Phil and Skye talk about drive-in movies and young America’s fading love affair with cars. Phil is perplexed with PETA and they have a rich conversation around science and faith. This one is not to be missed!
Listen to the episode | Download to the episode | Find this episode on iTunes
Hey Phil and Skye. Another great podcast, however, I want to point something out. Evolutionists are constantly using viruses as evidence of their theories. The problem is viruses are not classified as living organisms. Because of that, it’s tough to use them as evidence for evolution of living creatures. This doesn’t disprove anything, but I think it is a distinction that needs to be noted.
Unresolved!
I left the segment dealing with atheism thinking Skye, quoting atheists, was right – we don’t need God to be good. I know that’s not true, please bring me closure!
I am enjoying these podcasts even more than I expected – they keep my attention and make me think. Thanks for doing them.
Phil, Have you read any ND Wilson? I suggest Notes from the Tilt-a-Whirl as a good read. I think he has a more complete picture of the motivation of “evangelical” atheists. There are some who choose not to think about God in their daily lives; but the evangelists like Dawkins really are described accurately by Wilson’s two tenets of atheism: God does not exist, and I hate Him.
It is that religious zeal that drive an otherwise very clever man like Dawkins to ignore obvious lines between observational fact and blind faith, allowing him to sell metaphysical conjecture under the guise of good science.
It is that same sort of religious zeal that will drive an otherwise perspicacious and dogmatic theologian to categorically dismiss big band jokes as, “stuff the other side believes.” So while one finger points at Dawkins ilk, four point straight back at us.
I am new to the podcast and have enjoyed some of your discussions so far. But I came away disappointed from your promising discussion in Ep. 7 on atheism. You both have a beginning acquaintance with the atheist outlook but fail to take it seriously. Calling Dawkins and Krauss “desperate” is the same kind of thing I expect from them. And they aren’t desperate, they are as confident as you that they have found the truth, and that the truth will set you free!
And is God “beyond nature”, “outside nature” so that he cannot be examined by science (as you both said during the show) or is he the glue holding the whole thing together (as you also say), the author of miracles (every religion has them) and director of changed lives (every religion has them too). Every time one of you got close to seeing through your own goggles (“Should we believe in UFOS?”) the question was quickly deflected with humor and dropped. This is the kind of fuzzy thinking that makes atheists laugh off Christians as desperate.
You aren’t listening to what atheists say. Real atheism is a formidable position and you pretend that it isn’t. Get a muscular atheist on the show and ask some real questions. I think this is the kind of thing Mr Guinness meant by civility in the previous episode.
Can’t remember if this is the right podcast, but I remember you guys comparing the eyewitness accounts of the event in Scripture to those of UFOs and Bigfoot. I feel you’re answers were kinda weak. It’s something I’ve thought a lot about and if you take the eyewitnesses of the Bible seriously, you must take those of UFOs and Bigfoot seriously.
First, UFOs, like Phil said, by definition, are real. You can’t deny it. Often hundreds of eyewitnesses, photos, videos, etc. But to say that they are of alien origin is a HUGE leap in logic. They could be anything: natural phenomena, undiscovered animals, classified government vehicles, etc. All of which are mush more plausible explanations then aliens.
Second, why are people so afraid to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot? Because it sounds ridiculous to us? There is overwhelming evidence for it. Not just from eyewitnesses, but physical scientific evidence: prints, hair, video, nests, consistency in habits with other primates, recorded cries, etc. The only reason people don’t acknowledge it is because it sounds silly to them. But why? Is our faith thwarted by the existence of gorillas, or orangutans? Why is a large ape in North America any different? In fact, gorillas were thought to be a myth before there were accidentally discovered only about 100 years ago. Can you imagine the reaction you’d have if someone described a platypus to you without having seen it? You’d think he was crazy! And yet here it is. God made them all; including the platypus and Bigfoot.
Phil,
I found your podcast by accident, love it. I listened to this one first for some reason and wanted to thank you. The real issue is whether or not Materialism is true. Of course Christians reject that idea and this is where many scientists over step…instead of discussing science they step into philosophy and theology…you all put it perfectly.
One thing you didn’t mention regarding proof for a Biblical supernaturalism are NDE (near death experiences). One interesting account is of the famous Atheist A.J. Ayers, he was dead for four minutes and saw Some One it seems…very interesting account. They say he became much nicer after he died and started hanging out a great deal with a Jesuit Priest before he finally kicked the bucket for good about a year later.
Thank you so much. Great job by all,
Dan
I got excited when Phil proposed talking about intellectual property, since it’s an issue I’ve been pondering myself. I often find myself sympathetic to the ideas of those who saw IP is illegitimate (as it is backed by the use of force against a non-aggressor), but don’t fully understand how all things would operate without it. It seems pretty clear that it has gotten out of hand (such as Amazon being able to patent “One-click ordering”) but if it is legitimate what are its limits? Can one make a consistent theory of how IP is to be applied?
Too bad Sky rejects one of the better ideas Phil has had for topics to discuss as something listeners wouldn’t be interested in.