Me and Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl is a full time Christian apologist that runs a ministry called Stand to Reason. Of course I'm a skeptic, but as a skeptic I have a lot more appreciation for Koukl's apologetic ministry than for a lot of others. Christian apologists often take an "us vs them" mentality. Atheists are simply evil people without morals that reject Christianity out of rebellion. This is what many Christian apologists think. Koukl's goal is to develop Christians to have a different attitude. He wants Christians to be intelligent and appealing, and he recognizes that this hostile attitude so common amongst Christians is not appealing to the skeptical world. He wants Christians to be "Ambassadors for Christ" and he understands that an ambassador needs to present a positive portrayal.

I suspect he has a lot of success. His ministry seems on the growth path as far as I can tell. Of course I think it's probably best that people not embrace Christianity, but if they are going to embrace it I say it's better to embrace this style than the hostile, buried in your own fortress unwilling to engage the outside world style.

For the skeptic if you like to engage in debate in discussion forums, try the str blog. Some of us I know leave discussions with a bad taste in our mouths after having been insulted and otherwise treated rudely, though we are trying our best to have friendly dialogue. You are unlikely to be treated rudely at str, because I think Koukl and his staff are having success training Christians to interact in a pleasant and engaging way.

Anyway, Greg has a radio show, and so what the heck. I thought I'd call in. If not me, then who, right? I've called in twice to this point and I'll call in again. It's a lot of fun.

Greg is a little funny on the radio though. He's into microphone dominance. Bill and I call him a steam roller. If he gets it in his mind that he wants to say something, it doesn't matter if you're in the middle of a thought or if you're trying to clarify a misunderstanding he has. He's just going to keep right on talking and you will not be heard. This is especially noticeable in my first call to him. What I try to do when I call in is if I feel like the host has said something that I'd like to respond to I'll just say something quickly, like "but." Then I'll go silent. I do it just to let him know I'm there and let him know I'd like to get a word in. Where James White would finish his thought and yet allow me to come back and respond fully, Greg will just keep on going like nothing has happened.

Not that I'm complaining. It's his radio show and this is just the nature of the beast. But when you call in to these shows your just going to have to be content with the fact that you've got a major disadvantage going in. It's unavoidable.

The first call more is just about my presentation of a question. I was cut off because I ran into the commercial break that comes at the top of the hour. Greg came back at the top of the hour and discussed my call a little further, and I've included that portion as well. During the second call I had a better chance to offer a rejoinder.

Discussion #1
Discussion #2

Me and James White

James White is Reformed Protestant that hosts a live webcast a couple of times a week where he discusses issues related to his ministry. He's a very smart guy that I read a lot of while I was a Christian. I have several of his books. Many of them are thoroughly highlighted. I decided to call in to his webcast a few times and so I'm posting those conversations here.

Conversation #1
Conversation #2
Conversation #3

White is a very interesting character. He's often accused of arrogance and being mean spirited. He's called rude. All that may be true, but I find that I kind of admire him anyway, and here's why. First and foremost, he's smart, and to me that's admirable. Second, he is principled. This is a guy that's not afraid to tell others that they are on their way to hell. I kind of respect that. Many are offended when they are told they are going to hell, and some Christians in an effort to be nice shy away from saying what they really believe. Personally I don't mind being told I'm going to hell. I mean, what if these Baptists are right and all of us skeptics are going to hell? When you're engulfed in flames and molten sulfur in hell, what do you think you might say to those "nice" Baptists that were afraid to tell you what was in store for you? They should be warning us if they really believe what they say.

The other reason I like James White is because he is fair in debate. I've watched many of his professional debates, and though he is sometimes treated unfairly he does not return the favor. He doesn't interrupt his opponents. He lets them make their point clearly. They sometimes refuse to answer his questions and he still remains very professional. He gave me plenty of time (the first call went 40 minutes) and didn't interrupt. This is especially noticeable in Conversation #3, where early on he allowed me to talk and explain a situation that he already understood. He could have cut me off and told me he already knew all about it, but he allowed me to go forward and only informed me that he already knew all this stuff after I took the time to explain it. So he treated me very fairly.

As far as the conversations themselves though, I wasn't real happy with the way I performed (if "performed" is the right word). I think White engaged in some spin, and I didn't call him out on it real well, especially in the first conversation. But he's a professional and I'm not. These guys are good at what they do. I learned from it and applied that lesson to my calls with Bob Dutko.

Dutko however was not as good at allowing me to make my points without interruption, so I view him more as winning debates by simply dominating the microphone.

I might have more to say about these conversations later.

Me and Bob Dutko

Bob Dutko is a Christian apologist and advocate of Republicanism that hosts a 3 hour radio program in Detroit every day on 103.5 WMUZ. I disagree with him most of the time, but it's interesting radio. I've spoken with Bob three times so far. I'm going to try and provide links to each of the conversations for your listening pleasure. Let's see if this works.

Conversation #1
Conversation #2
Conversation #3

Government is the problem

It's difficult to identify major problems that exist in our country that weren't caused by the government. Resentment in the Middle East is mostly due to U.S. interventionism. The U.S. imposed the Shah on the Iranian people, and he killed many. The U.S. imposed Saddam on the Iraqi people. The U.S. encouraged Saddam to do battle with Iran, and supplied him with weapons. Even chemical weapons, which he used on Iranian civilians. Likewise the U.S. provided weapons to Iran as well to fight against Saddam. The U.S. used the money from the sale of weapons to Iran to fund the Contras, who were busy attacking Nicaragua. Likewise, elsewhere in Latin America U.S. interventionism is largely to blame for resentment there. In Panama the U.S. imposed another CIA operative, Noriega, on the Panamanians. When the U.S. decided Noriega was a problem he was ousted violently, and many civilians in Panama were slaughtered.

The same thing is true with regards to the economic crisis that currently exists. Is capitalism the problem? Do we need more government intervention? In fact what we need is the very opposite, as Ron Paul explains well here. Notice how Ron Paul, speaking in 2002 long before the housing bubble had really burst, explains why a housing bubble is to be expected. The central planners that manipulate the value of money create the mal-investment that leads to the irrational financial decisions that are made. If the market were permitted to function without government regulation, then the true value of money is reflected in the price. When the central planners set the price, the market information is lost, and people make wrong, uninformed decisions.

It is the government involvement that caused the problem in the first place. But what politicians will do is use the current crisis to pile on more regulations that will lead to even greater problems. As Paul writes: "The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform."

If we don't get government out of the way things could get very bad in the U.S. Unfortunately neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to fix the problem. I'm concerned that this is all going to end at some point in the near future. And it will end badly. Unless people wake up and we get the government out of the way.

If You Can't Stand the Heat

When I was a Christian I used to work out at a gym that was kind of small. It was small enough that the faces were familiar after a while. One guy drove a truck that had one of those Darwin fish on the back. The Darwin fish was a clever joke I thought. I had no problem with it. I was certainly not afraid to express my opinions and I had no problem with the skeptic being the same way.

On the other hand, if you want to flaunt your anti-Christian viewpoints, be prepared to get a reaction out of people. That's what you want anyway, right? You can't really make fun of an important Christian symbol publicly and cry foul when someone says something, can you? I didn't think so.

And the Jesus fish is a symbol that carries with it some important history (or so I thought at the time). This is that secret symbol that Christians would use to form some community at a time when being a Christian meant your life was at risk. It was the basis of an acronym that defined Christian beliefs. It's an important thing, and this guy wants to mock it. He can if he wants. It's a free country. On the other hand maybe he'd face a Christian or two that might make him justify his ridicule.

I tried to make him do that one day. "Are you the guy with the Darwin fish?" I asked one day in the locker room. He replied abruptly. "Yeah. We just want to be left alone regarding our beliefs."

OK. He didn't want to talk about it. Fine. But this is pretty pathetic, and hopefully he now knows it. You want to make fun, but you don't like anybody replying. You want to publisize criticism, but you don't want to deal with the rebuttal. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Now I'm a skeptic, but I still feel the same way. If you keep your opinions to yourself you make it clear you're not interested in discussing things. But if you broadcast your controversial opinions, shouldn't you be willing to deal with the rebuttals of those you attack?

Brian over at Apologetics315 doesn't think so. He has an entire blog dedicated to defending Christianity and rebutting the skeptic. Also (assuming 315 is a reference to 2 Pet 3:15) answering every man that asks questions of him regarding the faith. He wants to build the Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page. He's defending inerrancy and the historical reliability of the gospels against the skeptic.

But what happens when a skeptic wants to defend himself? What happens when a skeptic charges Brian with misrepresentation or any other criticism? "This blog is not a debate forum." He doesn't want to discuss it. I had said to Brian "You seem like a person that claims to like boxing, and you like the part where you hit people, but when they hit back suddenly you want no part of that aspect of the experience. If you can't tolerate getting hit back maybe boxing isn't for you."

Brian did not permit this comment of mine to be published. Brian, by dedicating a blog to rebutting skeptics and attacking their views you should expect skeptics to defend themselves. Don't be like the skeptic I once knew that was quick to taunt the Christian but unwilling to justify his position. Mocking Christians invites a response. Your attacks invite a response, but when that response comes you don't want to have anything to do with it. Stop attacking and you will get no response.

Quote of the Day

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered.

Thomas Jefferson

Quote of the Day

I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson