I Was on a Christian Radio Show…

Just the other day I had the most lovely conversation with a close friend of mine, a Christian, about her church and her beliefs and what she’d been taught. It was the first time I’d ever spoken to her about religion, and I think we were both being very careful not to offend whilst trying very hard to explain why we believe what we believe. It was a difficult conversation, but I think we both came away better people because of it.

Hemant, I think your email was inadequately clear about what you wanted and why. I think you need to say something more like “I’m willing to come on your show to discuss my book and its content. I’m not willing to argue about whether atheism is or isn’t right or moral, and if the host steers the conversation in that direction I will point out that I am there under the promise that that wouldn’t happen, and that they broke their promise, and I will leave. I’m sorry to have to be so blunt about this but I’ve had problems in the past and want to ensure there will be no confusion or difficulty.”

I love how he opens with the line about Schermer apparently saying the sun is not a light.

That same passage also says the moon is a light, which is false, is the host willing to accept he’s wrong?

Ugh

As one of the Christians who comment here, I thought you did a fine job. I also thought that the host was fair and that he kept to your book fairly closely.

Those whoa re saying the host was deceptive, please show it. this was a Christian show. Of course they are going to talk about Jesus and Christianity. And they are not going to agree with everything Hemant had to say. He based his discussion on quotes from the book. He didn’t go off on a rant.

B: “You know how memories change over time and people tell stories and they get exaggerated?”

H: “I hear it in church all the time.”

B: “Right, that’s the explanation for the phenomenon that you’re saying.”

I laughed out loud at this point.

Also, i’m glad they played the Michael Shermer clip at the end; it confirmed my suspicions that Mr Shermer was in fact saying that the sun is not a light insofar that it does not give light specifically for us, but rather that it gives light naturally and purposelessly.

Robert,

I didn’t make it very far into the interview, but I did listen to the excerpt from Shermer’s interview, and from that excerpt it’s very clear how dishonest the radio host is. First, the host throws the word ‘planet’ into the conversation. The bible has concept of planet. He ignores the fact that the bible incorrectly labels the moon a light (it only reflects light, doesn’t generate it’s own), and then focuses on whether or not the bible is right when it calls the sun a light.

Shermer was faced with the situation of saying, yes, the bible is right when it says the sun is a light (and the host was trying to then imply that meant that all cosmology presented in the bible is true), or getting into the technical nature of the question. Is the bible a light? Well, it’s main activity is fusion, which just happens to have a byproduct of light, but light doesn’t account for even a large fraction of what it’s doing.

So, even if you want to say the bible is true in labeling the sun a light, it’s such a simplistic view of what the sun actually is that it’s kind of useless. Not to mention that focusing on that one aspect ignores all the other places where the bible gets cosmology completely wrong.

“but if you want to avoid that, that’s okay.” —> jerk.

Yeah easy to zone out as this guy babbles about some point he wants to make despite it not really meaning anything. To paraphrase, Hemant said a real miracle would be something that may make him reconsider his position. Bob took forever to say, no seeing a real miracle would make you harden your heart to god. Well that’s just odd if you ask me and kind of pointless ta boot. In the end you both got book plugs out of it and I guess that’s the point. It seems Hemants book is sold in xtian book stores so I have to think plugs on xtian radio help sell books. Pretty common talk radio fair.
Frankly it would be more fun to listen to Bob Larson exercise Hemant. Larson exercised demons out of me some 30 years ago and if memory serves it was VERY entertaining.

It’s hilarious how they include the completely irrelevant power of their transmitter in the opening mail. Do they also tell guests they’ll be picked up by a car with a 150 hp engine?

Ugh! I’ve been on radio shows like these, and (even as a Christian), I’ve been lured into stupid debates about evolution or universalism or whatever. I’ve even had hosts basically tell their listeners NOT to buy my book! It was all just a set-up for a debate.

So sorry. This is an especially annoying aspect of the Christian subculture that I wish would go away.

You’re always so nice. I loved it when you said “I zoned out.” How about “I can only listen to so much stupid at one time.”

The “verbal trap” statement you used was very well said. You did a great job at trying to steer the conversation into something that was constructive and helpful (more than once). I’m sorry that you were lied to here.

I guess talking about what “the other” have to say about us is a little too uncomfortable. Which is about the least productive thing that Christians can do. *sigh*

I normally don’t do plugs for people’s youtube channels, but this seemed on topic: On Brettppalmer’s channel he has a video called “A Creotard In My Own Backyard” and it’s about his experience with Bob Enyart.

It’s much the same as Hemant’s, and worth watching.

“but if you want to avoid that, that’s okay.”

Based on that alone, I’d have said no thanks. From the tone of the email they obviously did not want to have a conversation.

I find it funny if you go to the KGOV link up there, scroll down to where it says “Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store?” and click on that link, you get the following;

“Search Results
Your search for “Topics:Science” did not match any products that we carry. ”

🙂

Agreed that the Shermer quote is being totally misconstrued. Shermer starts by saying “they” aren’t lights (which they aren’t).

Meanwhile Enyant switchs to “the sun is a light” mocks Shermer and then switches back to “the sun, moon, etc are lights” when asking him the question again, muddying the waters.

When Shermer disagrees with the statement that all other ancient people worshipped the sun, moon, etc, Enyant takes that as a response to the “are these lights?” question and mocks him some more.

All it proves is that Enyant is too busy focusing on where to put another plug for one of his products (I’m amazed at how many he was able to push in his interview with Hemant-made for tortured phrasing on his part, but amazing nonetheless)or the conclusion he wanted to make *regardless* of whether the guest’s answer relates to that conclusion.

Hemant made some very good points in a less than optimum environment and was polite in an all over the map discussion that bore little resemblance to what was promised-it likely provided many of the listeners with a different image of an atheist from what they were expecting. Good job.

I think you handled it as best as you could. What was said after you were off the air?

From some of the comments, it almost feels as though I listened to a very different radio conversation than the one I did.

Normally listening to Christian radio makes me want to bang my head against a cupboard, but I actually didn’t think that this was too terrible a conversation, all things considered!

It was a Christian radio show. The host threw in some bits that had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. He attempted some gotcha points, which were effectively dismissed out of hand. He actually stated some pretty impressive things (the bit about miracles). That is pretty tame, as far as conversations with religious talk show hosts go.

It was pretty respectful, and the comment in this post about the way he said his name seemed to me to be someone who had absolutely no idea how to properly pronounce it and was merely trying to flesh it out. Until I heard it pronounced a few times, my brain read it as “heh-mant” with emphasis on the second syllable. Trying to break yourself of that habit can be difficult, and if he had the same issue as me, I can completely understand it.

There is no need to try and read into everything. No need to jump on the offensive/defensive as I think that, as far as part one goes, everyone involved seems generally okay with the conversation.

Hemant, I thought you did a good job and I also think these types of interactions are good.

I thought it interesting that Bob admitted that all the modern miracle claims are bogus. What he won’t consider, though, is that the ancient miracle claims are also probably bogus. Bob’s sole point seemed to be that since it is written in the bible that Jesus said the occurrence of miracles did not lead to more fervent belief, then that is probably why God has not seemed fit to cause any miracles in the modern age. Well, isn’t that convenient… I would speculate that if you went back in time, there would be all these religious people back then (just like there are now) going around claiming all sorts of bogus miracles (including all those listed in the bible). Many of the people back then probably also realized that they were bogus exaggerated claims and didn’t become fervent believers.

Personally, I totally reject the notion that God dabbled in miracles in the distant past and then retired from the miracle business. No ALL the miracle claims in the bible should be questioned with the same skepticism as any miracle claims of today. Bob was trying to sell the point that faith should be build on faith alone without any modern demonstration of miracles (except a belief in past miracles and the inerrancy of the bible). That product can only be sold to people who already believe it. Perhaps Bob fulfilled his objective with his believing audience. But also, perhaps Hemant got through to a few out there.

So my question is- how does it stand up to other ancient writings on its accuracy? Particularly when you base it on the knowledge back then? I mean based upon what it says, not what others (including this host) may want to read into it.

I don’t understand the question, and it is certainly possible I just didn’t read it correctly, are you asking: “given what was known about these things at the time, who was more right?”

If that is what you’re asking, I think the comparison is sort of nuanced and non-trivial. It is easy to say “here is the greek myth”, but Eratosthenes knew the Earth-Sun distance and the Earth’s circumference 2-300 years BCE which blows the hebrew model of a “bowl of the firmament” out of the, metaphorical, water. But this is still sort of comparing apples and oranges, as I’m throwing a natural philosopher/geometer at a tribal myth. I don’t really know anything about hebrew science at the time which would be a fairer comparison.

Admittedly, the whole exercise seems a bit silly to me. The question of “which myth was more right given its time period?” is sort of ridiculous. There are a lot of myths, and frankly, no one knew enough at the time to be right about the sun. If they are right, it would seem to be about trivial details. For example, you’d have to be an idiot or literally blind not to know that the sun looked bright and seemed to produce light and that when it was in the sky the whole world lit up. Whether you’re a greek and call it a great ball of fire attached to Apollo’s chariot or a hebrew who announced that it is a light that god has hung in the bowl of the firmament, you’re both wrong, and incredibly so.

I’m usually a bit more intellectual when I leave comments…but Bob Enyart seems like a real tool.

Hemant – very nice job! You didn’t fall for his baits and you were the epitome of cool.

I heard the Shermer bit at the end of the mp3, I sense he was afraid of getting baited , but he could have clarified his position- in any case Bobby was being a bit of a tool trying to make some impressive pronouncement that the sun was a light…ooh…how scientific! Of course Moses needed to get all his followers under his one god to consolidate his power, so he couldn’t have anyone believing the sun was another god with another set of priests. That would have just diluted his power(one interpretation of the start mono-theism).

I thought it was great! I didn’t find the interviewer’s tone to be condescending at all.

If this guy discounts modern miracles, he and his followers are not amongst the more conservative Christians. Perhaps a few of those listening will have some cognitive dissonance stirred over Jesus’ claim that “seeing is not believing”. I know I used to wonder why his own town rejected him. That seemed a bit suspicious, but I would always suppress the doubting thoughts it prompted. 🙂

It was nice that he recommended your book and that there was talk about the amputee website. “Thinking” Christians like this who claim to welcome scrutiny are opening their minds a bit. That makes the possibility of an “ah ha” moment more likely at some point.

Good job with your responses.

Hermant, you were fine, but the interviewer was rather boring.

I think Shermer should have agreed that the bible was right about the sun and moon not being gods. Then he could have pointed out that even the bible is atheistic about some gods.

I also would have admitted that the host was correct that just because god didn’t answer prayers doesn’t mean that he couldn’t. But all of that assumes that he exists in the first place which I don’t concede. Furthermore, agreeing that if he existed then he could possibly perform some particular miracle is in no way proof that he exists. He has to actually perform the miracle for it to be proof.

I also should have said I thought you did a very good job. I think the host was attempting to be fair, but it seemed like a struggle for him. The whole Shermer part was completely irrelevant and unprofessional on his part. I also zoned out a bit on the question where you zoned out. I can’t blame you there.

Talk about using an obscure chunk of wording to play on words. The light thing is just plane stupid.
I think you did a great job Hemant.

The guy was very disingenuous in his interview. I assume you did this on the phone. I would have hung up. You have more patients than I would.

Everyone just loves to tar and feather the atheist.

I liked Bob’s question, “Wouldn’t it become a bad leg before it became a good wing?” How could a species survive long enough to become a different species if it had to hobble around with bad legs for millions of years? That may not be a subject within Hermant’s book, but it was a good question none-the-less.

Plus, I see Hermant calls this blog, “Friendly Atheist,” but he talked over Bob many, many times and offered up the good old condescending laugh often. I don’t consider that being very friendly, especially on someone else’s talk show. It was disrespectful.

Darryl, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” – Hebrews 11:1 NKJV If one wouldn’t believe until they experienced a miracle, then faith wouldn’t have to enter into it, would it.

@RiftchaserMej, good point about skepticism and Ockam’s razor.

You did a great job, bro!

i find that the host did a horrible job of making the conversation flow. he was smug and sly. Like most people he tried to catch you in a trap and even insulted some people with that “honest Atheist” thing.

i get the feeling that he comes off as one of those, “Our church is the right one, everyone else’s isn’t” kind of Pastors.

and talk self promotion, holy smokes…

What a waste. I really think they seek us out for debate in an attempt to bring legitimacy to their delusions. Debates between science and religion are a farce and only help superstitious beliefs with scientists willing to listen to their silly ideas.

Bob – “A leg would become a very bad leg before it became a good wing.”
Hemant – “I’m not the evolution expert, but that is not how it works.”

I’m always curious after an interview what the opposing side WON’T mention. I read all 60 comments and no one has mentioned Bob’s argument about a leg turning into a wing. This is a great Creationist argument if I may say so. How long did it take for legs to turn into wings? Millions of years?

Hemant – “It happens over millions and millions of years, and you’re going to get different species.”

If it happens over millions and millions of years, like Hemant said, wouldn’t it be a bad leg FAR before it was a good wing? That leaves 2 problems. A bad leg would take away the ability to walk or run. That would obvisouly lead to extinction. (Reminds me how evolutionary textbooks show dead giraffes in the grass because they couldn’t reach the trees to eat. Not sure why they didn’t eat the grass.) Second, if it somehow managed to make it past the bad leg stage (which it can’t), then you have the bad wing stage. Now it can’t walk, run OR fly. Now you have extinction again. Yikes. How exactly does an animal go from a good leg to a good wing over millions of years? And why would a good leg ever need to turn into a wing in the first place?

Hemant – “I think that’d be an interesting conversation to have without having to slide into long-debunked Christian talking points.”

If they’re so “long debunked” why don’t you have answers for them and why did you say repeatedly that you’re “not an expert?”

Bob – “There are many famous atheists who have enslaved millions of people in the last century.”

Hemant – ”Oh, oh, oh really?”

I particularly liked that part. Let’s be honest here Hemant. The fact that some very bad dudes did some very bad things because of their atheistic beliefs doesn’t disprove atheism. Of course many famous atheists have enslaved millions of people in the last century.

Concerning the phrase “Survival of the fittest,” Hemant said,

“It’s not a term that Darwin even used. Look it up on Wikipedia.”

From Wikipedia:

Darwin first used Spencer’s new phrase “survival of the fittest” as a synonym for “natural selection” in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.

Just sayin’…

Now this was classic!

Hemant – “You need to read some evolution books.”

Bob – “Do you think I’ve read 5 times as many evolutionary books as you have?”

Hemant – “I don’t.”

Two things here. Hemant, why does Bob need to read some evolution books, when you admitted numerous times that it was you who was not the evolution expert? It sure sounded to me that it is you who needs to read some evolution books.
Second, why would you not think that Bob has read 5 times as many evolutionary textbooks as you have when you readily admit that you don’t study evolution that much? Wouldn’t that lend credibility to the fact that Bob has indeed read 5 times as many evolutionary books as you?

Hemant, you said…

“Oh my god!”

…twice in the interview. I’m curious, whom exactly were you referring to?

Dandy DanD seems to have his defenses up a bit.

If it happens over millions and millions of years, like Hemant said, wouldn’t it be a bad leg FAR before it was a good wing?

Legs never turn into wings. ARMS turn into wings, and there really aren’t too many hindrances in the different stages of arm / wing development which would have slowed the animal down. In fact, animals don’t necessarily even have to lose the usefulness of hands; many animals, even to this day, can still use their wing / hands to clutch and climb things.

Hey DanD,

Doesn’t it bother you that your spiritual guide is a convicted child abuser? Or was he just framed by liberals?

What the hell was the analogy with killing the bug for cash about (well it wasn’t an analogy, they did kill a bug for money)?

Heidi – Evolution: It doesn’t work how you think it works.

Your statement is almost accurate. Let me fix it.

Evolution: It doesn’t work.

Again, like Dave, your response shows that even you believe that evolution’s claim that legs turned into wings is absurd.

Heidi – I’m really not clear on why creationists always seem to think we owe them a lesson in evolutionary biology.

Obfuscation at its finest. Imagine this kind of response in a debate. This is not how conversation works. When someone challenges you, you don’t respond by telling them you don’t have to answer and that they need to go read books if they want an answer.

DanD – your arguments are fallacious and tired. Have you ever tried reading the arguments AGAINST your arguments (they are legion, to borrow a biblical phrase)? No, of course not, because then you would know your arguments have all been shot down, definitively and repeatedly.

All,

FYI – apparently, Bobby Enyart is not well thought-of in some Christian circles. See link below for some amusing “he’s not a true christian” stuff from another evangelical who disagrees with Enyart’s form of evangelical christianity.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/e23.html

ATL-Apostate – DanD – your arguments are fallacious and tired. Have you ever tried reading the arguments AGAINST your arguments (they are legion, to borrow a biblical phrase)? No, of course not, because then you would know your arguments have all been shot down, definitively and repeatedly.

Your argument against my arguments is fallacious and tired. Have you ever tried reading the arguments AGAINST your argument against my arguments? No, of course not, because then you would know your argument against my arguments doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

Wow, now we’re really getting somewhere!

I’ll say the same thing I told Hemant. If my arguments are so fallacious and tired, then you could answer them. But you can’t. It’s obvious to everyone reading, don’t be fooled.

Hypothetically speaking, if Hemant made an argument on Bob Enyart Live and Bob responded with, “Hemant, your arguments are fallacious and tired” and Bob refused to answer his argument, you guys would cry foul from the mountain tops and claim VICTORY!

…Maybe I’ll do the same.

Jeff P – Perhaps DanD will nominate Bob to be the Protestant Pope. Then all the Protestants can fight it out. The Catholic Pope would not look so bad in comparison.

The substantive arguments here are just killing me.

Dinosaur: Evolutionary speculation suggests that the pterosaur may have evolved flight from the four-legged, ground-running Scleromochlus.

Scleromochlus was four-legged ground walking and two-legged ground running. When it had to make a speedy getaway, it likely reared up and ran on two legs. That’s not me stabbing in the dark; that’s the consensus of scientists based on the animal’s physical structure. In that scenario, the front legs are a good deal closer to arms, at least in situations where it would matter (fast locomotion).

And Pterosaurs aren’t actually considered dinosaurs. I know! Jurassic Park TOTALLY LIED TO US! Who would have thought that so much pop culture could get things wrong?

I’ll confess that bat evolution isn’t something I know a ton about. However, even a cursory look on the hive-brain we call the internet gave a pretty quick and logical explanation. In between regular mice with standard legs and bats there was a transition where elongated digits helped the rodents to climb on and clutch surfaces… So rather than hindering locomotion with ‘bad legs’, having longer digits allowed for new opportunities in both escaping predators and finding food in new places.

And I’d still argue that ‘limbs with longer digits that can clutch things’ sounds an awful lot like primitive arms.

On insects; okay, you got me there. Insect wings evolved from legs. I’ll concede defeat on that one. But let’s face it; insects had enough limbs for locomotion that the transitional stages of wing evolution wouldn’t have slowed them down one bit.

I did think of another ‘legs into wings’ example, though, and I should call myself on it since you missed it. Microraptor had wings on both its arms AND back legs.

The thing you have to remember, though is that Microraptor was a rebel. He took no guff from nobody; not nature, not science, and certainly not from that fascist truant officer who was always breathing down his neck. Everyone tried to tell Microraptor that it was crazy (CRAZY, I tell you!) to try and fly with four wings. But Microraptor wouldn’t listen. He was filled with sneering confidence and malt whiskey, so he climbed up that conifer, spread his leg wings wide and went for it. For a brief time he felt like the king of the Cretaceous era. The wind was in his proto-feathers, and all was right in the world… But his victory was short lived as he crashed headlong into the neighborhood liquor store.

Microraptor didn’t survive his injuries that day. A small memorial was held at his High School. His girlfriend Tiffani was devastated and never really recovered. You’d see her working as a waitress at the Pangaea Diner, a vacant and dead look in her eyes.

From that sad day, whenever a therapod got the wild idea of having wings on their back legs, they all remembered poor, reckless microraptor, and cooler heads went on to prevail.

I wish this idea that you must be able to defend your belief (or non-belief) in something at a PhD level that DanD is holding us to was implemented in the Xtian world. In my experience, most defense of criticism there comes down to, “It’s in the bible”.