Our guest is philosopher and author John Shook, discussing his experiences debating religious believers and whether such debates are a good idea.

Some say no, that such spectacles merely serve believers by making it look like atheists take them more seriously than they deserve. Others say yes, because debates provide a precious opportunity to introduce believers to atheistic arguments they might otherwise never hear.

Price and Shook compare notes about debating superstar apologist William Lane Craig, discuss interesting insights on Presuppositionalism and Postmodernism, and talk about Dr. Shook’s new book, The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between), an introduction to major issues in the philosophy of religion, as well as debate topics old and new.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/john_shook_the_god_debates/

As far as debating a Presuppositionalist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4LXxTZ0S4

Greg Bahnsen also did a good job of debating Tabash

I thought that was a great inteview with Mr. Schook.  I agree that we need to develop the skills to argue rationally without the fear of offending.  Religion is open game for questions.  There is no such thing as “too many questions.”

I wish the new interviewer would stop injecting so much of his own opinion in the questions, just give him open ended questions and let him answer.  I kind of miss DJ Grothe.

questionsaboutfaith - 20 October 2010 05:57 AM

I wish the new interviewer would stop injecting so much of his own opinion in the questions, just give him open ended questions and let him answer.  I kind of miss DJ Grothe.

I agree. Robert Price is so bad he is not even an interviewer. Karen Stollznow should be the sole host of PoI.

With a few exceptions, I really don’t enjoy Price’s interviews precisely for that reason. He also comes across as condescending towards his audience.

Agreed, I really don’t care for his “interviewing” style. He basically answers his own question then asks the guest if he’s correct. I want to hear the guest talk more than the host.

Take care,

Derek

the computer won’t let me give you a link to common sense atheism and debates with William Lane Craig

http://commonsense    atheism.com/?p=392

this was really irritating.

I thought this was one of Price’s best interviews, but I still like Karen S.‘s better (like most everyone).

See if you get the same “s p a m ” error..

Price is obviously very smart, but I wish his questions would have been more penetrating.  I think Richard Dawkins would make a most interesting host, but he seems gun shy about openly debating creationists, because it lends them too much credence.  I think it is time for Point of Inquiry to do an interview with Christopher Hitchens on the meaning of life and death.  Now that would be good, but Mr. Price, give him enough time to talk please!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9-vwnzqOo

  Here’s the link to the debate with William Lane Craig.

  IMHO it’s sort of boring.  Will just waxes poetic about the big bang and gets into a big mess of logical fallacies.  Why do theologian think that they can hold their own in a scientific debate.  When they start referring to the Authority of Scripture as if it’s scientific fact, they start to sound pathetic.  That’s why I prefer debates that are more philosophically based….. What is Truth? What is Justice? What is Good? What is Evidence?  That’s the place where I think the atheist and theist have an interesting point of view.

Why spend so much time on Craig?  He cant argue reality (avoids it like the plague) and is interminably boring.  Using the same argument for the past 17 years.

The Geek shouldn’t have honoured this idiot with a mention.

PS, us Australians all live along a short road.  Karen was a neighbour.. all Australians say she was a neighbour. You are doing wonderfully!

and may I add, chops, boiled spuds and broccoli is on me..is that a 50 or 90 minute boil?

Was this a podcast about John Shook’s book, or was this a podcast about Robert Price’s criticisms of Richard Dawkins?

No, Dawkins does (only sometimes) need a kick up the bum… leading atheists is still leading believers.. Conversely, Price believes in a lot of waffle we scientists generally gag at (yes Bob, we do math…)

This position is one that Price and Dawkins straddle, but from opposing ends.  If its not sensible to believe in junk (and they both say that in their talks) then its not sensible to believe in any junk.

As I said elsewhere today, who knows where the words assumption and belief parted giving the greater weight to the latter.

Selective stridency is bad. Prof Dawkins has a far smaller belief set than Prof Price. But having said that, I stand in awe of both of them!

I enjoy their prose and speech immensely.

On the other side of the coin, take a scientific mind set into any conversation with any alt med or a chiropractor. You will find religion far more preferable as a life stand point.

I have to get my browns gas engine going for the shire fair… see you all later.

The great Richard does a lot of dickhead detection, but truly I wish he emphasised it far more. I have to deal with atheists on a daily basis who idolise Richard and do not extrapolate his good work to their beliefs.

I wish he made a movie called “Dumb and Dumber” so as to only reinforce that stupid ideas cloud your life’s decision. It would be great if it was mandatory viewing for every school kid, apprentice and uni student.. three times a year.

It would be great if God Debates were shown more often in the public schools, but there is a sort of underlying poiltical correctness.  Students know when they are stepping out of political bounds and know they would be ostracized if they step out.  The obvious question…..  Are our schools doing their very best to give positive reinforcement to critical thinking?  They are great at getting kids to march in line, but what about teaching them that it is OK to ask the big and penetrating questions?  It seems that those kinds of questions are stifled by the 2nd or 3rd grade.  In some cases conformity is more important than open sharing of knowledge.  Any controversial subjects are usually shunned in public settings, including public schools.