Andy Bannister vs Ed Turner discussing whether or not atheism is a worldview on Unbelievable 2015

This discussion ( audio | 1:20s ) took place on the usually solid Unbelievable Christian radio show last weekend. It was between Andy Bannister, a humorous if rather cookie cutter Christian apologist and friend of the blog Ed Turner.

3 Stars: This was definitely more of a Justin and Andy show talking about the latter's new book with Ed Turner jumping in to remind the world that atheism doesn't make nearly as lofty claims as Christianity. 3 stars cause it's always good to hear Ed give a human voice to the more vocal atheists representing us.

Ed told me in an email that he felt he did well considering the skewed focus of the show and I'd agree with him, though I think he could have more explicitly linked his criticisms to Bannister's book in general. 

Every time I listen to a bunch of Unbelievable episodes and think that it's really improved in quality I hear an episode like this.

Most of the episode was an Andy Bannister interview about his book. The book comes off as uninteresting though not mean-spirited or sleazy like other apologist books I've heard of, but I was irked by Bannister talking about "atheist friends" of his apparently dumbfounded by the ironclad arguments found in the book.


Oh come on. I'm reminded of David Cross' stand-up where he reads from a Promise Keeper's book stories that sound absolutely fictional. It sounds really weak to say atheists were floored by your cutting edge book when there's an atheist in the studio who can speak for himself about the book.

Ed can speed read books, a trait I wish I possessed. Before debating David Robertson, Ed read Robertson's book, plus several of Robertson's references in an impressively short amount of time prior to the interview. I review the interview HERE where Ed gives a good show with all the specific citations to Robertsons' book.

Anyways, come on Bannister and Justin, why not get Ed to say something about the book? Well eventually...about 7 minutes into the program Ed is finally introduced. Now here Ed says some good things but it isn't until over 20 minutes into the show that any criticism of Bannister's book comes around. Ed makes the case that Bannister, besides being such a gosh-darn cut-up about presenting his case, essentially does nothing new and simply tries to shift the burden of proof from the Christian onto the atheist.

Ed's an atheist in the same way he is an a-unicornist, an a-astrologer, an a-Zeusist. Bannister then tries to claim these things aren't the same because Christianity worships a god outside the physical universe, unlike the Greek perception of Zeus which was a deity in the physical world. This is absurdly weak because Ed's argument isn't new and mentions Gods that are outside the physical universe, too...I mean, this is really silly on Bannister's part. This is also where Bannister apparently got an absolutely stupid counter to the argument that we can say a cat is an atheist or a rock is an atheist from an atheist professor. Again, come on. If that's how that anecdote went down then that professor is an idiot.

Ed does call Bannister out on the Zeus =/= Yahweh argument by giving a great comparison involving Conan the Barbarian but he said something I strongly disagree with. Conan's friend is more a Mongol-analog, no Icelandic. I think I'm willing to result to fist-a-cuffs about this, too.

Sadly, the conversation gets really scattered when they start talking about whether or not the self exists. Ed gives a pretty solid and pragmatic response to it and some back and forth happens but it didn't really relate to Bannister's book. Though Ed says that it actually does so I might have heard wrong but it might be the case that he just couldn't get to the argument.

Then it became a Behind-the-Ed show because Bannister and Justin started asking Ed about his recent personal journey away from atheism. I was interested to hear this because it seemed like Ed and I became disillusioned with the atheist community around the same time and then came back to it at the same time -- this made for some good radio, though not so much good debatin'.

But alas, many of Bannister's claims were sucked into the insipid interview vacuum unfortunately. Maybe Michael Ruse gets a bit more radio play than Ed was allotted.

About the Obvious Christian Bias on Unbelievable
Duh. I know, it's a Christian radio show. I get that. But if the point is to have Christians dialogue with non-Christians then at least introduce the non-Christian before 7 freaking minutes into the show, Brierley! Always like some Justin because he's a bit better at the radio recap than others due to his having a lot of experience but that issue was dwarfed by what seemed like just a plug for Bannister. If that's what it was fine, but it makes me bummed out for Ed who probably prepared quite a bit to articulate the opposite perspective.


Often I'll find good episodes by sifting through the atheist blogosphere and let those quality outliers curb my impression. I forget that probably the majority of episodes are like this one and that it's a good thing I don't download every single episode and depend on only them to comprise my reviews for this blog. Otherwise the posts will be as frequent as they were in 2014.

Update to make myself look less like a schmuck cause apparently Ed sent this post to Brierley and Bannister and thinking of the former reading my insignificant blog has got me wanting to clean up my act at make sure I don't sound like I dislike the guy. Maybe Bannister's an alright cat, too. But I think he should know he doesn't seem to be doing anything unique.

Avalos v Weikart Darwin and Hitler BEST CHECK

This debate ( audio | 35m41s ) took place on the radio in 2008 and it concerned the link between Darwin and Hitler. It pitted Hector Avalos versus Historian Richard Weikart.

DB:  2m28s

4.75 stars. BEST CHECK

PhilVaz 3/5
APF review: 3.5/5

This is a short debate that took place on the radio in 2008. Though it's the radio, it was set up as a formal debate between Avalos and Weikart. In 2008, the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in the Classroom came out. I actually saw it in the movie theaters and it was pretty bad. Besides saying that science is purposely censoring ID, the movie also makes connections between Darwinism and Hitler. This is nothing new, but one of the more resent academics to exploit this misconception is Richard Weikart, who wrote From Darwin to Hitler, a book used in the movie.

Hector Avalos asked to debate Weikart about this and so here we are. Weikart's arguments are still pretty weak and unconvincing. He certainly has a knowledge of German thought and history around the time contemporary with Hitler and the height of eugenics, but his complete ignorance of the more obvious influences on the racial ideology and propaganda promoted in Nazi Germany is just too glaring and Avalos does a great job of pointing this out.

If you listened to the later debate that these two had on Unbelievable in 2011 (that I review here) you're gonna hear more of the same stuff. I actually think Weikart does a little better in that one, though not by much.

Weikart comes off as a little too dismissive too when he does briefly address Avalos' arguments: at one point he argues that Martin Luther's call for the murder of Jews was only specific to Jewish rabbis which thereby renders it nothing like Hitler's policies is kinda laughable. Avalos also does a great job of showing how tactically stupid it would be to use Darwinism as the main force of indoctrinating a nation to hate different ethnic groups when religion has such a stronger hold on a given population and is so much more accessible. I mean, why argue from a scientific theory little understood by a general population than from a religious doctrine that is so important to the lives of the members of that population? The fact that Kristallnacht happened on Luther's birthday, Luther was both a German and religious hero AND Hitler lists him as one of his heroes doesn't really help Weikart's case, either.

Again, the only issue with Avalos' side that I have is his style. His responses are effective and well argued, but he has a tendency to present his speeches in a way that make it seem like he isn't really addressing his opponent's arguments. I can sympathize with someone who was persuaded by Craig in his debate with Avalos and with Weikart in this debate, when they stated that Avalos failed to address their arguments. Though Avalos does a little better in this debate and his own arguments were just too damning.

Technical: Great AQ because it's radio.

Louis CK vs Bill Donohue radio spat about Lucky Louie and Donohue's Dishonesty 2007 BEST FUN

This debate ( audio | video | 10 minutes ) occurred in 2007 on the Opie and Anthony Radio Show between Louis CK and Bill Donohue from the Catholic League. It's a short one and there is a video that is the whole segment with Louis CK here, if you're interested.


3.5 Stars: It's always great when comedians get a chance to talk to scumbags like Donohue because they'll make fun of them without worrying about the rules of argumentation BS. BEST FUN

Louis CK is my favorite comedian along with Bill Hicks and Mike Birbiglia. I've enjoyed his stuff since his Live in Houston stand-up album. Bill Donohue is the dishonest, despicable scumbag in charge of the obnoxious Catholic League. He's known for having no scruples at all and getting offended by anything.

Louis CK was in the short lived Lucky Louie show on HBO. In 2006, Donohue made a press release labeling the show "barbaric" and listed several reasons why. Louis CK brings was sitting in on the Opie and Anthony Show for an interview with Donohue about the controversial Dakota Fanning rape scene. At the end of the interview Louis CK asked Donohue about his criticisms of his own show.

Louis CK brings up Donohue's press release, supposedly penned by Donohue himself, that lists a bunch of "offensive" things about the show, for example, "Louie does not want to get his wife pregnant until they figure out a way for her to have consistent orgasms." Louis CK asks why Donohue has a problem with a married couple deciding to make their sex life healthier before attempting to have another child.

Donohue completely goes into cornered animal mode. First he denies writing the thing, then he tries to ignore the quote Louis CK mentions, and then evades everything thrown at him. You can tell he is drenched with sweat by the effort. When he says he didn't actually write the press release and someone else did it in his name, CK calls him dishonest and flat out calls him a press hound looking for anything in the news to complain about and latch on to.

These kinds of moments are nice because Louis CK is a comedian. He's not some academic, religious critic, or scholar or head of a watchdog organization or something. He's able to just make fun of Donohue and call him names without endangering his or an organization/community's reputation.

He also happens to be absolutely right about Donohue.

There are several funny parts in this little clip. There is also a confusing part for those who aren't familiar with the show Lucky Louie. One episode features the 16 year old daughter (played by Emma Stone!) of Louis CK's friend on the show offering to blow Louis for being so nice to her.

This is mentioned in the press release, but when it is brought up it sounds like both Louis and Donohue are talking about two different things. Louis mentions that the part is taken out of context - that the girl offering to blow CK comes from a poor home environment, which has warped her mind into thinking that's how you'd reward a guy for being nice but Louis CK's in-show wife - a solid, strong female character - explains how that's wrong, especially when older married guys are considered.

However it seems like Donohue is talking about the Dakota Fanning movie scene while Louis is talking about the scene just mentioned, so they're talking past each other. Like Donohue admits earlier, he didn't see the show.

Anyways, this is too fun to pass up! Check it out!

Technical
Good AQ, it's radio. The video is audio only.

Revised 8-23-2015 Cleared up the content and added a picture. Also lowered the rating. In general I've been trying to keep the 5 star reviews more exclusive but this type of review deserves more than a 3.5 stars. I need to make a Fun-five Star rating.

PZ v Simmons BEST FUN TOP TEN

This debate ( audio | 43m31s ) took place early in 2008 between outspoken New Atheist PZ Myers and the forgettable anti-Evolutionist Dr. Geoffrey Simmons on KKMS radio. The title of the debate was "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues" and it was pretty fun!

DB: 3m48s

5 stars. BEST FUN TOP TEN

Apparently before the debate the debate topic was changed to the subject I mentioned above and this pissed PZ off most thoroughly. PZ sounds pretty angry on his blog but sounds like a giant teddy bear IRL but in the beginning of the debate he sounded like an adorably angry teddy bear at the change. I won't explain why he was angry because he does so, thoroughly.

Another thorough part of the debate was the destruction of Dr. Geoffry Simmons. The guy was simply not prepared and spewed the most pedestrian of Creationist arguments out there to which PZ devastated. I recall reading about this debate and read that even the anti-evo folk over at William Dembski's Uncommon Descent site were remarking at how terrible Simmons did in this debate.

This is too fun 'a debate. All ya'll should check it out. It's a shame that it was so short and it was on the radio. Radio hosts seem to feel the need to summarize what one debater just said to the other debater and this is evident here and in the Unbelievable episodes as well. I can understand that they do so because it's the radio, maybe but it sometimes it seems like a waste of time and so much more could be said if they just let the debate flow. But alas, this was still a great time!

One of the best!

Technical: Great AQ, it's radio!

Victor Stenger vs Steven Fuller on Unbelievable - Science and Testing Religious Claims 2010 CHECK

This debate ( audio ) occurred on the great show Unbelievable in 2010 between Vic Stenger and Steve Fuller. The topic was "Is God a Failed Hypothesis?"

3 Stars: Fuller is as weird as ever but Stenger is just the guy to call him on his BS. CHECK

Despite poor Justin Brierley's best attempts to stick with the topic it was only briefly touched upon because Fuller made some pretty ridiculous assertions Stenger just had to answer.

From what I gathered from Fuller, science and the concept of progress can be largely attributed to the Abrahamic religion. He espouses this disturbingly ethnocentric view and repeatedly stands by it throughout the discussion.

Immediately, Stenger takes umbrage to such claims by pointing out that the Greeks, Ancient Chinese, Muslims, and Indians started doing science well before God was making Earth the center of the universe. He further points out that Christianity has actually inhibited scientific inquiry*. Even the Justin Brierley thought Fuller was full of it from the sounds of his questions around the middle of the show.

Fuller pretty much discounts the non-Western history of science by stating it was mostly for technology or advancement of the political entities or warfare. He continues by saying that if science wasn't based on an ultimate goal of understanding, or even demonstrating the existence of god, then it would be a more nefarious enterprise!

Fuller even argues that science has not been beneficial to society and cites things like nuclear energy research and genetic engineering. Stenger counters this with a pretty funny statement, [spoiler]saying roughly, "if you think that then why are you on the radio, why aren't you sending up smoke signals or something to communicate?"[/spoiler] - basically that science as added so much more to our advancement, compared to the draw backs that Fuller cites - but Fuller dismisses this as a "cost-benefit" argument that can go both ways; Stenger has to then include all the horrible things science has created. Even this cost-benefit sophistry is crap, Fuller. Think of all the lives saved by modern medicine you crank.

Not too much substance in this one though I suggest you all give it a listen. Fuller can usually hold his own but not here, he just comes off as hysterical and crazy.

Technical: Great AQ

*Though it has for sure helped it, mind you!

Revisions
8-23-2015 Cleared up some stuff and lowered the score. 

Richard Weikart vs Hector Avalos on Unbelievable talking Hitler and Darwin PART DEUX 2011 BEST

I am a little annoyed that I only just now found out about this ( audio | 1:20m ) debate. It’s a subject that interests me and Weikart is the only guy AFAIK who attempts to make a scholarly argument for the claim that Darwin played a significant role in influence Nazism.


4.5 stars. If something was left from the case Weikart made for Darwin's above average influence on Nazi Ideology it's certainly gone in this debate. BEST

This is an Unbelievable episode and I don’t know why I don’t listen to this show more. Well I do, the episodes that I have sat through were pretty disappointing but there are just sooooo many of them that feature other folks that I enjoy.

But I digress. Both Weikart and Avalos have debated this topic in the past, just after Expelled: No Intelligence in the Classroom came out in 2008. They debate on a US radio show in a shorter amount of time and in a more strict formal setting. I absolutely loved it, though Avalos came off as a bit cheap at times. Nonetheless, Avalos was pretty freaking devastating in demonstrating how vapid Weikart's claims are when put under scrutiny.

Now this debate was a bit weird for my normal Unbelievable listening experience in that the first part was set up as formal debate in the same way as the previous debate they had. They both pretty much said the same thing, Avalos more so than Weikart during their openings. They both accounted for some objections brought up by the other in their previous debate but I was a bit letdown that no nuanced move has arose in the three years since the last debate...though I wasn't surprised.

In general, Weikart points to the importance of the Nazi Eugenics beliefs which were most likely inspired by the racial German eugeneicists contemporary with Hitler when he was apparently most malleable for getting all his terrible ideas. Since the debate calls for Weikart to demonstrate that Darwin was more influential than Christianity, Weikart conceded that sure, semi-big Christian figures like Martin Luther or the then Pope did kind of support Hitler and receive support from Hitler (not in the case of Luther, though, haha) but, that's cause Hitler was a politician. In Hitler's private conversations and statements and expressed in the way the terrible Nazi reforms were taken out, they were clearly Darwinian...survival of the fittest, the weak die out, the strong survive.

Hector Avalos notes that it is almost certainly the case that Hitler's Nazi Ideology was fueled the most by Christian anti-semitism. As in the previous debate, Avalos lists all the terrible things Martin Luther mentions we should do with the Jews. He also points out that Hitler mentions Martin Luther as one of his heroes and never mentions Darwin or guys like Haeckel (I think on Haeckel, at least). And even notes that tactically, popularizing Nazism to the German masses wouldn't go too great if they printed out passages of The Origin of Species but it would if they printed out anti-semtetic theological tracts.

The only difference that I found interesting was in Weikart’s opening and rebuttal. Weikart did something that I found smart and a little more original. He shifted from only talking about the Jews in the Nazi policy to mentioning how Christian anti-Semitism doesn’t account for the rest of the racial hygiene policies implemented by the Nazis. Other ethnic groups were sterilized and murdered, as well, though it does seem that the Jews were the big target. He does mention this stuff in the previous debate but he really fleshes it out this time around.

Technical
Great audio quality, this is always the case with Unbelievesies.

Update 8-15-2015 Clean up, clarified, expounded and added some links.