Aaron and Kyle come together to discuss various issues in politics, discussion, arguing logically, the state of discourse, and more. Aaron tells us about his recent radio appearance and work at a private Christian university, we talk about everyone's desire to control others, Kyle expresses an unusual amount of frustration with how stupid and evil people are, we talk a little about the Mueller Report, and the recent backlash that Nathan Pyle, the creator of the Strange Planet comics, experienced over a tweet a couple of years ago.
Listen to the episode here.
To learn how to support our podcast, click here.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2019
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
What is the Point of Debating Online?
I came across this picture on FB that I think makes a very good point.
Earlier this year, I was debating abortion with some people on my FB page and I was in several other debates on that topic over the period of a couple of months. During that time many people have said to me that we should just ignore pro-choice commenters, especially ones that are more emotional and do not give cogent arguments. They won't be convinced, so what's the point debating them? Not everybody says this, but it is something I hear relatively often. Sometimes, you hear cynical people in any controversial discussion say "What is the point in arguing about this?! No one is going to change their mind!"
I definitely understand that issue. It is very unlikely that they will be convinced by any arguments we give on this platform. In my experience, they often just repeat the same things over and over again without considering what my pro-life friends or I argue. I do, however, think that entering these debates with pro-choicers on FB is a worthwhile endeavor. I don't necessarily enter these debates to convince these people, though it would be nice if they were convinced. Here is why I engage them
1) It may at least help them understand why people are pro-life beyond "You just want to control women's bodies!"
2) It may help them become pro-life ten years from now.
3) It helps a brother out. If a friend of mine is debating the abortion issue with multiple people, I don't want to leave him alone. I want to help him out. I also appreciate it if people help me out and don't leave me alone.
4) I don't want these people to be so confident in their assertions. I don't want them to get away with saying what they want without being challenged.
5) The audience may be genuinely helped and educated by seeing your contribution to the debate.
2) It may help them become pro-life ten years from now.
3) It helps a brother out. If a friend of mine is debating the abortion issue with multiple people, I don't want to leave him alone. I want to help him out. I also appreciate it if people help me out and don't leave me alone.
4) I don't want these people to be so confident in their assertions. I don't want them to get away with saying what they want without being challenged.
5) The audience may be genuinely helped and educated by seeing your contribution to the debate.
I'm not saying that all pro-choicers are bad arguers or closed-minded. I am also not saying that there aren't legitimate times avoid engaging with some people. I just don't like the categorical charge that engaging them is always pointless because they won't be convinced. This doesn't just go for the abortion debate. This applies to any topic of debate online.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
Needs and Rights
We have been emphatic in the past that the topic of our show is not guns. We do this as a bit of a running gag because of the name of our podcast. The theme of our show is Christian commentary. However, that theme is wide enough to allow for a wide variety of topics to be discussed, including the topic of guns. It's an interesting and important topic, so it has and will likely come up in our episodes and writings. I had an interview with a philosopher about gun rights and this article is going to be about guns.
In this article, I want to address a particular argument or phrase that people who are for more gun control like to say. This is an argument/phrase that more sophisticated defenders of gun control probably don't use, but I do see it frequently in the popular-level discourse on social media or protests. Because of this, I like to call it a "meme-argument." The phrase, or question depending on how the person says it, is basically "Why do you need this?!" There isn't really an argument here, but there are implicit premises and conclusions in there if you think about them or draw them out. Defenders of more gun restrictions (or complete gun bans) will talk about features of certain guns, like the AR-15, and say that there is no reason to have a gun like that because you don't need those features for whatever purpose. The question is: What conclusion is supposed to be drawn from this? For this post, I'm going to focus on the AR-15 since that's the gun I usually see being referred to when I hear this.
First, we need to figure out what they mean when they say that we don't need an AR-15 because of whatever features it has. Are they saying 1) that we shouldn't have that gun or are they saying 2) that the gun is unnecessary, so there's no reason to have one?
The conclusion of (1) does not follow. The fact that something is not needed has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal to obtain or whether or not is it moral to own. If you want to argue those conclusions, you need to do more work than that.
If they mean (2), that its unnecessary, then I agree, but that doesn't mean that the gun isn't sufficient. What I mean by this is that, yes, you do not need an AR-15 over other guns. You could have a shotgun, a glock, a beretta, or any number of other guns. However, the AR-15, like any other gun, still does the trick. It still does what a person who wants a gun wants the gun to do: it provides a means of self-defense and recreation. So, the fact that an AR-15 is unnecessary does not mean there is no reason to own one.
This article is not an all-out refutation of arguments for more gun control. I am showing that this meme-argument, like all others, is insufficient to give any good reason for that viewpoint. People at the popular level, even on social media, need to give more comprehensive and relevant arguments for their position that require more context and critical thought. In the case of the phrase that I have talked about and its implicit argument, it does nothing to show that the AR-15 should be banned or that there should be more gun restrictions. It also does nothing to address the positive arguments for less gun restriction based on a person's right to defend his or her life from danger.
Listen to the interview I linked above for the arguments for less gun ownership restrictions.
In this article, I want to address a particular argument or phrase that people who are for more gun control like to say. This is an argument/phrase that more sophisticated defenders of gun control probably don't use, but I do see it frequently in the popular-level discourse on social media or protests. Because of this, I like to call it a "meme-argument." The phrase, or question depending on how the person says it, is basically "Why do you need this?!" There isn't really an argument here, but there are implicit premises and conclusions in there if you think about them or draw them out. Defenders of more gun restrictions (or complete gun bans) will talk about features of certain guns, like the AR-15, and say that there is no reason to have a gun like that because you don't need those features for whatever purpose. The question is: What conclusion is supposed to be drawn from this? For this post, I'm going to focus on the AR-15 since that's the gun I usually see being referred to when I hear this.
First, we need to figure out what they mean when they say that we don't need an AR-15 because of whatever features it has. Are they saying 1) that we shouldn't have that gun or are they saying 2) that the gun is unnecessary, so there's no reason to have one?
The conclusion of (1) does not follow. The fact that something is not needed has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal to obtain or whether or not is it moral to own. If you want to argue those conclusions, you need to do more work than that.
If they mean (2), that its unnecessary, then I agree, but that doesn't mean that the gun isn't sufficient. What I mean by this is that, yes, you do not need an AR-15 over other guns. You could have a shotgun, a glock, a beretta, or any number of other guns. However, the AR-15, like any other gun, still does the trick. It still does what a person who wants a gun wants the gun to do: it provides a means of self-defense and recreation. So, the fact that an AR-15 is unnecessary does not mean there is no reason to own one.
This article is not an all-out refutation of arguments for more gun control. I am showing that this meme-argument, like all others, is insufficient to give any good reason for that viewpoint. People at the popular level, even on social media, need to give more comprehensive and relevant arguments for their position that require more context and critical thought. In the case of the phrase that I have talked about and its implicit argument, it does nothing to show that the AR-15 should be banned or that there should be more gun restrictions. It also does nothing to address the positive arguments for less gun restriction based on a person's right to defend his or her life from danger.
Listen to the interview I linked above for the arguments for less gun ownership restrictions.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 20
Aaron and I talk about a dialogue that happened between Pastor Timothy Keller and Dr. Jonathan Haidt called The Closing of the Modern Mind. Keller and Haidt talk about living in a pluralistic society and what resources their viewpoints have to offer to help people live in and foster a pluralistic society. Aaron and I talk about the issue of civility when living around and talking with different people, the strengths Keller has as a speaker and representative of Christ, and the problems with identity politics.
Listen to the episode here.
This is the article Aaron mentions about Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson
Listen to the episode here.
This is the article Aaron mentions about Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 6
In this episode, Aaron and I have a discussion about public debates. We discuss their structure, the issue or persuasiveness, and if Christians are way too "nice."
This is my (Kyle's) first time hosting and uploading a podcast, so I don't know how to add an intro or outro yet, so I'll need to figure that out as we go along. Forgive the lack of music!
Listen to the episode here on Anchor.
This is my (Kyle's) first time hosting and uploading a podcast, so I don't know how to add an intro or outro yet, so I'll need to figure that out as we go along. Forgive the lack of music!
Listen to the episode here on Anchor.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Things I like: Part 2
In this series, I will recommend things that I happened to come across that I like. That's about as simple as it gets.
Political Discourse in America
David French writes a good piece on the bad state of political discourse in America today. People overreact to the smallest things, especially as people replace religious commitment to political commitment. Political Overreaction is the New American Way.
The SJW
Nathan Robinson writes an interesting piece giving criticisms and concerns about the extreme leftists that are often pejoratively known as "Social Justice Warriors." Nathan considers himself a leftist, but is critical of this more extreme group. I don't agree with everything he says, but I find his post fair and balanced for the most part.
Slavery in the Bible
J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective and apologist, answers a question on the issue of slavery in the Bible, which is often used to undermine the moral legitimacy of the Bible.
Political Discourse in America
David French writes a good piece on the bad state of political discourse in America today. People overreact to the smallest things, especially as people replace religious commitment to political commitment. Political Overreaction is the New American Way.
The SJW
Nathan Robinson writes an interesting piece giving criticisms and concerns about the extreme leftists that are often pejoratively known as "Social Justice Warriors." Nathan considers himself a leftist, but is critical of this more extreme group. I don't agree with everything he says, but I find his post fair and balanced for the most part.
Slavery in the Bible
J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective and apologist, answers a question on the issue of slavery in the Bible, which is often used to undermine the moral legitimacy of the Bible.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Apologist Recommendation: Timothy McGrew
In this series, I will recommend certain scholars and apologists to our readers and listeners. These are people that I believe are worth listening to because they are informed and give good arguments and insights into the subjects that they study, which helps intellectually equip Christians so that they can grow in their own faith and their outreach towards non-Christians. I am not claiming that these scholars and apologists have everything correct, but I think they are intellectual powerhouses that we can learn much from.
Timothy McGrew
Timothy McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. His philosophical specialties are epistemology, probability theory, logic, and the history and philosophy of science. When it comes to Christian apologetics, he frequently speaks and writes on the meaning of "faith" and the possibility and actuality of miracles. Don't let his credentials as a philosopher fool you, however, he is also very competent when it comes to biblical studies. Dr. McGrew has spent years researching the reliability of the Bible and he has shared his knowledge in numerous talks and debates over the years. In the next section, I will provide resources on the various topics McGrew has been involved in over the years.
Miracles
Dr. McGrew has said a lot over the years on the possibility and actuality of miracles and the rationality in believing miracles. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fantastic source for learning philosophy, features Dr. McGrew's helpful article on miracles. McGrew has given helpful talks on how to think about miracles and has participated in debates on the rationality of believing in miracles. I also highly recommend this talk on the history of the discussion of miracles among philosophers over the centuries. Many people make it seem like David Hume basically closed the issue of miracles, but Dr. McGrew shows that Hume has had his critics over the centuries. Tim and his wife, Lydia, who is also a scholar, also have an article defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter 11).
Faith
Many people claim that faith is believing without evidence. Being a philosopher who regularly thinks of evidence and rationality, Dr. McGrew has spent a lot of time showing that faith is not against the evidence. In Tom Gilson's book, True Reason, Dr. McGrew and Dr. David Marshall respond to the charge that faith is unevidential belief by giving a historical perspective on how faith was understood and defined by thinkers in the church (chapter 11). McGrew has also debated the atheist Peter Boghossian, who wrote a book arguing that faith is an unreliable way of knowing things because it doesn't rely on evidence.
The Reliability of the Bible
My favorite stuff from Dr. McGrew is his material on the reliability of the Bible. He has spent a lot of time researching the subject and has helped to resurface an old argument for the Bible's reliability that, while good, has been forgotten for some time. Dr. McGrew has an excellent series responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels. He has debated the well-known biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, on the reliability of the Gospels. The most interesting thing that Dr. McGrew has brought back into the apologetic discussion is the issue of Undesigned Coincidences. An undesigned coincidence occurs when two or more people give completely different details about the same event, but despite the details being different, they fit together and explain each other like pieces of a puzzle, which gives a full picture of the event. Undesigned coincidences are marks of reliability and truthfulness because they are subtle and unlikely to be made up or planned by the group of people giving the details, but despite this, the details still fit together well. The kicker is that these undesigned coincidences are found all over the Bible. Tim McGrew has spoken extensively on these things, but it is actually his wife, Lydia McGrew, who has put the most work into bringing this argument for biblical reliability back. Lydia's book, Hidden in Plain View, explains undesigned coincidences and details a massive number of them in the Bible. You can also find a number of her posts on various undesigned coincidences in the blog, What's Wrong With the World.
The Existence of God
I have not seen Dr. McGrew talk as much about the arguments for God's existence, but he does have some material on it that I think is worth looking into. Here is a talk by him giving three arguments for God's existence and answering questions and criticisms from people.
I hope Dr. McGrew's materials are helpful to you all.
Timothy McGrew
Timothy McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. His philosophical specialties are epistemology, probability theory, logic, and the history and philosophy of science. When it comes to Christian apologetics, he frequently speaks and writes on the meaning of "faith" and the possibility and actuality of miracles. Don't let his credentials as a philosopher fool you, however, he is also very competent when it comes to biblical studies. Dr. McGrew has spent years researching the reliability of the Bible and he has shared his knowledge in numerous talks and debates over the years. In the next section, I will provide resources on the various topics McGrew has been involved in over the years.
Miracles
Dr. McGrew has said a lot over the years on the possibility and actuality of miracles and the rationality in believing miracles. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fantastic source for learning philosophy, features Dr. McGrew's helpful article on miracles. McGrew has given helpful talks on how to think about miracles and has participated in debates on the rationality of believing in miracles. I also highly recommend this talk on the history of the discussion of miracles among philosophers over the centuries. Many people make it seem like David Hume basically closed the issue of miracles, but Dr. McGrew shows that Hume has had his critics over the centuries. Tim and his wife, Lydia, who is also a scholar, also have an article defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter 11).
Faith
Many people claim that faith is believing without evidence. Being a philosopher who regularly thinks of evidence and rationality, Dr. McGrew has spent a lot of time showing that faith is not against the evidence. In Tom Gilson's book, True Reason, Dr. McGrew and Dr. David Marshall respond to the charge that faith is unevidential belief by giving a historical perspective on how faith was understood and defined by thinkers in the church (chapter 11). McGrew has also debated the atheist Peter Boghossian, who wrote a book arguing that faith is an unreliable way of knowing things because it doesn't rely on evidence.
The Reliability of the Bible
My favorite stuff from Dr. McGrew is his material on the reliability of the Bible. He has spent a lot of time researching the subject and has helped to resurface an old argument for the Bible's reliability that, while good, has been forgotten for some time. Dr. McGrew has an excellent series responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels. He has debated the well-known biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, on the reliability of the Gospels. The most interesting thing that Dr. McGrew has brought back into the apologetic discussion is the issue of Undesigned Coincidences. An undesigned coincidence occurs when two or more people give completely different details about the same event, but despite the details being different, they fit together and explain each other like pieces of a puzzle, which gives a full picture of the event. Undesigned coincidences are marks of reliability and truthfulness because they are subtle and unlikely to be made up or planned by the group of people giving the details, but despite this, the details still fit together well. The kicker is that these undesigned coincidences are found all over the Bible. Tim McGrew has spoken extensively on these things, but it is actually his wife, Lydia McGrew, who has put the most work into bringing this argument for biblical reliability back. Lydia's book, Hidden in Plain View, explains undesigned coincidences and details a massive number of them in the Bible. You can also find a number of her posts on various undesigned coincidences in the blog, What's Wrong With the World.
The Existence of God
I have not seen Dr. McGrew talk as much about the arguments for God's existence, but he does have some material on it that I think is worth looking into. Here is a talk by him giving three arguments for God's existence and answering questions and criticisms from people.
I hope Dr. McGrew's materials are helpful to you all.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Reading Recommendations for the Winter Break
This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.
Many of our readers may be students who are still in college. The nice thing about the university is that there is often an entire month off during this time of year. This gives one time to read books that one does not have time to read during the semesters. Even non-students like people working in ministry will be benefited from reading. These are my top apologetics book recommendations. I will be focusing on beginners material, but I will also suggest higher level books to move onto once you finish these books.
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
This book, written by the well-known pastor in New York, is a good introductory apologetic for people who have not exposed themselves to the topic before. In the first half, Keller responds to various criticisms of Christianity like “How can a good God send people to Hell,” “There can’t be just one true religion,” “How could a good God allow evil,” “Science has disproved Christianity,” and many more. In the second half, he gets into some arguments for the truth of Christianity. This book will challenge readers who have never exposed themselves to apologetics before, but it is incredibly readable too. Those who are more familiar with apologetics may be aided by this book because, as a pastor, Keller can put things in a way that is understandable and relatable to many people.
This book isn’t so much about apologetic content as it is about apologetic skill and strategy. This book is all about how to engaged in a winsome and intelligent way with skeptics of Christianity by asking good questions that help guide the conversation. Greg also gets into how to deal with people who are much smarter than you, people who are rude and condescending, and other challenging situations. The content in this book is valuable for everybody and for every discussion you will have, even if you are discussion issues with other Christians, like whether Calvinism is true.
On Guard: Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig
Dr. Craig is one of the most well-known Christian apologists of our time. He has been in countless debates and has written countless books on the defense of the Christian faith, so any book by him is going to be worth looking into. This book is his most accessible. He gives several arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for Christianity in particular.
After this: Read Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig
Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan
Many objections to Christianity are aimed at the apparent moral depravity of the Old Testament. What do we do about the conquest accounts, slavery, treatment of women, and countless other moral problems in the OT? Even many Christians avoid the OT because they don’t know how to handle it. Paul Copan looks at each one of these moral challenges and responds to them.
After this: Read Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan
I hope these resources can get you started. God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)