<p>Being Reasonable is the weekly conversation show that focuses on how we have arrived on our deeply-held views and our desire to know what is true. The conversational technique used in this podcast is known as ‘Street Epistemology’ and all episodes are ‘evergreen’.</p>
First, Nancy discusses her belief in reincarnation. Next, Deanna talks about her belief that no one religion has the absolute truth. And finally, Tom discusses his belief in Christianity.
These are conversations with people who don't just redefine terms, but who also actively obfuscate and avoid meaning. They seem to have an interest in the appearance or artifice of sense, but are scared of getting anywhere near intelligibility or reasoning. It's like listening to 5-year-olds talk about their imaginary worlds. They've seemingly cut the line between reality and their live-action role-playing.
Good grief, man: why does it take half an hour to get around to an obvious question? Why should we believe the Bible contains no inaccurate information? (Because the Bible says so?) Come on, Mark, this is just counter-apologetics. You seem to have enabled the IL merely to put Tommy on the defensive.
What did you think you'd get from a pastor who's a former attorney?
E.g., you got the IL to say he'd ask Tommy what it would take to get him to change his beliefs, but rather than turning that question back to the IL, you started answering for Tommy. Maybe you thought you'd condescendingly provide a model of how to reply, but all the pastor wanted was for you to be on the back foot, so he could keep asking questions to put the focus on Tommy. And you obliged, repeatedly... because, at most, only one of you was having a good-faith discussion.
Mark, first, I admire your tenacity and, as ever, your clinical interviewing skills.
However, interviewing pastors is a frustrating waste of time. They are performers. This guest--a former lawyer--is a prime example that they are *advocates* with a conflict of interest (i.e., their livelihoods), not arbiters. Moreover, they are renown for regurgitating apologetic garbage with little regard for interviewers' questions and seemingly no awareness of counter-apologetics.
They are performing and you are providing a stage.
Additionally, I think it might help if you were to have more extensive knowledge of formal logic. I find that an understanding of symbolic logic and forms of argument helps abstract from the irrelevant details and focus on the core of the nonsense being posited. (It would also help for you to get drawn less into ILs' red herrings--a specialty of clergy--and stay focused on epistemics rather than factual claims.) Granted, blathering, disingenuous performers (e.g., pre
For the second guest, it might've been interesting to ask how she interprets the fact that many people die in car accidents. That is, if someone survives a car crash, God exists. If they don't, God exists. Moreover, if a good outcome is RARE, God is good--in fact, somehow, the rareness of his goodness is just seen as evidence of his goodness. Conversely, if a good outcome is common, God is good.
ncooty
These are conversations with people who don't just redefine terms, but who also actively obfuscate and avoid meaning. They seem to have an interest in the appearance or artifice of sense, but are scared of getting anywhere near intelligibility or reasoning. It's like listening to 5-year-olds talk about their imaginary worlds. They've seemingly cut the line between reality and their live-action role-playing.
ncooty
Good grief, man: why does it take half an hour to get around to an obvious question? Why should we believe the Bible contains no inaccurate information? (Because the Bible says so?) Come on, Mark, this is just counter-apologetics. You seem to have enabled the IL merely to put Tommy on the defensive. What did you think you'd get from a pastor who's a former attorney? E.g., you got the IL to say he'd ask Tommy what it would take to get him to change his beliefs, but rather than turning that question back to the IL, you started answering for Tommy. Maybe you thought you'd condescendingly provide a model of how to reply, but all the pastor wanted was for you to be on the back foot, so he could keep asking questions to put the focus on Tommy. And you obliged, repeatedly... because, at most, only one of you was having a good-faith discussion.
ncooty
Mark, first, I admire your tenacity and, as ever, your clinical interviewing skills. However, interviewing pastors is a frustrating waste of time. They are performers. This guest--a former lawyer--is a prime example that they are *advocates* with a conflict of interest (i.e., their livelihoods), not arbiters. Moreover, they are renown for regurgitating apologetic garbage with little regard for interviewers' questions and seemingly no awareness of counter-apologetics. They are performing and you are providing a stage. Additionally, I think it might help if you were to have more extensive knowledge of formal logic. I find that an understanding of symbolic logic and forms of argument helps abstract from the irrelevant details and focus on the core of the nonsense being posited. (It would also help for you to get drawn less into ILs' red herrings--a specialty of clergy--and stay focused on epistemics rather than factual claims.) Granted, blathering, disingenuous performers (e.g., pre
ncooty
I find Anthony's way of speaking very unnatural and stilted. His word choices often seem strange.
ncooty
For the second guest, it might've been interesting to ask how she interprets the fact that many people die in car accidents. That is, if someone survives a car crash, God exists. If they don't, God exists. Moreover, if a good outcome is RARE, God is good--in fact, somehow, the rareness of his goodness is just seen as evidence of his goodness. Conversely, if a good outcome is common, God is good.