This episode it's Twisted Scripture: Proverbs 3:5–6 — "trust in the Lord and lean not on your own understanding" — and the way it gets wielded to shut a conversation down.
We dig into the claim that you can only "really" understand the Bible if you read it with the Holy Spirit, why that's textbook special pleading, and how John Lennox's red Ferrari ends up parked in the same garage as Carl Sagan's invisible dragon.
Along the way: intuition versus reflective cognition, why every tradition reports the same spiritual "confirmation," and the difference between private faith and public claims.
31:12 JD - Was Isaiah 7 taking about a virgin birth?
43:00 Pat [Deconstructing] - Fear of Hell; Preterism, the Second Coming, and Jeremiah 33
1:11:40 (Pat) If all of this isn’t real and Paul is crazy, what was the point of what they were doing in the New Testament? How do you find meaning outside religion?
1:38:08 Jonathon - Caller just bounces around; Was the virgin birth an actual prophecy? Who authored the Gospels and are they reliable? What did Paul experience?
1:56:00 (Jonathon) - Was Matthew an eyewitness and did he know Hebrew? Did Jesus fulfill Zechariah 9? Was the snake Satan in the Garden of Eden?
2:18:20 (Jonathon) - What does “seed” mean in Galatians 3 when Paul is quoting another text? Is Jeremiah 31 about Jesus?
3:07:10 Bryan [Friendly] - Jesus is a clone of Mary
Skipped a few short, friendly calls
3:23:33 JC - Discussion on the virgin birth; Caller is dropped because he wasn’t of age
3:35:58 Superchats and wrap-up
4:17:50 Justin’s mug he submitted to The Line’s mug brawl contest
Nick Meader joined InspiringPhilosophy to discuss his new book, "Resurrection: Extraordinary Evidence for an Extraordinary Claim" and to pick-apart my Minimal Witnesses hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.
Kirk Cameron opened a can of worms… and Christian YouTube exploded. I’m responding to over 25 reaction videos in one breakdown, examining the verses, the contradictions, and the moral problem at the heart of the hell debate. Eternal torment or annihilation? Both can’t be true — but could both be wrong?
We are joined by Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, to discuss her new book, Why Fascists Fear Teachers: Public Education and the Future of Democracy.
In the book, Weingarten details how there has been a systematic demonization of teachers and public education in America. She argues that one of the pillars of public education is critical thinking, which prevents fascism from flourishing in society – so fascists (and wannabe fascists) hate it.
We explore a variety of topics facing schoolchildren and their parents today, including charter schools, artificial intelligence, phones in schools, and the treatment of LGBTQ+ students.
We also discuss Trump’s proposed elimination of the Department of Education, attacks on teachers unions, and how we may have kept the schools closed for too long during Covid-19.
In this blog post, Dr. Richard Carrier details how to tell what's true, using methods that can be applied to any claims. In this example, he works out a response to anti-vaxxers: On the Strange Idea That Viruses Don't Exist.
Quoting from his blog post:
I want to impart to you some advice for dealing with any claims in that domain, because there are three "dirty tricks" that all cranks like anti-vaxxers pull that you can look for to catch this happening every time, so you can vet these things yourself and not need someone like me to:
They will cite papers that (i) don't actually say what they claim, or (ii) don't actually imply what they claim, or (iii) have been retracted or refuted by subsequent, higher-powered studies, or (iv) have never been independently replicated while the contrary finding has been. This is dishonest and manipulative. So anyone whose argument is mostly built this way is either (a) a liar you should never trust again, or (b) their gullible victim, whose judgment on this matter you shouldn't trust until they get up to speed. And (b) you might be able to help. But for (a), just walk and block.
They will make claims you can prove false with ten minutes of effort, and which when thus eliminated, fatally cripple their argument, calling their conclusion (and their competence) into sufficient doubt to walk away (see my Primer on Actually Doing Your Own Research). Don't play their game of having to rebut "everything" they say. A single fatality to their argument is enough to identify it all as a waste of your time; but three is decisive. Any ensuing whining and raging is just emotional manipulation at that point. You don't owe them any more of your time. You can just walk and block.
They will make arguments that you can immediately identify as fallacious, and which when thus eliminated, fatally cripple their argument. Here, maybe, they can "fix" the argument, and all they have demonstrated is that they are bad at thinking. Which is not a good sign. But you can give them a chance. Though they only get three. Third strike and they're out. You then know they cannot think. And if they cannot think, nothing they do think is worth the bother of your listening to. Walk and block.
Those three tactics are common to all pseudoscience and every implausible conspiracy, so it's good advice all around. Whether it's flat earth, lizard people, or climate denial. Or, indeed, even Christianity or Islam or woo—or MAGA.