How To Successfully Debate A Creationist?

[older]

To the OP, I'd recommend a book by Peter Boghossian, A Manual For Creating Atheists.

 

His premise is that you can't debate the religion. What you can do is challenge the thinking behind it. By asking questions, you can back the person into a corner from which there is no escape. Don't debate. Just ask questions. For example, ask, "How do you know what is real? How do you define reality?" "Is it possible for some people to misconstrue reality?" "What is your definition of 'faith'?" And so on.

 

Boghossian says that you can't expect to "win" in these situations; all you can hope to do is to plant a seed of doubt.

 

It's a short book but worth a read.

[Thurisaz]

 

 

Deidre, one question.  Are these creationists YECs?  (Young Earth Creationists, think Ken Ham's 6000 year old earth)

good question. that would narrow it down considerably.

What is somewhat scary with one of my friends is that he doesn't understand why there are still apes if we evolved? I go over why and still...he seems lost. Sometimes I think it is ignorance and not a lack of understanding when it comes to creationist mind sets. There's a difference. :-/

 

 

Therefore the comparison to Orwell. You did read 1984 (especially the appendices!), or are at least familiar with Orwell's concepts of doublethink and  crimestop? You see both concepts in the real world with hardcore cretinist morontheists. It's as if they are citizens of Oceania who somehow escaped into the real world...

[bfuddled]

When I saw the post title I thought it said "How to Date a Creationist?"

[DoubtingNate]

 

Realize that they have the burden of proof.  The onus is on THEM because they've made the positive claim that their god (specific christian god) created everything.

 

Also, Aron Ra's presentations are wonderful.  I've learned a lot from them, the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims their view is absolute truth. That's why those who believe in evolution appropriately call it a "theory." If someone who believes in creation would refer to it as the "theory" of creation, then maybe more fruitful discussions could be had.

 

 

I'm not sure if anyone has replied to this but this is actually incorrect.  First of all, there is no 'absolute truth,' in science, only increasing approximations of certainty.  We've reached a point of 99.99999 certainty that Darwin's framework is correct, and most if not all studies are only adding more 9s.  In science, a 'Theory' is a step up from a hypothesis; in order to become a theory, a hypothesis needs to be tested and validated through the scientific method.  A theory is framework for describing observed phenomena.  Evolution has been proven as much as a theory can be proven.  It is not 'proven' in the mathematical sense, however it is established to the point that it would be unreasonable to deny it.  There is no hypothesis that is anywhere close to being established as a theory in the same sense that evolution is.  Creationists have yet to provide any solid evidence and they are unlikely to.  If they do, it would completely invalidate nearly 2 centuries worth of scientific research, which includes our ability to study viruses and any number of things, because the theory of evolution is the organizing framework that all of modern biology is based on.

 

Unlike Creationism, evolution is falsifiable.  In theory, there are several things we could that would disprove it altogether; a famous example is rabbits in a pre-Cambrian layer.  Here's a good post from Jerry Coyne that explores this further.

 

Creationists, on the other hand, can't or won't provide such a list.  Instead they just fabricate justifications for their own hypothesis that are unprovable and unfalsifiable.  For example they will tell you that starlight is millions/billions of years old because God made them look that way when he created them 6,000 years ago.  There's no way you can prove or disprove this; it is sheer speculation that they pull out of their asses because it's the best they can do.

 

The burden of proof goes to the one making the extra-ordinary claim.  Since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it is up to Creationists to provide better evidence.. which they can't, which is why they keep resorting to these same old word games and platitudes.

 

ALl this is to say.. you can't really 'debate' these people.  They are crazy.  But it doesn't hurt either, because others might be watching.

[DoubtingNate]

 

 

 

Realize that they have the burden of proof.  The onus is on THEM because they've made the positive claim that their god (specific christian god) created everything.

 

Also, Aron Ra's presentations are wonderful.  I've learned a lot from them, the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

 

 

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims their view is absolute truth. That's why those who believe in evolution appropriately call it a "theory." If someone who believes in creation would refer to it as the "theory" of creation, then maybe more fruitful discussions could be had.

 

 

I'm not sure if anyone has replied to this but this is actually incorrect.  First of all, there is no 'absolute truth,' in science, only increasing approximations of certainty.  We've reached a point of 99.99999 certainty that Darwin's framework is correct, and most if not all studies are only adding more 9s.  In science, a 'Theory' is a step up from a hypothesis; in order to become a theory, a hypothesis needs to be tested and validated through the scientific method.  A theory is framework for describing observed phenomena.  Evolution has been proven as much as a theory can be proven.  It is not 'proven' in the mathematical sense, however it is established to the point that it would be unreasonable to deny it.  There is no hypothesis that is anywhere close to being established as a theory in the same sense that evolution is.  Creationists have yet to provide any solid evidence and they are unlikely to.  If they do, it would completely invalidate nearly 2 centuries worth of scientific research, which includes our ability to study viruses and any number of things, because the theory of evolution is the organizing framework that all of modern biology is based on.

 

Unlike Creationism, evolution is falsifiable.  In theory, there are several things we could that would disprove it altogether; a famous example is rabbits in a pre-Cambrian layer.  Here's a good post from Jerry Coyne that explores this further.

 

Creationists, on the other hand, can't or won't provide such a list.  Instead they just fabricate justifications for their own hypothesis that are unprovable and unfalsifiable.  For example they will tell you that starlight is millions/billions of years old because God made them look that way when he created them 6,000 years ago.  There's no way you can prove or disprove this; it is sheer speculation that they pull out of their asses because it's the best they can do.

 

The burden of proof goes to the one making the extra-ordinary claim.  Since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it is up to Creationists to provide better evidence.. which they can't, which is why they keep resorting to these same old word games and platitudes.

 

ALl this is to say.. you can't really 'debate' these people.  They are crazy.  But it doesn't hurt either, because others might be watching.

 

Nate,

 

You actually agreed with me in principle, but you have the words to explain what I was trying to say but didn't have the words for. Thanks for expounding so clearly on the matter.

 

Human

 

 

 

Yeah, based on chatting with you it seems like we are on the same page.  Just felt the need to point out a few things.

[gall]

I've been in discussions both online and offline with Creationist Christians (not all Christians are Creationists, but that's another story) and I tend to come away feeling deflated. Not defeated, for I'm not looking to 'win' any arguments, but at the very least, I sometimes wish I could at least come away feeling that the other person sees my point of view...or at least believes to some degree that yes, there is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

When I was a Christian, I believed in the theory of evolution...I pretty much always have, when one also believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, it becomes difficult for them to be open minded to all that science holds. Why, I'm not sure.

 

Some of the rebuttals I've been receiving are...''you are making baseless claims,'' or ''the evidence you have is circumstantial'' (huh?) or ''Darwin's theory has been proven to be riddled with errors,'' etc...etc...

 

So, wondering if any of you have ever entered a debate with a Creationist, now that you are no longer Christian yourself, and have had a productive/fruitful discussion?

 

Simply put you will never win or convince them unless they already doubt what they believe, other than that blind faith is sustaining their belief system.

 

Anyone that will discount raw empirical evidence and rather accept things they cannot prove in any fashion except through their "heart" and "soul" have no business discussing our origins. Until they will at least accept the fact they could be wrong I don't even see why a civil argument should be presented to them. If they are just finger in ears and "lah lah lah" to everything you say just waiting for their turn to speak (and I have almost never found one who wasn't doing this with a sick little smile on their face) why should we even talk to them?

 

You are wasting your time basically and unless you take joy in this don't count on turning them to your side whatever that is. There are some people I know I have been talking to about this for over 20 years and they are still as blind as the first conversation, mostly to the point I won't even talk with most of them about anything now and avoid them.

[Deidre]

How do you debate a Creationist?...Try first looking at why you are debating them.  If the reason is to change their mind, then throwing facts and data at them will do nothing.  They do not trust you to accept your information.  If there is no trust, they will not listen.  That is natural and actually very smart.  Most people think that debating is about one upping the opponent.  All that does is come down to who has looked up the most facts and there is no real understanding.  Most debate comes down to the old game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.  If you REALLY want to reach them, look back to the old days of evangelizing. Get to know them as a person first.  Don't even try to argue.  At some point, they will want to know what you think.  People are never convinced of anything they don't want to be convinced of.  

 

On here people will debate in TOT.  Most of that is just bullshiting around, or it eventually degrades into bullshitting.

 

 

This is gold, BO. Really. Amazing post, thanks much!

I'm used to trying to form a rebuttal with you but not today.

 

 

 

 

When I saw the post title I thought it said "How to Date a Creationist?"

  lmao!!! Hmmmm....

 

 

 

 

 

What is somewhat scary with one of my friends is that he doesn't understand why there are still apes if we evolved? I go over why and still...he seems lost. Sometimes I think it is ignorance and not a lack of understanding when it comes to creationist mind sets. There's a difference. :-/

 yes, it takes a lot a faith to be a good Christian if one knows the details of evidence to the contrary. And it takes much relevant knowledge to be a confident atheist. For me I find no purpose for debating Christians. They may be misinformed or misguided, but the old philosophical question comes to play: Which is better, to have a happy highly-functional life, but be mistaken as to the cause and foundations of reality, or a person who has the correct knowledge and understandings of reality, but is neither happy or highly functional? There is no correct answer to this question so that my teachings to a Christian, if they finally "see the light," would not necessarily help them -- which would be my reason for explaining things to them in the first place.  Some maybe less educated atheists might have real debates with Christians whereby both consider the possibility that they might learn something. There's nothing wrong with that IMO.

This is a great post. I agree. It's weird. If the Christian is rude, obnoxious, I have no problem debating them. It is some humble Christians that I run across online or my own friends offline who I struggle to even want to debate. Perhaps I fear alienating them? And for what? To prove what?On online forums, I've engaged in debate and those sites are designed to debate and disagree. But when it comes to people you know in offline life, your words can wound a good thing.I also find sometimes that if I'm on a roll, some anger kicks in. Not at them, but at having spent so many years pursuing a lie. You know?Thank you for taking the time to say this.

Deidre,What do you do when the anger kicks in?

When I left Christianity, I had so many emotions anger being one of them. I soon realized that I would have to treat the "loss" as any other loss and mourn it. Go through the stages of grief. Are you familiar?

 

Even though "losing" Christianity was the right thing for me, I was mourning the life I once had as a Christian. But if I debate others online or offline, those old hurts can kick up and now I just process them by ceasing the dialogue and moving on. I remember when my atheist friends would debate me when I was a Christian and so I'm reminded that it is obedience that keeps a Christian locked up, not stupidity.

[Thurisaz]

"...citizens of Oceania who somehow escaped into the real world..." as if they were some dark, self-destructive (or at least self-defeating) archetype. Very cool imagery, Thurisaz.

Thankies. Let's just hope we won't need some kind of... dare I say it?... exorcist to get rid of them!

[Vigile]

"how to successfully debate a creationist"

 

Don't

[Roz]

Just want to throw this in here.  It wasn't creationism, but rather god's morality, that caused me to become an atheist.  However, the same game of one-upping the other guy applies.

I hated the guy who said that I was worshipping a slaver, and you guys know I'm not a white man... Me, worshipping someone who instituted slavery?  You F'ing ass!  That drove me to dig up apologetics on the exact verses (Lev. 25).  The desire to one-up the bastard drove me to the point where I must choose to give up my religion or stay worshipping the slaver god, and look how that went.

 

All I'm saying is that their desire to one-up everything you've said about evolution may just drive them to the brink where we've all stood.  

[LongWayAround]

Anyone that will discount raw empirical evidence and rather accept things they cannot prove in any fashion except through their "heart" and "soul" have no business discussing our origins. Until they will at least accept the fact they could be wrong I don't even see why a civil argument should be presented to them. If they are just finger in ears and "lah lah lah" to everything you say just waiting for their turn to speak (and I have almost never found one who wasn't doing this with a sick little smile on their face) why should we even talk to them?

 

I watched a Youtube video of Richard Dawkins interviewing a creationist (Wendy Wright) yesterday and she constantly had the "sick little smile on her face".  I have to commend Richard for his calm, patient manner because I frequently wanted to punch her in the face.

[Deidre]

Just want to throw this in here.  It wasn't creationism, but rather god's morality, that caused me to become an atheist.  However, the same game of one-upping the other guy applies.

I hated the guy who said that I was worshipping a slaver, and you guys know I'm not a white man... Me, worshipping someone who instituted slavery?  You F'ing ass!  That drove me to dig up apologetics on the exact verses (Lev. 25).  The desire to one-up the bastard drove me to the point where I must choose to give up my religion or stay worshipping the slaver god, and look how that went.

 

All I'm saying is that their desire to one-up everything you've said about evolution may just drive them to the brink where we've all stood.

 

So true!

 

Isn't it funny? Man knows what "God" is thinking at all times and knows what he hates. And it always mirrors what man hates.

[Deidre]

 

Anyone that will discount raw empirical evidence and rather accept things they cannot prove in any fashion except through their "heart" and "soul" have no business discussing our origins. Until they will at least accept the fact they could be wrong I don't even see why a civil argument should be presented to them. If they are just finger in ears and "lah lah lah" to everything you say just waiting for their turn to speak (and I have almost never found one who wasn't doing this with a sick little smile on their face) why should we even talk to them?

 

 

I watched a Youtube video of Richard Dawkins interviewing a creationist (Wendy Wright) yesterday and she constantly had the "sick little smile on her face".  I have to commend Richard for his calm, patient manner because I frequently wanted to punch her in the face.

Lol

[RipVanWinkle]

"Now I need to refresh my memory. Did Winston Smith fully recover mentally near the end of the story but then suffer a relapse into doublethink at the very end? You seem more recently familiar with the book than I am. Does Orwell present the possibility of mental recovery? full escape from doublethink?" Human

 

I read that book fairly  recently and I am pretty sure Winston never overcame doublethink. This ending is consistent with Orwell's purpose, which was to warn of things that may come.  bill

[RipVanWinkle]

""j"How do you debate a Creationist?...Try first looking at why you are debating them.  If the reason is to change their mind, then throwing facts and data at them will do nothing.  They do not trust you to accept your information.  If there is no trust, they will not listen.  That is natural and actually very smart.  Most people think that debating is about one upping the opponent.  All that does is come down to who has looked up the most facts and there is no real understanding.  Most debate comes down to the old game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.  If you REALLY want to reach them, look back to the old days of evangelizing. Get to know them as a person first.  Don't even try to argue.  At some point, they will want to know what you think.  People are never convinced of anything they don't want to be convinced of.  "

 

Very perceptive Burnedout. It reminds me of something I was taught in a Seminar I went to years ago. The speaker, a former US District Court judge. and federal prosecutor, was the best teacher on jury trials I ever knew, obnoxious though he was. He pointed out you don't convince a person to change his mind about anything of significance. If you are to persuade a jury, you must present your case in such a manner that they will think that if they vote for your side, they will be affirming a deep seated, cherished belief that they already have. They want to always believe that their vote supported their heart felt principles and that they have done the right thing. The same principle applies to trying to persuade anybody to be on your side about anything. It should never be a contest of you  against them.    bill.

[DoubtingNate]

 

 

Anyone that will discount raw empirical evidence and rather accept things they cannot prove in any fashion except through their "heart" and "soul" have no business discussing our origins. Until they will at least accept the fact they could be wrong I don't even see why a civil argument should be presented to them. If they are just finger in ears and "lah lah lah" to everything you say just waiting for their turn to speak (and I have almost never found one who wasn't doing this with a sick little smile on their face) why should we even talk to them?

 I watched a Youtube video of Richard Dawkins interviewing a creationist (Wendy Wright) yesterday and she constantly had the "sick little smile on her face".  I have to commend Richard for his calm, patient manner because I frequently wanted to punch her in the face.

Maybe she looked sick because she felt sick, realizing the Dawkins was making more sense than she was.

No, I saw the video... She was being incredibly smug. It was maddening, yet fascinating to watch. They talk for over an hour.

[Thurisaz]

Now I need to refresh my memory. Did Winston Smith fully recover mentally near the end of the story but then suffer a relapse into doublethink at the very end? You seem more recently familiar with the book than I am. Does Orwell present the possibility of mental recovery? full escape from doublethink?

 

 

Thanks for reminding me. I seem to recall a movie version of 1984 starring John Hurt. Does that seem correct to you? And the scene in the end where he is being interrogated/tortured/mentally reconditioned. He relents and accepts his place in the system once again. I think he walks out, beaten into humility, carrying his shoes (or a new pair of shoes they gave him as a reward). I don't know if that's right. My imagination is trying to fill in enough to reconstruct a memory.

Both book and movie show Winston snap (for all the watcher/reader can tell) under the pressure of torture and brainwashing. Last scene of the movie - I'd have to grab the book from the shelf again to check that - is of him looking up at one of the huge images of big brother with tears in his eyes, softly mumbling "I love you". I know that the book states as much too, quite literally saying "finally, he loved the big brother".

 

The book states that Winston tries to retreat into doublethink to endure the torture while (so he hopes) secretly keeping his convictions intact but the reader is left to her own devices deciding whether that worked. It it worked then it worked so damn well that no one can tell, not even Winston himself. As I understand it the message is a very dark one - at the moment where he is threatened with the thing he fears most (rats) and even betrays his beloved Julia to escape that horror he's defeated for good.

 

That said, the movie's a good one (I own both movie and book) but the most important concepts and messages of Orwell's book can't possibly be conveyed by any movie. One can watch the movie for a first impression/summary but I say everyone must read the book afterwards, in full, including the enormously important appendices.

[DoubtingNate]

 

I've seen a fair number of these type interactions. Does there seem to be anything new in this one? Or is Dawkins simply taking on all comers in the hope that some listeners might learn better how to do critical thinking?

 

 

Maybe not anything new, but I think it really sums up the whole debate beautifully.

[DoubtingNate]

 

 

 

 

Anyone that will discount raw empirical evidence and rather accept things they cannot prove in any fashion except through their "heart" and "soul" have no business discussing our origins. Until they will at least accept the fact they could be wrong I don't even see why a civil argument should be presented to them. If they are just finger in ears and "lah lah lah" to everything you say just waiting for their turn to speak (and I have almost never found one who wasn't doing this with a sick little smile on their face) why should we even talk to them?

 I watched a Youtube video of Richard Dawkins interviewing a creationist (Wendy Wright) yesterday and she constantly had the "sick little smile on her face".  I have to commend Richard for his calm, patient manner because I frequently wanted to punch her in the face.

 

Maybe she looked sick because she felt sick, realizing the Dawkins was making more sense than she was.

 

No, I saw the video... She was being incredibly smug. It was maddening, yet fascinating to watch. They talk for over an hour.

 

Do you have the link to the video? I'll give it a listen. If you post it, please "quote" me, so it shows up in my notifications. Thanks.

 

 

[UnFundEd]

 

 

Realize that they have the burden of proof.  The onus is on THEM because they've made the positive claim that their god (specific christian god) created everything.

 

Also, Aron Ra's presentations are wonderful.  I've learned a lot from them, the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

The burden of proof is on anyone who claims their view is absolute truth. That's why those who believe in evolution appropriately call it a "theory." If someone who believes in creation would refer to it as the "theory" of creation, then maybe more fruitful discussions could be had.

 

 

I'm not sure if anyone has replied to this but this is actually incorrect.  First of all, there is no 'absolute truth,' in science, only increasing approximations of certainty.  We've reached a point of 99.99999 certainty that Darwin's framework is correct, and most if not all studies are only adding more 9s.  In science, a 'Theory' is a step up from a hypothesis; in order to become a theory, a hypothesis needs to be tested and validated through the scientific method.  A theory is framework for describing observed phenomena.  Evolution has been proven as much as a theory can be proven.  It is not 'proven' in the mathematical sense, however it is established to the point that it would be unreasonable to deny it.  There is no hypothesis that is anywhere close to being established as a theory in the same sense that evolution is.  Creationists have yet to provide any solid evidence and they are unlikely to.  If they do, it would completely invalidate nearly 2 centuries worth of scientific research, which includes our ability to study viruses and any number of things, because the theory of evolution is the organizing framework that all of modern biology is based on.

 

Unlike Creationism, evolution is falsifiable.  In theory, there are several things we could that would disprove it altogether; a famous example is rabbits in a pre-Cambrian layer.  Here's a good post from Jerry Coyne that explores this further.

 

Creationists, on the other hand, can't or won't provide such a list.  Instead they just fabricate justifications for their own hypothesis that are unprovable and unfalsifiable.  For example they will tell you that starlight is millions/billions of years old because God made them look that way when he created them 6,000 years ago.  There's no way you can prove or disprove this; it is sheer speculation that they pull out of their asses because it's the best they can do.

 

The burden of proof goes to the one making the extra-ordinary claim.  Since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it is up to Creationists to provide better evidence.. which they can't, which is why they keep resorting to these same old word games and platitudes.

 

ALl this is to say.. you can't really 'debate' these people.  They are crazy.  But it doesn't hurt either, because others might be watching.

 

Part of the secret to debating creationists is to think like they do. So, from their perspective you have to ask why God would want to make star light look like it was millions of years old (or make dinosaur bones look old). The only reasonable answer is that he wanted to fool lots of people into not believing the bible. He would presumably do so because he hates people and wants to send more of them to hell. 

[UnFundEd]

Thanks for the words of welcome.

[RipVanWinkle]

"Also, I almost missed your reply, because you didn't use the "quote" feature. (I receive notifications when someone "quotes" a post I made.) Is the "quote" button not working for you. It took me quite a long time to figure how to use it. Deiedre32 explained it to me."     Human 

 

I use quotes as I am doing above.  Is that different than how you use them?   bill

 

 

 

" I seem to recall a movie version of 1984 starring John Hurt. Does that seem correct to you?"   Human

 

I don't remember the movie "1984', so I don't know,   bill

[Deidre]

After all of this discussion (and thank you to all who posted replies in here, I've read them all)...I've decided to hold off on debating Christians about anything. I've got some very nice efriends and offline friends, who happen to be Christian. I'm torn between wanting to ''point out'' scientific 'truths,' and staying silent, and just enjoying their friendships.

 

I never want to become a noisy atheist. Is that wrong? I don't want to be a sheepish one either, and I'm honestly not. But, I don't want to become as I was as a Christian...constantly trying to steer people to my way of thinking. As a Christian, I did it because I thought I was honoring ''God'' in doing so.

 

But, there is still something positive to be had about leading someone to truth...truth as we all know it, now. That does have its dangers though. I've already lost two friends over my coming out. One, sort of came back ...but, I don't know if we can ever regain what was lost. Not on my part, on hers. But, it still hurts me to know I'm being judged for my beliefs, and not as a person. Yes, my beliefs shape me to a degree, but I'm still me.

 

Sorry for the ramble, but that's how I see it for now. I agree with those here that stated as such, and I read and reread your posts a few times. Because it resondated. I'm not feeling defeated...it's not that. It's more that I just want to be me. I spent so long trying to prove God to so many people, as a Christian...I don't want to prove anything for a while, maybe.

 

I hope this sounds normal. lol

[Merlin]

Deidre, this bit of information may help you.  You need to study the documentary hypothesis.  The 'documentary hypothesis' doesn't have to do with creationism on the surface, but it serves to evenhandedly destroy both the theory of biblical creationism and the entire historic legitimacy of the entire Old Testament at the same time.  I learned all about it in a secular Old Testament history class I took in college.   The documentary hypothesis explains how the Pentateuch (the first five books of the old testament) was not actually written just by Moses.  It shows how the books were actually written and put together over time by different Hebrew scholars and various Hebrew schools of thought over an extended period of time. 

 

I'll cut to the chase.  The old testament is not a very reliable account of ancient history.  The stories recorded in it are blatantly biased in favor of Hebrew tribal expansion, and there are parts of the supposed history of the Hebrews that have been completely contradicted by other historic writings created by people who lived in the same region in the same time period as the ancient Hebrews.  Here is a link to a wiki article where you can learn more about it and do further research:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

 

If you take the time to study this, you should not have any reasonable doubts left that would persuade you that the stories in the Old Testament are 100% true.

[Deidre]

Deidre, this bit of information may help you.  You need to study the documentary hypothesis.  The 'documentary hypothesis' doesn't have to do with creationism on the surface, but it serves to evenhandedly destroy both the theory of biblical creationism and the entire historic legitimacy of the entire Old Testament at the same time.  I learned all about it in a secular Old Testament history class I took in college.   The documentary hypothesis explains how the Pentateuch (the first five books of the old testament) was not actually written just by Moses.  It shows how the books were actually written and put together over time by different Hebrew scholars and various Hebrew schools of thought over an extended period of time. 

 

I'll cut to the chase.  The old testament is not a very reliable account of ancient history.  The stories recorded in it are blatantly biased in favor of Hebrew tribal expansion, and there are parts of the supposed history of the Hebrews that have been completely contradicted by other historic writings created by people who lived in the same region in the same time period as the ancient Hebrews.  Here is a link to a wiki article where you can learn more about it and do further research:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

 

If you take the time to study this, you should not have any reasonable doubts left that would persuade you that the stories in the Old Testament are 100% true.

This has been of great help. And, I don't have any reasonable doubts, or any doubts at all about the validity of the Bible, any of it.

Thanks for your post.