Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

I created this thread in order to hold an Open Forum where all people on GAF can come, listen, and discuss current Academic topics from the weekly podcast "Unbelievable?". This weekly podcast "engages in fundamental questions on Christianity with the intention to openly discuss different opinions between Christians and non-believers." I would like to stress that these podcasts look at two different views regarding the topic being discussed. The show is moderated by Justin Brierley and features a wide range of Academic experts in their fields of studies. Each podcast is available to download in MP3 or stream, but past shows tend to have the download option removed at some point. It is also available through iTunes: Click Here.

So, my goal with this thread is to have a place where people can use Rhetorical tools to discuss what's on these podcasts, while staying away from Logical Fallacies when responding to someone who has an opposing worldview that differs from their own. I hope this thread becomes a place of civil discussions and debates between all people (regardless of the worldview people ascribe to).

Here is a list of Rhetorical tools that we should use and Logical Fallacies to stay away from.

Rhetorical tools:

• Examples: specific cases or illustrations
• Allusions: References to history
• Testimonies/Anecdotes: individual accounts
• Scenarios: Hypothetical or fictional accounts
• Stats: surveys, polls, and research
• Concession: acknowledging an opponent’s point of view
• Authorities: Published sources
• Facts: agreed-upon events, truths or conclusions
• (Logos) Appeal to logic: relating argument to the audience's reason
• (Pathos) Appeal to Emotion: relating argument to the audience's emotional state (values and beliefs)
• (Ethos) Appeal to Character: the writer or speakers reputation
• Appeal to Need: Relating arguments to people's human needs
• Appeal to value: Relating arguments to morals
• Hyperbole/Sarcasm - exaggerated statements
• Hyperbolic language: uses exaggeration to emphasize a point.

Logical fallacies (flaws in arguments)

• Ad hominem: Attacks a person directly and avoids examining argument
• Strawperson: Insults person to dismiss argument
• Faulty Cause/Effect: Confusing a sequence or false reasoning
• Either/or Reasoning: Only two choices when more exist
• Hasty Generalization: Drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence
• Non sequitur: skipping logical steps to come to a conclusion
• Oversimplification: ignores that situations might be complicated
• Slippery Slope: One event leads to another
• False Analogy: comparing two things that are not related to each other
• Begging the question: proving argument with a rewording of the argument

Below is a small sample of the types of weekly debates found on each podcast.
(Archives of all past shows can be found here and here.)

Richard Dawkins debates Old Testament morality

Richard Dawkins has described the God of the Old Testament as (among other things) a "capriciously malevolent bully". The world's best known atheist joins Justin Brierley to discuss the morality of the Old Testament in light of the Bible TV series airing in the UK on Channel 5.

Rabbi Josh Levy and Christian lecturer Chris Sinkinson discuss with Dawkins whether the events of the Old Testament are historical and how to interpret the so-called "terror" passages. What about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac?

Was Jesus just a...zealot? Reza Aslan vs Anthony Le Donne

Reza Aslan is the author of the bestselling book Zealot which claims Jesus was a political revolutionary and not the peace loving Messiah of the Gospels. He debates with New Testament scholar Anthony Le Donne who has written a scathing review of Aslan's book.

Stephen C Meyer & Charles Marshall debate ID

Stephen C Meyer is the world's leading Intelligent Design proponent. His new book Darwin's Doubt claims that the Cambrian fossil record, which saw an "explosion" of new life forms in a short space of time, is evidence for ID.

Evolutionary biologist Charles Marshall of the University of California, Berkeley has written a critical review of the book. He debates Meyer on whether Darwinian evolution can explain the diversity of life in the Cambrian rocks.

Keith Ward and Michael Ruse debate the evidence for God

Keith Ward is the former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. His new book The Evidence for God picks up on various aspects of human experience as proof of a spiritual realm.

He is joined by atheist philosopher Michael Ruse for a lively discussion. Ruse’s own recent book Atheism: What everyone needs to know sets out the case against belief.

Scientific evidence versus religious belief – Jonathan McLatchie & Elliot George debate

Elliot George is a retired science teacher whose new book “Godbuster: Exorcises all known gods” claims that science is about evidence whereas religion is about ‘belief’(and should therefore be rejected).

Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian currently studying for a PhD in cell biology. He says Elliot’s book is badly flawed, and that Christian belief is evidence-based because science itself lends support to the case for God.

They debate the meaning of belief, whether design is a good explanation in biology and why Jonathan chooses to believe Christianity over any other worldview.

Abortion: A woman's choice or a baby's life?

The abortion debate reared its head again this summer after controversial tweets by Richard Dawkins made the news. Justin hosts a discussion between Mara Clarke of the Abortion Support Network and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Institute. Mara believes women need to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, but Scott says that all depends on whether we are dealing with a human life in the womb.

Debating the history of atheism - Nick Spencer & Julian Baggini

Nick Spencer is the author of Atheists: The Origin of the Species. He explains the origins of various strands of atheism and why the New Atheism of today is constructed on a myth of its own.

Julian Baggini is an atheist philosopher and writer. He engages Spencer on whether atheism was a significant factor in Communist regimes and what the future of atheism may hold.

Lawrence Krauss vs John Lennox - Science, the universe & The God Question

New DVD documentary series The God Question explores whether advances in science are undermining or supporting belief in God. Christian thinker Prof John Lennox and atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss debate some of the issues raised by the video series..

Alongside audio clips from the film they discuss the Big Bang, purpose, fine-tuning and the possibility of a universe "from nothing".

William Lane Craig & Lawrence Krauss review their Australia debates

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss recently met in Australia for 3 public dialogues on the existence of God.

They join Justin Brierley to reflect on the value of the events and the way it was carried out. We hear highlights of their discussion on whether God commanded genocide in the Old Testament and if there is good evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

Did Adam & Eve exist? Denis Alexander, Fuz Rana & Peter Enns

Do science and genetics support the existence of a 'first' human couple? How should we interpret the first chapters of Genesis? Do we need a historical Adam & Eve to make sense of sin and salvation?

Three Christians discuss the issues from different perspectives. Dr Denis Alexander is the emeritus director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge. Fuz Rana is a biochemist with Reasons To Believe. Peter Enns is a theologian and author of 'The Evolution of Adam'.

The Atheist Prayer Experiment Results Show

In the first of two shows Justin is joined by Tim Mawson, the Oxford philosopher whose paper "Praying to Stop Being an Atheist" inspired the Atheist Prayer Experiment. 71 atheists and agnostics signed up to the experiment, comitting to pray for God to reveal himself to them over 40 days. Did anyone end up believing in God? We reveal the results and hear from a variety of people who took part, including Andrew, Kendra, Laura, Cang & Freki as well as exploring questions that arose.

Was this really an 'experiment'? What does an atheist pray? Does it matter which god is being prayed to? Do the results have any bearing on the question of God's existence?

Gay Marriage Debate - David Robertson vs Adrian Trett

This podcast only recording is a debate held at Gunnersbury Baptist Church on the question "Should marriage be redefined to include same-sex unions?".

For redefining marriage, Adrian Trett of the Liberal Democrat LGBT group.

Against redefining marriage, Revd David Robertson of the Solas Centre For Public Christianity.

A Universe From Nothing? Lawrence Krauss & Rodney Holder

Lawrence Krauss is a Cosmologist at Arizona State University who describes himself as an "anti-theist". His latest book "A Universe From Nothing" has received both acclaim and criticism for its attempt to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Debating the issue with Krauss is Rodney Holder, Course director at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. An astrophysicist and priest by background. In a lively exchange they debate whether Krauss' "nothing" is "nothing", fine tuning and multiverses, scientific knowledge, miracles and the usefulness of theology and philosophy.

Has Neuroscience killed God? Dr Alasdair Coles vs Martyn Frame

Justin is joined by a Christian and an atheist as they discuss whether people's religious experiences can be explained by brain activity alone. Revd Dr Aladair Coles is an academice neurologist in Cambridge and part of the Faraday Institute's Test of Faith initiative. He says that even though neuroscience has helped us understand the brain activity of religious people, atheist scientists such as Sam Harris have not thereby disproved God.

Martyn Frame is a psychological therapist and atheist. He believes that people's brain states fully explain their religious experiences and, in any case, the Christian God would not have given us the brains we have if He existed.

Did man make God, or did God make man?

Edgar Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and the author of "Who Made God?" He returns to support the view that only God explains the ability of science to make sense of the world around us. Lewis Wolpert is Emeritus Professor of Biology at University College London, he is an atheist and Vice President of the British Humanist Association. He argues that belief in God is purely a result of evolution. They debate what constitutes "evidence" for God, and whether science is the only admissible type of evidence.

Gary Habermas & Geoff Campos - Belief in Miracles

Justin went backstage at the Bethinking Apologetics Conference last week to record a show with one of the speakers - Professor Gary Habermas and an atheist listener to Unbelievable? Geoff Campos.

Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University, Virginia. Campos is an atheist convinced of materialism with a background in biological science.

They discuss why Geoff finds the concept of the miraculous incoherent, what it would take to convince him of a miracle, the resurrection of Jesus, Near Death Experiences and more.

Debating Nazi Ideology

Richard Weikart is a Christian and professor of History at California State University. He has drawn controversial conclusions regarding the role of Darwinism in providing a rationale for Hitler's Nazi ideology.

Hector Avalos is an atheist and Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University. He disagrees with Weikart, saying that Christian anti-semitism is the more likely explanation for Nazi ideology.

A manual for creating atheists

Peter Boghossian teaches philosophy and is the author of 'A Manual for Creating Atheists'. He believes that faith is a 'false epistemology' (way of knowing things) and even describes it as a 'virus of the mind'.

Tim McGrew is a Christian philosophy professor specialising in epistemology. He contests Boghossian's definition of faith and debates the merits of his recent book.

 

[speculawyer]

I've listened to several of those discussions (they are not really debates). It is a pretty decent show.

 

[appaws]

Good post. It is a pretty good show, pretty high level discussion. The only complaint I have is that sometimes it is too short. I mean that the guests seem to just get going and then it is over.

 

[waypoetic]

EDIT: Nevermind, i googled some stuff and answered my own question.

 

[Chaplain]

I've listened to several of those discussions (they are not really debates). It is a pretty decent show.

I think they can be debates or discussions depending on the week.

Good post. It is a pretty good show, pretty high level discussion.

Many of the arguments on GAF are addressed in this podcast. Hopefully, people will listen to them and understand where others are coming from as they learn from academic experts in their related fields of study. Leading people to understand other peoples worldviews better. ^_^

 

[Chaplain]

A new Unbelievable? episode is up:

Does Humanism need God? Angus Ritchie vs Stephen Law
Saturday 17th January 2015 - 02:30 pm

The term 'Humanism' is often seen as synonymous with atheism. But a recent Theos report titled: 'The case for Christian Humanism: why Christians should be Humanists and Humanists should be Christians' claims to show that atheism is ill-equipped to support the fundamental tenets of Humanism.

Report author Angus Ritchie debates with atheist philosopher Stephen Law on whether atheistic humanism can account for the human dignity, morality and reason it espouses.

Discussed on the show is the Amsterdam Declaration 2002. What does this Declaration say?

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

What is the Christian perspective on these points?

1. Humanism is ethical.

Humanism provides no metaethical foundation for it’s ethical system. Why is a metaethical foundation necessary? One is apt to ask why the human has worth, dignity and autonomy. To finally come to rest the foundations of a morality on the worth of a human is ad hoc. Especially after the humanist’s naturalistic view of evolution makes men into mere animals. Evolution is the great leveller. What’s so special about humans on naturalism? We’re just fortunate sacks of molecules in motion that have survived against the odds by tooth and claw.

On Christian theism humans are created by God in His image. This gives us inalienable rights, guarantees the right of personal freedom of choice, as well as deep significance and meaning to life. Moreover, God expresses our worth in His eyes when he showed his love by giving His only son as a sacrifice to pay our sin-debt and conquer death on our behalf. He spared not his only son for us.

You see how Christianity gives a substantiated reason for its assertions of worth and dignity, but how humanism cannot?

2. Humanism is rational.

This self-affirmation is astonishingly presumptuous. There is no argument here: only assertions and declarations of belief, more akin to blind faith than science and reason.

Still the Christian can agree that human thought and action are for solving the worlds problems and that the application of science and free inquiry should promote human welfare. We can agree to use science creatively and not destructively, but we’re not likely to condemn the scientist who researches dynamite to pull down an old building safely, or to minimise collateral damage during justified warfare.

On the Christian view God gave humans a mind to think and engage with the world as it is. On naturalism the mind is a physiological response to stimuli, socio-cultuarl pressures and evolutionary development. It is therefore tuned for survival and not for the apprehension of truth or rationality. It is hard to see why humanism is rational given naturalism.

There are few questions that must be asked, like who determines the ‘human values’ that temper the application of science and technology? Is it Hitler, Hefner, the Humanist or the Holy Spirit? Is it science itself, and if so doesn’t it work out that science proposes the means and the ends? If so, was Hitler rational at the time to propose and carry out his ‘Final Solution?’ After all, that was in accord by the evolutionary science being propounded in his day; was supposedly for the betterment of human welfare; and was then the human value system in vogue. At Nuremberg it was quickly realised to condemn these Nazi war criminals there needed to be a standard that stood above human and societal values, and the only values they could find to do that were rooted in God.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights.

Human rights are declared to be universal rights. That is they stand above all nation’s laws for all times and all places for all people. This statement is like eating white-froth if you consider the next fundamental’s (4) claim to be undogmatic and imposing no creed upon its adherents. Christianity however provides something substantive for the table. Universal human rights were developed by the founding fathers of America from their understanding of the scriptures. In Christopher Hitchen’s words Thomas Jefferson was a deist with atheistic tendencies. However, when it came to finding a ground for unalienable Rights, he pointed to the sky and said “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”2 The abolition of slavery was a practical out-working of this same understanding from scripture: that all men are created equal.) The Bible even gives justification for democracy also, but at the moment I’m not prepared to support that contention.) Both groups of people were smart enough to recognise that if human rights are given to a human by another human, they can be taken away again. If human rights are given by God, then no man can take them away. They become inalienable and truly universal.

Humanism lacks a model of what it means to be the fullest development of a human being. On Christianity it is clear the model is Jesus. On Humanism it can only be subjective and relative. What if the fullest possible development of the human being is Hitler? You might say that he did not support democracy, but then you’d be forgetting that Hitler was the legitimate democratically elected official of that nation. You might say that Hitler was wrong because the humanist ethic is based upon understanding and support for others, but then you’d be forgetting that Hitler deeply cared for Germany and to carry out his atrocious acts all that he needed to do was create a culture that dehumanised Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, the handy-capped, etc.

How do you decry the wicked man who says he is only becoming ‘the fullest possible development of what it means to be human,’ if he has radically changed what it means to be human. Humanism lacks a definition of what it means to be human, but Christianity has a ready anthropological definition grounded in its own basic theology.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility.

If a person is responsible to society, then what happens when society tells you to do something that is objectively wrong, like slaughter Jews wholesale (Nazi Germany), or force husbands to watch as their pregnant wives are split open by sabres so their unborn children fall to the ground to be crushed underfoot (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq), or taking unwanted new-borns and dashing them on rocks (ancient Greeks). The list of examples is appalling in its length and brutality, but it is already clear that responsibility to society is an insufficient ethic to build a world on. There needs to be some transcendent standard above society and humanity. Christianity provides that by revealing a morally perfect transcendent God as the standard.

“Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherants.” This is self-referentially incoherant. It is dogmatic in being undogmatic. It is thus really rich when it concludes that humanism is committed to education free from indoctrination. Even if it is possible to educate people free from indoctrination from operating within a worldview, this statement is as double-handed as it gets. Humanists are experts at indoctrination. You need only look at our current education system here in NZ. An example follows in the next section.

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion.

Humanism of course excludes itself from the dogmatic religious crowd, and seeks to fulfil the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. It will do this by supplying people with another dogmatic religion (if not religion then ethical framework) and imposing it on others.

For example, take the belief that ‘morality is an intrinsic part of human nature.’ This means that humans are essentially and basically good. This is taught all throughout the education system and is one tenant of humanist indoctrination. Is it true? I leave it for you, but I think the Bible gives a far more realistic account to the state of the human heart; see Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 3:9-19.

Christianity recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises also through revelation from God. If reliable knowledge arises from observation, evaluation and revision then its not really reliable is it?

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination

On the surface this affirmation is fine. A deeper look at it though and you quickly realise how shallow it really is. What is creativity and imagination supposed to transform us into? What is it about literature, music and the other arts that provide us ‘human development and fulfillment.’ Humanism fails to answer the deep existential needs of human beings; ‘Why am I here?’ and ‘Where am I going?’

The purpose underlying most (if not all) creative expressions is communication. Art is a vehicle for a message. When you start to value the form, and not the message that lies behind the form, then art becomes mere mindless entertainment; a distraction to personal development rather than an aid. Is fulfilment reduced on humanism to amusement? Take from art its purpose and society will transform into a mindless mass that is far too easily manipulated.

Christianity affirms the value of art and artistic expression by imbuing the artist with purpose, answering the deep existential questions of life; by affirming the artist is created in the image of God and is therefore a creative agent; by supplying the artist with a message, inspiration and talent; and by infusing the world waiting to be captured and mirrored by great works of art, with a sense of the sublime. Naturalism on the other-hand finds beauty an awkward notion. It is difficult to see why an apes brain would appreciate the aesthetic pleasure from a morning sunrise, the star-filled sky and or the frozen waterfall.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living

If human existence transcends the death of the body, then obviously humanism is not for everyone everywhere. Humanism become bankrupt if this life is not all there is or if there is a God. Besides this, based upon the refutation of points 1 through 6 it is not obvious humanism does supply an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times.

 

[waypoetic]

I'm sorry, but if you have to ask that question you have no idea what humanism is.
A humanist is an atheist, a non-believer, heck you could call yourself agnostic for all i care!

Point being is that you don't believe in that sort of thing. Add to that, humanists believe in a natural world, not a supernatural one; created by a diety or "force". We're, how should i put it, the science gang.

Here, have Stephen Fry explain what we know is true.

EDIT: I'm a humanist and a member of the Swedish Humanist Alliance (Humanisterna). I champion science and reason, so if you got a question to a humanist - shoot!

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Huh. This seems like an interesting series to listen to. Thanks for the info, OP!

 

[DiscoShark]

I've only listened to a handful of them but I quite liked the one when Richard Dawkins was on. I really enjoy listening to religious radio while I'm doing the dishes but there's not much in the way of discussion or debate that happens over the radio waves, much more preachy. Looks like I'll be tuning into this instead.

 

[Chaplain]

Glad so many people are enjoying this podcast. ^_^

New episode is up:

Does Christianity pass the Outsider Test? David Marshall vs John Loftus
Saturday 24th January 2015 - 02:30 pm

Atheist John Loftus has challenged Christians with the 'Outsider Test of Faith'. He believes that if Christians examined their own faith with the same level of scepticism they do other faiths, they would reject it.

Christian guest David Marshall is the author of 'How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test'. A resident of China, he debates Loftus, examining why, among other factors, the global success of Christianity means that it passes the Test.

Get the MP3 (Right Click/Save As)

 

[jackal27]

As a pastor I am really enjoying this. Always down for more civil discussions and debates about these things. Complicated questions don't typically have simple answers.

 

[speculawyer]

What is the Christian perspective on these points?

Whoever wrote these supposed Christian perspectives is a kind of an asshole and insulting.

1. Humanism is ethical.
Humanism provides no metaethical foundation for it’s ethical system. Why is a metaethical foundation necessary? One is apt to ask why the human has worth, dignity and autonomy. To finally come to rest the foundations of a morality on the worth of a human is ad hoc.

The Christian ethical foundation is no different. The Bible was written by humans and is ad hoc. You have no solid evidence proving anything to contrary. And the Bible is FILLED with TERRIBLE ethical advice (stone your wife if she is not virgin, kill you neighbor not following the sabbath, etc.). Fortunately, virtually all Christians use humanism to override and ignore those terrible passages.

Now I get it that you don't agree with this view, but have some respect and don't misrepresent the view.

Especially after the humanist’s naturalistic view of evolution makes men into mere animals. Evolution is the great leveller. What’s so special about humans on naturalism? We’re just fortunate sacks of molecules in motion that have survived against the odds by tooth and claw.

Evolution is just a scientific fact. It is not the basis for ethics. That is a weird strawman idea.

2. Humanism is rational.

This self-affirmation is astonishingly presumptuous. There is no argument here: only assertions and declarations of belief, more akin to blind faith than science and reason.

No, it is not presumptuous, it is merely definitional. I'm no expert, but I believe Humanism is merely idea of celebrating humans and doing rational things to make their condition better. If an idea/policy is not rational then it won't be used.

What a collection of sad strawmen.

 

[Chaplain]

New episode is up:

Unbelievable? The Outsider Test part 2 plus James Emery White on the ‘Rise of the Nones’
Saturday 31st January 2015 - 02:30 pm

In a continuation of last week’s show David Marshall & John Loftus continue to debate whether Christianity is rationally tenable and unique among world religions.

David Marshall author of ‘Why Jesus Passes the Outsider Test’, argues that Christianity uniquely fulfils the hopes and desires of all religious searching.

Plus we hear from James Emery White, US theologian and church pastor on ‘The Rise of the Nones’ as he addresses how the church needs to re-engage with culture ahead of the UK Church and Culture Conference. www.churchandculture.org

Get the MP3

 

[njean777]

Another good podcast to listen to is partially examined life. Great philosophy podcast.

 

[CornBurrito]

Does the podcast only cover modern monotheistic theology? Does it at all delve into pantheism or polytheism?

 

[Chaplain]

Does the podcast only cover modern monotheistic theology? Does it at all delve into pantheism or polytheism?

Like this?

21 Nov 2009 - Muslim, Christian, Hindu debate on evangelism

Nov 15-21 2009 was the UK's first "Interfaith" week. To mark this, Justin Brierley hosts a discussion on how faiths should relate to each other when it comes evangelism and missionary activity. They discuss a document of Ten guidelines for witnessing to those of other faiths. But does the document stifle freedom of speech? Where should we draw the line between being honest and open and being offensive and demeaning in our interfaith encounters?

Andrew Smith of Scripture Union is the director of "Youth Encounter" helping Christian young people live out their faith amongst Muslims. He was involved in drafting 10 Ethical Guidelines for Christian and Muslim Witness in Britain.

Jay Smith is a Christian evangelist to Muslims with a "no-holds-barred" approach. He disagrees with aspects of the document and explains why.

Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini is fellow in Islamic studies and Jewish Muslim relations at Leo Baeck Rabbinical College. He explains why he finds Jay Smith's style of evangelism harmful.

Jay Lakhani is Director of the Hindu Academy and represents a Hindu perspective on the issue of evangelism and conversion.

 

[typist]

Strawperson: Insults person to dismiss argument

Don't mean to nitpick but this description of a straw man is erroneous, insulting a person to dismiss their argument is more ad hominem. Straw manning is when someone rephrases or construes a person's argument as something that it's not, usually as something ridiculous and easily destructible, and then when they destroy that misrepresentation they act as though they've actually rebutted the original argument. It's very frustrating and more often than not a sign that the person who straw manned your argument has completely misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[Chaplain]

Straw manning is when someone rephrases or construes a person's argument as something that it's not, usually as something ridiculous and easily destructible, and then when they destroy that misrepresentation they act as though they've actually rebutted the original argument. It's very frustrating and more often than not a sign that the person who straw manned your argument has completely misunderstood what you were saying.

Ty for the correction.

 

[Tertullian]

Don't mean to nitpick but this description of a straw man is erroneous, insulting a person to dismiss their argument is more ad hominem. Straw manning is when someone rephrases or construes a person's argument as something that it's not, usually as something ridiculous and easily destructible, and then when they destroy that misrepresentation they act as though they've actually rebutted the original argument. It's very frustrating and more often than not a sign that the person who straw manned your argument has completely misunderstood what you were saying.

And "strawperson"? Seriously? That is not a term.

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been uploaded:

Unbelievable? Why does God allow suffering? Vince Vitale & Julian Baggini
Saturday 7th February 2015 - 02:30 pm

Following atheist Stephen Fry's viral anti-God video, the question of how a good God could allow suffering has come into focus again.

Justin is joined by Christian Oxford philosopher Vince Vitale, author of "Why Suffering?" as he debates the issues with atheist think Julian Baggini.

Get the MP3

To watch the video of this debate and Justin's own response to Stephen Fry go to http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Videos

For Vince Vitale: www.theocca.org

For John Loftus: www.microphilosophy.net

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been uploaded:

Unbelievable? Paula Gooder answers your Bible Questions
Saturday 14th February 2015 - 02:30 pm

New Testament scholar, author and speaker Paula Gooder joins Justin to tackle a range of questions sent in by listeners. The Old Covenant, eyewitness testimony, how the Gospels were written and much more is covered.

Justin also airs the audio of his “Dear Stephen…” response video to Stephen Fry… available here

Get the MP3

Dr Paula Gooder is a writer and lecturer in Biblical Studies. Her research areas include the writings of Paul the Apostle (with a particular focus on 2 Corinthians), New Testament Interpretation and the development of Ministry in the New Testament Period but her passion is to ignite people's enthusiasm for reading the Bible today.

She is the Theologian in Residence for the Bible Society and also holds a number of honorary positions such as Canon Theologian of Birmingham and Guildford Cathedrals, Lay Canon at Salisbury Cathedral, a Six preacher of Canterbury Cathedral, Vice president of the Bible Society, Visiting lecturer at King's College, London, and Associate lecturer both at St Mellitus College, London and at trinity College, Bristol. She is a Reader in the Church of England and a member of General Synod.

 

[Chaplain]

Unbelievable? Is Genocide a Skeleton in God's closet?
Saturday 21st February 2015 - 02:30 pm

Joshua Ryan Butler, author of 'The Skeletons in God's Closet' discusses hell, judgement and holy war with Jeff Cook.

They debate whether Old Testament warfare passages constitute divinely mandated genocide.

Joshua Ryan Butler: I serve as Pastor of Local and Global Outreach at Imago Dei Community, a church in the heart of Portland, Oregon, where I get to develop our city ministries in areas like foster care, human trafficking and homelessness. I also get to craft international partnerships in areas like clean water, HIV-support and church planting. I also love writing worship music, striving to infuse theological depth and poetic imagination into the life of the local church. It’s kind of a dream job.

Jeff Cook: Jeff teaches philosophy at the University of Northern Colorado. He pastors Atlas Church in Greeley, Colorado.

Get the MP3

For Joshua Butler: http://joshuaryanbutler.com

For Jeff Cook: http://everythingnew.org/

 

[Chaplain]

A new Unbelievable? podcast has been posted:

Unbelievable? Is the church failing gay Christians? Steve Chalke, Ed Shaw, Jayne
Saturday 28th February 2015 - 02:30 pm

Church leader Steve Chalke is well known for his support of same-sex relationships. Ed Shaw is a same sex attracted Christian whose traditional Biblical convictions have led him to remain celibate. They discuss how churches should treat those in their congregation who are LGBT.

Jayne Ozanne, an evangelical and former member of the Archbishop's council who recently came out as gay joins by phone and we hear the story of Rosaria Butterfield's journey from lesbian activist english professor to becoming wife of a church pastor.

Get the MP3 (Right Click/Save As)

For the article 'Is the church failing gay Christians?' by Chalke and Doherty: http://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2015/March-2015/Is-the-Church-failing-gay-Christians

Watch footage from the debate here

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been posted:

MP3 Download Link

Unbelievable? Debating the Ontological Argument - Peter S Williams & Peter Millican
Saturday 7th March 2015 - 02:30 pm

Can God be proved by definition? That's the claim of the Ontological Argument for God's existence.

Christian philosopher Peter S Williams and skeptic philosopher Peter Millican from Oxford University explore the different versions of the argument. Williams defends the argument, Millican believes it is flawed.

For Peter S Williams: www.peterswilliams.com
Peter SW teaching on the argument: s51.podbean.com
For Peter Millican: www.millican.org
Graham Oppy's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Ontological Arguments: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

For Millican's 2011 debate with William Lane Craig: www.premier.org.uk/radio/Shows/Satu...m-Lane-Craig-vs-Peter-Millican-Does-God-Exist

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been posted:

Grill an apologist – members of UK Apologetics respond to sceptic callers
Saturday 14th March 2015 - 02:30 pm

Ruth Preston, Calum Miller and Peter S Williams of the UK Apologetics Facebook group and blog take a variety of questions from callers.

Ben, who lost his faith, wants to know why God didn’t provide him with more evidence. Michael asks: Why should I believe Paul? Tim wants to know why evangelicals can be so insular, and Brian has questions about the moral Argument for God

Get the MP3

For The UK Apologetics Facebook Group Click Here

For the UK Apologetics Blog: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been posted:

Unbelievable? Have we misread the Adam and Eve story? John Walton vs Stephen Lloyd
Saturday 28th March 2015 - 02:30 pm

John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, Illinois, has authored the book The Lost World of Adam and Eve. He argues that Adam and Eve were intended as archetypes for humankind, and the story is not mean to be taken as an account of our material origins.

Stephen Lloyd, who holds to Young Earth Creation, argues that Walton undermines Christian theology as a whole with his view of Genesis.

MP3 Download

For John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve: www.ivpress.com

For Stephen Lloyd: www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode has been posted:

Unbelievable? Is the Turin Shroud the burial cloth of Christ? Alan Whanger vs Hugh
Saturday 4th April 2015 - 02:30 pm

Two guests with different views on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud join Justin to debate following his feature documentary on the Shroud.

Alan Whanger has spent decades researching the shroud and believes he has seen images on it that link it to 1st Century Israel. Hugh Farey has spent decades surveying shroud literature and has come to the conclusion it is medieval in origin.

Get the MP3 (right click/save as)

For Justin's radio feature ‘The Turin Shroud: a relic of the resurrection?’: http://www.premierchristianradio.co...roud-a-relic-of-the-resurrection-Unbelievable

For Justin's magazine feature ‘Shrouded in Mystery’: http://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2015/April-2015/Shrouded-in-mystery

For Alan Whanger: http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/

For Hugh Farey: https://www.shroud.com/bstsmain.htm

 

[Chaplain]

I thought I would put the following debate in here due the similarities it has (the debate format) with the show Unbelievable.

The following debate starts in about 2 minutes. Islamic scholar Dr. Shabir Allay will debate Dr. Nabeel Qureshi at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

What is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity?

Imam Dr. Shabir Ally and Christian Dr. Nabeel Qureshi (a former Muslim) will debate the question, “What Is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity?” April 8, 2015 at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. (EDT).

Qureshi is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity through historical reasoning and a spiritual search for God. He and Ally will debate on whether Christianity is correct in its revelation of the Trinity, the triune nature of God, or if Islam is correct in the Tawhid’s proclamation of the oneness of God. There will also be a 30-45 minute Q&A session following the debate.

“I’m honored to debate Dr. Shabir Ally,” Qureshi says. “The last time I saw him was in 2004 when I was still a Muslim. I was watching him debate and was hoping he’d win.”

Stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpqqqZn7Kg

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode of the weekly podcast has been posted:

Unbelievable? Has the Big Bang gone bust? Phil Harper & Jeff Zweerink
Saturday 11th April 2015 - 02:30 pm

Recent news headlines suggested that the theory of the Big Bang in which the universe had a beginning point, has been overturned. If it's true, and the universe is eternal after all, would it consign cosmological arguments to the dustbin?

Jeff Zweerink a physicist with Reasons To Believe debates the issues with atheist commentator Phil Harper, known online as Skydivephil.

Get the MP3 (right click/save as)

For the RTB article on the claims: http://www.reasons.org/articles/have-quantum-physicists-disproven-the-big-bang

For Skydivephil videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/skydivephil

For William Lane Craig vs Sean Carroll on science & God: http://www.premierchristianradio.co...ean-Carroll-debate-God-Cosmology-Unbelievable

 

[Chaplain]

A new episode of the weekly podcast has been posted:

Unbelievable? The argument from consciousness to God - C’Zar Bernstein vs Arif Ahmed
Saturday 18th April 2015 - 02:30 pm

In a philosophical edition of the show we debate whether humans are both a soul and a body, and does that provide evidence for God?

C’zar Bernstein a young Christian philosopher at Oxford University argues in favour, Arif Ahmed Cambridge philosophy lecturer argues against.

Get the MP3

For C’zar Bernstein: philpapers.org/profile/43971

For Arif Ahmed: www.phil.cam.ac.uk/people/teaching-research-pages/ahmed/ahmed-page

For ‘Mythbusters’ at Westminster Chapel: www.westminsterchapel.org.uk/ministries/mythbusters