Since we’re all proverbially picking scabs (we miss DJ, Robert Price isn’t a good interviewer whatsoever, PoI’s hosts (save Karen) can’t refrain from injecting their own opinions, etc), I’ll go ahead and compare this to the last episode.

I loved John Shook’s response to the (incredibly leading) question about how New Atheists ignore theology and dismiss it because it is “about nothing.”  As I recall, he replied “well, they’re right, it is about nothing, but maybe some of us should pay attention to it because a lot of people care about it.”

This struck me as honest and direct, and ought to appeal to both “sides” of the accommodationist/New Atheist debate.  The NAs should like it because it’s honest about theology, and accommodationists should like it because it acknowledges that theology still needs to be addressed by atheists/skeptics/etc.  What do you guys think?  Am I naively missing something to hate in there?

Its pretty frustrating when “faith” can invent “absolute logic”, “philosophy” and “morals” to bolster their argument.  These terms are impressive to the uninitiated and yet, the religious application is superfluous as each time one of these terms are marched out they are applied to sophistry.

In the sense of the first, the logic is not absolute and is flawed. For the second, its philosophy to the exclusion of outlying thought (whether real or not) and for the latter, morals vary from person to person as the idea of god does.

You can’t have critical thinking if you are bound to these “ideas”  (better known as meme sets).

I’ve been told that pack cooperation is very easy on the brain.  This is to say, if the predominant thought is held by the seniority then it is held by the “pack”.  Saves brain energy and chemicals to be consistent within your community. This allows further exploration elsewhere. This idea sounds appropriate, how correct it is (neurologically) I do not know.

on Craig;

I am certain that William Craig has a huge following with his brand of “logic and philosophy” but he presents fairly tame argument from old ideas.  There appears to be a lot of appeal to authority when you meet his adherents.  The arguments are weak (no matter how emphatic he is) and the authority is his only.

After all, if Craigs arguments are correct, satan could be the creator as much as the god of the old testament (El) or the god of Israel (Yahweh)... even Brahma. His argument does not distinguish any priority. Further more, if the universe has a beginning he continually argues that the universe must have been created. This is unhelpful. Who knows why physics is lambasted when the gods of the religions only created heaven and earth?

It comes down to one thing I think.  You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into in the first place.  Deprogramming fundamentalists would take a long long time.

questionsaboutfaith - 23 October 2010 07:25 AM

You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into in the first place.  Deprogramming fundamentalists would take a long long time.

Yep. this is just a lot of talk about psychological bullshit.

psik

questionsaboutfaith - 22 October 2010 05:55 AM

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.

Also, note that children do this to themselves, too, as part of “peer pressure”.  Truly successful critical thinking programs should find ways of weakening this effect, or to subvert it so that rewards critical thinking.

questionsaboutfaith - 22 October 2010 05:55 AM

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.

Are you trying to start some kind of cultural revolution to create a Vulcan culture or something?

You obviously need to be reported to Homeland Security. 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23197/23197-h/23197-h.htm

psik

A Vulcan culture may be more peaceful, but emotions are what makes humans very special.  Vulcans would be able to evolve past primitive war culture.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/536409-the-poetry-of-science-richard-dawkins-and-neil-degrasse-tyson

The last post is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve seen in some time on youtube.

questionsaboutfaith - 23 October 2010 12:56 PM

A Vulcan culture may be more peaceful, but emotions are what makes humans very special.  Vulcans would be able to evolve past primitive war culture.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/536409-the-poetry-of-science-richard-dawkins-and-neil-degrasse-tyson

Nice!

Just came across a link to a debate John Shook has tonight in Greensboro NC
http://eyeonapologetics.com/blog/2011/04/10/debate-richard-howe-vs-john-shook-414-greensboro-nc/

This is a link with many debates by William Lane Craig with skeptics/secularists/atheists/agnostics

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/audio.htm

Craig’s arguments are covered by Dawkins in the God Delusion but it is interesting to see how each of these speakers handles it on the fly.
It’s like Jeopardy - it’s easier to answer the questions at home on your couch than in the studio…

Including at least these who have been interviewed on POI:

John Shook
Massimo Pigliucci
Eddie Tabash
Austin Dacey (round 1 and round 2…)
Hector Avalos
Robert Price (!)
Victor Stenger