Dale Allison

Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of many books, including The Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and our subject today, Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age.The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to atheists.We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena, and two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism.Since we’re exploring new terrain that involves some quite unusual topics (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) there’s a lot more I want to say, even in this little description box, but I’ll save it for the interview.One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s book, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me.Linktree

Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of many books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Apologetics-Polemics-History/dp/0567697568/ref=pd_lpo_sccl_2/130-7590717-0617824?pd_rd_w=Iquzv&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.116f529c-aa4d-4763-b2b6-4d614ec7dc00&amp;pf_rd_p=116f529c-aa4d-4763-b2b6-4d614ec7dc00&amp;pf_rd_r=1P9NDYQAN4GYCRJGWNCQ&amp;pd_rd_wg=s953v&amp;pd_rd_r=70af8b55-7dd4-4dba-bc06-de3d312653d5&amp;pd_rd_i=0567697568&amp;psc=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Resurrection of Jesus</a>, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and our subject today, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Mystery-Religious-Experience-Secular/dp/0802881882" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age</a>. The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to atheists. We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena, and two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism. Since we’re exploring new terrain that involves some quite unusual topics (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) there’s a lot more I want to say, even in this little description box, but I’ll save it for the interview. One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Mystery-Religious-Experience-Secular/dp/0802881882" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">book</a>, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me. <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA121 Encountering Mystery w/ Dale Allison

Today, I defend the controversial idea that ordinary and extraordinary claims don’t require the same evidence. Linktree

Today, I defend the controversial idea that ordinary and extraordinary claims don’t require the same evidence. <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

LDS Philosophy and Dry Apologist join me for a debate on the nature of God. We compare the virtues of a limited model of God versus a model on which God is unlimited in power, as well as simple, impassible, etc. Are the classical models of God too impersonal and abstract, incapable of sustaining a commitment to a personal God who loves us? Or are the limited models of God not divine enough? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both views with respect to the problem of evil?Watch the debate on YouTube: Catholic vs. Mormon on the Nature of GodLinktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

LDS Philosophy and Dry Apologist join me for a debate on the nature of God. We compare the virtues of a limited model of God versus a model on which God is unlimited in power, as well as simple, impassible, etc. Are the classical models of God too impersonal and abstract, incapable of sustaining a commitment to a personal God who loves us? Or are the limited models of God not divine enough? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both views with respect to the problem of evil? Watch the debate on YouTube: <a href="https://youtu.be/K8f5gensQF0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Catholic vs. Mormon on the Nature of God</a> Linktree <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://linktr.ee/emersongreen</a>

CA120 Debate: Limited vs. Unlimited God

We close out our series on atheism and epistemology with the epistemic value of intuition, the issue of lacktheism, and whether or not I’ve been charitable to my fellow atheists throughout these episodes.Linktree

We close out our series on atheism and epistemology with the epistemic value of intuition, the issue of lacktheism, and whether or not I’ve been charitable to my fellow atheists throughout these episodes. <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA119 Intuition, Lacktheism, & Charity

Can we really trust the testimony of others? Does testimony provide any evidence or justification for a claim? I defend the idea that we should trust testimony, and that the epistemic value of testimonial evidence is supported by induction, the principle of charity in interpretation, and coherence.Linktree

Can we really trust the testimony of others? Does testimony provide any evidence or justification for a claim? I defend the idea that we should trust testimony, and that the epistemic value of testimonial evidence is supported by induction, the principle of charity in interpretation, and coherence.<a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA118 Testimonial Evidence

This is part two of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series. Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer Linktree

This is part two of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA117 Is Theism Unfalsifiable?

There are a number of slogans one hears in the online atheist community, some of them purporting to be epistemic principles or rules of thumb. Unfortunately, many of them are only correct if we interpret them very narrowly and often not in the way they were intended, while others are just plain wrong. Today, we’ll be tackling the idea that there is no evidence for theism. What exactly is evidence? And is it reasonable to think there is literally zero evidence for theism? This is part one of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series. Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer Linktree

There are a number of slogans one hears in the online atheist community, some of them purporting to be epistemic principles or rules of thumb. Unfortunately, many of them are only correct if we interpret them very narrowly and often not in the way they were intended, while others are just plain wrong. Today, we’ll be tackling the idea that there is no evidence for theism. What exactly is evidence? And is it reasonable to think there is literally zero evidence for theism? This is part one of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA116 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology: “There is no evidence for God.”

Justin Schieber

Justin Schieber joins me for a lighthearted breakdown of his debate with Eric Hernandez on the existence of God. We critique the arguments put forward by Eric, discuss the evidence presented by Justin, and talk about a few of our favorite moments from the debate.Huge shoutout to Capturing Christianity for organizing the debate, and to the beautiful Lanier Theological Library for hosting the event.Does God Exist? Justin Schieber vs. Eric Hernandez (CC Exchange 2023) Real Atheology’s channel Patreon | Counter Apologetics  Linktree

Justin Schieber joins me for a lighthearted breakdown of his debate with Eric Hernandez on the existence of God. We critique the arguments put forward by Eric, discuss the evidence presented by Justin, and talk about a few of our favorite moments from the debate. Huge shoutout to Capturing Christianity for organizing the debate, and to the beautiful Lanier Theological Library for hosting the event. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/a1YA2yQPzZM?feature=share" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Does God Exist? Justin Schieber vs. Eric Hernandez (CC Exchange 2023)</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/RealAtheology" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Real Atheology’s channel</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Patreon | Counter Apologetics </a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA115 Post-Debate Interview w/ Justin Schieber of Real Atheology

Is the kind, degree, and distribution of animal suffering evidence against theism? We discuss why teleological evil, the scale of suffering in evolutionary history, and the moral randomness of animal pain is strong evidence against the existence of God. Transcript YouTube Tip Jar Linktree

Is the kind, degree, and distribution of animal suffering evidence against theism? We discuss why teleological evil, the scale of suffering in evolutionary history, and the moral randomness of animal pain is strong evidence against the existence of God. <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/04/26/animal-suffering-is-evidence-against-gods-existence/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Transcript</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWKTAiS64cY" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube</a> <a href="https://account.venmo.com/u/emersongreenpodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tip Jar</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

CA114 Animal Suffering is Evidence Against God

Perspective Philosophy and I recently had a friendly debate about the problem of evil, metaethics, the contingency argument, and how he maintains his worldview as a catholic and vegan. The Conversation Post-debate debrief – Patreon Linktree

Perspective Philosophy and I recently had a friendly <a href="https://youtu.be/jrTFkorzHpU" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">debate</a> about the problem of evil, metaethics, the contingency argument, and how he maintains his worldview as a catholic and vegan. <a href="https://youtu.be/jrTFkorzHpU" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/posts/debrief-some-81762164" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Post-debate debrief – Patreon</a> <a href="https://linktr.ee/emersongreen" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Linktree</a>

Debate: Is Animal Suffering Evidence That God Does Not Exist? w/ Perspective Philosophy

One of the Best podcasts ever

The Christians trying to proselytize to you through reviews make me giggle inside.

I love it

Counter Apologetics

We complete our trilogy on igtheism and discuss epistemic questions about god’s attributes, the historical development of god’s nature, the experience of god, god’s relationship with logical truths, absence of evidence, and address the inevitable retreat into transcendence. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Music by Whalers and ichika Nito and was used with permission. . . .  Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts [Podchaser] Bart Ehrman on the Origins of the Trinity [YouTube] Ozymandias Ramses II on Logical Truth and Omnipotence [YouTube] Logical Truth and Omnipotence [Reasonable Faith] YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon]

We complete our trilogy on igtheism and discuss epistemic questions about god’s attributes, the historical development of god’s nature, the experience of god, god’s relationship with logical truths, absence of evidence, and address the inevitable retreat into transcendence. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a> Music by Whalers and ichika Nito and was used with permission. . . .  <a href="https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/reasonable-doubts-podcast-51315/episodes/rd40-unintelligible-god-1807082" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts</a> [Podchaser] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJZaPMoZG4&amp;list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1&amp;index=24" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Bart Ehrman on the Origins of the Trinity</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybiig6h0zW8&amp;list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1&amp;index=22" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozymandias Ramses II on Logical Truth and Omnipotence</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/logical-truth-and-omnipotence/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Logical Truth and Omnipotence</a> [Reasonable Faith] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube Playlist on Igtheism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13BPD7J8IX4ED&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=atheism+a+philosophical+justification&amp;qid=1588900392&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=atheism+a+phil%2Cstripbooks%2C178&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin</a> [Amazon]

CA76 The Incoherence of God (pt. III)

We define our terms, address Graham Oppy’s claim that igtheism is self-defeating, discuss logical positivism and its relationship with igtheism, and present an igtheist divine hiddenness argument. Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. . . .  Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show [YouTube] Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts [Podchaser] Rabbi Sherwin Wine coins the term ‘ignostic’ [New York Times] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon] Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism [YouTube] TMM on Igtheism [YouTube] YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube] Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith [Google Books] A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn [Skeptic] / A Note on Terminology / I use my terminology in a consistent way throughout. As I mentioned, there is no widely recognized standard usage, so it’s important for one to define at the start words like igtheist, incoherent, meaningless, etc. I’m using the terms igtheist, ignostic, and theological noncognitivist as interchangeable, since many already treat them as interchangeable, for better or worse. Trying to establish one as strictly referring to incoherence and another as strictly referring to meaninglessness seems like a hopeless struggle to me, but I apologize for any confusion that resulted from the use of ‘theological noncognitivist’. I only insist on distinguishing two branches of thought that are too often conflated: the related but distinct views that god’s attributes are meaningless and god’s attributes are incoherent. Respectively, one means god talk is without content and the other means god’s attributes don’t cohere, which assumes some content. I’m primarily interested in the latter.

We define our terms, address Graham Oppy’s claim that igtheism is self-defeating, discuss logical positivism and its relationship with igtheism, and present an igtheist divine hiddenness argument. <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a> Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. . . .  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FgF_XNhaw&amp;list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1&amp;index=24&amp;t=5046s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/reasonable-doubts-podcast-51315/episodes/rd40-unintelligible-god-1807082" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts</a> [Podchaser] <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1965/06/20/119076457.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&amp;ip=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rabbi Sherwin Wine coins the term ‘ignostic’</a> [New York Times] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13BPD7J8IX4ED&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=atheism+a+philosophical+justification&amp;qid=1588900392&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=atheism+a+phil%2Cstripbooks%2C178&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMH9dqtAejU&amp;t=159s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism </a>[YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1R01kbGTM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">TMM on Igtheism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube Playlist on Igtheism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX8undhcmsC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=george+smith+god+is+not+visible+neither+is+nonexistence&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9ZQeUipt1Z&amp;sig=ACfU3U2CVKPySiOjdZqxcNXt7OzscwmBww&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjkttSugf7oAhVba80KHaAuDo0Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith</a> [Google Books] <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/disproof-of-gods-existence/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn</a> [Skeptic] / A Note on Terminology / I use my terminology in a consistent way throughout. As I mentioned, there is no widely recognized standard usage, so it’s important for one to define at the start words like igtheist, incoherent, meaningless, etc. I’m using the terms igtheist, ignostic, and theological noncognitivist as interchangeable, since many already treat them as interchangeable, for better or worse. Trying to establish one as strictly referring to incoherence and another as strictly referring to meaninglessness seems like a hopeless struggle to me, but I apologize for any confusion that resulted from the use of ‘theological noncognitivist’. I only insist on distinguishing two branches of thought that are too often conflated: the related but distinct views that god’s attributes are meaningless and god’s attributes are incoherent. Respectively, one means god talk is without content and the other means god’s attributes don’t cohere, which assumes some content. I’m primarily interested in the latter.

CA75 The Incoherence of God (pt. II)

Darwin Devolves

We continue our discussion of Michael Behe’s latest case for intelligent design. Not only does his “First Rule of Adaptive Evolution” betray his lack of understanding of natural selection, it also conflicts with empirical data. In his attempt to respond to these empirical difficulties, he creates even more problems for himself. We also discuss the creationist fixation on “randomness” in evolution and a naturalistic universe. Subscribe on YouTube​​Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook ​​Rate the show on iTunes ​​Support on Patreon or give a one-time donation through Venmo @emersongreenpodcastEmerson’s Blog ​​ ​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers. . . Michael Behe and Eric Metaxes – Darwin Devolves [YouTube] Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves Summary [YouTube]All of Behe’s Responses to Criticism [DarwinDevolves] Richard Lenski – Does Behe’s “First Rule” Really Show That Evolutionary Biology has a Big Problem? [TelliamedRevisited] Richard Lenski – On Damaged Genes and Polar Bears [TelliamedRevisited] Jerry Coyne – Intelligent Design Gets Even Dumber [WaPo] Nathan Lents – Behe’s Last Stand [Skeptic] Nathan Lents et al. Criticize Darwin Devolves [ScienceMag]Behe Summarizes “Central argument of the book” [EvolutionNews]Jerry Coyne Responds to Behe’s EN Post [Whyevolutionistrue] Behe’s Colleagues Criticize Darwin Devolves – Gregory Lang, Amber Rice [Wiley Online Library] Behe’s 2010 Paper [Quarterly Review of Biology] Jerry Coyne’s Response to Behe’s 2010 Paper [Whyevolutionistrue]Darwin Devolves – Michael Behe [Amazon] William Jennings Bryan – Final Speech [text]Final Passage in the Origin of Species [text]

We continue our discussion of Michael Behe’s latest case for intelligent design. Not only does his “First Rule of Adaptive Evolution” betray his lack of understanding of natural selection, it also conflicts with empirical data. In his attempt to respond to these empirical difficulties, he creates even more problems for himself. We also discuss the creationist fixation on “randomness” in evolution and a naturalistic universe. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig?view_as=subscriber" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube</a> ​​Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook</a> <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Rate the show on iTunes</a> <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Support on Patreon</a> or give a one-time donation through Venmo @emersongreenpodcast <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Emerson’s Blog</a> ​​ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrM7ncQJ7Zs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers</a> . . . <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michael Behe and Eric Metaxes – Darwin Devolves</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHKqOCT3IM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves Summary</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">All of Behe’s Responses to Criticism</a> [DarwinDevolves] <a href="https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/does-behes-first-rule-really-show-that-evolutionary-biology-has-a-big-problem/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard Lenski – Does Behe’s “First Rule” Really Show That Evolutionary Biology has a Big Problem? </a>[TelliamedRevisited] <a href="https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/22/on-damaged-genes-and-polar-bears/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Richard Lenski – On Damaged Genes and Polar Bears</a> [TelliamedRevisited] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne – Intelligent Design Gets Even Dumber</a> [WaPo] <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/michael-behes-last-stand-lion-of-intelligent-design-roars-again/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nathan Lents – Behe’s Last Stand</a> [Skeptic] <a href="https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nathan Lents et al. Criticize Darwin Devolves</a> [ScienceMag] <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/woo-hoo-in-science-review-of-darwin-devolves-lenski-has-no-response-to-my-main-argument/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Behe Summarizes “Central argument of the book”</a> [EvolutionNews] <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/scientists-damn-behes-new-book-he-responds-lamely/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne Responds to Behe’s EN Post</a> [Whyevolutionistrue] <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13710" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Behe’s Colleagues Criticize Darwin Devolves – Gregory Lang, Amber Rice</a> [Wiley Online Library] <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/656902" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Behe’s 2010 Paper</a> [Quarterly Review of Biology] <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/behes-new-paper/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne’s Response to Behe’s 2010 Paper</a> [Whyevolutionistrue] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Darwin Devolves – Michael Behe</a> [Amazon] <a href="http://www5.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">William Jennings Bryan – Final Speech</a> [text] <a href="https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/charles_darwins/quotes/grandeur_view_life.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Final Passage in the Origin of Species</a> [text]

CA53 Darwin Devolves (pt. II)

Ben Watkins

Ben Watkins joins me to discuss the moral argument for god’s existence, objective moral truth, the is/ought gap, meta-ethics, and other related topics. You can listen to Ben’s podcast, Real Atheology, here Moral Non-Naturalism [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Listen to The Bible Says What!? here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Ben Watkins joins me to discuss the moral argument for god’s existence, objective moral truth, the is/ought gap, meta-ethics, and other related topics. <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/real-atheology/id1200545713" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">You can listen to Ben’s podcast, Real Atheology, here</a> <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Moral Non-Naturalism</a> [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bible-says-what/id1383942979" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to The Bible Says What!? here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

CA65 God and Objective Morality — with Ben Watkins of Real Atheology

William Lane Craig

“Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts.” William Lane Craig has four non-negotiable, “established facts” that we apparently need to explain as non-believers.  (1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. (2) On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. (3) On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. (4) The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. All four of these claims are possible to dispute. In fact, they’re not that hard to cast doubt on. But does it even matter? These four facts don’t go a long way. If we grant all four of Craig’s facts for the sake of argument, a resurrection is not the best explanation for them.  ​​I assume a certain level of background knowledge about the resurrection today; and if I didn’t say it in this episode, it’s probably somewhere in CA24-26. Check those out for some more Easter stuff that wasn’t covered today   I primarily worked off the transcript of Bart Ehrman’s Debate with William Lane Craig on the Resurrection. I also occasionally referenced my notes from Ehrman’s work, usually from How Jesus Became God. ​​Contact me on Facebook or at emersongreen@protonmail.com  ​​Support on Patreon ​​Rate the show on iTunes!  El blogarino  ​​ ​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers

“Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts.” William Lane Craig has four non-negotiable, “established facts” that we apparently need to explain as non-believers. (1) Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. (2) On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. (3) On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. (4) The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. All four of these claims are possible to dispute. In fact, they’re not that hard to cast doubt on. But does it even matter? These four facts don’t go a long way. If we grant all four of Craig’s facts for the sake of argument, a resurrection is not the best explanation for them. ​​I assume a certain level of background knowledge about the resurrection today; and if I didn’t say it in this episode, it’s probably somewhere in CA24-26. Check those out for some more Easter stuff that wasn’t covered today I primarily worked off the transcript of <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Bart Ehrman’s Debate with William Lane Craig on the Resurrection</a>. I also occasionally referenced my notes from Ehrman’s work, usually from <a href="https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-jesus-became-god.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">How Jesus Became God</a>. ​​Contact me on <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook</a> or at emersongreen@protonmail.com <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Support on Patreon</a> <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Rate the show on iTunes</a>! <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">El blogarino </a>​​ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrM7ncQJ7Zs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers</a>

CA48 William Lane Craig’s Four Facts about the Resurrection

We discuss the moral argument for god’s existence, religious fictionalism, anti-theism, 20th century atrocities, and being good without god.  The discussion of Craig’s moral argument isn’t a comprehensive treatment, but I had to get him in there if we were going to address the question posed in the title. Craig has stated that on naturalism, there’s no reason to not literally eat our young, so I thought he should be included.  “We get our morality from our parents, peers, mentors, teachers, books, and culture, and we listen to that still small voice within—our moral conscience. Morality is in our nature. We are moral beings, with real moral emotions that we can reason about.” – Michael Shermer  ​​Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook  ​​ ​​Support on Patreon ​​Rate the show on iTunes  Emerson’s Blog ​​ ​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers . . .  William Lane Craig – objective morality [YouTube]  Hitchens on anti-theism [YouTube]  Hitchens on faith-based morality [YouTube]  Hitchens on innate morality [YouTube] Penn Jillette on rape and murder [YouTube]  Tales of the Hasidim (source of Jewish story about atheists) [Wiki]  Slavoj Žižek – “If there is a god, everything is permitted.” [YouTube] 

We discuss the moral argument for god’s existence, religious fictionalism, anti-theism, 20th century atrocities, and being good without god. The discussion of Craig’s moral argument isn’t a comprehensive treatment, but I had to get him in there if we were going to address the question posed in the title. Craig has stated that on naturalism, there’s no reason to not literally eat our young, so I thought he should be included. “We get our morality from our parents, peers, mentors, teachers, books, and culture, and we listen to that still small voice within—our moral conscience. Morality is in our nature. We are moral beings, with real moral emotions that we can reason about.” – Michael Shermer ​​Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook</a> ​​ <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Support on Patreon</a> <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Rate the show on iTunes</a> <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Emerson’s Blog </a>​​ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrM7ncQJ7Zs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers </a>. . . <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MtBGdG36g" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">William Lane Craig – objective morality</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pmArHBW9ns" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hitchens on anti-theism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQcGXBo8HP8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hitchens on faith-based morality</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-JLmc4Krw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Hitchens on innate morality</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwebTX3rk3E" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Penn Jillette on rape and murder</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_the_Hasidim" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tales of the Hasidim (source of Jewish story about atheists)</a> [Wiki]  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn4ZIr1SZYc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Slavoj Žižek – “If there is a god, everything is permitted.”</a> [YouTube]

CA50 “If there’s no god, why not rape and murder?”

We discuss Alvin Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, and ask whether belief in god is “properly basic.” We also discuss Cartesian skepticism, the notion of a divine sense or “sensus divinitatis,” and which beliefs should be considered properly basic. We also spend some time on the age-old question of “What is the difference between god and trees?” We discuss various types of trees, and which trees are the most reasonable to believe in, and why I don’t appear to have a sensus ghostatis. Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on FacebookRate the show on iTunesListen to our sister show, Walden Pod Support on Patreon or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Emerson’s Blog Subscribe on YouTubeListen to Magic Tricks by WhalersCA42 The Argument From Personal Experience could be a supplement to this episode.. . . . . Alvin Plantinga – Is Belief in God Properly Basic? [PDF] Daniel Hill on Reformed Epistemology [Panpsycast]Cartesian Skepticism — Crash Course Philosophy [YouTube] Properly Basic Beliefs — Ozymandias Ramses II [YouTube] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin (pgs. 266-278) [Amazon]To those of you who may be wondering why we’re covering Reformed epistemology: Alvin Plantinga is one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive. William Lane Craig described Reformed epistemology as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary religious epistemology.” Plantinga once served as the president of the American Philosophical Association. In 2017, he was awarded the Templeton Prize. The University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion renamed its Distinguished Scholar Fellowship as the Alvin Plantinga Fellowship. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy.  I’m trying to convey that Plantinga is a Sophisticated Apologist and is taken very seriously by the religious and non-religious alike. According to many apologists and theologians, he’s the best they have. We should take the time to attempt to debunk their best offerings. Even though these two episodes have been comparatively dense to the usual CA episode, I think it was worthwhile for many reasons. To quote Jerry Coyne, “I’m starting to realize that there is no sophisticated theology; there are merely evasions and fancy language to get around the problematic lack of evidence for God and the palpably immoral statements in scripture.”

We discuss Alvin Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, and ask whether belief in god is “properly basic.” We also discuss Cartesian skepticism, the notion of a divine sense or “sensus divinitatis,” and which beliefs should be considered properly basic. We also spend some time on the age-old question of “What is the difference between god and trees?” We discuss various types of trees, and which trees are the most reasonable to believe in, and why I don’t appear to have a sensus ghostatis.  Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes</a><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod</a> <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon</a> or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)  <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Emerson’s Blog</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrM7ncQJ7Zs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers</a> CA42 The Argument From Personal Experience could be a supplement to this episode. . . . . .  <a href="http://www.cola.calpoly.edu/~rgrazian/docs/courses/412/Plantinga_BeliefGodPBasic.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alvin Plantinga – Is Belief in God Properly Basic?</a> [PDF]  <a href="https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/2017/1/30/episode-11-guest-daniel-hill-on-plantingas-reformed-epistemology-part-i" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Daniel Hill on Reformed Epistemology</a> [Panpsycast] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLKrmw906TM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cartesian Skepticism — Crash Course Philosophy</a> [YouTube]  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2ZPjd9J6vE" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Properly Basic Beliefs — Ozymandias Ramses II</a> [YouTube]  <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin</a> (pgs. 266-278) [Amazon] To those of you who may be wondering why we’re covering Reformed epistemology: Alvin Plantinga is one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive. William Lane Craig described Reformed epistemology as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary religious epistemology.” Plantinga once served as the president of the American Philosophical Association. In 2017, he was awarded the Templeton Prize. The University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion renamed its Distinguished Scholar Fellowship as the Alvin Plantinga Fellowship. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy.  I’m trying to convey that Plantinga is a Sophisticated Apologist and is taken very seriously by the religious and non-religious alike. According to many apologists and theologians, he’s the best they have. We should take the time to attempt to debunk their best offerings. Even though these two episodes have been comparatively dense to the usual CA episode, I think it was worthwhile for many reasons. To quote Jerry Coyne, “I’m starting to realize that there is no sophisticated theology; there are merely evasions and fancy language to get around the problematic lack of evidence for God and the palpably immoral statements in scripture.”

CA61 Reformed Epistemology

Ozy and I discuss whether atheists have faith, and whether it’s naive for atheists to hold a reflexively anti-faith position. We also discuss Hume’s problem of induction, external world skepticism, solipsism, properly basic beliefs, certainty, Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed foundationalism, reliabilism and our belief-forming mechanisms, presuppositionalism, movement atheism, and other various issues in epistemology. You can subscribe to Ozy’s channel here [YouTube] Ozy, Alex Malpass, and Matt Dillahunty [YouTube] Ozy and Matt Dillahunty [YouTube] Ozy on Real Atheology [YouTube] . . .  Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Ozy and I discuss whether atheists have faith, and whether it’s naive for atheists to hold a reflexively anti-faith position. We also discuss Hume’s problem of induction, external world skepticism, solipsism, properly basic beliefs, certainty, Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed foundationalism, reliabilism and our belief-forming mechanisms, presuppositionalism, movement atheism, and other various issues in epistemology. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmthjMiFTIQnkGyZvfQKBdA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">You can subscribe to Ozy’s channel here</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ2LaKXZVuw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozy, Alex Malpass, and Matt Dillahunty</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbK3Uv8ZIu0&amp;t=46s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozy and Matt Dillahunty</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXKZ14LeqI4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozy on Real Atheology</a> [YouTube] . . .  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a>

CA68 Do Atheists Need Faith? with Ozymandias Ramses II

Michael Behe

Michael Behe recently published his latest case against naturalistic evolution and in favor of intelligent design: Darwin Devolves. Behe also authored Darwin’s Black Box, a creationist favorite, coined the term “irreducible complexity,” and was a key part of the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania. He’s also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank that engineered the “Teach the Controversy” campaign aimed at smuggling creationism into biology education. In his latest book, he argues that natural selection causes “devolution,” not evolution; and that random mutations will almost never “build or create anything at the genetic level.” Natural processes are unable, he argues, to generate the adaptive gains of genetic function that would be required to explain macroevolution or the biological complexity we observe. Subscribe on YouTube :)) ​​Support on Patreon or give a one-time donation through Venmo @emersongreenpodcast ​​Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook ​​Rate the show on iTunes Emerson’s Blog ​​ ​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers . . . Michael Behe and Eric Metaxes – Darwin Devolves [YouTube] Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves Summary [YouTube] All of Behe’s Responses to Criticism [DarwinDevolves] Richard Lenski – Does Behe’s “First Rule” Really Show That Evolutionary Biology has a Big Problem? [TelliamedRevisited] Richard Lenski – On Damaged Genes and Polar Bears[TelliamedRevisited] Jerry Coyne – Intelligent Design Gets Even Dumber [WaPo] Nathan Lents – Behe’s Last Stand [Skeptic] Nathan Lents et al. Criticize Darwin Devolves [ScienceMag] Behe Summarizes “Central argument of the book” [EvolutionNews] Jerry Coyne Responds to Behe’s EN Post [Whyevolutionistrue] Behe’s Colleagues Criticize Darwin Devolves – Gregory Lang, Amber Rice [Wiley Online Library] Behe’s 2010 Paper [Quarterly Review of Biology] Jerry Coyne’s Response to Behe’s 2010 Paper [Whyevolutionistrue] Darwin Devolves – Michael Behe [Amazon]

Michael Behe recently published his latest case against naturalistic evolution and in favor of intelligent design: Darwin Devolves. Behe also authored Darwin’s Black Box, a creationist favorite, coined the term “irreducible complexity,” and was a key part of the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania. He’s also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank that engineered the “Teach the Controversy” campaign aimed at smuggling creationism into biology education. In his latest book, he argues that natural selection causes “devolution,” not evolution; and that random mutations will almost never “build or create anything at the genetic level.” Natural processes are unable, he argues, to generate the adaptive gains of genetic function that would be required to explain macroevolution or the biological complexity we observe. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig?view_as=subscriber" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Subscribe on YouTube :))</a> <a href="http://patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">​​Support on Patreon</a> or give a one-time donation through Venmo @emersongreenpodcast ​​Contact me at <a href="mailto:emersongreen@protonmail.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">emersongreen@protonmail.com</a> or on <a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Facebook</a> <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">​​Rate the show on iTunes</a> <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Emerson’s Blog</a> ​​ <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrM7ncQJ7Zs" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">​​Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers</a> . . . <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Michael Behe and Eric Metaxes – Darwin Devolves</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHKqOCT3IM" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves Summary</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">All of Behe’s Responses to Criticism</a> [DarwinDevolves] <a href="https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/does-behes-first-rule-really-show-that-evolutionary-biology-has-a-big-problem/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Richard Lenski – Does Behe’s “First Rule” Really Show That Evolutionary Biology has a Big Problem? </a>[TelliamedRevisited] <a href="https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/22/on-damaged-genes-and-polar-bears/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Richard Lenski – On Damaged Genes and Polar Bears</a>[TelliamedRevisited] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne – Intelligent Design Gets Even Dumber</a> [WaPo] <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/michael-behes-last-stand-lion-of-intelligent-design-roars-again/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Nathan Lents – Behe’s Last Stand</a> [Skeptic] <a href="https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Nathan Lents et al. Criticize Darwin Devolves</a> [ScienceMag] <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/woo-hoo-in-science-review-of-darwin-devolves-lenski-has-no-response-to-my-main-argument/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Behe Summarizes “Central argument of the book”</a> [EvolutionNews] <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/scientists-damn-behes-new-book-he-responds-lamely/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne Responds to Behe’s EN Post</a> [Whyevolutionistrue] <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13710" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Behe’s Colleagues Criticize Darwin Devolves – Gregory Lang, Amber Rice</a> [Wiley Online Library] <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/656902" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Behe’s 2010 Paper</a> [Quarterly Review of Biology] <a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/behes-new-paper/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne’s Response to Behe’s 2010 Paper</a> [Whyevolutionistrue] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Darwin Devolves – Michael Behe</a> [Amazon]

CA52 Darwin Devolves: Michael Behe’s Case for Intelligent Design (pt. I)

Can we make any sense of the idea of god? God is supposed to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, timeless, spaceless, immutable, disembodied conscious mind. We begin our series on igtheism by discussing several problems with these divine attributes. Is god unintelligible? Is this episode unintelligible? You’ll have to be the judge. Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. / Resources on Igtheism / Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon] Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show [YouTube] Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism [YouTube] TMM on Igtheism [YouTube] YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube] Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith [Google Books] A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn [Skeptic]

Can we make any sense of the idea of god? God is supposed to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, timeless, spaceless, immutable, disembodied conscious mind. We begin our series on igtheism by discussing several problems with these divine attributes. Is god unintelligible? Is this episode unintelligible? You’ll have to be the judge. <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here</a> <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rate the show on iTunes here</a> <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counter" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Support on Patreon here</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqBy2TfJbYXjqBL3cQOFUig" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here</a> Transcripts available at <a href="https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">emersongreenblog.wordpress.com</a> Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on<a href="http://facebook.com/counterapologeticspodcast" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Facebook</a> Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. / Resources on Igtheism / <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Philosophical-Justification-Michael-Martin/dp/0877229430/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13BPD7J8IX4ED&amp;dchild=1&amp;keywords=atheism+a+philosophical+justification&amp;qid=1588900392&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=atheism+a+phil%2Cstripbooks%2C178&amp;sr=1-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin</a> [Amazon] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FgF_XNhaw&amp;list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1&amp;index=24&amp;t=5046s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMH9dqtAejU&amp;t=159s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism </a>[YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht1R01kbGTM" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">TMM on Igtheism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBkiIfWac-LMB73Ioljk-5axnzq57C1v1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">YouTube Playlist on Igtheism</a> [YouTube] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX8undhcmsC&amp;pg=PA52&amp;lpg=PA52&amp;dq=george+smith+god+is+not+visible+neither+is+nonexistence&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=9ZQeUipt1Z&amp;sig=ACfU3U2CVKPySiOjdZqxcNXt7OzscwmBww&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjkttSugf7oAhVba80KHaAuDo0Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith</a> [Google Books] <a href="https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/disproof-of-gods-existence/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn</a> [Skeptic]

CA74 The Incoherence of God (pt. I)

The best episodes for anyone looking to learn more about topics such as happiness, fulfillment, depression and psychology/mental health in general. With interviews with industry experts, personal stories of individuals, this topic has lessons applicable to everyone. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Mental Health, Emotions & Thoughts

The best podcasts on investing. For anyone interested in the stories in the investing industry, whether it's an interview with Ray Dalio or Ed Thorp to the writer of The Big Short. This topic includes the most fascinating stories from all the best investors. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!