A close look at the history, science, and theology behind this strange practice, and what it all means for us today. image by 愚木混株 Cdd20 from Pixabay Most Evangelicals will have encountered the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”, if only through reading about it in the New Testament. But I’m guessing very few of them are well-informed about the practice, even though they might actually do it (I’ll even say especially those who do it!). I’m also guessing that many of our listeners — Recovering Evangelicals — are embarrassed and even traumatized about it. So we took a deep-dive into this controversial practice. And to help us with that, we brought in a guest who was a tongues-speaking Evangelical who became an atheist playwright and actor … who still regularly speaks in tongues in order to tap into his inner psyche, and recently ran work-shops for his theatrical colleagues teaching them … how to speak in tongues!? After hearing Gary Kirkham’s amazing, hilarious, and provocative story, we looked at some of the science behind speaking in tongues. Scholars of literature and of history will point out that the ancient Greeks and Romans were speaking in tongues in their own religious rituals many centuries before the New Testament Church took it up. And speaking in tongues is practiced in many other religions around the globe today. [And don’t jump too quickly to the common response that those are “counterfeits”, we address that too]. Anthropologists and linguists make it their careers to study humans making and using language. Despite being able to decode the languages of ancient Egyptian and Babylonian artefacts, and learning the languages of living aboriginal tribes who have never had contact with the rest of the world, those experts find nothing meaningful in recordings of Pentecostals and Charismatics speaking in tongues. The sounds, syllables, vocabulary, cadence and rhythm are on the level of baby-talk. Neurologists look at the brain pathways involved … and not involved … in producing the “speech” of someone speaking in tongues. Gary then unpacks some really fascinating insights into what he’s found to be the benefit of speaking in tongues [and remember, he now identifies as an atheist!?]. Basically, he finds it unlocks his inner psyche, and puts him in touch with his emotions. He finds it “hugely therapeutic” and “quite profound”. And people who attend his workshops find the same. And if they’re right, doesn’t this completely explain why speaking in tongues is so prevalent not just in Christianity — especially those strands which are so heavily focused on emotion in their spirituality — but also in other religions around the globe and down through history. As always, tell us what you think … To learn more about our guest Gary Kirkham, visit his website. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Is prayer really a vending machine to get stuff? Or instead an introspective, meditative discipline to find out how you yourself can be the solution? Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay. Let’s face it. The experience of many believers, particularly listeners of this podcast, is that prayer doesn’t work. Ask for stuff — a physical healing … a solution to a problem … to ace a final exam … a parking spot!? — and the vast majority of the time you seem to only get what would typically happen if you hadn’t prayed at all. We talked about Queen Elizabeth II, who’s been prayed for by millions of people around the globe, from lowly commoners to highly prominent clergy, numerous times every day, ever since she was born. And her health history was no different from most other people who enjoy a wealthy lifestyle and benefit from modern medicine in Britain. We also looked at the famous “Harvard prayer experiment”, which evaluated the efficacy of prayer in the exact same rigorous way that they test the efficacy of the latest drug. And prayer came out with a big goose egg. And yet there are some believers who are absolutely convinced that prayer DOES work. Especially for physical healings. At least, that’s what seems to happen at many faith healing services. But look more closely at the track record and you’ll find a disturbing pattern. At these healing rallies, there are always two very different groups of people. On the one hand, there are those claiming a miraculous healing of a medical condition which often can’t be verified in any way, is known to be capable of reversing on its own through natural processes, and is often something related to pain. Who knows whether the “cancer” which was never properly diagnosed before or after the fact wasn’t an ulcer or a kidney stone — or just gas!? — all of which often resolve on their own? And even if it was cancer, cancers can also sometimes resolve on their own. And that pain? Your body can make its own natural, built-in painkillers under the right circumstances: this is why survivors of a plane crash can help carry out other wounded people even though they later find out they themselves had a broken arm or a broken ankle. Ever heard of a “jogger’s high”? The high-energy atmosphere of a healing service can easily trigger all kinds of physiological changes, including the fight-or-flight response which activates these built-in pain-suppression pathways. On the other hand, one never hears about miraculous healings of a medical condition which has never been shown to reverse on its own. What I mean is, there’s never a restoration of amputated limbs. Never the reversal of a congenital physical abnormality (cleft palate; Down’s syndrome; cerebral palsy). Never the elimination of a straightforward, easily-verified genetic disease (cystic fibrosis; sickle cell anemia; blue-green color blindness). I guess God doesn’t do those kinds of miracles. [And by the way, when I say “never”, I’m completely ignoring all those claims that begin with “I heard from the friend of an acquaintance of mine about some unnamed guy in a far-off distant land (who you’ll never be able to track down, so you can’t follow-up on this claim), about him getting healed from ….”]. So we have natural, scientific explanations for all the kinds of healing that are often claimed, but no theological explanations for the kinds of healing that are never claimed. I mean, what theological reason could one possibly give for why can’t/won’t God restore a couple amputated legs? But maybe that’s not what prayer is all about. It’s not about getting stuff … the cosmic vending machine … rubbing the genie’s lamp. Maybe it’s about meditative introspection to see how you yourself might need to change … or to be the change. As always, tell us what you think… To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A sordid story of “divinely-sanctioned” violence in the Old Testament … which seems to be anything but that. There are many stories in the Old Testament of carnage and slaughter, perpetrated by the nation of Israel, which are presented as divinely-sanctioned. In fact, the claim is that God / YHWH not only condoned them, but actually commanded them. Many books, articles and podcasts have looked at these and found ways to “justify” this violence. Explanations given include: YHWH had put a curse on the line of one of Noah’s sons (Ham, from which the Canaanites came), commanding that those descendants would be perpetual slaves of another one of Noah’s sons (Shem, from whom the Israelites came); YHWH had promised that land to Abram and Sarai, and the Canaanites were just in the way of Divine urban development; YHWH had to use Israel to carve out a protective little niche in a savage heathen land in order to establish a Messianic bloodline; the wickedness of the people of those lands was so great that YHWH couldn’t tolerate it anymore, and he used the nation of Israel to cleanse the land; YHWH/God had his reasons, he does not have to explain himself to us, and we’re in no position to judge him on that. Personally, I can’t accept those explanations any more: they’re entirely inconsistent with a God of love and forgiveness, and it’s appalling that an omnipotent God would use an innocent people (Israel) to do his dirty work. Imagine a religious leader or a winner of a Nobel Peace Prize sending his teenage-daughter with a shot-gun to the neighbours next door to slaughter every person and animal in the house because they did something to offend him. But maybe we’ve got it wrong. Maybe those stories aren’t divinely sanctioned; maybe people were just being people and using their national deity as their alibi. The push-back on that suggestion is simply the slippery slope argument: if the text claims that God commanded it and we decide that he didn’t, then where do we draw the line on other parts of the Bible? But there’s a story in the Old Testament which, in my mind, gets around the explanations listed above: an incredibly sordid story recounted in the book of Judges, chapters 19 to 21. Without getting into all the details: one individual Israelite is badly personally disrespected by the men of an Israelite town, so he rallies the entire nation of Israel to defend his honour by slaughtering the Israelite tribe in which this town is found. They had to attempt the attack three times before they were finally successful (so much for God being in charge). Once they realize that the tribe of Benjamin is in imminent danger of being completely eliminated (because they had killed off all the women and children), they attack another nearby innocent Israelite village, kill off everyone except the reproductively-viable virgins, and give those virgins to the survivors of their first attack. And this is supposed to have been divinely ordained and sanctioned!? This story has nothing to do with Canaanites (in fact, the “enemy” is a tribe of Israel, with whom YHWH had also made a covenant), or protecting a Messianic line. It is all about one truly despicable little man in a jealous rage igniting a civil war between Israelite tribes, all of it fuelled by offended Semitic male pride (just read the story). And yet the story claims that God “gave that city into their hands” because the attackers threw some magic dice and trusted that the outcome was God’s command, even though the dice were thrown AFTER they had already decided to go to war against their brothers. Let’s keep in mind that the story is not a dictation from God, but an oral history (transmitted by humans) which was eventually written down (by humans) and later revised, redacted and edited (by humans) over a thousand years later when the nation was trying to make sense of their Babylonian captivity. Our motive in exploring this truly sordid story is not to discredit the Bible or the Christian faith, but to show that we don’t have to read the Bible literally and superficially, especially when it comes to things like the Canaanite slaughters. Instead, we have to admit that the Bible may be divinely-inspired, but it’s got human fingerprints all over it, and we have to develop the skills to read it critically and astutely. There may be golden nuggets in it, but you have to dig those out of the dirt and polish them off. As always, tell us what you think… Find out more about Eric Seibert at his university profile page, and his books at this Amazon page. To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Having children intensifies the deconstruction process, and can even re-start a whole new round of wrestling with long-dead questions. Deconstruction is difficult enough on its own. But doing so while having young kids gives that process a whole new level of peril and fear. Even those who have deconstructed quite a while ago and have grown quite comfortable in their new worldview find that many of the questions they thought they’d wrestled into the dirt now come back all over again. Exvangelicals bring a lot of baggage to the parenting experience!? To help us through this topic, we talked to Bekah McNeel, author of the book: Bringing Up Kids When Church Lets You Down: A Guide for Parents Questioning Their Faith. Bekah shared her own story of deconstruction over the course of many years, and talked about some of the major reasons that motivate people to head for the “exit ramps”: Biblical inerrancy the subject of hell politics, and the embrace of Trump racism rules around what a family should look like academia; intellectualism; science She then unpacked many of the issues and questions that tend to come up again for deconstructed parents when children enter the picture: baptism, circumcision at birth what if we got the whole “no hell” thing all wrong? Do we really feel confident enough to jeopardize their eternal future? should we start taking the kids to Sunday School / church? discipline, fear and shame sex, sexuality, body image, masturbation education, homeschooling, college/university Our listeners also pitched in a few questions. What about the youth group, and its leaders? Are they open to kids asking tough questions: teenagers need a place where their concerns and questions are taken seriously. How your spouse feels about the deconstruction is hugely important: what do you do when the parents start believing very different things? As always, tell us what you think… Find out more about Bekah McNeel at https://bekahmcneel.com/, and about her book at https://bekahmcneel.com/book/ To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Our listeners … and we ourselves …. raise some questions about the previous two episodes and the whole ideological motive behind asking “who is Adam?” Over the last two weeks, we’ve been perusing scholarly works on the subject of “Who was Adam?” [note: a pet peeve of mine … Eve is almost always left out of this question!?]. We heard from two scholars who have written their own books on the subject (Joshua Swamidass, and Denis Alexander), one of them gave us a critique of a third scholar’s book (William Lane Craig), and we made numerous references to a large and growing pile of books written by Christian scholars on this very question (Peter Enns; C. John Collins; Fuz Rana; Denis Venema and Scott McKnight; …). Collectively, their ideas cover a lot of range: a historical (“literal”) person, or a mythical/metaphorical (“literary”) figure; a Homo sapiens in the area of Iraq roughly 6,000 years ago … to a Homo heidelbergensis in Northern Europe roughly 750,000 years ago; a de novo creation made from dirt … to a representative plucked out of the human population that existed at the time through the process of biological evolution, and who was then rehabilitated or “upgraded”; created “in the image of God” … as understood by the Hellenic Greeks (and which later Christianity adopted), or as understood by the ancient Hebrews who wrote the story in the first place; the primal couple living in the wild open hinterland, or in a tiny protected private garden with a couple magical trees; that primal couple having crossed some kind of line … broken some kind of law … and thereby consigned all of humanity to an eternity in hell, or to some form of death, or at least to a never-ending dispute on the matter between Christian scholars and theologians. And those two episodes generated enough questions, problems, and concerns from our listeners to merit a response episode. So here we deal with some of those: why are there two very different creation accounts in Genesis (note: that’s only part of the “problem” … there are also several more creation accounts in other parts of the Bible!); how/why would a genetic lineage and a genealogical lineage come to very different end-points? is the motive behind Joshua’s and/or Craig’s proposals simply to get agreement between the Bible’s version and the scientific version (aka, “Concordism”); why does Craig go all the way back to H. heidelbergensis to answer this question? After addressing those follow-up questions, we deal with Luke’s own major concern here: why is this question so important? It’s not just a trivia question like “why is the sky blue?”. It’s not a nerdy, esoteric hobby like collecting stamps. And it’s not a self-exploration like digging up one’s family tree to find out whether one is related to royalty, or some other famous person. Instead, this question has a whole ideological agenda behind it. A worldview. A theological motive. Which is, simply, “original sin”. That question is the beginning of a mental pathway that leads to the conclusion that all of us bear some form of guilt or debt simply because of something that a long distant relative is guilty of. And with the momentum gained by walking that path, one is carried to another contentious theological worldview … penal substitution. And then it’s only a short leap from that rock to another even more contentious boulder: hell, and eternal conscious torment. Luke is quite motivated to challenge that train of thought. As he put it in this episode: “if I have a great-grandfather who’s guilty of some kind of mass murder, there’s absolutely no justice at all in making my grand-daughter even the least bit guilty of what he did.” Which is NOT to say that we’re recommending the whole Christian faith be discarded. We’re suggesting some revision to some of our core ideas. In a previous series of episodes, we described our revised understanding of original sin and atonement theory. As always, tell us what you think… To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A geneticist unpacks the genetic evidence for human evolution, and critiques one recent proposal that “Adam” can be traced back 750,000 years to Homo heidelbergensis This week, we speak to Dr. Denis Alexander, a scientist who is as committed to his life-long Christian faith as he is to the theory of evolution. We first took advantage of the fact that he has spent decades doing research in the area of genetics, and asked him to unpack and explain some of the main lines of genetic evidence that support the idea that humans did evolve from an ancestor we share in common with gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. That evidence includes pseudogenes (remnants of broken genes that are still intact and functional in other “lower” species), proviral sequences (remnants or “scars” of viral infections had by the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees), and an amazing story about our own chromosome #2. We then talk with Denis about the large and growing number of books on the subject of “Who is/was Adam?” which have been written by Christian scholars over the past couple decades. Two books in particular are worth mentioning: Joshua Swamidass’s book (we interviewed him last week) about science being unable to rule out a very recent “Adam” …. even one as recent as a few thousand years ago. The other book, written by Dr. William Lane Craig, proposes that Adam goes back as much as 750,000 years, originated in Northern Europe, and was not one of us  — Homo sapiens — but rather Homo heidelbergensis, the progenitor of us humans and of Neanderthals! Now that’s a bit of a stretch! We also explored the question of why so many scholars are spending so much time and energy thinking, writing, and speaking on the question “Who is/was Adam?”. The two main reasons appear to be: (1) the need to identify a common ancestor on which to base the concept of original sin; and (2) the perceived need to defend the truthfulness of Scripture itself (because “if Jesus and the Apostle Paul seemed to believe in a literal, historical Adam and they were wrong about that, then what else were they wrong about?”). As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dr. Denis Alexander at https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/about/people/dr-denis-alexander/ To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

A medical scientist who fully affirms human evolution and common ancestry with the apes shows that science can’t rule out a recent Adam&Eve. There are many who believe in a historical Adam&Eve as recently as six thousand years ago, based on a direct, surface-level reading of the first couple chapters of Genesis. And then there are many others who accept that humans evolved over millions of years from an ancestor we share in common with gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans on the one hand, and Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Naledi on the other hand, as per an abundance of paleontological and genetic evidence. And then there are some who believe both origin stories to be true simultaneously! Whaaaaat!? Dr. Joshua Swamidass, an MD with graduate training in biology and information/computer science, has shown that science does NOT rule out the idea of a recent Adam&Eve, contrary to what many might think. The key to doing this is understanding the subtle and yet profound difference between genetics and genealogy. You see, a scientist will read the genome of an animal …. or a human … and connect it to a genetic Tree of Life that can go back millions of years, showing how a successive accumulation of genetic changes documents the transformation of one species into another, over and over again. Someone else wanting to research their family tree to find out who they might be related to, on the other hand, will go backward through time and dig up the family connections between children, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents …… and so on. Each one of us has two parents, each of whom had two parents, who in turn had two parents … and so on. In other words, the number of ancestors we’re genealogically related to doubles with each generation. If we go back only 50 generations (or roughly one thousand years, assuming that each generation takes 20 years to produce the next generation), we could be genealogically connected to 1,125,899,906,842,624 people (that’s 2 raised to the exponent power of 50). A quadrillion people!? That’s actually more people than were alive a thousand years ago! And now let’s go through that exact same mental exercise, but now moving forward through time. Start with everyone who existed on the face of the earth a thousand years ago, and imagine them coupling up and producing kids. Each time they couple up, they combine two distinct family lineages (excluding those uncomfortable situations where siblings or first cousins produced kids …. iccck!). After several generations, more and more distinct family lineages are brought together: someone might be related to the MacDonald family line through their father, and to the Griswald line through their mother, and the Kennedy family through their grandmother on their dad’s side, and the Garcia-Lopez family through their maternal grandmother, and the Yamaguchi line through some other distant relative ….. you get the idea? By the time we get to the present day, it’s possible that I’m related in this genealogical way to everyone who existed on earth a thousand years ago. And the same would be true for you …. and for everyone else on the face of the earth today. And if one of those couples from a thousand years ago happened to be named “Adam” and “Eve” …… … then we are all related to … and descendants of … Adam and Eve only one thousand years ago. Genealogically speaking. You might want to hear this directly from our guest expert. And of course, it’s hard not to talk about descent from an original couple without getting into several theological issues, beginning with … you guessed it … that cringe-inducing idea of “original sin”. As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dr. Joshua Swamidass at https://peacefulscience.org/authors/swamidass/ and at https://pathology.wustl.edu/people/joshua-swamidass-md-phd/ To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast a

Our responses to a flurry of comments and questions to two recent episodes: one on Open/Process Theism, and the other comparing theology and science as legitimate avenues in the search for Truth. Two of our recent episodes both evoked a tremendous response from our listeners, in terms of comments left at our two Facebook sites and emails sent directly to us. These two episodes focused on Open and Relational Theism and Process Theism (#90; with Dr. Thomas Jay Oord) and on whether theology and science are equally legitimate avenues in the pursuit of Truth (#91; with Dr. Bethany Solereder). In fact, the response was so great, and the comments so well thought out, that we thought we should devote this episode to unpacking them. A thumbnail sketch of the questions and ideas that our mailbag had us explore includes the following: Open and Process Theism downplay human suffering in the here and now. God knowing all things does not undermine free will. “My God is too big to be reduced to the extent that Open Theism calls for.” “It’s insulting that we say God can’t do something just because we can’t understand it.” Theology just isn’t science, and theologians should not try to treat it as such. Theology does /does not have a mechanism in place to sift out bad ideas (in the way that the Scientific Method works for scientists) “Scientia” (the Latin for science) means knowledge; the word “science” means something different to North Americans than it does to Europeans. the term “Theology” is the study of God, and so discussions about peripheral things like Hell, or slavery, or textual criticism are most certainly not theology. “Science produces models that work and can do amazing things; what amazing thing, or even mundane thing, does theology enable us to accomplish?” “Theologians must use scripture as a foundation for their claims, but it is all too easy to demonstrate that scriptures are the products of humans, not of God.” theology does not help us determine what is more likely to be true; instead it is used to justify what we want to be true. As always, tell us what you think… To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

An amazing story of a journey into an utterly bizarre worldview, and what it took to come back to reality. Do you ever look back on the things that you once believed with conviction, and now shake your head, asking yourself: “How could I have believed that? It’s so obviously not true.  I just don’t think that way anymore.”  And every year, when holidays bring friends and family back together again, you cringe at the conversations and expectations that you know are going to come up, because they still think that way.  Or you watch loved ones slowly fall into a quicksand of strange beliefs, and ask yourself: “How did they fall into that hole?  How can I help them crawl out?” Our guest today can tell you … because he’s been there.  His story is going to leave you speechless. If you think what you once believed is a bit out there, wait till you hear his story. If you think you’ve let go of a lot of baggage, wait till you hear his story. Kerry Noble started off as a young kid with a very ordinary Baptist belief, but in just a few short years, his faith transformed into something so completely different, shocking, and surreal. If I simply told you where he ended up … if I merely showed you the before and after pictures without explaining the steps that got him there … you just wouldn’t believe me. It’s such a dramatic change. And that’s the secret to how it all happened: in the same way that you the listener need time to comprehend each twist in circumstances, logic and common sense, the person going through that mind warping experience needs time to acclimatize with every step into that vortex.  It’s a slow process of being very gradually introduced to slightly stranger ideas and waiting till you’ve embraced that before moving to another idea that’s even stranger yet. Theology by accretion. One small step at a time. Like putting a frog in a pot of cool water and slowly turning up the temperature till it eventually boils to death. Kerry also tells us how he himself was able to give his head a shake and crawl his way out.  It took a few years of thinking his way out of the tangled mess of beliefs he’d acquired.  Deconstruction, and then reconstruction.  I learned a lot from listening to him.  I think you will too. As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Kerry Noble at https://www.facebook.com/KerryNobleCSA To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive

Luke asks two theologians to convince him that theology is a legitimate avenue for coming up with robust models of our reality Science and theology are both human endeavours seeking to explain our past, our present reality, and possibly also the trajectory of our future. Both build elaborate ideas on the foundation of previous scholars, collect new data, and try to come up with newer or more finessed models to expand our ever-growing body of knowledge about our existence in this universe. To do this, scientists have developed a strategy that seems to work really well: “the scientific method.” Each idea that they form is put through a battery of tests to prove it wrong. Yes, I said that right: many non-scientists think that science is about proving things right, but we scientists know that our job is either about proving something wrong or …. less and less likely to be wrong. Increasing our confidence, but never achieving certainty. We call this “testing the null hypothesis.” We run experiments, and then repeat them. We make sure to build in proper controls in the experimental conditions, and randomize the variables to make sure we’re not manipulating the outcome. And we subject the interpretations of the data to peer review. If there’s disagreement, new experiments are designed … again, to prove the idea is wrong, or less and less likely to be wrong. Theology, on the one hand seems to be equally scholarly and rigorous in its model-building, but … there is no mechanism in place to decide which model(s) are correct. This became so blatantly obvious to Luke when he listened to two highly-trained, well-informed, and skilful theologians discussing the three currently most popular models of hell. The first model is eternal conscious torment in a lake of fire. It seems that a vast majority of non-expert believers seem to hold this view, and almost every non-believer also thinks that this is the universally accepted model of hell among believers (even though they themselves would say there is no hell at all in reality). Scholars, on the other hand, who spend years studying and mulling through this idea, tend to favour either the annihilation view of hell (instant vaporization … no fuss, no muss), or universalism (everybody gets to heaven in the afterlife). Luke watched as both of these theologians agreed that the first model … the one that almost every non-expert (believers and non-believers) accepts as the correct standard model … is clearly wrong, and both gave similar reasons for this rejection. But then the one proceeded to defend the second model while the other defended the third model, and both showed how their opponent was incorrect based on scholarly arguments, the work of previous scholars, and additional “data” (their interpretations of scriptural passages). Ironically, sometimes the same scholarly works and scriptural passages were used to make the completely opposite conclusion! Luke (a scientist) talked to Dr. Bethany Solereder (a theologian) and Scott (the referee?) about how theology works … or sometimes doesn’t work … in the search for “Truth with a capital T.” As always, tell us what you think… Find more about Dr. Bethany Solereder at https://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/people/bethany-sollereder Scott’s recommended video about scientists seriously questioning whether science is also self-deluded in thinking that they have a legitimate handle on “Truth with a capital T” can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xauCQpnbNAM To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher. Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook. Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive