Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Episode 9 Islam, Science and Modernity (Part 1)



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.

Episode 8 God Thinks Like You


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.

Episode 7 The Gospel Of Doubt


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.

Episode 6 Peace On Earth


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.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Episode 5 Separation On State Street


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:

  • the Dalai Lama's controversial statement about his future successor
  • Scholars of Religion take on the Flying Spaghetti Monster
  • The latest development in stem-cell research that has the Religious right (prematurely) saying "I told you so!"





subscribe

Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


Click here for sources/relevant articles to this episode. All episodes are available for download at no cost. Simply subscribe to our podcast using itunes or a similar podcast client using the feed links above. You can also listen to the episode here by using the player above or you can download the episode by right-clicking this link and selecting "save link as...".

Episode 4 Theocracy


Join us for a discussion with Eddie Tabash current chair of the national legal committee of Americans United for separation of Church and State as well as the Council for Secular Humanism's First Amendment Task Force. In addition to his better known role as an official campaign speaker and debater for numerous presidential candidates (including Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter) Tabash is also a professional counter-apologist having debated such world famous Christian philosophers as: Peter van Inwagen, Greg Bahnsen, William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne on the existence of God. In an extended interview, Tabash discusses a wide-range of topics: from disarming the arguments of Christian philosophers to the "unholy alliance" between the religious right and the postmodern academic left. The show concludes with a disturbing glimpse at the difference just one Supreme Court justice could make for American secularists...and the very real possibility that we might be on the verge of a theocratic America.

Also featured
  • How a new generation are becoming more skeptical, and why atheists can't take much of the credit.
  • Albom tries his hand at sociology and criminal psychology (stick to sports and sappy inspirational stories, Mitch).






subscribe

Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


Click here for sources/relevant articles to this episode. All episodes are available for download at no cost. Simply subscribe to our podcast using itunes or a similar podcast client using the feed links above. You can also listen to the episode here by using the player above or you can download the episode by right-clicking this link and selecting "save link as...".

Episode 3 Skeptics Sunday School


Our third episode features a new segment: The Skeptics Sunday School. In this segment we draw upon biblical criticism, archeology, comparative mythology and the bible itself to present biblical stories and doctrines as you may have never seen them before. Fascinating , sometimes disturbing, facts you would never encounter at church. But facts which are nevertheless common knowledge amongst reputable biblical scholars. In this segment we take a look at some intriguing passages from the Hebrew bible referring to child sacrifice...and ask the difficult question: did the ancient Israelites actually preform the "detestable" practice that their scriptures so passionately condemns?

Also Featured

  • The Religious Right is divided on which Republican candidate to endorse.
  • Is Arnold Schwarzenegger "mentally molesting" California's children?
  • Counter-Apologetics: Our resident Professor of Psychology exposes the flawed "science" behind the family research councils attacks on homosexual parents.




subscribe

Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


Click here for sources/relevant articles to this episode. All episodes are available for download at no cost. Simply subscribe to our podcast using itunes or a similar podcast client using the feed links above. You can also listen to the episode here by using the player above or you can download the episode by right-clicking this link and selecting "save link as...".

Episode 2 Doubt On Campus

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.

Also featured
  • Evangelists are trying to save digital souls in the web-based virtual world "Second Life"
  • Islam's "Promise-Keepers" put on a conference promoting Sharia Law that's fun for the whole family.
  • a counter-apologetics segment addressing the myth that atheists have no foundation for morality.




subscribe

Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


Click here for sources/relevant articles to this episode. All episodes are available for download at no cost. Simply subscribe to our podcast using itunes or a similar podcast client using the feed links above. You can also listen to the episode here by using the player above or you can download the episode by right-clicking this link and selecting "save link as...".

Episode 1 Anti-Evolution After Dover


Listen to our first full-length episode! Episode 1 features an interview with Dr. Wesley Elsberry, former Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education who is currently a Visiting Research Associate at Michigan State University, where he works with Robert Pennock studying the evolution of intelligence through computer simulations. His enlightening discussion focuses on the state of "Anti-evolution after Dover"--how creationists have been adapting their arguments after the devastating legal blow they received during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in late 2005.

Also featured:
  • An update on the Catholic Church's record-breaking settlement over allegations of child abuse in their Los Angeles Diocese and the shameful attempts of Vatican apologists to spin the story in a positive light.
  • Evangelicals take over Baseball and ruin it for the rest of us.
  • Islamic Creationism hits Turkey
  • See who makes our shit-list and who's getting props this week.




subscribe

Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe

Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe


Click here for sources/relevant articles to this episode. All episodes are available for download at no cost. Simply subscribe to our podcast using itunes or a similar podcast client using the feeds below. You can also listen to the episode here by using the player above.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Challenger E-mail

The following is an email from a challenger commenting on our refutations of William Lane Craig's arguments, featured in Episode 11: Bizarro World. My response to the challenger is offered in the post immediately following this one.

Anton writes:

"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.

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. Your second argument tells me you know nothing about early Christian history. There is no proof pointing either way about any of it.

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.

But, I'm a nihilist, and because of that, I'm frequently disregarded by anyone with any belief (such as yourselves). So feel free to keep doing what you're doing. No action is objectively preferable to another.

Teaching Critical Thinking by Responding To Blog Comments (Part 1?)

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

Some Hella-Funny Videos

Warning: There may be some naughty language in the videos below. If you're sensitive to that sort of thing, I'd recommend leaving the internet completely, avoiding all pop culture and never entering a high school, a college campus or a public restroom ever again.

Enjoy

This one is particularly creepy because the names of the characters are Dave and Jeremy. Gives me with wiggins . . .


Here's an adorable little song about how everyone is going to Hell.

Friday, February 8, 2008