Ep. 73: End of year podcast

[Emery]

Happy ChristmaHanuKwanzaSolstica! Hope you all get lots of presents and have a great new year! Thanks to everyone for making this little podcast of ours so much greater than just two guys talking. We really appreciate the thoughts and support you all have generously shared to make this a great little community. It's great having met all of you online, and we look forward to many more great exchanges ahead!

[davemccall]

Happy Festivus to all my atheist friends.

Best wishes to all.

[AGuyCalledRed]

I wanted to comment on the great idea of a Christian/Atheist Alliance. I am an atheist but I live in Alabama, a very red very religious state. I live in a city/state that is predominately Christian every single day. All of my friends are christian and we get along very well. There is NO reason that we couldn't work along side each other for a good cause or simply come together and help the culture understand that co-existence and acceptance of each other is not only important but the most positive way to live.

Keep the good ideas coming, and let us know how we can help. You have someone in alabama that is all for this and willing to take the reins if given a direction to run.
Rick

[mitchellmckain]

I read an article on this micro-economics idea quite a few years ago and found it very inspiring. I hadn't heard anything since and was even wondering if this was possibly a casualty of the destruction of the trade towers, so I am happy to hear that it is growing and would love to participate even though I am rather low on the American economic totem pole myself.

I have considerable interest in this whole "true message of Christianity" thing and my Christmas wish would be that people can see how I have something to contribute to that discussion. I very much see how tradition plays a very confining role in the understanding of scripture and that unlike the Catholics, the Protestants with their "Sola Scriptura" can be quite blind to this. But I would like to caution Scott on this thinking that looking at scripture from outside that tradition should be equated to some kind of liberated point of view. The fact of the matter is that there is no unbiased point of view and everyone is going to come to the text with their own "tradition" of sorts - their own values, assumptions and preconceptions.

So if you really want to get at an understanding of some kind of "true message of Christianity" that is freed from distortions of a tradition that seems to be all about this intellectual blackmail of, believe what we tell you or you go to hell, you are not going to get any kind of superior perspective from someone just because they are a nonbeliever. Instead I would suggest that the place to look is in those people who have found value in the Christian message without the burden of tradition - i.e. in the converts who were not raised Christian -- in particular the intellectual converts, because they are the ones who will have answers to the questions. Now I understand that this may seem a bit self-serving since I am in that category, BUT acutally this is very likely to be very varied group of people.

As for a discussion of evolution, I can certainly represent the scientific viewpoint of why evolution is science while creationism and Intellegent Design is not -- and thus why this is NOT a scientific debate. There frankly is no scientific debate on whether the theory of evolution is correct. This is a conflict between science, which seeks an explanation for things in terms of natural law and people who simply do not want there to be a scientific theory for the origin of the species. Anyway, if we discuss evolution we should also consider the related but quite distinct question of abiogenesis which is certainly much more theoretical but is also something in which there have been interesting developments recently. Just as evolution theory addresses the question of the origin of the species, abiogenesis addresses the question of the origin of life. It certainly is not on anywhere near the solid ground that evolution is but I don't think there really is much debate on this either for reasons I would like to point out.

Science is driven by research and so it will always go in the direction that promises fruitful research. You could say that this is one of the things that separated it from theology at the very beginning. It is not that God was an unbelievable or non-simple explanation but that it was simply a dead end as far as scientific research goes. Thus since abiogenesis is the theory that promises avenues for research into the question of the origin of life, that is the idea that scientist are going to be interested in. There is also the fact, often pointed out by Dawkins, that the idea of abiogenesis seem somewhat inevitable for if life comes from life such as in pangenesis then that just moves the question to where did that life come from?

[Redpower]

I think your idea is an interesting one. I think you've successfully started it just by having these podcasts and this site. I'm not sure if it will work with Christians who are a little more strident than Scott or other "followers of Christ".

If the goal is "good will toward men" I think it can work. When it comes to Creation Science being taught in school though, I would have to betray my allegiances to Christians in that situation.

I like the aura this site and both you and Scott give off though. Is that because this is the nexus of the Christian/Atheist alliance? I think it is! I wish you could expand this fountain of happiness idea and save the world. Have either of you started a group on facebook?

Oh, and go Kiva! I went to the site after listening to this show and got a gift card as a last minute gift for an Aunt. Thanks for another show, keep em coming!

[spongebob]

This sounds like a very good idea, guys.

[Wheelman]

I like the idea of Kiva. I'd be up for it.

Please, please no more Tony, Frank or Ed. It's my Christmas wish. Can't I just listen to Scott and Emery have friendly and interesting conversations?

[mitchellmckain]

Please, please no more Tony, Frank or Ed. It's my Christmas wish.

I will second that. If you want to liven things up on the Christian side, I would suggest authors, pastors or spokesmen who are converts to Christianity. Then even if they are in this more irrational sector of Christianity (fundamentalism or Calvinism) you can probe them for that conversion expererience and how their worldview underwent such a radical shift.

[NH Baritone]

Scott (and others):

I recommend devoting 15 minutes to the most recent Philosophy Bites podcast.

On it Don Cupitt examines Jesus as philosopher in a way that may (or may not) fit within your definition of "a follower of Jesus."

[NH Baritone]

Scott's apt promotion of Kiva overran Emery's suggestion of the Atheist-Christian Alliance on the podcast. Let me re-shine the spotlight Emery's suggestion.

In schools around the US, Gay-Straight Alliances have proved amazingly beneficial in promoting acceptance of diversity. Even in my largely rural region of New England, there are sponsored GSAs in every high school. (Such groups were often started to help prevent suicides by the previously ostracized gay & lesbian students. They appear to be very effective.)

Since so much of atheist social emergence has paralleled the rise of gay rights in this country, I agree that a similar approach may be beneficial in keeping a bridge between the divergent religious groups. In so doing, they can acknowledge their differences while working jointly on various projects, similar to Scott's recommendation of Kiva.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Here be my suggestions for 2010.

Structure the show a bit more by breaking it into "segments". It seems to me from reading the forums there have been times (like the book review) where some listeners weren't into the book, so they skipped podcasts, where as other times there have been guests that have required some of us to "FFW" most of the show. Keeping things a little more structured might allow the podcast to not turn into an hour of circular arguments because there is only a limited amount of time....plus...keep em wanting more is better than beating a topic to death so it can never be talked about again.

Here is an example of a format that might work.

Intro & Music
- Welcome to a C&A (could continue to be Emery's wife (I think that's who that was), or open it up to people sending in their own intro's. This might lead to some cool Church choir, or Barbershop Quartet intros. I have a "satan" voice changer that might be fun...I'm kiddin.

Intro's by Scott and Emery
- Same as always. Basic intro's. Emery and Scott can catch up.

Segment 1: Discussion Question
- Emery and Scott could take turns every other podcast to present a question to one another.

I feel that most of the time Emery is asking questions, and Scott defending his beliefs. I think it would be cool if they took turns coming up with a question that the other could attempt to answer. I think it's important for both sides to learn how to ask questions about their world views, not just Atheists asking Christians stuff.

One idea would be for forum members to post a question of the week, and the rest of us vote on it in a poll. That might persuade Emery and Scott to tackle some topics a little out of their comfort zone.

Segment 2: Special Guest / Viewer Emails
Honestly, no offense but there is a reason why some people are not on the radio...they just don't have that something something that makes it interesting to listen to. Scott and Emery are both (due to personality and job description I think) able to keep the podcast interesting. I found a few times last year there were some guests that made the podcast a little hard to get through. I think it would be cool if there was a 20 min or so discussion with a guest about a topic they're "experts" on as was mentioned in this podcast.

If no guests are available then it might be cool to answer some viewer mail. I think it's totally interesting that Emery gets deconversion letters and I think it would be cool if each host talked to the person(s) from their own world view. Some shows the hosts could just answer random stuff like, "Scott, I'm a Christian and I've been told to wear mittens to bed to stop from making kittens go blind, is this a good idea?" Sure, that sounds dumb, but the hosts of this show are the voice for many people, so it might be cool if they were to use their expert advice to people who might not have anywhere to ask it.


Segment 3: Book Review
We all need to read more that's just a fact. I really think the last book review lead to some cool discussions both on the podcast and on the forum. I think this is something that should continue, but in a more limited way. Keeping the chapter by chapter review limited to a few moments would cut down on the hosts having to rehash the chapter, and just jump into the discussion. I think to be fair the books need to alternate between Christian and Atheist books though so it's interesting and fun for all.

Segment 4. C&A Alliance Updates
News from the Alliance whatever form it may take. Keep it fresh in people's minds, allow new listeners to get up to speed, and alert us all to new developments.

Segment 5: Humor & Ending
- A lot of topics can become pretty heavy at times so ending the podcast on something fun might set everyone back to "beer after the game" mode. Perhaps funny things in the media could be talked about. Funny Bible quote of the week, or something along those lines.

Ending thanks/reminders/comments/etc and Music


Anyway, those are some of my ideas.

[marcuspnw]

Hello Emery and Scott,

Thank you for this site. I have enjoyed the forum, the podcasts and look
forward to next year. Is it possible to get an advanced schedule on a monthly
basis for upcoming shows?

[Brad]

Having not heard from our hosts for a few weeks, I was struck by how much pleasure I felt hearing their voices again. Though I’ve never seen their faces, nor ever even spoken with either on the phone, when I heard their voices tonight the sensation was very much like catching up with old and important friends.
While my criticism of what I see as problems with Scott’s belief system are often if not always blunt, I can’t think of anything I might say about a couple of guys doing a podcast that would indicate my admiration for both fellows better than that.

The Christian / Atheist alliance idea is fantastic! Lots of interesting practical and leadership issues raised by the concept, but even if a face-to-face expression of the idea doesn’t come off, I hope maybe just those of us here can do something together online, like maybe through Scott’s suggestion for a Kiva.org group? Count me in, in any event.

Emery:
Regarding your sense of having “been there, done that” in terms of expressing your queries and views on the show, I suppose all of us, maybe especially on the non-faith side, feel your pain.
If the discussions on the podcast and the forum were roads, they would surely be covered in dead horses, beaten nearly to dust like a mashed squirrel on I-5 after a couple weeks of rush hours!
Still, there are always new and interesting angles, such as the maybe a series on “The Good Book” book – that sounded interesting to me. And some of those dead horses keep managing to get resurrected, too, or would that be “raptured?”
Most importantly, you do such a great job!

But as for your “Christmas wish,” I hope you’re not holding your breath. How many Bible verses are there that mandate rejection of the “wavering” which is to say the people who use their minds? That tactic, of course, is basic to all dogmatic power structures because it’s an excellent method of helping the goose-stepping followers to feel superior while keeping almost everyone else in line.
But I’m glad you raised the point. I’ve noticed that folks who were raised in un-religious or very mildly religious atmospheres really don’t appreciate the courage and integrity required for a person who has suffered a life-long immersion in dogmatic religion to stand up and say – even to him or herself - “This is a crock. I can’t play this game anymore.”


Scott:
I was intrigued by your assertion, if I heard you right, that in your own Bible reading you found a body of material that emphasized hope.
I hope that you’ll speak further on this hope – maybe in an upcoming podcast if not here.
What sort of hope?
For whom?
Would you name some verses in particular along this line? You seemed to feel that what you’d found had not been commonly known or focused upon properly, at least in your experience.
Which passages were you thinking of there?

And I was very, very impressed by your admission that in your religious upbringing the element of fear was far more prevalent than the element of hope. Man, do we - and millions of others - have that in common!
And when fear is the primary emotional underpinning of religiosity, hope (of all kinds) is not the only positive emotion that gets squashed, either.
Maybe with that realization you can begin to relate a little bit to why people like me and far more famous folk like Richard Dawkins feel that religion-oriented childhood environments often are properly called abusive, psychologically if not physically.
Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me that teaching a child that a supernatural overseer is hearing his or her thoughts and watching their every act is a supremely unfortunate practice, regardless of whether or not fear is overwhelmingly instilled otherwise.

Finally, it’s no accident that fear plays such a large role in Christianity for both children and adults is it? Why do you think the Bible passages you found that present such a strong case for hope outweigh the fear generating passages that so many Christians think are the very essence of the faith?

[Emery]

Thanks for all the great suggestions and feedback, guys. The challenge is getting organized enough to implement these tips, and my New Year's resolution is to do just that.

I really just need to carve out a full, one day block of time and sift through all the collective suggestions on the board and come up with a game plan. Tell you what: I will take Saturday off and do just that. So, look for a schedule of some sort this coming weekend.

As for having Tony back on the show, I understand some of you are done with that whole Geisler/Turek/Craig line of argument. But as I mentioned to Scott, I have a morbid fascination with their arguments, and I think Tony does as good a job as anyone at representing them. In fact, if I had to pick Turek or Craig or Tony to discuss these arguments with, I'd pick Tony. He's been a faithful internet sparring buddy for many years, and he's always been a good sport and easy to talk to. I believe any frustration you guys might have is more with the arguments than with Tony. The arguments are simply too flawed to stand up to detailed scrutiny, and come wrapped in hyperbole and rhetoric devices designed to appeal to the faithful. I don't think there is any way to truly defend them and sound reasonable, and given that handicap, Tony does an excellent job. Of course one could question why he holds to these beliefs in the first place, but that would be more a critique of the whole evangelical apologetics movement than of Tony.

Even so, I realize this is not everyone's cup of tea. I persist because I'm a product of this sort of evangelical faith, and I see proponents of these arguments as the strongest and most sophisticated voices in the evangelical movement. But each podcast in this area will be clearly marked and wrapped in fluorescent tape so those who wish to avoid them can easily do so. Plus, I expect they will only account for a minority of the discussions we have this year.

Thanks guys, for all the support and constructive feedback. It is truly a privilege to have you as an audience.

[Emery]

So what do you guys think about starting a Kiva team based on our website? How about names? "The Atheist and Christian Alliance"? Or how about just "A Christian and an Atheist?" Sounds like just two people, but maybe it could be metaphorical, sort of like "it just takes two to start a change" sort of thing. Ideas?