I wrote in another thread that I’d not be posting for a while due to crazy schedule but had a chance to listen to this podcast just now while taking a break from work in an airplane seat on the way back from Japan.
Quick comments I’d like to share once back on the ground:
This time I can offer a little criticism on your work. I hope it might be of some use.
Me thinks you and Scott can get away with fairly ad hoc podcast conversations and make them interesting because you’ve talked enough to really know and appreciate each other – your conversations are between
“a Christian and an atheist” not “a Christian versus
an atheist.” (Also, it helps that both of you are very sincere, generally articulate, funny, and easy-going guys.) Conversely, to be blunt I found almost the entire conversation here tedious and fairly devoid of substance.
With new theist guests, perhaps you should outline more substantive topics and prepare for them more carefully in advance? (And there was a suggestion along this line for a future episode with these two individuals.)
That way, both you and your guests might do a lot less hemming and hawing and chortling (the latter was them, mostly) and cover some real ground.
You’d also be a lot less likely, I think, to let highly questionable assertions and innuendos go unexplored and/or unchallenged. There were many such moments in this podcast, and you also made one or two remarks yourself that were pretty off-the-wall. For me, the most egregious examples were letting the bits about “atheist denominationalism” and the need for a person who is simply a non-believer to possess “a core dogma” go by, and your blooper about atheism per se
Lawd have mercy, so to speak!
In brief, I think the best way for you to improve your podcast performance, to the extent that might be necessary in a case like this, would be for you to listen to yourself again and to rethink how different responses and different preparation might have made the podcast more interesting for all.
Needless to say, given current work and family obligations I’m sure you have lots of leisure time to do this. And given all the extra sleep you’re surely getting these days with the twins in the house, I’ll bet your discernment and insight have never been sharper!
In other words, if you re-listen to this podcast, don’t beat yourself up over it.
Last, just speaking for myself, of course, I have to say that it’s very unlikely that I’d listen to another podcast with this fellow Glen, whose speaking style (content entirely aside) annoys me very greatly. It’s clear he’s adopted an amalgam of vocal patterns from talk radio, gas bag preachers, and advertising pitch men. I hope for his sake he doesn’t speak to family and friends in this manner. In any event, there are lots of quieter, more articulate, and well, more balanced, speakers on the web. I’d simply rather spend the time I have listening to them.
And by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard any atheist / freethinker / secular humanist speak with this sales-pitch style, and I think the reason for that is probably that one can’t SELL evidence and reason, while on the other hand anyone can simply talk about those things honestly and sincerely.