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 always find it truly ironic when atheists profess to be champions of skepticism and critical thinking, as if they esteem reason and the rigors of logic, but collapse in a heap of emo histrionics when challenged to argue for their atheism. The most recent case: Phil Stilwell.

I realize that you have no idea who that is. Neither do I, quite frankly, although he is certainly trying to make a name for himself on the worldwide web. (And when you see what passes for ‘reason’ in Stilwell’s world, like me you might find yourself wondering why he is embarrassing himself so broadly.) Stilwell is responsible for a number of different blogs, only three of which I am aware of [1] but he seems willing to create a new blog at the drop of a hat. [2]

Three days ago in a chat on IRC someone dropped a link to a debate between Stilwell and some Christian named Jay Atkins; the debate was published in a standalone blog created by Stilwell called Snake Oil Jesus: Vekl Come Knocking. (“Vekl” was apparently a pseudonym used by Atkins.) After reviewing the debate, I was interested in how fundamentally flawed Stilwell’s arguments were and disappointed with how Atkins either failed to notice the flaws or chose to ignore them.

I decided to find out more about Stilwell and ended up discovering his personal blog, and in particular a rather strong claim he made therein, that “the God of the Bible does not exist.” [3] I was interested in finding out how he might attempt arguing for that claim in a debate against me, so I challenged him to another debate, one that should prove quite different from that with Atkins. The only stipulations I had were that it had to be in written format and the resolution had to be, “The God of biblical Christianity does not exist.” Beyond that Stilwell was free to establish whatever parameters he wished.

He accepted the debate challenge and the resolution.

But unfortunately he proved to be unwilling to argue for his claim in a debate. What he wanted instead was to argue against my claim, which was a difficult proposition because I had not made any claims. So over the next two days Stilwell invested all his efforts in trying to get me to make a claim or two that he could then argue against. He proclaimed confidently that he could demonstrate a “logical incoherency” in my view, if only I would carefully explain to him what my view is. Unfortunately none of that would have anything to do with his claim, which was produced at least two and a half years ago by a line of reasoning that neither made, nor even could make, any reference to my views.

And yet ignorance of my views was not a luxury Stilwell ever had. Even though the purpose of the debate was for him to argue for his claim, for some reason he insisted that my theology of redemption had to be the context in which he would make that argument and incessantly pressed me to explain it to him. Unfortunately for him, he actually had been made aware of the pertinent information regarding my theology of redemption; from the very beginning I told him that I was confessionally Reformed and affirm the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, and in another email I had even pointed him to the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the Cambridge Declaration. (And Stilwell’s response? “David, I am not going to study your theology.”) So whatever the reason might have been for his unwillingness to argue for his claim in a debate, an ignorance of my theology of redemption could not be part of it since between those two documents not a single relevant datum of information that he could have possibly needed was missing.

No matter what the proposed context of the debate was—whether the context of his original argument or the context of my theology of redemption—he flatly refused to argue for his claim in a debate.

As for the heap of emo histrionics that Stilwell collapsed into, see the series of emails that we exchanged over the last few days. [4]

Footnotes:

[1] From Synapse to Byte (Stilwell’s personal blog), The Impossible God (a smorgasbord of embarrassing arguments), and Snake Oil Jesus (a debate between Stilwell and Jay Atkins).

[2] “I will set up a WordPress blog for the debate, but you can feel free to have your own blog that mirrors the debate for whatever reason.” (Phil Stilwell, personal correspondence [2012, March 1].)

[3] “However, I do say unequivocally that the god of the bible does not exist. Jehovah, as commonly defined, is a logical impossibility due to incoherent concepts such as eternal punishment for finite lives of sinning. Jehovah also fails the internal logic test. Conventional interpretations of biblical promises to answer prayer are demonstrably false. This makes Jehovah a liar, something the bible says he is not. Therefore Jehovah and his bible fail this test of internal logical consistency.” (This quote was copied verbatim from the text of his article accessed 1 March 2012. See Stilwell, P. [2009, August 29]. “Micropoints,” Question #3, par. 2. From Synapse to Byte. [Blog.])

[4] “The God of biblical Christianity does not exist,” a series of emails between myself and Phil Stilwell attempting to set up a debate which Stilwell ultimately refused. Skip past the introduction, as it simply reproduces this blog post here.

In conjunction with the Global Atheist Conference which concluded yesterday, Australia’s national broadcasting station, the ABC, invited Professor Richard Dawkins onto to it’s program of panelists, Q and A. The topic to be discussed was, none too coincidentally, “God, Science and Sanity”. And given the makeup of the panel on last Monday night (8 March 2010), it comes as no surprise that Prof. Dawkins stole the show.

For those of you unaware – of which I assume this is the vast majority of you – the Q and A program pits pollies, professionals and “pundits” up against each other while passing the questioning over to the audience, whether to a member in the studio or to someone watching at home who participates via the program’s website. The idea is quite simple: grab a hodge-podge of celebrities, specialists and politicians, throw them in the same room, given them a topic and then let the public “have at it”.

And “have at it” was the operative word last Monday; but not against Prof. Dawkins – that was one parrot that wasn’t going to get knocked off his perch. But the other panelists, namely those who identify as theists, sure did get a hammering.

Read the rest of this entry