The second conversation was a hosted conversation, where I was not actively engaging with Jonathan, instead I invited a friend of the podcast Brian Blais to have a follow up conversation with Jonathan. More about Brian can be found here:
The second of the podcast conversations has prompted a blog post which I feel the need to respond to. I replied over on the blog itself, but sadly my comment has not (yet) made it through moderation. I have no idea why, it could easily be an oversight.
I shall now respond to the essential points raised in that post:
This wasn’t a debate, it was a conversation. Conversations meander, which is good and I encourage conversations on my podcast for that very reason. Conversations enable free exchange of ideas and foster understanding in a way that debates do not. Debates create a tribalist “my man won” culture. I dislike the debate format for this very reason. I do not host debates on my podcast.
Yes, I was hands off during the discussion (it was not a debate!) , I made my intention clear from my opening remarks. During editing it did become obvious that Brian spoke more than Jonathan, this wasn’t obvious during recording and with hindsight it is something I could have managed better. Though I am not sure it hurt the conversation flow.
I reject the gish gallop suggestion. I host conversations because conversations meander and go places. Conversations are good for this very reason.
If the points Brian brought up for not novel, and there are reasonable responses, how come the points are still barriers to belief? I am happy to host any Christian who wishes to press any point.
I support Brian’s expectation. If testimonial isn’t good enough for you to believe someone was abducted by aliens, then it’s not good enough for me to believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago.
Events that don’t meet our understanding of physics require additional support in order to be taken seriously. Complaints that this excludes an person’s precious belief state will not get any sympathy from me. Bring the evidence or go home.
I managed to grab a conversation with Rebekah, The Curious Atheist. I do know that some (most?) of those who follow this blog also follow Rebekah, who started out as the Closet Atheist and then re-branded, for obvious reasons, as the Curious Atheist. I enjoyed the conversation we had and I hope those who follow Rebekah’s blog will too.