I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

I know what you are thinking: that title is quite unfair.

In many cases you would probably be right, but at least when it comes to Stilwell I am not sure it really is unfair at all. He has made a proud effort at littering the internet with ample evidence supporting the fairness of that title, evidence that is not difficult to find. In fact, the very description of his personal blog states: [1]

“Synaptic misfirings from the incoherent mind of an incurable dilettante happily lost in Tokyo.”

I know, I know—“Don’t quote me, bro!”

~*~

Stilwell recently (7 March 2012) left a comment on my previous post that failed to make it past the moderation queue; it was deleted because it violated the very first rule of our Comments Policies here at the Aristophrenium, which in part reads:

If we receive a comment that’s littered with gratuitous invective and lacking any substantive point of view, it will not be published. Civility is not a requirement but some effort at an actual argument certainly is.

We do make exceptions every once in a while, but they are quite rare and left to the discretion of the site administrators. (For example, I had recently made an exception for Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, and only because he is a high-profile public figure who we were quite pleased to hear from.)

I am going to make an exception for Stilwell also, but this shall be a highly modified exception in the sense that I am going to make it the subject of a blog post in its own right, and for three reasons. First, I want the reader to see what according to Stilwell passes for intelligent commentary; and obviously he did too because he submitted it for public viewing. Second, I want to respond to the claims and accusations he made therein, setting some things straight; and obviously he wanted me to because he did submit it for my viewing. And third, I want to set forth my concluding remarks on what has been a very silly and disappointing experience.

Read the rest of this entry

We all need our thinking to be renewed and reversed before we can come to accept the majesty and power and saving grace of the Gospel of Christ and before we realize the folly and meaninglessness of the atheistic worldview.

H/Tip: Active Christian Media

I wish I could say that Justin at Consider Atheism has posted some more of his thoughts on the Problem of Evil and how to refute my defeater of it, but unfortunately they are the embarrassingly weak responses of Dawson Bethrick. I suppose that is at once both good and bad. On the one hand, it is good that such a train wreck didn’t come from his own brain. But it is bad, on the other hand, that he didn’t approach the problem with critical thinking of his own, despite my hope that he would, choosing instead to publish Bethrick’s response (but mostly in Justin’s own words).

Originally Bethrick tried to save Justin’s argument by using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that evil is indeed something God creates. Justin was rather enlivened by this passage and brought it to my attention in the comments area of my first article. And I proceeded to show him why he should probably not get too excited about arguments that Bethrick uses by showing him what the passage is actually talking about. And as to be expected, Bethrick responded (at Justin’s site). I was going to send Justin a private email about this and tell him that he would score critical thinking points if he could identify what was wrong with Bethrick’s response. But it seems I didn’t get off work soon enough, for by the time I got home Justin had uncritically regurgitated the train wreck in a new blog post, so now this gets to be done in public instead. Readers of the Aristophrenium know that I don’t mind dismantling logically bankrupt arguments from atheists who pretend to esteem reason—to put it kindly—but I was really hoping to save Justin the embarrassment because I like him. “Before you invest yourself in Bethrick’s response,” I was going to write him, “evaluate it critically for logical flaws.” Anybody can teach people what to think, but I want to teach people how to think, and few things achieve that goal quite like learning how to critically evaluate an argument.

But if he wishes to do this publically, I’m willing to oblige him. Let’s have a look.

Read the rest of this entry

Justin, a young man from Canada, started a brand new blog called Consider Atheism. Although I don’t remember how I stumbled upon his blog, it has garnered my interest for two reasons: he is Canadian and purports to defend Atheism. (And there is also the fact that he is young, which means he is still teachable.)

One of the first posts to elicit a response from me regarded the Problem of Evil (which most people know is my favourite subject). The following is the sum of our discussion.

Read the rest of this entry

Over at a blog called An Atheist Debater is an author who attempted to tackle what he thoughtfully considers to be “one of the most useless and easily refutable” arguments for the existence of God: the Argument from Design. According to this gentleman, the teleological argument “is so ridiculously fallacious it’s laughable.” What I intend to explore here are two things. First, did he succeed at proving it commits a fallacy? And second, did his own argument commit a fallacy?

Read the rest of this entry

Fundy Atheists Say the Darndest Things

“You don’t seem to get it. Atheists don’t assert a positive claim, so they don’t shoulder any burden of proof.”

This is true—and it is false. It depends on what the person means because it is actually an incomplete sentence: a positive claim about what?

If this is said by an agnostic atheist and what he means is that his view does not assert a positive claim about the non-existence of God, then in that sense the statement is true. But in a more important way the statement is false because for all atheists (including agnostic ones) a positive claim actually is being asserted: that “God is not required.” And so when an atheist is being asked to shoulder the burden of proof (i.e., to show the proof or rationale for atheism), that’s the positive claim he’s being asked to defend. He is not being asked to prove that God doesn’t exist—unless he makes such a claim—but he is being asked to prove that God is not required; i.e., that things like truth or knowing or morality, etc., can be comprehended intelligibly under a godless framework while corresponding with and explaining the facts of human experience .

But it’s also amusing to note that both “assert” and “positive claim” actually mean the same thing. It is actually an awkward way of saying that atheists make no assertions (e.g., “Atheists do not assert an assertion”)—which is how he ought to phrase it, because then the inherent problem with this objection would be more apparent to the atheist, one would think.

Usually I don’t bother paying any attention to The Bahnsen Burner, a blog run by an Atheist named Dawson Bethrick, and it would take less than five minutes at his site for a person to see why. It has almost nothing to do with the actual merits of his arguments and everything to do with the fact that locating and identifying an argument within his landslide argumentum verbosium is just too laborious a task. I share the same view as Joshua Whipps over at Choosing Hats: until Bethrick decides to express arguments or criticisms with succinct perspicuity instead of proof-by-verbosity, [1] I simply can’t be bothered to engage his material. It requires more time than I have available.

The only reason that I am even aware Bethrick had recently tackled my “Arrogance of Atheism” articles [2] is because one of our staff members, Mathew Hamilton, directed me to it. I would have otherwise never known. And so for Hamilton’s sake alone I have reviewed Bethrick’s piece, shouldering the laborious task of locating and identifying his arguments in order to respond to them. I shall not repeat this endeavour (even though Bethrick will probably be unable to resist carving out an entertaining albeit verbose Chewbacca Defense), as this response will suffice to demonstrate that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to the bankruptcy of Atheist objections.

And no, Bethrick, our staff will not publish your loquacious tomes in the Comments field to this (or any other) article. Comments must be composed with succinct perspicuity. If you want to do a verbal dump, there is always The Bahnsen Burner—where no one has to see it unless they masochistically want to. I will return to ignoring you, although you are free to continue directing traffic here by writing about our articles.

Read the rest of this entry

Last night in #Apologetics (on IRC) I had a debate with an Atheist who claims to have been formerly a Christian of the Reformed tradition. It was overall an enjoyable debate (about whether his Problem of Evil argument succeeds), for not only myself but also for him, plus a couple of others that were following along. This afternoon he returned to #Apologetics and, at one point, turned his attention back to me again.

“What is your background?” he asked me. “Philosophy?”

“My background?” I replied. “I’m just a custom wood finisher in a small shop, whose highest completed grade was 9th. I have no real background to speak of.”

“Would you characterize yourself as Calvinist?”

“I would not,” I said. “Others might, however, and often do.” As he claims to have been formerly a Reformed Christian, I can see the common ground he is aiming for.

“As a non-denominational Christian, then?”

“No, I am confessional: 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.”

“I see.” He paused a moment. “Why?”

An odd question. “Why what?” I asked.

“Why are you what you are? Why do you believe the doctrines you do?”

I thought for a moment, trying to figure out how to answer his question in a way that is both accurate and succinct, because the question really does drive at very deep and broad theological elements. “Because by God’s grace I am convinced of and committed to the truths of Scriptures,” I replied.

“I have studied Scripture also,” he said. “But I am unconvinced. Why is that?”

I saw that one coming from a mile away. “I think my response contained the answer: ‘by God’s grace.’ One plants, another waters, but it is God who makes all things grow.”

“So then I lack God’s grace and thus cannot be convinced?”

“It’s not that you cannot, but that you will not be convinced.”

“So then have I always lacked God’s grace?”

“I don’t know. I am neither you nor God.”

He paused a moment to rephrase, to get at what he was really asking. “Is it possible for someone to be filled with the Spirit, convinced of God’s truth, and then fall away?”

“Yes,” I said. “But not permanently.”

“So you think that I will eventually come back to believing the truths of the Bible?”

“That is not something I think, but something I pray—and have been praying since last night, upon meeting you.”

“Thank you,” he replied, “for your prayers.”

And with that, he turned his attention to someone else who was asking him questions, bringing up issues that were much shinier and sparkly which atheism finds easier to sink its teeth into, alas.

Several years ago, long before this site ever existed and once hosted somewhere long since dead, I had written a very pointed and brief thought-piece about “The Arrogance of Atheism.” It had garnered the attention of Austin Reed Cline, a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of the Atheism section of the About.com web portal, who had published an excoriating and profoundly inaccurate review of my article. Some time last year I decided to resurrect that piece and republish it here, and to include not only Cline’s rebuttal but my response to him as well.

Around that same time I extended an invitation for Cline to interact with me on the response I had composed. His response can be found in the comments to the relevant article at his portal here, and the remainder of this article is my answer to him.

Read the rest of this entry