at different times. So is there some sort of core to being a Christian. Or is it Christian whatever you want it to be?
Why does it matter?
I like to know what words mean. Sometimes in order to have conversations with people, you have to understand what words mean to them. I guess it could mean different things for different people and you have to find out what that means for that individual person I don’t know.
What’s the purpose of words if they don’t have meanings or definitions?
What is the history of the word Christian. When did it first come into being? What did it mean then? What does it mean now?
And who gets to define the meaning of a word?
Dan, fellow Latter Day Saint here, I have a big question that I don’t think you have ever addressed (to my satisfaction at least (after all NY satisfaction is what’s important)). If you believe the data firmly (or at least generally) point in a direction, and you actively believe and follow something that goes against that, isn’t that just cognitive dissonance? Aren’t you lying to yourself, and by extension in some ways, your audience?
I would love a response and some insights on this, thank you.
This is way too difficult for this creator. When you live in a dogmatic universe, it’s very difficult to see nuances
I think this is kinda the problem of interpreting "Gnosticism" if you run across someone that constantly says things that are in conflict with what it is interpreted when they say what they do believe. It implies some sort of hidden knowledge, because it begs the question, "Why do you believe, if there's so much evidence to the contrary?" The next thing I say is probably going to sound offensive, but it's not intended that way, but it does kinda give Jordan Peterson vibes because it seems that you're abstracting concertation in religion so broadly as to question "meaning" on a meta-level. Such that any question becomes unanswerable about "personal views" because we're gonna spend 100 hours on "what do you mean by X?"
You and Peterson both share that hatred of definitions, but you need to accept that, what you're talking about is an idealization. The authors of these religious text were writing to some sort of "truth" that they believed in and could define. So I think your approach may be skewed from the onset. Because you're always gonna end up at your "Image of God" because "God" isn't defined, as you stated. It is a biproduct of the problem that these people can't agree on the definition of what they believe in, not a solution.
I could be wrong, but I'm relatively certain that Dan absolutely accepts that the authors of the Bible had a specific conceptions of what God was and definitions they could make to try to explain what those conceptions entailed. I believe that's kind of the entire point of his "Divine Images" book. He's doing his best to try and reconstruct what THOSE people conceived of as being God or divine and how those categories worked. His point about definitions is just that finding the way those authors conceived of God or the divine does not result in us coming to know the "true" or "correct" reality of what God and the divine is. Hence his quoting of the pretty widely accepted fact that "definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive".
To me, the difference between Dan and Jordan Peterson is the Jordan uses the fuzziness of definitions to purposefully blur boundaries, and then try to accuse others of being inconsistent if they don't accept his broad definitions while using those broad definitions to try to support his significantly more specific belief set. Dan, on the other hand, tries to get others to recognize the fuzziness of the definitions they are using as a weapon to exclude, marginalize, or diminish those that they disagree with to try to help break down barriers and increase acceptance of those different from ourselves.