David Bentley Hart - Myths about Christian History

David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and patristics scholar. Hart was educated at the University of Maryland, the University of Cambridge and the University of Virginia. He has taught at the University of Virginia, the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), Duke Divinity School, and Loyola College in Maryland.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams described David Bentley Hart as "a theologian of exceptional quality, but also a brilliant stylist."
Reviews of Hart's "The Beauty of the Infinite":
"I can think of no more brilliant work by an American theologian in the past ten years." -- William C. Placher
"This magnificent and demanding volume should establish David Bentley Hart . . . as one of his generation's leading theologians." -- Geoffrey Wainwright

[@msm1876]

How...how on earth is it that I have never heard of this man? He's bloody brilliant!

[@ericday4505]

msm1876 Yes he is brilliant, even if he thinks he is.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

I did not realize Robert California was interested in theology.

[@keriford54]

Atheist Delusions was the first book of Hart's that I read and it was an eye opener, despite the title which I understand was the publisher's idea the book isn't principally about the New Atheists and like here he doesn't really think there is much grounds to engage them on. But what he does do is go through a lot of the popular misreadings of Christian history and show how they dissolve on closer examination.It's a fascinating book well worth reading. Hart does have a deep familiarity with Theological and philosophical history and I think this interview shows that he is not a smooth talker and his interviews repay having a greater familiarity with his written work. I'm currently reading his recent book Roland in Moonlight which is a playful cross between a dialectic on the philosophy of the mind within a partly fictional setting and I'm finding it deeply satisfying. I think Hart is improving as a writer and that he is one of the leading intellectuals of our day.

[@Autobotmatt428]

agreed

[@redmotherfive]

Interview starts at 1:35 and Hart is just so, so enthusiastic to be there, lol.

[@RomTankin]

ObjectiveBob, you do good work.

[@eddyg1215]

RomTanki

[@vincentlanci5125]

Leaving a comment to say your content is a nice compendium. As a fan of Hitchens style and roots, Kierkegaard’s and William James’ concepts of: faith, and faith/ reason coexistence balance in their works. Well done.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Hitchens argued as incompetently as Dawkins. Confusing Fundamentalism, and the like, with religion is illiterate ideology.

[@rocoreb]

thnx a lot bob. keep em coming.

[@honestorchard]

Just found this channel, how do you source this stuff? Great collection!

[@acarouselofantics]

It is a great collection

[@moesypittounikos]

German monks preserved the atomic writings of Lucretius, On the Nature of Things. I was reading a history of the times by Carlo Revolli and he wrote the cliches about book the burning and the destruction but after he mention those monks, do you think he changed gis tone? No, he kept saying that Crhistianity burnts the past!

[@feliciaf8]

lolol well he's still a hypocrite huh

[@GossomerPenguin]

Wow. Mr. Richard Dawkins has "done the math" and simply cannot solve the equation. Education and knowledge does the same thing to two different people: the wise get wiser and simple become simpletons. Listening to Mr. Hart's analysis of Dawkins' formulation of argument makes it very clear that Dawkins simply picked the most absurd zealots and then claimed "God does not exist".

[@grantdenham5081]

I make no such claim that god does not exist but that no go worth worshiping. Exists simpleton. Or wise?

[@feliciaf8]

^you decide it yourself

[@nates9029]

Yeah this is a profoundly simplistic analysis of Dawkins' study and conclusion. Dawkins is not a theologian and didn't study as one. His background is in biology, a field in which Mr. Hart would not be an expert in and would sound like a novice if he tried to speak on it with any authority. Dawkins didn't "simply pick out the most absurd zealots and then claimed 'God does not exist'". Dawkins' expertise is in biology for which there is zero evidence for a God as well. Now I do agree that Dawkins oftentimes focuses on the more fundamentalist Christians and other religions when discussing them but that is because there are SO MANY different denominations of Christianity alone that he couldn't possible address each individual one and then go into critiquing those that view the Bible as an allegory for humanity or that the Bible isn't a history or science book but that it reveals truths about the various beliefs in it. I mean when I talk to Christians they sometimes get annoyed when I asks what denomination and they'll just say Christian and I'm like well that doesn't tell me much. If I start critiquing Christianity generally then you'll say, "well that isn't what I believe". Well I just asked a question so I could narrow it down and you got all butthurt (I hope you understand that I'm not talking about you literally but the people I converse with). I'll then go into the fact that I used to be a minister and have studied several different denominations of Christianity and then I spend the next several minutes trying to tailor my argument for them only to be told that isn't what they believe. I get where Hart is coming from and I've listened to several of his lectures and interviews and find him compelling despite the fact I often don't agree with him. That being said, he is also rather disingenuous in some of his critique of Dawkins and so called "new atheists". Again, it is the argument "well this isn't what I believe and you didn't address the views of all Christians but only a select few". Yeah, obviously. I mean I can assure Dr. Hart the the vast majority of Christians I run into take the Bible literally; believe in talking snakes, believe the Noah story is real and actual history and believe that God and Satan made a bet on the life and loyalty of Job. I actually get kind of excited when I meet people who understand that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but that it was a story to highlight the truth about Jesus which was that he was the son of God through the line of David. Those are much more interesting conversations to me than talking to a fundamentalist any day.

[@michaelflores9220]

Even if Jesus appeared before me I would not bow to him. I would shout "Please all those people you're tormenting in Hell right NOW! You know what you're doing is wrong!" "Apologize for creating Ebola and Cholera! Apologize for not preventing rapes!"

[@nates9029]

@@anahata3478 - How exactly do you demonstrate your assertion that God is the non-contingent ground of contingency? That makes no sense. Also, if we were made up of elements found no where else in the universe then that might provide some evidence for a God or a creator if we couldn't find an explanation for where the elements we were made of came from. I am also not the one that insists that evidence for God can be found in biology since I don't believe a God exists for there to be any evidence of its existence to be found in the first place. No, I do not question the existence of black holes because they do not appear in biology. Black holes have nothing to do with biology. We have other means to demonstrate the existence of black holes. This really isn't that hard. I'm not sure why you seem so confused by it.

[@jrmott]

Bob...do you have a source for this clip?

[@peggyharris3815]

Thanks to "petty bourgeois consumerism: utube" 6:50 I have the opportunity to listen to DBH.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Yeah, bad choice. Bad pop: B Spears, too little green biz projects like Ecosia.org green searches, and Big Biz instead of smaller biz associations like food co-ops.

[@darkmountain1]

I have Atheist Delusions in my library. I think this will be my next philosophy book to read. I need to finish Nagle's 'Mind and Cosmos'.

[@jkovert]

Excellent book. The title is unfortunate, because the book does not specifically seek to deconstruct atheist arguments. It's a great survey of the medieval period. I think DB Hart's publisher thought the title would get the book more attention.

[@djb5255]

J William Pope VEVO Indeed it was the case with the publisher.

[@bananimal45]

darkmountain1 'Mind and Cosmos' is pretty much a waste of time. He identifies the problem (more or less), but his conception of the available solutions is completely ludicrous. He basically gives the same promissory note that Chalmers gives by arguing that (somehow?) physical science must 'expand' to include non-physical phenomena. It's actually quite ridiculous. He lists 'theology' as one of the available possibilities to explain consciousness, but his conception of 'theology' as a solution is simply that some sort of being named 'God' basically implants consciousness into humans. You should read 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss' by Hart. It is an extraordinary piece of theology, philosophy, and science.

[@mridad]

I think Dawkins is getting scared that he may be wrong.....the closer he gets to dying....

[@ericday4505]

Dale Greenly They all begin to shake in there boots when death comes calling, all of that bravado goes right out the window.

[@TheLastAbacus]

Hitchens stuck to his guns right to the end.

[@MikeJw-je4xk]

Dale Greenly: LOL It is mid 2018 and Dawkins has not changed and is Not scared. LOL again. Eric Day: BS. You are making up shit. Sagan, Hitchens, Hawking all still knew God and Jesus is man made fiction till their dying breaths. Stop believing brainwashed nonsense.

[@feliciaf8]

^okay? what's the point? didn't you catch the point of this post?

[@vaska1999]

​@@TheLastAbacus Yes, he did, but he also said, when asked if he would do away with Christianity if he could do so, that he was surprised to find that he wouldn't do so.

[@samayirx12]

can you make videos on the christ myth theories?

[@HagiaSophia1952]

What Professor Hart refers-to as a "straw-man" argument on the part of Richard Dawkins, I always call an "Aunt Sally" attack. Dawkins has his own version of Christianity (argably that followed by the majority of Christians) which is 'scriptural literalism'. This is the 'version' he (and the rest of the world 'religious' people often despise!) he then proceeds to dismantle. Far too many Christians have been led to worship 'The Bible'; rather than the Creator God of Israel whom the vast multitude of authors, editors and redactors hoped that 'collection' of scriptures might assist in revealing. God is revealed in many and diverse ways: aesthetics and human relationships to name, but two. Our problem is when it comes to human suffering. How is the Creator God of Israel 'revealed' there? As Dr Hart - and ALL Christians - need to acknowledge, this is one of the strongest arguments against God: even the 'suffering servant' we see in Jesus.

[@gumis123PL]

Well the "justification" for human suffering can be found in the idea of universal salvation - that despite all the human suffering and evil that exists, God is a loving one and all souls will be saved in his love (in their due time and possibly, after life trial)

[@HagiaSophia1952]

@@gumis123PL That would be my hope!

[@YingGuoRen]

@@gumis123PLUniversal reconciliation is a heresy. Why should atheists who are interested in religion, like me, bother engaging with universalists when the vast majority of Christians don't even consider universalists to be Christians? No, we engage with orthodox Christian believers, because they constitute the overwhelming majority of Christians and don't try to twist their scriptures into something appealing to modern, liberal sensibilities. I actually respect evangelicals more than people like Hart because they at least take their religion seriously, rather than a sort of fun philosophical game, which is how Hart seems to view it.

[@vaska1999]

Hart has said on many occasions that the most powerful argument against theism is the existence of evil and suffering.

[@Mark_Dyer]

@@vaska1999 Agreed! So did the Greeks, the Jews, Buddhists, and any other HONEST philosophy or religion. Stanley Hauerwas was helpful to me, before retirement, as a Registered Nurse specialising in haematological neoplastic disease. 'Fortunately' it was an adult unit!

[@donavoncash7739]

Science & evidence both prove God's existence and God is Sovereign and Love

[@seankennedy4284]

06:50 "The petty, burgeoise consumerism, which gives us...KZbin." KZbin, the very communication platform upon which Mr. Hart currently relies to discuss his own popular ideas and book offerings (i.e. books which, via mass purchase and consumption, contribute to his livelihood.) Meaning: The situation is not as neatly divisible as Marx (or Hart) would have one believe. In short: The CONTENT (petty and otherwise) of our economic system is provided by the characters of the individuals who participate in said system. Ultimately, the content is little fault of the system itself. Contrary to what Mr. Hart appears to believe, in nowise is it inherent to free market capitalism, specifically, that individual ends must be vacant of the Good, or of God. Indeed, to the contrary, such freedom in a fallen creation, a creation thus pervaded by resource scarcity, allows the fullest possible range for the individual to pursue what he/she identifies (correctly or not) as that which is Good / God. The althernative, as far as I can see it, is to impose a system of behavior designed by a central human authority, aimed at directing the masses toward the Good/God. But (1) Good luck designing such a widely applicable, yet simultaneously materially successful system; (2a) Good luck designing such a system that avoids ultimate reliance upon coercion; or stated another way: (2b) Good luck defining the Good/God in a way acceptable to all participants, so that each would gladly and voluntaritly participate, or agree that the means to be employed are those best suited to achieve the end(s) chosen. I dare say that the outer bounds of Mr. Hart's knowledge of economic science, and its necessary implications for possible and actual social arrangements, are on full display here, and are regrettably narrow indeed. Too bad he's convinced otherwise, and too bad he's enamored of the demonstrably errant ideas of Marx et al. Economic cause and effect may appear simple and straightforward, but in fact lends itself to no easily won understanding, even by intellects as gifted as Hart's (and Marx).

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Interesting topic. However, you overestimate the difficulty of economic cause and effect. The problem is presumption, intimidation, and distortion. David Ellerman summed it up in refining his work on co-op firms, referring to key issues like social power relations and transaction costs. Herman Daly et al formulated Ecological Economics quite well. However, asserting the problems of inequality and unsustainability is key, along with Jesus´ legacy, and then talking up existing solutions, like labels e.g. organics and Fair Trade, food co-ops and credit unions to educate consumers, break indoctrination, and spur social enterprise. Grameen Bank is illuminating, as is Gr. Shakti and Solar.United.Neighbors. in the US. European Social Market Economics is a good rule of thumb.

[@seankennedy4284]

​@@robinhoodstfrancis What's telling, however, is that neither you, nor they, possess an intimate knowledge of economic theory and its historical development. Thus, you have no idea what economics entails in its essentials. Thus, you conflate two fundamentally different scientific endeavors, psychology and economics. Unless and until one studies in relative detail the historical development of economic theory, one is bound in ignorance and the phrase "one doesn't know what he doesn't know" is apt. For instance, Aristotle posited that goods of equal value exchange against one another---that an economic exchange is fundamentally one dealing with equalities. This idea, it so happens, is incorrect. Yet it stood as truth for a millenium. Only with the Spanish scholastics of the 16th century was the fact demonstrated that exchange occurs when each actor values that which is acquired more highly than that which is renounced, else no trade happens. Nevertheless, unfortunately, the profound economic insights of the scholastic thinkers failed to prevent all manner of subsequent fallacies from once again taking root in economic theorizing. To wit, Adam Smith and David Ricardo's fatally flawed cost-of-production theory of value swept British economics and was adopted by Marx, all three of whose influence clearly still manifests far and wide today. These examples are merely a SLIVER of the intellectual particularities which one NECESSARILY need be familiar with to truly comprehend economics qua economics. Again, the thinkers you take your ideas from HAVE NO CLUE of this history, and thus also NO CLUE what correct economics entails. Indeed, if Aristotle, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx could be so wildly incorrect---and incorrect regarding such an utterly fundamental phenomenon as value---surely the presumption a non-expert ought to adopt with respect to economics is that of profound ignorance and intellectual humility. I'm persuaded by NONE of this talk of "intimidation," "fair trade," and "social power relations." Whatever it is, it's NOT economics. And to whatever extent these conceptions may happen to countenance accurate economic theory (a possibility which I SERIOUSLY doubt), this is mere accident---none of these "thinkers" would be able to explicate the necessary connections and their significance.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

@@seankennedy4284 Oh, you misread your orthodox tea leaves, and project your own presumptions. Allow me to prepare my reply.....

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

@@seankennedy4284 Well, that was pompous and obnoxious. Which is par for the course in the orthodox economics quagmire of posturing sycophants. You sound nice and gummed up. Did you actually offer any substance, at least of one kind or another? Ah, we´ll get to that. As for “non-experts,” you happen to be talking to a guy with a masters and ample and diverse experience, which overeducated, overspecialized, and narrowly experienced pundits don´t. So. Oops for you. My qualifications are actually adequately expert. And yeah, I referred to Ellerman and Daly, who both worked with J Stiglitz and Stern at the WB. Oops for you. Me, oh, I started in Bio Anthro, and value multidisciplines and empiricism, and thanks to Intl Rel see through fallacious economic scholastic ideologizing. “Empiricism” relates to the scientific method, and economics has tried to avoid that in all its ideal theorizing, making all your creampuff “don´t know” psychology your own Jungian shadow projection. With my Bio Anthro basis, social psych observing of human interaction is fundamental. As for Aristotle, like his science, he made assumptions, not bad as you cite it. He can “posit” equal values all he wanted, the question is who and how “values” are determined. Artisans and small operators don´t wield unfair advantages normally, and can be generally thought of as giving honest accountings, which Dave Korten ascribed to Smith´s assumptions. Jolly good for him. And Smith filled his work with editorial comments warning about unequal participants. Oh my. Could that reflect “social power relations” expressed coyly in unempirical scholarship? And that´s 18th C. You cited “16th C. Spanish scholastics. Gee. Never heard of ´em. Am I lost? Sorry, already found. You ascribe an insight to them of “agent hyper valuation.” Good thing you reject psychology. Not. And there it is. And you acknowledge “fatal flaws” in “cost of production” value theories, where your attempt at reasoning and presentation resorts to “unknowability” based on defense of the inexpressible orthodoxy and ad hom against the unorthodox. Yeah, here in the real world, say, of Social Movement Sociology and Ecosocial Solidarity Economics, we note that Denmark´s socioeconomic history offers a reliable standard. They never suffered the destabilizing “encirclements” that enriched British aristocrats and was followed coincidentally by industrialization through exploitation. Labor´s salaries and hours weren´t actually by any equal valuation terms. Funny how that´s hardly on orthodox radar. And how much that corresponds to social power relations and intimidation. To wit, it´s not that you´re not persuaded. You´re deeply indoctrinated, peddlar wearing “non-expert”-colored glasses. As for Fair Trade, it cuts to the bone of your fantasy world serving an oligarchical US-led corporate profiteering model and WTO system. Ah, but Keynes just talked about interest rates, and the GDP promises unlimited growth, and Gandhi´s type of example shows how Fair Trade ecosocial business values cuts through distracting exploitative justifications. Reality check for ya, Pompous the Double-talking, Double-Book Clown. One book for the public, and the real one. Occupy Wall St. may have fizzled, but they were like martyrs. Now, why don´t you shake yourself up and read Daly´s fave JS Mill, and Mark Lutz´s background for Ellerman in John Ruskin. Jaroslav Vanek on Labor-managed econ might be jargon-friendly for ya. Daly and J Farley have a whole textbook to slice your mush-brain fat off. Any questions, junior league?

[@seankennedy4284]

@@robinhoodstfrancis Nothing you've just said contradicts my point. Again, without a fairly intimate knowledge of the intellectual development of economic theory, one is incapable of identifying that which, properly, belongs in the category of the economic. This includes yourself and the likes of Stiglitz. Degrees, honors, experience, and headships have nothing to do with this. To wit, your being enamored of empiricism as THE scientific method, when in fact economics is, properly, a deductive science. And, predictably, you leveling the charge of sycophantism, as every Marxian does in reply to criticism of his errors. Marx was wrong. And so are you. Voluntary exchange of property (including one's labor) is a positive sum endeavor, simple as that. To the extent exploitation DOES exist in the economy, this is due to exogenous factors which have nothing directly to do with the logic and practice of laissez-faire. To cry "unequal social power" or some such when describing the labor contract in a PURELY capitalist economy, can only be accomplished with a straight face by one tangled in Marxian fallacies, which is possible only when one is ignorant of economic theory and its historical development.

[@10.6.12.]

Curious Dawkins and Harris huge fails during CV19.

[@kevovi8419]

Lots of weird comments on here........as if Christianity gave birth to the monarchy...

[@TorianTammas]

F+Kev Ovi8 Interesting as you mention it god it created just like an absolute monarch of the time. So yes monarchy is older then the Jewish god concept so the god if formed after the picture of monarchs. It was just a young religion what would you expect more of them then copy surrounding cultures models of ruler-ship for their god.

[@pillettadoinswartsh4974]

12:45 - Early Christianity borrowed heavily from Greek thinkers. I think the problem with Christianity today, is that it still does not teach what the rabbi from Nazareth was attempting to teach to his very own disciples. The disciples simply didn't understand. You can see in the Bible, the impatience and frustration of Yeshua toward his students. Paul took what could be understood (or at least gleaned) from Yeshua's teachings, and formed his own theology. Then, in order to gain followers, early church leaders borrowed ideas and concepts from the Greek philosophers and from pagans, to form some mythology which would hopefully have the power to convert large swaths of people. THAT was successful. But that is not what Yeshua was ultimately teaching. He was teaching complete transformation through reason. But now we have Christianity today, in all it's flavors. Hundreds of flavors of the same "ice cream." But does Christianity today teach "I and my Father are One" as Yeshua would teach it to his disciples? Does it teach "seek ye first the kingdom of God" Does it even teach that this Kingdom lies within? Or has it watered down its teachings to the Golden Rule? and to conform to an earlier conceived mythology of a savior, etc? I say Yeshua of Nazareth was a teacher of nonduality. This was not a new philosophy at the time. It was, apparently new to Yeshua though. And being a Jew, it was natural to conform it to the only religion he knew, which was Judaism. And he chose people to whom he thought he could teach it. But it was a failed experiment. Also a failure was Yeshua's prediction that the apocalypse would come before the lives of his disciples ended. We stand here, over 2,000 years later, and still...................nothing. But the nondual teachings of Yeshua survived in the Bible. They are just not expounded upon, so that even a modern person can understand, without the help of some other "scriptures" on nonduality. The Upanishads, which were written from 800-200 BC, along with the writings of Indian philosopher Adi Shankara, can be that "help." One can (as I am only one example) understand completely what Yeshua was teaching, with the help of these scriptures. If there were someone who was teaching this, in a church, I would attend with enthusiasm. And so would others. The Upanishads and nonduality solve the mystery of suffering. Christianity has made the attempt for 2,000 years, and come up empty. And most people who are leaving the church, are leaving because this one, most important question, has not been answered. It is the meeting of East and West, which has already been going on for over a century, (Vivekenanda) that will be the "savior" of humankind. Not some contrived, mythological belief.

[@saenzperspectives]

Pilletta Doinswartsh you should read the book “Elements of Faith” by Christos Yannaras. Link to PDF copy: yannarasbooks.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/elements_faith_text.pdf

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Some good points. I value interfaith practice, like Buddhism, Kung Fu, and shamanism, and id as Christian UU, although I value Quakerism and Chr Sci among others and psychology. Spiritual practice, and valuing University liberal arts is key to organizing everything, inc esp. Comp Religion. And social movement sociology, with Gandhi a big light! Cheers!

[@joachim847]

Christ is Risen! 👣 ☠️

[@joachim847]

And boy do I love listening to this man talk.

[@stephengorman1025]

He is Risen indeed and that is Good News for us all.

[@Jesusandbible]

He keeps saying er all the time. Therefore he doth greatly err. His ignoring of God is just as errant.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

What?