In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, after some childhood memories of thrown Brussels sprouts and spilled honey, a shot in honor of their fine listeners, one of Jason’s stories from the car dealership, and Christian trying to talk himself out of buying a new car, Jason and Christian analyze some of the criticism of the podcast, delving into the nature of the podcast itself. After a third attempt at explaining that they don’t hate Capitalism, they examine the death of Christians compared to the death of non-Christians and whether or not dying well proves anything, and eventually whether or not anything proves anything. After a break to refill drinks and order pizza, Christian and Jason discuss why God keeps playing tricks on humans, such as creating the earth to look so old. They then enjoy some spontaneous feedback from listeners via Facebook and are interrupted by the pizza arriving early. Jason is biebered by having to travel more than five miles ever and also by having to wait to eat his pizza.
Also, Christian is not an atheist…although he’s considering atheism just to make things easier for everyone.
Podcast #331: Sedition for Dummies
Podcast #328: Death, the Afterlife, and the Biden Administration
Podcast #398: Atlanta, Stocks, and Student Debt
Podcast #475: Taylor & Trolling
Erik, a hobby might be in order? Can you take yourself out of your finite echo-chamber and hear how you sound to the *real world*? (world of many thoughts, ideas and paradigms)
Your antagonism is unattractive. Looks like the garb of a bully.
Kip would disapprove. He’s much more of a poet/peace maker.
“Your sandy hair floats in the air… To me it’s like a lullaby… I’m just flying by… Oh so high… like a kite… tied to a skate…”
XO
And it’s “Motor Boater 69”.
Urban dictionary may be of use to you here.
Oh, never mind.
Final thought:
When one, as a big fish from a tiny bowl, jumps into an ocean? A moment of humility, adaptation and acclimatization is always a good idea.
Damn. Three posts in a row.
Late!
XO
I thought the most interesting part of the podcast was Christian doubting that nature is still a strong testimony to Gods creative power now that we have science.
All science has done is move things back one step. Consider the Ford F150 Jason just sold. Imagine 1000 years from now aliens discovered that truck among the ruins of earth.
One group of aliens thinks that the truck had just always existed, or else came together through natural processes. Another group believed in an “Intelligent designer” named “Ford”.
After centuries of argument they finally discover the Ford manufacturing plant. The first group of aliens crow “you see! I told you this was not made by your imaginary Henry Ford! It was actually made by all these machine making machines, that have just always been here or else come together through natural processes”.
How long until the aleins start asking where all the machine making machines came from? Does any of this subtract from the genius of Henry Ford and the intelligent designers of the f150? Hardly. If anything the situation has just become more impressive and amazing.
Also, consider the fact that there is “something” rather than”nothing”. And that further that “something” is an enormous, complex, and highly organized universe. One thats movements and activities can be predicted by “mathematics” which is nothing other than an abstract concept, that doesn’t seem to rely on the physical world for its existence. 2+2 will still equal 4 even when the Universe dies it’s heat death and nothing else remains. Yet all the Universe seems to dance to the tune of mathematics, physics, and the sciences. Sort of odd.
The heavens have always given evidence of a creator. At every moment of everyday the testimony is loud and clear
I think it can also depend upon what your looking for. I can read hamlet and “find Shakespeare” on every page…. But a different kind of person might claim to have read hamlet and never found any evidence of a man named Shakespeare. All this kind of person would see was the pages, the ink, and the symbols assorted I’m various formations. Similarly, Paul would have “found God” in the cosmos, the bottom of the ocean, or a prison cell….. While Christian and others won’t “find him” anywhere at all. As CS Lewis says “much depends on the seeing eye”.
On a public forum? Gotcha!
XO
Erik, the boys are better than me, I would have ejected you already, and then put up with you telling everyone how you are experiencing persecution.
For some reason you have an axe to grind with them, and it comes across like that (it didn’t in the beginning, but in the last 2-3 comment sections, it has). Just my $0.02, dial it back a bit. If you truly dislike what they do and how they do it, maybe this isn’t for you?
Enjoy your week.
We’ll be devastated.
You’re right, Erik. We did not make a case defending that. We actually said that they are very different and can’t be governed the exact same way. That doesn’t mean that there are no elements of what they do that we can’t integrate into our own system.
As far as our simplistic baloney, we don’t have political science degrees and don’t claim to. I’m sure there are some other podcasters out there who would love arguing political science with someone as knowledgeable as you.
Erik, that’s what you’ve gotten about me out of 25 podcasts? Ha.
You’re absolutely right, Erik. I will immediately produce some faith in Christianity as an insurance policy.Solid logic you and Pascal are using there.
Erik, do you also still believe in Santa Claus?
Why do you need the whole story? What exactly are you looking for?
I don’t think Jason claims to have any “best friends” at CTC, especially people he’s never met in person. Pretty sure he would think that’s ridiculous (and sad), as do I.
Kenneth, I think there is a lot of evidence for intelligent design. I believe I’ve said that multiple times. (I’ve also heard explanations of evolution which explain why things seem intelligently designed.) My caveat to saying that it looks like there’s a designer would be that that doesn’t convince me that the Bible is the word of God anymore than it convinces me that the Quran is the word of God.
Also, I think that, if there is a designer, it/he/she may well have created the world to evolve, and I think that’s quite a bit more amazing than just creating a human being out of the dirt.
Kenneth, I also agree that it can depend on what you’re looking for. Both of us may agree that a document has a writer. That doesn’t mean that the writer is Shakespeare. Even if I see “God” in the cosmos, the bottom of the ocean, etc., that doesn’t mean I’m convinced in any way that that god is the The God of the Hebrews. If you believe that YHWH is God, then you’re going to see him in “creation.”
Erik, wrong again. I’m over 40, and I’ve felt very mortal my whole life. It comes with having the heart issues I’ve had since I was a kid. However, I highly doubt that your version of Christianity works in such a way that I can just hedge my bets by agreeing to something I don’t believe to be true. You’re not being very logical.
Erik,
You’re not very good at gathering evidence and coming to conclusions, are you? Even if you were correct (and I find it humorous how far off you are), that doesn’t mean that “He rejects Christ in order to enjoy the pleasures of this life…” does it? Perhaps I rejected the Bible and then started enjoying “the pleasures of this life.” Again, poor deduction, but I understand you need that to be true to fit your narrow paradigm of how the world outside of Christianity works.
Erik,
I think the problem is that you can’t disassociate what our podcast means to us from what you think it should mean to us. We’re pretty upset that we can’t live up to your expectations.
Erik,
I actually think you may not understand your own religion very well.
Erik,
I never cease to be amazed by the things you know and your powers of accurate judgment.
You started out positive. Now you’re just condescending and judgmental.
Erik,
That’s ridiculous, but thank you for the advice I guess.
Christian – It would be a lot easier to navigate these conversations if you changed commenting system. But this comment really reminded me of something that Brian Cox (British physicist & TV personality) mentioned on one of his recent TV documentary. If you think of life as a lottery system where there was a guaranteed winner, and you held the winning ticket. You must think that you are pretty lucky because of the fact that you won, however, since there was always going to be a winner (in this instance life), it’s really not all that remarkable. It’s just randomness that led to this particular conclusion.
That said, I do generally agree with your points since I’m also, for the most part, an agnostic as well.
Greg, we had it originally set up so that you could reply to a particular comment and go back and forth easier. We had a couple complaints about it though. Do you have a suggestion for a commenting system for WordPress?
Ummmmm, OK.
@Christian – I like disqus (https://wordpress.org/plugins/disqus-comment-system/)
Erik, as usual, your definitions, your judgments, your examples, and your conclusions are really lacking. It’s pretty laughable.
“Who we are now is not who we have to be forever.” Oh good. There’s hope for you yet!
Erik,
You’re demonstrating an inability to dignify the positions of those with whom you don’t agree, as evidenced by your dismissive labeling of us as people “with chips on our shoulder.” I have great fondness for the PCA and serious nostalgia about my Calvary days, and mention it all the time. We also favor capitalism. But for you, anything but unmitigated advocacy is utter rejection.
For my part, I see this as indicative of the Protestant either/or approach to so many issues. But it’s wrong. Criticizing something doesn’t need to be a bad thing, it can also be an act of love for that which is being criticized. Especially when it is completely lacking in vitriol.
Juss sayin.’
Christian,
Kenneth, I think there is a lot of evidence for intelligent design. I believe I’ve said that multiple times. (I’ve also heard explanations of evolution which explain why things seem intelligently designed.) My caveat to saying that it looks like there’s a designer would be that that doesn’t convince me that the Bible is the word of God anymore than it convinces me that the Quran is the word of God.
Well, I would be pretty surprised if it did convince you that the Bible is the word of God. That’s a completely different conversation. Still, the case for special revelation is a whole heck of a lot easier to make if the audience is impressed with the case for a deity.
Also, I think that, if there is a designer, it/he/she may well have created the world to evolve, and I think that’s quite a bit more amazing than just creating a human being out of the dirt.
I dont know dude. I think it would be pretty darn cool to see God create a 30 year old man out of sand! Both are cool options, but i think I might pay more to see the magic show.
I also agree that it can depend on what you’re looking for. Both of us may agree that a document has a writer. That doesn’t mean that the writer is Shakespeare. Even if I see “God” in the cosmos, the bottom of the ocean, etc., that doesn’t mean I’m convinced in any way that that god is the The God of the Hebrews. If you believe that YHWH is God, then you’re going to see him in “creation.”
Again, I see what you are saying. I would challenge you to take it a step further though. There is no need to stop at the conclusion “this document has an author”. We can glean more than that by examining the work more closely. What does the creation testify about the creator? I would argue that our universe makes it clear not only that a deity exists, but also what kind of deity we are dealing with. This testimony matches one to one with the description of the Hebrew God. All good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, timeless, changeless, immaterial, unmoved mover. We can discover this through reason alone, just as we can tell which works Shakespeare authored and which he did not.
Greg,
Lets say we were playing poker and i got dealt a royal flush 68 times in a row. Would you believe me if i said “Well, given the amount of hands dealt in the last few hundred years this was bound to happen eventually. Lucky me!”
Sure, its possible. But is it the most likely scenario if the option of intelligent design is on the table? If you are the kind of person that thinks the answer to this question is unclear….. well, I hope we meet in Vegas one day 🙂
I would cast my vote for either disqus or intense debate. But either way if you start threaded comments im out of here! Those things are so confusing. They are supposed to enhance conversation but they really only ever end up killing it. All the best comboxes use the same format you are currently using.
@Kenneth January 19, 2015 at 9:29 PM – Really? I find that threading makes the conversations flow a lot better. The way we’re having to respond now is like message boards back in the late 90s, having to track back to earlier messages we’re responding to.
@Kenneth January 19, 2015 at 9:27 PM – Like Christian, my memory recall is not as spritely as I would like it to be, I’ll try to dig up and quote Cox verbatim as I think that would help clarify the position that i’ve muddied up.
However, in the example you give, the casino would probably want to have a conversation with you before I did. 😉 But seriously, we are all just looking at things that happened after the fact and trying to divine a meaning out of it.
Erik, it amuses me that you think I care in any way what Bryan Cross (or you) think of my responses. As usual, you’re not paying attention very well.
This is about the 20th time I’ve called out something you guys should (or will) do or talk about while my wife and I are enjoying your podcast, only to hear you do it on the next podcast or even moments later – speaking of the DXP cruise. Seriously, this is legit – raffle tickets for the next 12 months and you could probably cover the cost of both the guest(s) and yourselves! We’re “all in” if you do.
Greg,
For me, there are numerous problems with the analysis given by Cox.
1. There really isn’t any concrete evidence that such a thing as a multiverse exists. The scientific community is just forced to posit a multiverse to account for the fine-tuning problem. What has always been amusing to me is that these people don’t just speculate on there being 10 or 15 other universes (without any concrete evidence to suggest that such might be the case) but they posit an INFINITE number of universes. All just to account for the ridiculously, mind-numbingly, low odds of the initial constants being tuned in the way that they are. Which leads to the second problem
2. There is no such thing as an “infinite number” in reality. Infinity is an abstract concept that works on paper, but that has no correlation in the real world. This was proved definitively (in my opinion) by David Hilbert and his thought experiment “hilberts hotel”. For a cool 60 sec recap of the experiment see the link below. Whats important here is that if there is not such a thing as an “infinite” amount of universes, the evidence for design becomes overwhelming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
Welcome to reality boys. The Hebrews called it eons ago. Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up to Gods word.
Hi guys, just started listening to the podcast. I’m not really going in any sort of order, this is the 2nd one I’ve listened to. I’m about halfway through and I figured I would clear some things up about the gospel authorship and dating. I am a hobbyist when it comes to history of religions, especially Christianity so I’ve done a fair amount of research and reading. It is true that biblical scholars don’t consider any of the gospels to be eyewitness accounts. Secondly, all of the gospels were written anonymously and the names were attached in the 2nd century (most likely I believe). The majority of scholars adhere to Markan Priority, which states that Mark was the earliest gospel written, while Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material for their own gospels. If you study the original koine greek texts, they have near verbatim passages from Mark in their composition.
Enjoying the podcast so far guys!
Thanks for the feedback, originallysoulful, and for listening. This is what I vaguely remembered from Ehrman’s book. I just wasn’t sure.
Ha ha. I don’t blame you. It’s called “Misquoting Jesus.” 🙂
Thanks!