Apologia

New Website

2009-03-10T19:25:00.000-07:00

The new focus for the Apologia Podcast will be the aptly-named: Apologia-Podcast.Net

This site will be phased out from active duty, please update your links and check out the new place.

Stump the Theists

2008-11-12T20:00:00.000-08:00

What are the hardest questions you have for our theist discussion participants?

What the Devil?

2008-10-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

In honor of the upcoming Halloween holiday, we're going to take a bit of a topical break to talk about the birthday-boy himself, the Devil. Where does the popular conception of Satan come from? How does Satan fit in with modern Christian orthodoxy? And what does Satanism itself teach?

The Problems with Atheism

2008-10-10T20:40:00.001-07:00

The atheists in the discussion gather together to share some of their problems, whether they be intellectual, emotional, or cultural, with atheism.

Stump the Atheists

2008-09-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

A slightly different format- the theists moderate and ask questions of the atheists, with the goal of stumping them.

Love, Sex, and Marriage

2008-09-13T12:00:00.000-07:00

An impromptu discussion about love, sex, and marriage by some of the atheist participants.

Free Will

2008-07-25T19:55:00.000-07:00

A discussion about the nature of free will and its relevance to ethics.

Request

2008-07-19T15:04:00.000-07:00

Greetings, Apologia listeners, I have a personal message for you all. I'm very pleased to note that our daily feed activity is approaching 500 people per day, and our most recent discussions seem to have attracted an audience of about 1000. As moderator and on behalf of the Apologia participants, I can tell you that it is an absolute pleasure to organize and produce this podcast, hopefully as much as it is a pleasure for you to listen to it. As you are aware, the strength of the Apologia format comes from its commitment to different points of view, particularly along the theist - atheist axis, as well as the generous and civil way in which the participants share their various perspectives. Throughout its lifetime, the Apologia podcast has benefitted from new people and fresh ideas, and I'd like to see that continue and even accelerate, with your help. The vision for this podcast comes from its conception in a pub, over a few pints of beer, my friends and I saw the potential in translating open and honest barside conversations about religion, philosophy, and morality to a medium that allows a broader audience to, as it were, lean their chairs in the direction of our discussion.

It's no secret that these subjects are no longer being monopolized by the Christian worldview, and as individuals who find atheism, naturalism, or other secular positions persuasive gain traction in our culture, we'll need to choose between redrawing our tribal boundaries around those who share our own particular beliefs, or alternatively, venturing over to the other side of the fence to really get to know those individuals who, although they may not share our personal conclusions, at least share our commitment to the personal exploration of truth, wherever it leads.

And so in that spirit, I'd like to reach out to the Apologia listeners. Would you be interested in joining the conversation? Several of our participants have been listeners who simply asked if there was room for one more at the table. And there certainly is, especially for individuals who represent a theist point of view, whether that be jewish, muslim, hindu, etc., and especially for any women, as the feminine perspective has been, admittedly, severely under-represented in the Apologia discussion. The requirements are few, but important. You must be committed to an open and honest investigation of truth, and you have to be relatively comfortable speaking your mind in a setting with several other opinionated individuals who enjoy nothing more than to probe the limits of each others beliefs, in the hope of finding common understanding and agreement. If you think that you may be one of those individuals, or you may know of someone who is, please feel free to contact me by email at zach@drzach.net, or post a note here at the blog.

I appreciate your support, and I hope to talk to you next time on Apologia.

Chris Hedges Doesn't Believe in Atheists

2008-06-25T09:28:00.001-07:00

If you'd like to bone up on Hedges' thesis (without having to read the whole book), please read the opening statement of his debate against Sam Harris at truthdig.

A few key tidbits:

On God: "God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust."

On Faith: "Faith allows us to trust, rather, in human compassion, even in a cruel and morally neutral universe. This is not faith in magic, not faith in church doctrine or church hierarchy, but faith in simple human kindness. It is only by holding on to the sanctity of each individual, each human life, only by placing our faith in the tiny, insignificant acts of compassion and kindness, that we survive as a community and as a human being. And these small acts of kindness are deeply feared and subversive to institutional religious and political authorities."

On Religion and Violence: "...let us not forget that the worst genocides and slaughters of the last century were perpetrated not by Muslims but Christians. To someone who lived in Sarajevo during the Serbian siege of the city, Sam’s demonization of the Muslim world seems odd. It was the Muslim-led government in Bosnia that practiced tolerance. There were some 10,000 Serbs who remained in the city and fought alongside the Bosnia Muslims during the war. The city’s Jewish community, dating back to 1492, was also loyal to the government. And the worst atrocities of the war were blessed not by imams but Catholic and Serbian Orthodox priests. Sam’s argument that atheists have a higher moral code is as specious as his attacks on Islam. Does he forget Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot? These three alone filled the earth with more corpses in the last century than all of the world’s clerics combined."

Artificial Intelligence

2008-06-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

How should we relate to artificially intelligent entities?

Guest: Tom Barbalet of the Biota.org podcast.

Tom has provided the following resources regarding his perspective of robotic consciousness:

http://www.nobleape.com/transcript/srr126.html

http://www.shrinkrapradio.com/2007/12/16/126-shrink-rap-radio-live-3-artificial-life-and-artificial-intelligence/

The Mind-Body Problem

2008-05-28T20:00:00.000-07:00

A discussion about the ways we attempt to resolve the seeming contradiction between a metaphysical mind inhabiting a physical body. Featuring Rodrigo Neely and Dr. Ian Norris as special guests.

Video: Rodrigo Neely, discussing the mind-body problem in a lecture to the North Texas Skeptics:

The Ethics of Food

2008-05-14T20:00:00.000-07:00

A discussion of the ethical considerations that we all employ when we decide what we should and should not eat. With special guest Richard Spencer of the Faith and Freethought podcast.

Debate

2008-04-27T13:54:00.001-07:00

John Ferrer joins the discussion to talk about the debate that he and Zach recently participated in at the University of Texas at Arlington entitled, "Is God Good?"

Audio from the debate can be found here.

Erratta

2008-04-23T20:32:00.001-07:00

In the episode we recorded tonight, I conflated and confused the history of the Midianites with the Amalekites and the Canaanites. I owe John Ferrer an apology on this basis, however I uphold my contention that, even given the blood feud underway between the Midianites and the Israelites in the book of Numbers, genocide and forced pedophillic sexual slavery are still utterly without moral justification. Although such things were common in the warfare of the time, the fact that Yahweh both sanctioned and commanded these actions neuters the notion that he is somehow "good."

Zach - if you have a chance, could you place this errata at the front or back of the podcast?

Argument from Lexicography

2008-03-26T19:26:00.000-07:00

At the end of the "Arguments Against God" episode I briefly laid out what I call "The Argument from Lexicography." It turned out to be too deeply exigetical to get into at the tail end of a show, so we'll be tackling it in the next show along with the "Argument from Evil" and the "Argument from Divine Evil."

The Argument from Lexicography goes as such:

1) The Christian God is held to be loving, good, and just.

2) The God portrayed in the Bible is neither loving, good, nor just.

A) The God portrayed in the Bible is not loving (according to Paul's definition of Love in 1 Corinthians 13). Advanced as evidence for this is his lack of of kindness (commanding infant circumcision, Jesus' attempt to keep people from repenting for their sins, his coercion and bullying of people like Job and Jonah), his rampant envy and jealousy (exemplified by the First Commandment of the Decalogue, and God's repeated labeling of himself as a "Jealous God"). God is both prideful and boastful, going on at length about his mightyness, and (according to Christian theology) creating the universe for the sole purpose of glorifying himself). He is self-serving, manipulating people and events to serve his own ends (Moses, Job, sending evil spirits to torment Saul, etc.). He is swift to anger - there are, indeed, so many things that make him angry that Christian theology (beginning with Paul) claims that it is only through man's repentance and devotion that can God be persuaded to accept Jesus' death as covering for our deeds which offend him. The law of Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy, and the major and minor prophets, are full of things which offend God (dietary choices, sexual choices, religious observance choices, basic human emotions such as anger and lust). He is resentful and holds grudges (observe his long anger against Israel, his punishment of the distant descendants of Ham to fulfill Noah's curse (Noah cursed Ham for laughing at his penis. Christian Theology further holds that God will engage in a final judgment, during which a person will be prosecuted for their every misstep, and that such a person will only be pardoned if he is covered by the blood of Jesus. Thus, God keeps a record of wrongs).
Thus, on almost every point of the Christian definition of love (which is an excellent definition), God fails to live up to the standard. He is, thus, neither generally loving nor love embodied.

B) The God portrayed in the Bible is not just. In the Old Testament he punishes whole nations (including children and livestock) for the sins of the ruling class, the culture, or even of the many. He proposes to absolve sins through blood sacrifice and substitutionary atonement (i.e. punishing a third party) rather than by either punishing people for their sins and rewarding them for their good works (justice) or forgiving people their sins (merciful) . In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, God (except in special circumstances) accepts repentance only when repentance is accompanied by the infliction of punishment upon an innocent third party (sacrificial animals, Jesus, etc.). He further commands (in the Old Testament) the barring of deformed or injured people from fellowship with him, and the punishment (by death) of the ritually impure. Yet, he "holds blameless" those who do his will, even when his will involves acts that are otherwise sinful according to the Bible (such as the murder of women and children) or evil by the standards of Western morality (such as the owning of slaves, the subjugation of women, racism, and xenophobia).

C) God is not good. His lack of lovingness or justice is a strike against him here, but those are not that only reasons to assert he is not good. He is portrayed throughout the Bible operating in wantonly cruel ways: He accepts the human sacrifice of Jephtah's daughter in exchange for victory. His prophets count Lot as a good man because Lot offered his daughters up for gang rape to save his guests (god in disguise) from humiliation. He gives favor to David and calls him "a man after God's own heart," and finds blame in David only when David takes Bathsheba and murders Uriah (this despite the fact that David was a thief, a highwayman and terrorist, an usurper, failed to do justly by his own daughter when she was raped by his son, and had many many other disreputable/evil qualities). He issues no command for the emancipation of slaves, but rather endorses slavery (in both the Old and New Testaments). He is capricious and vainglorious, torturing Job and killing Job's family to win a bet with Satan, and then justifying it by saying "I'm strong, therefore I'm right." He displays consistent favoritism, and he threatens with violence those who do not show him the obeisance he believes himself due (indeed, according to Church doctrine those who do not worship him and accept his blood sacrifice will be done violence to for eternity).

3) On the basis of the testimony of the Bible, calling God "Good" "Love/Loving" or "Just" requires a complete redefinition of all of these terms. "Good" must become "That which God wills" (and thus based totally on caprice rather than on anything that can be rightly called morality). "Love" must be twisted to mean the kind of "love" that an abusive husband or father has for his victims. "Justice" must come to mean the kind of justice that punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

4) Therefore, if the Bible paints an accurate picture of the true God, then the God defined by Christian doctrine does not exist. If, on the other hand, the Bible does not paint an accurate picture of God, then Christianity cannot be true (as it depends wholly on the Bible).

Arguments Against God

2008-03-24T10:57:00.000-07:00

Continuing from the previous discussion, we'll move on to address some arguments against the concept of the Christian God.

For background reading, check out Ted Drange's list here... and then listen to Dan and Reggie Finley discuss the list here (Infidel Guy show, March 2006).

More arguments can be found at StrongAtheism.net.

Arguments for God

2008-03-14T13:28:00.000-07:00

On the Reasonable Faith Podcast, Kevin and Bill Craig have presented what they say are the best arguments for the Christian God.

1. The Moral Argument

If God did not exist, objective moral values would not exist
Objective moral values DO exist
God exists.

2. The Kalam-Cosmological Argument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
The universe had a cause.

Here is a more complete version of the Kalam-Cosmological argument.

3. Teleological Argument

The universe is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Therefore, the universe must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
Therefore, God exists.

(This argument is usually presented with a Fine-Tuning chaser.)

4. Ontological Argument (Anselm)

God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one's imagination.
Therefore, God must exist in reality; if He did not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.

Ontological Argument (Plantinga)

It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Partners

2008-03-02T17:53:00.000-08:00

Some of the partners of the regular Apologia participants get together for a "ladies' night" of sorts, and talk about their own religious experiences and interest in common ground.

More thoughts on sexual ethics...

2008-03-01T11:52:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone, Danny here. Sorry I missed this episode, I enjoyed listening to it. I thought I'd give my two cents here.

I'm in a fairly unique position here as an atheist. I'm probably more "sexually pure" than many other Christians. The only person I've ever slept with is my wife and we didn't sleep together until after marriage. Now, I'd never be one to say that what we did was wrong, but I no longer think it's necessarily the "right way" either.

I think Kevin explained very well that fact the Christianity is not against sex or sexuality the way it's often perceived. When my former church talked about purity, they talked about how awesome and beautiful it is to express your love sexually for the one person that God picked out for you , and no one else. It's very romantic. If it's done right, it can be very cool.

However, life isn't always perfect romance, is it? I think one of the reasons we got married so young is that we didn't want to put anymore time in front of our need for sexual contact. That's not the reason we were married... at least, that wasn't the only thing. Of course, we were in love and we still are deeply in love. But if we could do it over again knowing what we know now, would we do it the same way? Probably not.

There were some good things about it. It was a character building challenge. It made some very good changes in our relationship. When we were alone together, we were forced to talk and talk and talk. What else is there to do? But all in all, the whole thing was done for slightly silly reasons. If you believe all the religious stuff behind the theory, it is it's own reward. But as freethinkers, it feels like we just denied ourselves some great pleasure.

I guess what I learned from all this, is that if you are ingrained in a Christian paradigm and you have a problem with "giving yourself" to someone other than your one, true soul-mate; you're going to be in a very tough position. You'll either bite the bullet, resist the temptation and devote yourself to building a strong relationship outside of sex and save it until you're ready for marriage. Or you'll give up, give in and have to deal with a whole world of un-necessary guilt for your actions.

I like what Dan said about the difference between sexual stupidness and sexual immorality. You shouldn't feel guilty for sexual stupidness, it's just a mistake like any other. Learn from it, and move on. The problem is when someone equates mistakes with actual immorality. It may be hard for someone to get out of their head the idea that they've been "violated" or "used" once they've had a sexual experience. Of course, I'm talking only about consensual sex between two adults.... There are of course sexual crimes that are devastating. That's neither here nor there.

So, doing it the Christian way is hard. And it's risky. It's a very high bar to live up to, and if you fail it could be a world of hurt and guilt. If you do it right, you'll probably be all the better for it.

That's all I got to say about that.

Sexual Ethics

2008-02-24T22:21:00.001-08:00

Homosexuality

2008-01-23T07:58:00.000-08:00

For this episode, we were joined by Reed Braden, who writes the blog "Unorthodox Atheism," and is also the co-host of the "Two Smokin' Hot Freethinkers" podcast. Reed has recently come out both as an atheist and as a homosexual, giving him a valuable perspective for this discussion (or, as he phrased it, making him the 'token gay').

Some of the questions in this podcast included:

What can you tell us about the experience of being a homosexual within and without of the Christian worldview?
What is the mainstream Christian approach to homosexuality?
What does the Bible tell us about homosexuality?
How do atheists and nonbelievers approach homosexuality?
How have your views towards homosexuality changed since leaving Christianity?
Is it possible that the Christian regard for homosexuality is changing, and will become a non-issue in the future?

Feel free to continue this discussion in the comments below.

New to Jesus Mythicism

2007-07-22T15:46:00.000-07:00

This is a brief posting to address those fellow Christians new to these ideas. I spoke a little on the last podcast about this but wanted to put something here as well.

1. If you haven't had a pastor or other influential spiritual personality hammer proper exegesis into your head by now, consider this a hammering. A considerable amount (though, obviously, not nearly all) of the mythicist position and other objections to the historicity of the Gospel accounts rest on exegeting Scripture. If you are not on your game in this area, these objections can seem very overwhelming and cause you to lose heart. Read through the texts mentioned very carefully, and judge for yourselves.

2. Judge for yourselves the validity and soundness of the arguments. Guys like Robert M. Price are very persuasive and have great personalities, which can make them difficult to wrestle with. As with any other careful study, don't let anything intimidate you; rather, deal with the arguments themselves and make sure you are careful. (This, of course, is not at all to suggest that the force of Price's arguments rest on his presentation--quite the opposite. It is merely to caution those who might get distracted and feel that they are on the losing side simply because the person sounds right.)

3. Study history! I'll admit it: my grasp of history is woeful; however, that is the case only insofar as I am terrible at remembering important dates and names, &c. Read and study history not merely to take in facts, but also to see how history works and operates.

4. Study those who disagree with you. If you listen to the podcast or read this blog, you probably already do that. But, as Price says, if you go into this thinking you'll be undone, you've given up the game already.

5. Consider where you rest your hope. We have seen historically the damage done by those who attempt to wed Aristotelian or Platonic or Cartesian or Nietzschean philosophy with Jesus and create a more palpable or logically understandable product. If we are honest, we know we are dealing with an incredibly complex issue (indeed, if we say that God does exist--and I do, I don't think it gets much more complicated than that!) Marrying one metanarrative to another does not always solve problems; often-times it only creates more of them. Remember that what we believe is "foolishness" so don't expect everything to come together as cleanly as we would all like.

Listen to the podcasts and wrestle with this stuff. I'm walking through it with you and it's all pretty new to me, too.

The Arguments for Mythicism

2007-07-11T19:19:00.001-07:00

Arguments from silence:

Paul does not corroborate any of the narrative details about Jesus' life as described in any of the Gospels.
Paul does not cite Jesus' teachings when it would be beneficial for his arguments if he had done so.
The Testimonium Flavianum is a suspect interpolation, with the implication that the Jewish historian Josephus was unaware of Jesus' ministry, as well as several historical details mentioned in the Gospels.
Contemporary pagan historians are unaware of any individual Jesus, and any reports (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) are distinctly second-hand (i.e., refer to circulating stories and rumors).

Arguments from similarity:

The character of Jesus shares many archetypical characteristics with previous and contemporary mythical figures (Osiris-Dionysus, Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, etc.)
The essential Gospel narrative shares many narrative elements with previous and contemporary mythical and fictional stories (The Odyssey, The Illiad, Chaereas and Callirhoe, etc.)
The deeds of the character Jesus are very similar to previous and contemporary legends about great men (Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Asclepius, etc.)
Many aspects of the character of Jesus are very similar to those of previous Jewish literary characters (Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc.)

Arguments from Biblical Ahistoricity:

Matthew and Luke base their accounts on Mark, and add extravagant details in a manner that suggests legendary development.
Key details in the Gospels do not conform to established historical facts germane to their setting.
There is evidence of later orthodox revision and redaction in the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and Pastoral Epistles.
Paul's conception of Jesus was that of a spirit-being, rather than as a historical person, who became a savior through deeds performed in pre-historical celestial time.

Arguments for the Historicity of Jesus

2007-07-11T19:13:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Dan:

Very few of the relevant myths predate Christianity, and the common elements between them and Christianity (such as communion, virgin birth, resurrection) have a different significance and/or are cast in a different light.
Because of #1, the parallels are largely apparent with very little true substance, so borrowing and/or influence could not be said to exist.
Currently popular, advanced in "Reinventing Jesus": In cases where the correspondence is legitimate, it is more likely that influence goes the other way, with pagan religions borrowing from Christianity.
alternate argument to #3 advanced by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century: The correspondence is legitimate, and exists because demons read the prophecies about Jesus and tried to discredit him in advance by counterfeiting what he would do so that he wouldn't be believed when he did come.
alternate argument to #3 and #4 advanced by C.S. Lewis: Christianity copies other religions because God saw the yearnings of the human heart working themselves out in the stories men told, and decided to fulfill them in actual fact.
Robert Van Voorst in "Jesus Outside the New Testament" makes an affirmative (rather than defensive) case for historicity. R.T. France does the same in "The Evidence For Jesus." Alastair McGrath has some material on the topic in "The Genesis of Doctrine"
Good historians take historical texts as being generally accurate while attempting to control for bias, and the gospels (particularly Luke) are definitely written as history. In absence of contradictory evidence the gospels should be accepted as generally accurate history.

Christianity and Sex

2007-06-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

As much as some of you may have been surprised at my omission of sexuality in the list of myths about Christianity, I was even more so surprised. In order to help correct that, I am putting this down as myth number eleven.

11. Christianity views sexuality as inappropriate or limits it to procreative activity only.

I am well aware of commentators who have, in the distant past, made the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) out to be a mere allegory to Christ and the church. Now, while I agree that marriage and physical intimacy are intended to point toward Christ, certainly God created sex the way it is to be enjoyed, albeit within marriage. Reading through SOS, there can only be so many parallels between how Christ views us and how Solomon views his wife's breasts. Granted Christ was the creator of our bodies and does indeed see them as beautiful, but I think the scope of the poetry within SOS goes well beyond the reduction of the language to one-to-one correspondence with Christ's marveling at His creativity. There is an inherent sexuality to the book that doesn't have a parallel elsewhere in Scripture with Christ and the church.

Having said all of that, I am a firm believer in the appreciation of sex as something enjoyable and meant to be embraced and written about and sung about and prayed for (yes, prayed for). I honestly thank God for it and I see within Scripture God cheering us on. He created every nerve and fiber and muscle and fluid and it is meant to be a wonderful and creative thing. Maybe we could get Zach to detail what all goes on physiologically to gain an understanding of what's happening. Whether we see it as an evolutionary plus, or something God gave as a gift for us to enjoy and to ultimately point to Himself, we can all agree that it is not something awful or shameful or reducible to simple procreation.

Myths About Christianity

2007-06-20T16:09:00.000-07:00

I did a little digging and found a couple of links that provide some myths about Christians and/or Christianity. Because there are so many on these links, I made my own condensed version to keep with the unsaid 'rule of ten' (kind of like a Calvinist 5-point response to Arminianism...I'm a dork). So here are the links and my amended version:

Sword and Spirit
The Bohemian Eye

John's (Butch's) Top Ten Myths About Christians/Christianity In No Particular Order
1. Christianity is a crutch.
2. Christianity is based on other myths.
3. All Christians are right-wing conservatives.
4. Christianity has done more harm than good.
5. Christians are just weak-minded.
6. Jesus was just a good guy.
7. Christians think they're right no matter what.
8. Christianity poisons everything.
9. Christians are delusional.
10. Christians believe anything the pastor says.

Common Myths About Atheism

2007-06-19T04:31:00.000-07:00

The following are from Austin Cline's series of myths about atheism from his about.com site:

Kudos

2006-11-01T09:09:00.000-08:00

I wanted to share this email I received from a listener:

Zach,

I've wanted to write to you for some time to express my appreciation for both of your podcasts: Evolution 101 and Apologia. I subscribe to both. I sincerely appreciate the non-emotional forum of exchange in the Apologia podcast. I listen to many humanist podcasts and yours is one of the best in terms of showing respect and consideration for differing views. Apologia is a breath of fresh air and an outstanding podcast.

On another note, I wanted to share with you a link to Wheaton Colleges' Physics website where Old Testament scholar Dr. John Walton discusses the Genesis cosmology and basically says it isn't a science book. His presentation is worth a listen. He speaks of the Genesis creation narrative as providing a functional understanding of how man and specifically the Israelites go there, but argues that Genesis in no way describes a scientific explanation of origins... Dr. Walton has published many works including a commentary on Genesis where he lays out his view.

About me: I graduated with a BA in theology from Moody Bible Institute(MBI) in Chicago, but have since given up on the Christian faith. I am still in the pursuit of truth. While Moody is known for being a part of the fundamentalist movement and Wheaton College is conservative as well(Dr. Walton has taught at both schools), we were never taught in Old Testament classes that Genesis is science. Quite the opposite. I credit MBI with eradicating the fundamentalism out of my system. It is funny though when you read Dawkins new book, The God Delusion, where he says that Moody is the bottom of the barrell and Wheaton isn't much better. It's too bad that moderate Christians get lumped in with radical christians. Anyway, I'm sure you get more tips that you care look at.

Take care,

Kevin Hale

Looks like we're making an impact, guys!

Response to Presuppositionalist Apologetics

2006-10-11T07:10:00.000-07:00

This is a bit late for the discussion between James and Kile, but this talk was posted at Debunking Christianity that I thought was pretty interesting.

It's a talk by Gene Witmer of Rutgers on the subject of presuppositionalist apologetics. You can find the PDF here.

Ann Druyan: Science and Religion

2006-09-19T07:31:00.000-07:00

Ann Druyan, the widow of Carl Sagan, was recently interviewed on the Point of Inquiry podcast. She talked a bit about her thoughts on the intersection of science and religion. I thought this might be relevant to any discussion of science we have in the near future.

The podcast can be found here.

Michael Persinger

2006-09-17T12:05:00.001-07:00

From the feedback page:

I am writing to suggest a podcast that I think that you and the Apologia discussants may find thought provoking. It is a lecture by Michael Persinger, a behavioral neuroscientist. His lecture topic might be termed "neurotheology." The lecture is part of the TV Ontario Big Ideas program and can be downloaded on iTunes (subscribe to Big Ideas) or at the the TV Ontario site. Persinger presents some experiments and data from the field of neuroscience that seem to go a long way toward providing a natural explanation of certain kinds of subjective religious experiences. I hope that you have time to listen to it. warm regards, Julian

The audio can be downloaded here.

12 Points That Show Christianity is True

2006-09-14T05:20:00.000-07:00

Kevin has come up with a new syllabus for his "Faith and Reason" class that I think is a pretty good source of topics for us to consider in the discussion.

Truth About Reality Is Knowable
The Opposite Of True Is False
It Is True That The Theistic God Exists
If God Exists Then Miracles Are Possible
Miracles Can Be Used To Confirm A Message From God
The New Testament Is Historically Reliable
The New Testament Says Jesus Claimed To Be God
Jesus' Claim To Be God Was Miraculously Confirmed
Therefore It Is True That Jesus Is God
Whatever Jesus (Who Is God) Teaches Is True
Jesus Taught That The Bible Is The Word Of God
Therefore, It Is True That The Bible Is The Word Of God, And Anything Opposed To It Is False.

Obviously the first point is where our discussion is leading anyway. We've already discussed miracles to a certain extent in our most recent discussion, but the Bible and Jesus are going to be ripe for discussion soon.

Any other suggestions are welcome.

Listener Feedback

2006-09-13T06:07:00.000-07:00

Listeners to our show can give their feedback through my website, www.drzach.net.

The feedback is stored on this page. You can bookmark it, and it will be automatically updated when someone else leaves a note.

Sam Harris on "The Language of God"

2006-09-11T09:21:00.000-07:00

We discussed Sam Harris on our first show. This is a link to his recent [scathing] review of Francis Collins' new book, "The Language of God".

2006-09-11T09:01:00.001-07:00

This is a place where those who are participating in the Apologia podcast discussion can post information and links that may be of interest to us all.