DonExodus2 is a YouTube user who does a lot of evolution videos. They’re pretty good stuff, and I heard about his videos via thunderf00t (who created the “Why People Laugh at Creationists” series). Recently, he posted a video about why he’s a Christian. In the evolution battle, I think it’s important to have Christians on the side of evolution because it’s too easy for Christians to dismiss atheists who make arguments for evolution. They can simply say, “Well, evolution is a required part of their non-belief in God, so they’re exaggerating the support that evolution has” – and avoid serious thought on the subject. While his evolution videos are pretty good, his reasoning wasn’t very persuasive when it came to Christianity. Maybe I should just ignore his unpersuasive pro-Christian arguments rather than raise questions about the theistic evolution position. The theistic evolutionists seem to get hit from both sides: the atheists don’t really like their theism, and the creationists (ranging from young earth creationists to old-earth/common-descent IDists) accuse them of undermining evidence for God.
I’m also amazed by the degree to which people can argue the science side decently, but then put forward weak arguments in other subjects (the existence of God). You would sort of think that their thought-process would identify and eliminate their weak ideas when they can’t form a decent argument in favor of them. But, maybe everyone has their pet-ideas that undergo less scrutiny than their other ideas. I was also interested to see how a theistic evolutionist deals with Old Testament stories which they don’t believe actually happened. (My own background was being raised by young-earth creationist parents, so I know their viewpoint: the Bible is literally true back to the six-day creation, and any science that contradicts that view is wrong.)
Belief versus Knowledge – 1:20-2:20
He makes the argument that belief and knowledge are different, but “extremely related things”. I actually agree with him on this point – belief and knowing are both part of one continuum. We might say that our certainty about a particular idea ranges from 0 to 100. 0 means “we know it isn’t true”. 100 means “we know it’s true”. The only thing I that I absolutely know for certain is “I think, therefore, I am”. Everything else – including the reality of the external world – is less than 100. What we call “knowing” might correspond to ideas in the range of 0-5 (know it’s not true) and 95-100 (we know it is true). “Belief” appears in the middle area. The problem is that religious apologists will paint this picture of belief and knowledge being next-door neighbors separated by some hair-thin line, and then ask why two things can be a hair’s breadth apart (say, a 94 and a 95) can be considered to very different things. Effectively, they want to create the illusion of belief and knowledge to be nearly the same thing. That might be true in the case of a 94 and a 95. The problem is that many religious apologists will perform the magic trick of trying to take something that is uncertain (say a 40 or a 70) and create the illusion that it is no different than something that’s a 95 – because belief and knowledge are “nearly the same thing”. It’s a kind of rhetorical magic trick.
Evidence for God – 2:20-3:55
There are many things that cannot be tested empirically, does that mean that it’s wrong? No. And belief in God is exactly one of those things. The nature of God is something which by very definition cannot be tested empirically. So are things like whether or not you love someone, or your personality….
A couple problems with this. First, atheists do not attempt to answer the question of whether God exists simply by using the tools of science. Atheists are not using a null-hypothesis for God, finding no evidence to gather and than deciding there is no God. Second, if we assume an interventionalist God (as described in the Bible), then God would have an effect on the world, and that effect is (by definition) measurable. There are plenty of studies done on the effectiveness of prayer and meditation. They have no effect. Now, you can always say that God didn’t intervene in that particular case, but the statement that “The nature of God is something which by very definition cannot be tested empirically.” is clearly untrue. It might be the case that your particular God cannot be tested empirically, but the “nature of God” certainly does not rule-out the possibility of testing. I can think of plenty of tests (prophecy, miracles, appearing as a pillar or fire – as in the book of Exodus, Jesus could still be walking around the earth preaching 2000 years after his crucifixion, etc) that would validate God’s existence. And, since DonExodus2 is part of the Creation-Evolution debate, I could also add that it’s theoretically possible for there to be ample evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. What if nothing carbon-dated to more than 6,000 years? What if there were no fossils of any ancient animals? What if Noah’s Ark was found on Mt.Ararat? And what if we discovered that humans all descended from a single family who lived in 2250 B.C.? What if angels and ghosts were as obvious as the existence of birds in the sky? What if you could talk to loved-ones after their death (and not in that sham-medium way), but as easily as you talked to them when they were alive, and they validated the existence of God, angels, and heaven? There are lots and lots of things that *could* be true about the world, and would work to validate the Bible and God’s existence, but the evidence for the existence of God (both in the present and the past) seems to be as elusive as evidence for aliens, bigfoot, the loch-ness monster, etc. It’s true that a lack of evidence can’t allow you to say that God or bigfoot doesn’t exist, but DonExodus2 is wrong in saying that God is inherently outside the possibility of scientific examination.
Another reason why I personally believe in God is due to personal experiences. Which leads to the discussion about subjective versus objective evidence. For example, hypothetically, if I saw Jesus appear to me last Tuesday and bring me a milkshake, I would be a fool not to take that into account when evaluating whether or not Jesus really exists. On the other hand, it wouldn’t do very much for you, which is why it’s subjective evidence. And subjective evidence is exactly what can make one person’s view of something rational while another person’s perhaps not. And, that’s personally, one of my reasons for believing in God.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t tell us what this subjective evidence is. Further, I would think that people all over the world with a variety of religious beliefs have this subjective evidence as well. Although, their evidence (like Christians) is due to coincidence, confirmation-bias, misunderstanding, etc. I sometimes wonder about theists who win the lottery. My guess is that many, many lottery winners attribute their win to God. I’m unsure how someone would even go about talking them out of the idea that God caused them to win. Afterall, winning the lottery is absurdly unlikely. Of course, even in a godless world, someone would occasionally win the lottery – and those wins would have nothing to do with God. My point is simply this: even if DonExodus2 had subjective evidence as “solid” and unlikely as winning the lottery, it’s not necessarily good evidence – even if he thinks it is.
The second thing would be .. the supernatural. I believe in things like ghosts and that… I believe that 99% of all ghost encounters and things like that – “miracles” – are absolutely garbage. They didn’t happen. But I simply believe that it is much more likely that just one, just one, of the billions of independent encounters of ghosts and things like that since the beginning of recorded history – it’s more likely that just one is accurate than that they’re all wrong… the existence of ghosts and stuff like that would be indicative of a soul … and that would necessitate a supreme being.
I really don’t follow his thinking on the idea that it’s more likely that one ghost story is true versus all being false. If 99% are false, then an additional 1% doesn’t seem like much of a stretch. Is he saying that whenever there are a lot of reports about a particular phenomena, that some of them are bound to be true? For example, there are lots of reports of UFOs, bigfoot, loch ness monster, fairies – does that mean some of those reports true, and we should accept the existence of UFOs, bigfoot, loch ness monster, fairies, or any other popular cultural myths? What about Muslim and Hindu miracles? There are plenty of reports, does that mean some miracles are true? My only guess is that he starts from two premises: ghosts and miracles are possible + there are lots of reports of ghosts and miracles = some reports probably are true. (Which then creates a feedback loop: some reports probably are true, therefore, ghosts and miracles are possible.) My own opinion is that you can’t take the mass of reports as indicative of anything. Nail down one good ‘ghost’ report, and then you can conclude that ghosts exist.
Now on to evolution and why Christianity and evolution are not in conflict… [the numerous authors of the first five books of the Bible, and their different perceptions of God] all testifies to Genesis being best taken allegorically. Another thing, is that something can be allegorically true, without being literally true… Original sin is still a useful allegory because it explains to simple minds and primitive people why we’re [still?] here, an example that will suffice until science can come around because, but keep in mind that primitive minds can’t and could not accept descent with modification and most primitive minds still can’t, the second thing that is does is … it explains our sinful nature … as a result, we need to pay for those [bad] things, and be forgiven, and be saved.
Well, I’m sure the young earth creationists will love the label of “primitive minds”. I would add that it’s Genesis that is holding them down, because people insist on theological teachings over scientific teachings. Ready to hear something crazy? My dad was a science teacher for three decades and a young-earth creationist the whole time. How did he do it? The Bible was the final say on everything – afterall, it was the literal word of God, and that means it automatically supercedes any possible scientific evidence. There is literally no possible evidence that could overturn something written in the Bible – that would be the equivalent of proving God to be a liar. (And, just to make sure he doesn’t experience cognitive dissonance, there are plenty of young-earth creationists groups who are willing to tell him exactly what he wants to hear: that evolution is a total sham.) Does he have a “primitive mind”? I don’t think so. His beliefs are based on a commitment to the Bible – and I think smart people believe in young-earth creationism due to a religious commitment. If Genesis had an evolutionary story rather than a six-day creation story set in 4000 B.C., I don’t think they’d have a problem accepting evolution.
But, regarding DonExodus’ arguments, I see several problems. First, “original sin” doesn’t appear in the Bible until the New Testament. Jews don’t believe in original sin, and it is certainly never talked about in the Old Testament. Are we supposed to believe that early Christians (around the first century AD) had more primitive minds than the early Jews hearing about Judaism for the first time (a millenia earlier?) But, let’s ignore the 1st century Christian idea of “original sin”, and consider the Genesis story. The ancient Greeks played with some ideas involving spontaneous generation of lifeforms centuries before Jesus was born (though, admittedly, centuries after Genesis was written). The ancient Hindus also believed that the universe was *extremely* old. So, this provides another counterexample to the idea that humans needed some super-simplistic young-earth explanation because their minds weren’t capable of understanding it. To take DonExodus’ view, means accepting the idea that God had to talk-down to humans two or three thousand years ago, giving them an oversimplistic explanation of human origins. Even back then, humans were pretty smart, and they could’ve accepted an evolutionary-like explanation. Further, wasn’t the Bible supposed to enlighten the minds of those ancient people? Instead, it codifies a young-earth creationist viewpoint, and now we’re fighting about it several millenia later? Regarding the idea of “sin” as an explanation of the need for forgiveness, I don’t buy that either. You can talk about sin, imperfection, and the need for salvation/forgiveness without talking about Adam and Eve. In fact, Muslims have this kind of system. They don’t believe in original sin, but they do believe in “falling short of the glory of God” (to quote from the New Testament). In fact, “original sin” was never a big concept when I was growing up (in a Christian household). Rather, it was always emphasized that my individual, personal sin generated the need for salvation and forgiveness. (Something reinforced by Jesus when he said, ‘If you even look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have sinned and need forgiveness’.) All of this means one thing: the Genesis story is entirely unnecessary for the purposes of establishing “original sin” (a first century Christian idea), or the need for forgiveness/salvation (doesn’t the fact that no one perfectly follows the 10 commandments establish that?).
It’s also important before we begin this to preface this by saying, “Don’t quote-mine”. And that’s very important because both sides do it, too. For example, Sam Harris at idea-center did an awful, awful, awful, really shoddily -researched talk where the entire [premise] of his discussion and the entire point that his thing was based on was a quote-mine from Luke in which Jesus is saying, where he said that Jesus said, “bring any non-believer before me and slay him at my feet”.
Well, I’m not sure what Sam Harris’ main point was, but DonExodus’s explanation of Luke 19 didn’t really do it justice. In the parable, God is obviously the ruler. The part about “slaying unbelievers” isn’t telling Christians to slay unbelievers. (If Sam Harris’ point was that Christianity tells believers to kill unbelievers, that’s incorrect.) However, it is a description of what will happen to unbelievers when Jesus returns – he will have the unbelievers killed. DonExodus’ explanation makes it sound like Jesus does not approve of the actions of the ruler. In reality, Jesus is the ruler, and he’s talking about his relationship to the believers, and what he will do to the unbelievers at some point in the future. Here’s a quick excerpt of the story (Luke 19):
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
It’s pretty clear from the context that Jesus is the ruler who is going to ‘go away’, and then return. That would also make him the ruler who will say, “those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me”.
Another commonly quote-mined verse is Isiah 13:16 where it says “their infants will be dashed to pieces”… and people often attribute that as God saying that, but that’s not the case whatsoever
Regarding the Isaiah 13 verse (“Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.” Isaiah 13:16), which DonExodus’ claims is quote-mining, it’s true that they are the words of an oracle, but the chapter makes it appear as if the oracle is delivering God’s message, and it’s not clear whether the oracle’s words were or weren’t authorized by God. I think a case could be made either way. I wouldn’t use that verse as being “God’s definitive words according to the Bible”, but I don’t accept the “quote-mine” allegation because that implies deliberate lying. (Link to Isaiah 13) Whether Christians have to accept it as God’s message (versus the oracle’s ignorant ramblings) – that’s debatable, but claiming it’s God’s message does not require lying. I would also add that some Christian apologists have used Isaiah 13 as an example of a fulfilled divine prophecy. So, Isaiah 13 is ‘just an oracle’s ranting’ when Christians want it to be, and it’s a fulfilled divine prophecy which validates the Bible when other Christians want it to be. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse atheists of ‘dishonestly’ claiming Isaiah 13 is God’s message when Christians are also claiming it as God’s message.
Additionally, killing babies is certainly not out of character for the Old Testament God. Afterall, God killed all the firstborn of Egypt, he authorized killing all the men, women and children during the invasion of Canaan, so I don’t know why DonExodus suddenly has a problem with the idea that God would authorize killing the infants of Babylon. Maybe he denies that God authorized any of the Old Testament killings. (And, actually, DonExodus does make this argument later.)
.. Many of those things in tradition they were just passed down as oral stories, they were passed down orally. They weren’t written down, for most of the Old Testament for several millenia, and you have to keep in mind what exactly that does. Over a period of time that long, anyone who has ever played telephone will tell you that the story can change quite a bit during that time. The gospels, on the hand, which aren’t to be take allegorically, were written, or were compiled as early as 10 years after Jesus’ death… [That] answers two things: what is literal, and why are there horrible things in the Bible.
He talks about oral tradition for “several millenia”, but there’s no way it was several millenia. Moses (who did not write the Bible) would’ve lived around 1300-1200 B.C. The Plagues of Egypt (including killing the first-born) would’ve happened around 1300 B.C. The invasion of Canaan (and divine commands to wipe out nine different groups of people there) would’ve happened around 1200 B.C. (although, some divine commands to wipe-out neighboring tribes happened much later). Earlier, he talked about authors of the Bible around 850 B.C. The dead sea-scrolls have large parts of the Old Testament carbon-dated to around 200 B.C. – and it was certainly written-down centuries before that. But, I’ll pretend he said “passed down orally for several centuries” rather than “several millenia”. Second, he doesn’t explain why stories from oral tradition are supposed to be taken allegorically, rather than literally. Is oral tradition simply incapable of transmitting literal stories (of course not). How did oral tradition end up with a simple little six-day creation story? Are we supposed to think that God gave the Jews an evolutionary story, and the oral tradition completely morphed it into an allegorical story about Adam and Eve, and an entire ancestral line of “begats”? Heck, even the New Testament claims to trace Jesus’ lineage back through King David, Abraham, Noah, and all the way back to Adam. I have a hard time believing that the lineage in Luke 3:23-38 is supposed to be literal for a few generations, and become entirely mythological as you get back to Adam.
Regarding the corruption of the Bible due to oral tradition, I think cultures that depended on oral tradition tended to take it a bit more seriously than a game of telephone. I’m also doubtful about how much oral tradition could’ve corrupted the “real story”. I mean, there are mass killings in the Old Testament. It seems unlikely that the real story was “help your neighbors”, and that was accidentally turned into “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.” (Numbers 31:17) after a few centuries. The other problem is that the Bible is the way human beings would understand God and who he is. If it is corrupted, then God should make an effort to set the record straight. And given that “God” is an all-powerful, omniscient creator of the universe, there are plenty of ways to do that: he could talk to human beings, he could send angels, he could create a book and deliver it to humans. Afterall, this is the same God who (supposedly) talked through a burning bush, created the Ten Commandments, sent angels to proclaim Jesus’ birth, and stopped Paul on the road to Damascus and asked him, “Why are you persecuting me?” In fact, in the next section, DonExodus will say that he doesn’t think God speaks “with this billowing voice from the clouds”. But, Matthew 3:17 claims that’s exactly what God did: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'” So, it’s inconsistent to say that God couldn’t have set the record straight when he apparently does speak to human beings.
The fourth thing is: why are there so many horrible things in the Bible? And again, historical interpretation of the Bible is very important in understanding that. And there are a couple reasons. For one, our view of God has changed in the past 3,000 years. We know more about God now than we did 3,000 years ago, and I don’t think could really argue that. … Well, what’s often said and what’s understood can be two different things. I don’t believe personally that God speaks with this billowing voice from the clouds, and it’s very clear. So, what could be conveyed and what could be understood and acted upon are two different things.
I don’t entirely follow his reasoning here. He seems to be arguing that human’s view of God changed, and, so, the reason there are atrocities in the early part of the Bible is that the Biblical authors misunderstood God and falsely attributed actions (plagues of Egypt) and commands (kill the people of Canaan) to God that God never did or commanded. The problems with this argument are, again, that God should be capable of communicating his desires and actions. DonExodus seems to act as if God is speaking to humans with two tin cans connected by a string. In reality, I expect God to be more capable of communicating his desires than the most accomplished human speaker. And, God can also make sure the writers of the Old Testament get things written down accurately – afterall, if the Bible is “God’s word”, I would expect that He has a very strong interest in making sure things get written down accurately, and that He is portrayed accurately to future generations.
In fact, I remember having this same discussion with a woman who was a Christian. She didn’t like the “wives submit to your husbands” section of the New Testament, and argued that the New Testament authors got it wrong. I made the same argument to her: if this is “God’s word”, then He should have a strong interest in making sure no human corruptions are added – thus foisting bad teachings on the next two thousand years of Christian believers. Of course, my actual point was that the New Testament was not written by God, but reflected some views and culture of the New Testament authors.
This also reveals a problem – why you interpret which sections are corrupted and which are “God’s word”, you can end up cherry-picking to construct a theology that suits your personal views. Don’t like the atrocities of the Old Testament? Easy: they’re corruptions. Don’t like “wives submit to your husbands”? It’s a corruption. Don’t like Biblical teachings about homosexuals? It’s a corruption. If the Bible was the word of God and it contained corruptions, then God could hardly blame people for subjectively deciding which sections of the Bible to ignore. But, once people start ignoring certain sections, there will always be people who will ignore parts they shouldn’t, and pay attention to corruptions that they should ignore. All of this strengthens the impetus for God to make sure the Bible is accurate.
Why Jesus? … I have the attitude that … It’s better to embrace reality, regardless of how cruel, than persist in a delusion, regardless of how tingly and warm it makes us feel. And let me start by saying Christianity does not give me the warm fuzzies whatsoever. So, that’s nothing with my motivation.
Okay. Remember this quote because it will come back to haunt DonExodus in a minute.
Why do I believe in Jesus? One is that the apostles died for what they believed, and they directly knew Jesus. And there are a couple possibilities as to why they would do that. One would be that they were lying, but that’s not really probable simply because most people aren’t willing to die for something that they know is a lie. They could simply be delusional, which I would discount based on a couple things, one being I Corinthians 15, in which Paul [says that five hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus].
First of all, the fate of the twelve apostles is not entirely known. About half of them disappear from the New Testament after the first chapter of Acts. I talk about this while reviewing Strobel’s book (search for “few weeks after the crucifixion” in this post). Maybe they believed Jesus rose from the dead, maybe that’s simply a fiction included in the gospels. They don’t necessarily have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus or in any miracles in order to risk their lives for Christianity. Many, many people come to believe that their cult leader is God. In fact, there’s an interesting interview I had read of a former Waco/David-Koresh follower. He left the compound about a month before the siege. Obviously, he’s no longer a believer, right? Wrong. He seemed racked by the fear that David Koresh was God, and he missed his one opportunity to go to heaven. This is a guy who knew David Koresh, and continued to believe after his death. When you read Jesus’ writings, it has lots of parables about faith, maintaining belief, and the result of ‘falling away’. For example: the parable of the bridegrooms in Matthew 25 is about the importance of the believers maintaining their faith. This could easily cause many of Jesus’ disciples to devote their lives to being ‘good servants’ – even if Jesus never did a single miracle, and never rose from the dead. It’s incorrect to assert that they wouldn’t have risked their lives for Christianity unless Jesus actually rose from the dead. And, on that topic, here’s an transcript of an interview with one of David Koresh’ surviving followers:
Narrator: Although most of the followers of David Koresh are now dead, the story is not over. Some of his disciples survive & remain fanatically devoted. This worries authorities. Rick Kirkham found one woman living in California who is holding on to Koresh.
Karen: We were driving along & we had the radio on when we heard that the ATF decided to go in & start punching holes & whatever.
Narrator: When government agents began their assault on the compound in Waco, Karen Doyle was not there. She & a handful of other followers were returning home to California after celebrating Passover outside the compound.
This house in LaVerne, California, was once the home of David Koresh; in fact, three of his followers still live here. It is the only property left in the Koresh holdings. And ironically, one member who still lives here, Karen Doyle, says she would have rather been at the compound at the time that it burnt to the ground than here. She contends that those who died in the fire along with David were the lucky ones.
Karen: I wish I had been there from the very beginning. My wishes were that I was inside with the rest of my friends & family.
Interviewer: You wish you had been in the compound when it burnt to the ground?
Karen: Yes, I do.
Interviewer: You would have burned to death!
Karen: I suppose I would have, but you know, we don’t look at physically losing this body as a tragedy or….
Interviewer: Your sister perished!
Karen: So to speak, yes.
Interviewer: Are you sad by that?
Karen: No, I’m very happy for her. I mean, I know I will see her again. So….
Interviewer: What about the 17 children?–These young kids who were inside the compound who perished in this horrible fire, how do you feel about them?
Karen: I’m very happy for them. I know that I will see everyone again. It’s not a matter of your own sadness or anything like that, because I have faith & I know that God has everything in control, & I’m just very happy for them.
Regarding Paul’s (I Corinthians 15) claim that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, well, I’ve seen this interpreted by Christians as, “Paul wouldn’t make such a bold claim unless he could back it up – there must’ve been 500 people who saw Jesus.” First of all, Paul never says who these 500 people were, so it would’ve been difficult for anyone to verify. Second, I highly doubt any of the Christians would’ve pressed Paul on the issue. Third, was Paul simply repeating a rumor he’d recently heard? Was the rumor later denied by the very people who supposedly saw Jesus? Fourth, it’s not entirely clear what happened when these supposed 500 people saw Jesus. Did a bunch of Christians see a man dressed in white appear mysteriously on a hilltop, and they jumped to the conclusion that it was Jesus? Maybe 500 people were outside, and some of them declared that it “must’ve been Jesus appearing above them on the hilltop”. Others might’ve been unsure about the idea. But, the ones who “know” that they “saw Jesus” told everyone about it. Now, “all 500” had “seen Jesus” (even if some of them were doubtful about the claim). Then, the rumor gets passed around between the different Christian communities and becomes “fact”, and all the questionable details get left out because everyone wants to believe and everyone wants to tell a nice little faith-confirming story. (I actually know of several cases where Christians have exaggerated details because that’s what the audience wants to hear. Heck, Paul could very well be doing the exaggerating in order to buttress the faith of Christians in Corinth.) I have no doubt a bunch of believers could talk themselves into that. And once it’s “established fact”, well, no one would be able to deny it. Because Paul gives us no details, we’re in a very bad position to actually evaluate the situation. I would also add that I don’t believe in other mass-sightings of religious figures. For example, I think the Our Lady of Fatima appearance was a result of mass-hysteria, suggestion, expectation, dehydration, and exaggeration.
But, lastly, I believe in Jesus because if you live your life truly according to the gospels, two things will happen: One, you’ll be a happier person. And, two, the world will be a better place…
Remember that quote I told you to remember back in 7:50-8:35, where he says it’s better to embrace a hard truth than a nice fiction, and then added, “Christianity does not give me the warm fuzzies whatsoever. So, that’s nothing with my motivation”? Well, now DonExodus is saying that Christianity does make him happier, and that happiness is one of his reasons for being a Christian. Anyway, I’m sure many people could say that about their own religious tradition – whatever it is. And, second, it’s possible to follow the gospel message without actually believing in Christianity or the divinity of Jesus. For example, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin saw Jesus as a very good teacher, but questioned his divinity. Jefferson dismissed all the New Testament miracles as fiction. I wonder if Jefferson thought the miracles were inserted into the New Testament to get ‘primitive minds’ to pay attention to the message.
As you can see, I’m just not that impressed with DonExodus’ argument for Christianity. Like I said earlier, maybe we all have our own little pet-ideas that don’t get the harsh light of reason shined on them. Nevertheless, you can go check out his Evolution videos here.