Zombies, demons, Satan, witches, ritual abuse, Mel Gibson and more...this episode's a nightmare.
By popular demand, the Doubtcasters present their critique of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). This celebrated argument attempts to demonstrate that natural selection, if unguided by god, could not produce beings with reliable cognitive faculties capable of discerning the truth. But is EAAN all its cracked up to be? Also on this episode: The Doubtcasters consider William Lane Craig's rebuttal to Euthyphro's Dilemma, answer listener e-mails, and discuss Bill Maher's new movie Religulous.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Visions, weeping statues, speaking in strange tongues…even in modern times believers have appealed to seemingly miraculous events as evidence for their supernatural beliefs. But is there any evidence that miracles really happen? Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell joins us on the show to discuss how to scientifically investigate claims of the miraculous. Also for a "God thinks like you" segment the doubtcasters discuss the psychological basis of supposedly supernatural phenomena such as glossolalia or "speaking in tongues"To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Paranormal investigator Jim Underdown discusses skepticism, faith healing and the Ten Commandments. Also: Messiahs before Jesus? Join us for another Skeptics Sunday School where we examine Israel Knohl's suffering servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the doubtcasters review new research on the relationship between different forms of religiosity and retaliatory violence for the most recent installment of "god thinks like you."
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…" These words taken from Article XI of the United States treaty with Tripoli in 1796, provide a clear and direct answer to historical revisionists who claim America is a "Christian Nation." The doubtcasters discuss this document and others for a special Independence Day episode of RD.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Alarming developments at the UN now threaten freedom of expression world wide. Austin Dacey, philosopher and Center for Inquiry's representative to the United Nations joins us to explain how the core principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been abandoned by the very council that is charged with upholding it. How did the UN, which was founded on humanistic principles, come to this? And why are so many unaware or unconcerned about these developments? In his book "the Secular Conscience" Dacey argues that western liberal secularism "lost its soul" when it began treating claims of conscience as purely subjective matters that do not belong in the public sphere. By privatizing conscience, secular liberals sought to keep religion separate from politics but only succeeded in placing a gag order upon themselves thus giving up the language of morality to religious conservatives. Now is the time for secularists to reclaim civic moral dialogue and defend a free and open society. For inspiration, Dacey adds, we should look to the courageous men and women of the Secular Islam Summit whose approach to matters of conscience more closely resembles our enlightenment forbearers then that of modern secular liberals.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Religious right commentators have referred to the ACLU as the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" which targets the rights of Christian citizens. Ed Brayton, author of scienceblogs.com's popular blog Dispatches From the Culture Wars joins us on the show to expose the blatant misinformation behind such accusations and to share the important contributions religious believers have made to defending liberty. In the end, Brayton argues, we should honor those who defend freedom of expression as the true American heroes they are. Also in this episode, RD discusses possible evolutionary advantages to religiosity and the hype behind "the God gene" for another installment of God Thinks Like You.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
What if an alternate universe existed parallel to our own…a horrific bizarro universe where all defenders of reason and skepticism are transformed into religious apologists? On this episode the apostles of doubt get a small taste of what such world would be like as they discover and confront their own internet doppelganger--the Reasonable Faith podcast. Apologist William Lang Craig heads this apologetics podcast, where he advances his favorite arguments for the existence of God. Luke, Jeremy, and Fletch are unconvinced and spend the show taking on Craig's arguments. But can skeptics breathe a sigh of relief trusting that our hero's have once again made the world safe for freethought? Rd's journey into the depths of this alternate universe takes a nightmarish turn as they confront the bizarro version of their favorite skeptic in the extended comic short "LOGOS" with Reverend Carl Sagan.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Join us as we conclude our interview with Taner Edis, author of "An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam." Muslim immigrant communities continue to grow throughout Europe and in some cases they continue to grow more isolated and hostile towards western secular values. Are the teachings of Islam to blame? Or do socioeconomic factors provide a better explanation? And how should concerned skeptics respond? Difficult questions seldom yield to simple answers, and even freethinkers need to be on their guard for those who would offer superficial rhetoric over real understanding. Reasonable Doubts: Your skeptical guide to religion offering news and commentary of interest to skeptics, atheists, humanists, apologists looking for a challenge and freethinkers of all persuasions.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Taner Edis, author of "An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam" joins us on the show to discuss the rise of Islamic pseudoscience in the Muslim world, in this first installment of a two part series. We explore why a growing number of Muslims believe the Qur'an prefigures many scientific discoveries of today, and what this reveals about Muslim attitudes towards science and modernity in general. Also featured: Where to get premium bottled holy water for believers who live an active lifestyle (sadly that’s not a joke). And Dave geeks out on his blasphemous playlist. Reasonable Doubts: Your skeptical guide to religion offering news and commentary of interest to skeptics, atheists, humanists, apologists looking for a challenge and freethinkers of all persuasions.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Why do people believe? Why do they doubt? What can psychological research tell us about religious belief? And can it tell us anything about non-believers and skepticism? For this episode the RD crew draws upon one of its greatest resources...our co-host Luke Galen, Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. Luke shares with us some of the research that he is conducting on the psychology of religion. Also featured: RD responds to a challengers e-mail and a new segment "stranger than fiction." Reasonable Doubts: Your skeptical guide to religion offering news and commentary of interest to skeptics, atheists, humanists, apologists looking for a challenge and freethinkers of all persuasions.
To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
Religious apologists are fond of sharing "testimonies"; emotional stories of the life changing experiences often associated with religious conversion. But what happens when a person looses faith? DJ Grothe (associate editor of Free Inquiry Magazine, host of the Point of Inquiry as well as Vice President and Director of Outreach Programs for the Center For Inquiry)joins us on the show to share his personal "de-conversion" story. Jeremy and Dave also comment on the joys and frustrations of leaving the faith, while Luke shares some illuminating research comparing the psychology of skeptics verses the religious when confronted with life's difficult moments. Also featured is a brief "History of Reasonable Doubts" in the form of an old time radio short.
Celebrate the holiday with humanist pioneer, Dr. Paul Kurtz as he joins us in the studio for an inspiring interview. Paul Kurtz is, in many ways, the founder of the Secular Humanist movement and has had an impact on nearly every aspect of modern skepticism. He is the author of the Humanist Manifesto II, founder and chair of the Council for Secular Humanism, the Center for Inquiry, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) and editor of Prometheus Books. For this special Christmas episode Kurtz shares with us his vision of peace on earth. He envisions a new enlightenment where the recognition that human beings are all members one species, with equal dignity and value, serves as the foundation for creating a planetary ethic. Also in this episode join us for Skeptics Sunday School where we will examine the Christmas narrative and belief in the virgin birth of Jesus. Finally we offer some gift ideas for freethinkers this holiday season. Reasonable Doubts: Your skeptical guide to religion offering news and commentary of interest to skeptics, atheists, humanists, apologists looking for a challenge and freethinkers of all persuasions.
Does your grandmother run a dungeon? Independent film maker Rob St. Marry joins us in the studio to discuss his new documentary The Separation on State Street. His film follows the story of Anonka owner of a new age gift shop and "Witch Museum" in a small conservative Michigan town. Anonka's shop met with protests and boycotts from the beginning. But "all hell broke loose" when she challenged the cities decision to have a nativity scene placed on the court lawn. Soon afterwards Anonka and her family had to endure violence, death threats and intimidation at the hands of their "Christian" neighbors. Rob St. Marry shares the fascinating story, much of which he was personally an eye-witness to.
Also featured:
Our second episode features an interview with CFI On Campus organizer and Point of Inquiry editorialist Lauren Becker. Lauren shares the story of her transformation from Park Ranger and education enthusiast to secular activist and organizer. She explains the mission of CFI On Campus--their strategy to promote critical thinking and oppose religious dogmas. She also discusses the challenges facing non-religious students on college campuses and how anyone can help promote free inquiry at their local college.
Anton,
Thank you for taking the time to send us a comment. Allow me to briefly help clarify our position and in the processes, perhaps provide for you some guidance as to how you might sharpen your skills at argumentation.
But, I'm a nihilist, and because of that, I'm frequently disregarded by anyone with any belief (such as yourselves).
Though I'm sure it plays a role, I doubt your belief in nihilism is the single or even most significant reason why people seldom take your arguments seriously. I myself considered not responding at all to your comment, because as I perceived it, you did not listen very carefully or make an effort to understand the arguments you were criticizing, and your comments expose a lack of understanding of even the most basic standards/principles of argumentation. Please believe me (or whatever the equivalent nihilistic sentiment would be) when I say that just a small amount of time invested in studying good critical thinking habits can make a great difference in your intellectual life. The quality of your critiques will be enhanced. People will take you more seriously. And you may even come to value the viewpoints of others not just your own.
Critical Thinking Tip #1 Be aware that many words have different meanings or different nuances depending on the context in which they are used. Always try carefully to understand how someone is using that word.
"Objective" Atheistic morals are as groundless as "objective" Christian morals. Objective morality is yet unknown to humanity due to the fact that omniscience hasn't been achieved as we know it. There is also the same amount of proof that god exists as there is that he doesn't.
Here you take objective to mean absolute and/or completely certain. Even Craig did not presuppose this in his argument. We defined what we meant by objective "morality can be objective in the sense of being impartial and unbiased" another (actually far more common) meaning for the word objective. Though Craig believed in Transcendent moral truths he clearly had this usage for the word "objective" in mind since he accused atheist morals as being "wholly subjective" and "arbitrary"--he did not accuse atheists of being fallible human beings or of lacking omniscience. The question again is, not are they 100% certain, but are they based on something other than just whim.
Critical Thinking Tip #2 Statements that lack clarity or are irrelevant to the matter at hand are not taken seriously. Always ask "can I state this in a manner that is more precise?" and "do my comments really address the matter at hand?"
Your first arguments are ineffective against the person from "Reasonable Faith". Any reasonable Christian will tell you that Jesus changed how sin works. All of your biblical citations are from the old testament. This just tells me that you've never argued against a reasonable Christian.
Clarity: I can only speculate as to what you intended to say here. "Jesus changed how sin works" Is too vague. Do you mean he changed our relationship to the law and what counts as obedience or sin (a Pauline view)? Or do you mean the manner in which a person acquires justification from sin (a dispensational view)? Or do you mean something deeper, such as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ altered the very nature of sin itself, and this change has effects which stretch both forward and backward in time, providing redemption even for those living before Christ (covenant theology, and others)? If you cannot state your criticism with any sort of clarity or precision then most will simply assume that you do not know what you are talking about.
Relevance: regardless of what exactly you meant, Jesus redemptive work has no relevance to our critique at all, nor which testament our references came from. Listen again and this time try to pay attention more carefully to the points being made. We were not claiming that old testament laws or commandments are immoral (though, they most certainly are), or that God has sinned or anything such as that. We asked, "what does it mean to say God is righteous?" We then looked for a standard or criteria to judge God as righteous or not. None was found. Our conclusion: Gods rigorousness is not intelligible (it is not something that can be understood). We discussed the Old Testament Law only because it provided the clearest articulation of what a biblical standard of righteousness might look like. We did not assume that it applied to God, or even that it should. In fact central to our argument was the idea that it could not.
This just tells me that you've never argued against a reasonable Christian
In fact this very same argument I used when talking to Apologist Stewart McAlister. McAlister earns his living traveling around the country training clergy and laymen in Christian apologetics. In a moment of real honesty and humility he told me, in person, and without qualification that he had no answer to that argument, that he realized it was a serious criticism, and that he wanted to talk to his other apologist friends to see if they could answer it. He recognized the challenge presented by this argument because he carefully listened to the argument, thought through it, looked for relevant critiques and could find none. He modeled the traits of a good thinker by preferring to honestly say that he would need more time to find a critique, rather than cooking up some vague half-baked attempt at a refutation.
Your second argument tells me you know nothing about early Christian history. There is no proof pointing either way about any of it.
Again, relevance. We were not trying to prove anything. We were answering the claim that Jesus must have been resurrected because the historical testimony is so strong in its favor that it is implausible to suggest otherwise. If you pay attention we referred to nothing outside of the biblical text itself to refute Craig's argument, we just looked at the passages and asked, "does the story appear to be contrived?". The only historical claim I could find in our entire argument regards the approximate dates concerning various manuscripts of Mark. If you would like to challenge us specifically on that point, then by all means go ahead. But I believe your mistake may be a much deeper misunderstanding of argumentation. You would do well to read about "burden of proof", "appeal to the best explanation" and various tests for assessing the strength of inferences…because you seem to be under the impression that people have to prove with 100% certainty every point or counter-point they make. You might be pleasantly surprised that our situation is not so grim after all, and that there are many methods of both justifying and refuting claims that do not require humans to be infallible.
Critical Thinking Tip #3 Avoid melodramatic musings on how inferior your intellectual opponent is, or how easily you have vanquished their arguments. It makes you appear childish and gives the impression that you are overcompensating when debating with an opponent superior skill (which in this case is true).
You could have attacked the assumptions he makes in his premises, but no, you remain as deluded as your "bizarro" counterpart by even accepting that objective morality is known to exist
Come on Anton, are we in middle school all over again? Perhaps you found us annoying. That’s fine. But please be aware that you can take playful jabs at someone while still being respectful overall in your tone (such as in my response to you).
In conclusion Anton, Id like to recommend some books that might help you get your intellectual career off the ground.
Critical Thinking: An Introduction By Alec Fisher
The Art of Deception by Capaldi
Or if reading 'aint yo thang' there is a great audio course called Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning which can be purchased from The Teaching Company or you can download a pirated copy from any decent bittorrent site.
Thanks again for listening and I hope this has been educational
Jeremy
Co-host of Reasonable Doubts
Scientists to Make Cows Fart Like Kangaroos to Cool the Planet
by Jorge
We’re guessing that headline caught your attention! Cow farts are a source of greenhouse gases, while kangaroo farts are methane free thanks to a particular bacteria in their stomachs. Now, in a bizarre twist of science-reality, scientists from Australia are trying to neutralize cow-produced methane by transferring that kangaroo bacteria to cattle and sheep’s guts. According to the government of Queensland, almost 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from cow farts, so this seemingly silly idea could actually make a big difference.
However, while few things warm our hearts more than kangaroos (except perhaps for a koala), and while we applaud the scientists attempts at reducing a source of greenhouse gases, it still feels a bit too mad scientist to us. No word on whether or not they will get cows to jump as well. We’ll let you know how they progress
