What would the story of Christianity--from creation to redemption to the eschaton--look like if it were told through a sophistic lens? Well, it looks familiar, but more like a terrifying caricature. These little distortions, though they contain what seem to be the central propositions about Christianity, make God into a monster and redemption more like an abusive relationship. But arguably our default way of perceiving is sophist, so that often this is the Christianity we have learned. So, Joel and Travis try to show how ugly the beauty of Christianity becomes within a sophistic metaphysics, with the intention (in the next podcast) to show how seeing Christianity within what is in fact a Christian metaphysical framework.

Joel and Travis start describing what the nature of God would need to be like in order to avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma. Along the way, they suggest that perhaps clear, systematic descriptions of God are part of the problem, offer a few attempts to describe what "the Good" is supposed to be, and suggest that perhaps God's nature must be propositionally unclear in order for God to be essentially good. This all serves as a preface to prepare for the following two podcasts, which will offer a comparison of sophistic view of Christianity and a...uh...Christian view of Christianity.

Joel and Travis talk about how Euthyphro's sophistic view of the gods leads directly to the Euthyphro Dilemma, why the two horns of the Dilemma are a problem, and suggest that you probably have a sophistic view of God. And you should be ashamed of yourself for this, particularly if you're a Christian. We also hint toward what it might look like to view God in a non-sophistic way—if that is even possible for us silly humans.

Joel and Travis suggest that maybe what we think of when we think of God's power is sophistic and therefore flawed. In this podcast, they mostly discuss biblical evidence that the power that God wields is not like the power that we usually wield (or seek to wield)- and how this confusion about power corrupts talk about God, and ultimately leads to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Find Plato's Euthyphro here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Joel and Travis discuss Euthyphro's sophistic view of the gods, and the problems to which such a view leads. Specifically, they set up how Euthyphro's view leads directly to the (in)famous Euthyphro Dilemma. More annoyingly, they suggest that perhaps we Christians, like Euthyphro, have more of a sophistic view than a truly Christian one. The discussion leads to the more-complicated-than-it-sounds issue of the relationship between power, goodness, and God's nature.

Joel and Travis discuss Plato's enemy, the sophists, specifically through the creation story told by Protagoras in the dialogue named after him. How is the sophist's view of human nature echoed in contemporary views of humanity? How does the Christian view compare to Plato's and the sophist's view? Are even Christians these days incognito sophists?

Find the Protagoras here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/protagoras.html

Joel and Travis continue talking about how learning how to read Plato correctly might help us read the Bible better. After all, as Plato wrote a few thousand years ago, writing is a dangerous thing, which has the tendency to make us arrogant and ignorant, and thus failing to change us in a meaningful way. But some writings, like Plato and the Bible, have a different approach. What is different about these? And how should we read them differently?

For the text of Plato's Phaedrus, go here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

Joel and Travis complain a lot about how much Christians make the Bible boring and/or irrelevant. They then suggest that learning how to read Plato correctly (that is, the somewhat unusual way that Travis reads him) could help us read the Bible better. What exactly is wrong with how we read the Bible? How could reading a philosopher who wrote hundreds of years before Christ possibly help us read the Bible? Is this such a stretch that Joel and Travis would make Mister Fantastic jealous? Come find out.

Joel and I (Travis) talk briefly about what we've been talking about. We also say a bit about how we are far less rational than we think, toss in a bit of Pascal, and make some general suggestions about apologetics, or really the way to navigate any disagreement. Also, this will be the last podcast until July 1.

Have suggestions for topics? Email us at [email protected]. Do it, or we'll talk about Iris Murdoch novels for the next 6 months!

Joel and Travis talk the Republic to show how Plato supports the idea of evaluative outlooks giving form to our perceptions, so that even our perception of justice can be twisted and deformed by our perceiving of justice through the value of what might be its opposite (pleonexia). In fact, recognizing what Plato is saying about evaluative outlooks might be the key to reading him well. Along the way, we talk a ring of invisibility, the problem of the tedium of immortality, whether might makes right, and why most of us really don't care about justice, righteousness, or perhaps even God at all. We just want the things that these get us. And, of course, how changing the values that form our perceptions might very well fix this.