Jamie challenged Scott to pray and read the bible every day for 30 days. In this episode, they talk about the experience and Scott shares what, if anything, he has learned about what it is like to live at least somewhat as a believer.

Then the dialectic duo revisits the Argument from Morality, sharing new perspectives they have gained as a result of bashing heads for so long on this subject.

As further study Scott recommends "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul" by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, and Jamie recommends "The Holy Bible" by God ... or not?

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

How do your biases affect what kinds of arguments and evidence you will accept? Is it just based on the quality (or lack thereof) of the arguments, or is it possible to blind yourself to reason? Jamie tries again to make the case that Scott is just not giving his arguments a fair shake.

In "Spin the Wheel", Jamie talks about his take on the separation of church and state, and Scott talks about that old chestnut, Pascal's Wager.

As further study Jamie recommends "Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" by Timothy Keller, and Scott recommends "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies - How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Jamie claims that it's not that he is failing to make his case for God, it's that Scott is unfairly rejecting reasonable evidence! What do you think, is this a legitimate gripe or a convenient deflection? In this episode, Scott & Jamie explore epistemology, and its application to their arguments.

In "Oh the Humanity", Scott talks about the difference between "prescriptive" and "descriptive", and how the distinction exposes a flaw in an argument from professional Christian apologist William Lane Craig.

As further study Jamie recommends "Religious Epistemology" by Tyler McNabb, and Scott recommends "Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Scott goes on the offense and begins making his case that Jamie's foundational arguments, his "4 legs of the stool", do not support the conclusions they claim to. In part 1 of 2, Scott tries to "sweep the legs" of the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Morality arguments Jamie presented. How do you think he did?

In "Spin the Wheel", Scott and Jamie surprise each other with burning questions on "Circular Reasoning" and "People that Don't Know Jesus".

As further study Jamie recommends "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig, and Scott recommends "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Are we free to act as we want to act? If so, how does that work in a mechanistic universe? Scott and Jamie have a very interesting discussion on the various definitions for free will, along with the compatibilist position, namely that a deterministic universe and free will are completely compatible.

In "Spin the Wheel", Scott and Jamie surprise each other with burning questions on "The Overlap of Religion and Politics" and "Methodological vs Philosophical Naturalism".

As further study, Scott recommends the book "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett, and Jamie recommends "Philosophy of the Mind" by Edward Feser.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Don’t let the title mislead you. While it’s true that Scott did go to church, it’s also true that Scott is still an atheist. Scott was invited by Common Ground United Methodist Church (https://www.commongroundumc.org/) to speak to their congregation during a Sunday morning sermon series on the intersection of science and faith. Scott has always had a love for science and it was because of this, his extensive knowledge on the subject, and his ability to be fair, that he was asked to speak about the beginning of the universe. Jamie and Scott review his talk, the pastors talk immediately after, and discuss some of the questions that were presented to him by the congregants during the question and answer portion of the service.

In "Let's Go to the Instant Replay", Jamie talks about a surprise re-think he has had on a very contentious subject.

As further study Jamie recommends "From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible" by Norman Geisler, and Scott recommends "Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible" by Jerry Coyne.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Here are the slides Scott used in his talk.

What does it mean to be rational? What is the difference between a rational person and a rational argument? Can a rational person make an irrational argument? Scott and Jamie dig deep exploring the nuances of what this means.

In "What Say You", Scott and Jamie discuss two videos produced by Derren Brown, "The Push" and "The Sacrifice". Scott had recommended these videos in Episode 013, and Jamie liked them so much we decided to talk about them on the show.

As further study Jamie recommends "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, and Scott recommends "The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us" by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

Have you ever actually pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps? It's an old saying about resourcefulness and initiative, but in reality it's an exercise in futility. Circular arguments work, or don't work, in much the same way. Can an argument prop itself up? Scott and Jamie talk about what exactly is a circular argument, and Scott makes an argument that many arguments for the existence of gods are circular.

Recent events have put a lot of demand on the available time of our two warriors. But against all odds, new episodes are starting to trickle out! Our schedule will be a bit uncertain in the near future, but we haven't gone the way of the dodo quite yet! So hang in there with us!

As further study, Jamie recommends "Logically Fallacious" by Bo Bennett, and in a rare convergence Scott recommends a similar book "Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach" by Douglas Walton.

Links mentioned in this episode:

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]

The Dialectic Duo is stepping away from the microphone to rest and replenish a bit. Look for Season 2 of the God or Not Podcast, coming in May 2020!

Thank you for listening!

Our universe is set up just perfect for our existence … or is it? It seems as if certain aspects about our universe, if changed by even the slightest bit, would render our universe life prohibiting. If we live in a fine tuned universe what are the odds we would find ourselves in a life permitting universe as opposed to a life prohibiting universe? Can we calculate such odds? Is the universe fine tuned by an external something-or-other? God? Does a multiverse increase the odds we live in a life permitting universe? Join Jamie and Scott as they look at the fine tuning of the universe as evidence for God’s existence.

In "Spin the Wheel", Scott and Jamie surprise each other with burning questions on "Dialogue" and "The Democratic Primary".

In their third installment of the "God or Not Book Club", Scott and Jamie discuss parts 6 - 10 of Section III (pages 135 - 208) of "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" by Richard Carrier. For the next installment, they will cover Section IV (pages 209 - 290). You may contribute to the discussion by submitting your comments by 2/26/20.

As further study Scott recommends the book "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us" by Victor Stenger, and Jamie recommends the book "A Fortunate Universe" by Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes.

Contact us with comments and questions: [email protected]