CA135 Why are theodicies so unconvincing?

Counter Apologetics

#Religion #Science #Environment #Emerson Green #Philosophy #Society

34:56

In this premiere episode of "The God Hook," host Carol Costello introduces the chilling story of Richard Beasley, infamously known as the Ohio Craigslist Killer. In previously unreleased jailhouse recordings, Beasley portrays himself as a devout Christian, concealing his manipulative and predatory behavior. As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that Beasley's deceitfulness extends beyond the victims he buried in shallow graves. Listen to the preview of a bonus conversation between Carol and Emily available after the episode. Additional info at carolcostellopresents.com . Do you have questions about this series? Submit them for future Q&A episodes . Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see additional videos, photos, and conversations. For early and ad-free episodes and exclusive bonus content, subscribe to the podcast via Supporting Cast or Apple Podcasts. EPISODE CREDITS Host - Carol Costello Co-Host - Emily Pelphrey Producer - Chris Aiola Sound Design & Mixing - Lochlainn Harte Mixing Supervisor - Sean Rule-Hoffman Production Director - Brigid Coyne Executive Producer - Gerardo Orlando Original Music - Timothy Law Snyder SPECIAL THANKS Kevin Huffman Zoe Louisa Lewis GUESTS Doug Oplinger - Former Managing Editor of the Akron Beacon Journal Volkan Topalli - Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology Amir Hussain - Professor of Theological Studies Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://evergreenpodcasts.supportingcast.fm…

about a year ago 1:07:18

MP3•Episode home

Do apologists actually believe what they’re saying? I’m joined by Counter Apologist to discuss his “Paradise Hell” thought experiment and to try to explain why theistic attempts to account for evil are so unpersuasive. What decision would you make if eternity were on the line?

Linktree

175 episodes

CA135 Why are theodicies so unconvincing?

Counter Apologetics

96 subscribers

published about a year ago

MP3•Episode home

Linktree

175 episodes

#Religion #Science #Environment #Emerson Green #Philosophy #Society

All episodes

Counter Apologetics

1
CA137 Why are autistics less religious? w/ Christianity on the Spectrum 1:27:53

13 days ago1:27:53

1:27:53

I’m joined today by Jonathan Machnee, an autistic researcher who has conducted the largest English language ethnographic study of Christians and ex-Christian autistics (autism 1, or what was formerly known as Asperger’s Syndrome or high-functioning autism). His research has included data mining over 26,000 autistics and conducting over 500 interviews with autistic Christians and ex-Christians in order to understand the intersection between autism, Christianity, and nonbelief. Christianity On the Spectrum Autism and Apologetics Jon on X Email Jon at christianityonthespectrum at gmail dot com My Linktree / Timestamps / 00:00 Why are autistics less religious? 29:36 Do autistics practice religion differently? 37:56 Why does everyone think they’re autistic? 1:02:07 Imago Dei 1:18:03 What surprised you in your research?…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA136 Nobody Dies For A Lie 26:30

7 weeks ago26:30

26:30

I critique Mel Gibson’s claim on the Joe Rogan Experience that “nobody dies for a lie,” which many apologists have used in the past to argue that the martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples supports the truth of the resurrection, as they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be false. First, I challenge this by questioning the historical evidence for the apostles’ martyrdom, noting that accounts are late, based on oral traditions, and often embellished with legendary elements, such as milk flowing from Paul’s severed neck. Even if the apostles were martyred, the reasons for their martyrdom are uncertain due to the difficulty of establishing motivations and crucial details surrounding the apostles’ deaths, like whether it would have mattered if they’d recanted. I further undermine the apologist’s slogan by proposing scenarios where someone could die for a known lie, such as being falsely accused and coerced into confession under torture; and by highlighting human irrationality, like people confessing to capital crimes they didn’t commit. Finally, Matthew Hartke recounts the story of the Millerites, alerts us to the shortcomings of folk psychology, and explains how cognitive dissonance could explain Christian origins. Ultimately, “nobody dies for a lie” fails under scrutiny, as history and human behavior are far more complex than the claim allows. Linktree Matthew Hartke – How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity Shameless Popery – The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson Bart Ehrman – Were the disciples martyred for their belief in the resurrection? Joshua Schachterle – How did the apostles die?…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA135 Why are theodicies so unconvincing? 1:07:18

8 weeks ago1:07:18

1:07:18

Counter Apologetics

1
CA134 Philip Goff’s Conversion to Christianity 54:32

30 weeks ago54:32

54:32

We discuss Philip Goff’s conversion, the online reaction to it, and what his “heretical Christianity” involves. Is he a real Christian? What does he think about the resurrection, the ascension, the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, the trinity, inerrantism, the atonement, and God’s nature? Amos Wollen – Conversion Review: Christianity gains a new smart person Randal Rauser on Goff’s Conversion Nathan Ormond (DigitalGnosis)- Philosopher CONVERTS to Christianity Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA133 The Moral Argument for God – Have I Been Debunked? 3:35:47

44 weeks ago3:35:47

3:35:47

Two Christian apologists reviewed my series on the moral argument for God on their channel, Democracy of the Dead. I recorded my own counter-response shortly thereafter, but thought it was too profanity-laden and impolite to release. Generally speaking, it’s good to remain dispassionate in these online spaces, but I let my frustration get the better of me. However, I changed my mind. I trust that you in the audience can discern why I’m reacting as I do in the episode. My exasperation was entirely the product of their errors, oversights, and misunderstandings — all of which were completely avoidable, had they put one-tenth of the effort into their video that I put into mine. Their mistakes are not exclusively philosophical. In many instances, they simply misunderstand what is being said, for what purpose it’s being said, and even who is saying it. All in all, it was an extremely tedious video to review, but I hope that my commentary makes it interesting, or at least entertaining. Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA132 From Atheism to Agnosticism (w/ Adherent Apologetics) 45:36

44 weeks ago45:36

45:36

Zac (Adherent Apologetics) and I explore a few of the things that drew me to agnosticism. Religious ambiguity, disagreement among epistemic peers, the diversity of the theistic tradition (as well as the varieties of non-theism), the seeming inscrutability of the prior probability of theism, and my acceptance of the value-selection hypothesis have all played a part in pushing me (somewhat reluctantly) to agnosticism. Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
Losing My Religion – with Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) 56:42

1 year ago56:42

56:42

I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics. Fubilosophy Linktree

Counter Apologetics

1
CA131 What would convince you? 16:37

1 year ago16:37

16:37

What would convince you of God’s existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert? I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That’s not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism. I spend the most time talking about religious experiences, mainly for two reasons. First, their epistemic significance is not always appreciated by nonbelievers. Second, I’ve noticed that some Christian apologists really hate it when nonbelievers say the experience of God would convince them of theism and thought that was worth examining. / Videos referenced in the episode / Jimmy Akin & Emerson Green – Debunking the Skeptics on UFOs The Argument from Miracles (Panel) Countering the Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus What would make atheists accept a miracle claim? | C.M. Lorkowski & Real Atheology 5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology 4 Things I Learned About Epistemology Phenomenal Conservatism with Michael Huemer Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA130 Am I Agnostic? 25:10

1 year ago25:10

25:10

The world is religiously ambiguous: It can be interpreted in various incompatible ways, and the interpreters are not necessarily violating any standards of rationality in doing so. As for me, I don’t feel any position being forced on me by the evidence. My best efforts to judge the total balance of evidence weighing for and against theism leave me thinking that no one has a decisive case; and the main way to give the impression of having a decisive case is to ignore the total evidence, focusing solely or primarily on the facts that support your position. Put a spotlight on the things that favor your view, and minimize or cast aside the things that don’t fit. Over time, I’ve come to appreciate the force of some of the evidence against the hypothesis of indifference and in favor of a “ value selection hypothesis “, e.g. psychophysical harmony , fine-tuning , and the axiological trajectory of the universe. These, along with a few other considerations that favor theism more directly, have gradually moved me to more of a middle position on theism vs. atheism. (Today, I don’t dive into a full-fledged defense of those arguments.) There are plenty of sources of epistemic uncertainty that have increasingly led me to hold on to my beliefs more loosely. How am I supposed to alter my confidence in light of peer disagreement? How should I set my priors? How am I supposed to reckon with the inescapable contingency of my beliefs? Richard Rorty often spoke about a certain kind of philosopher with “radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered” (1989). Rorty goes much further, in ways that I can’t get behind. But what can I say? I’m impressed by many of you. The problem is that you have mutually exclusive, incommensurable worldviews. At least for me, at this point, agnosticism seems like the most honest reaction to my epistemic situation. (Of course, God can settle this whenever he likes .) Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA129 Universalism Debate: John Buck vs. Emerson Green 1:47:46

1 year ago1:47:46

1:47:46

Returning guest John Buck joins me to debate universalism, eternal conscious torment, and other topics related to hell and the afterlife. My Playlist on Hell Linktree

Counter Apologetics

1
CA128 No, math does not prove God 35:06

1 year ago35:06

35:06

I respond to the wildly popular Redeemed Zoomer video about proving God’s existence with math. To see the open hangout that took place afterwards, you can watch the original livestream (unedited with no postscript) on YouTube Linktree

Counter Apologetics

1
CA127 What’s wrong with the moral argument? 22:16

1 year ago22:16

22:16

We wrap up our series on the moral argument for theism, summarize several problems with the argument famously associated with William Lane Craig, and discuss two other moral arguments for God that are not abysmal failures like the standard moral argument. Linktree

Counter Apologetics

1
CA126 Euthyphro’s Revenge 57:38

1 year ago57:38

57:38

Today, we continue our series on the moral argument for theism. We discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, Hume’s Law, and explore a back-and-forth between William Lane Craig and Michael Huemer on the question, “Why obey God?” Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason Majesty of Reason – Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis Michael Huemer – Groundless Morals (this chapter is within the volume of Erik Wielenberg vs. William Lane Craig on the moral argument) Metaethics w/ Michael Huemer | Emerson Green Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau Post-Debate Interview with Justin Schieber of Real Atheology L i n k t r e e…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA125 The Moral Argument for God 40:23

1 year ago40:23

40:23

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And morality. The standard moral argument popularized by William Lane Craig and others goes as follows: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (2) Objective moral values do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. Today, we cast some doubt on the idea that morality is objective only if God exists. We also define some crucial terms, refute a few apologetic canards, and discuss a few ways in which apologists have misrepresented the field of metaethics and failed the audiences that rely on them. Here’s the overview of the whole moral argument series. Today, in part one, we’ll be covering sections (1)-(5). (1) Introduction (2) Defining Terms (3) Apologetics vs. Metaethics (4) “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents vs. patients) (5) The Moral Law Giver (6) Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value (7) Hume’s Law (8) Why Obey God? (9) Groundless Morals (10) Two Classes of Moral Realism (11) God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality (12) Good Moral Arguments (13) What’s wrong with the moral argument? A few resources mentioned in this episode: Majesty of Reason – Moral Realism | Dr. Michael Huemer & Dr. Don Loeb Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau Support the Show Linktree…

Counter Apologetics

1
CA124 Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Conversion to Christianity 21:34

1 year ago21:34