This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Catholic Answers Live with Sean Faircloth

Catholic Answers Live with Sean Faircloth - Comments

(R)evolutionist's Avatar Comment 1 by (R)evolutionist

Everything you say on their show can and will be used against you. Or in other words: You call - they cut you off - you will have to listen to them talking about you being an ignorant sinner and how you are the perfect proof of their theories

As sad as it is

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:20:53 UTC | #894192

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 2 by Neodarwinian

Associate professor of philosophy at the Pasadena city college.

I think that about sums up his CV! 0 = 0.

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:26:30 UTC | #894219

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 3 by aquilacane

Where?

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:33:17 UTC | #894237

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 4 by QuestioningKat

"a so-called former atheist turned Catholic named Edward Feser."

This is why it is so important that when you finally do not believe, that you continue learning as many arguments as possible. I was 18 when I finally figured out that there was no God, but because I did not do any further study and learn more viewpoints (no internet back then) I became agnostic, then took a road similar to Julia Sweeney. It's much harder losing faith the second time around, but I'm glad I had the perseverance and tolerated the hell that I went through. I still feel as if I need to learn more before I make any declaration - lest I fall of the wagon again. It is much less likely. Internet sites have taught me well.

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:48:37 UTC | #894242

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 5 by Alan4discussion

"sin darkens the intellect and makes you stupid", i.e. implying that atheists are only atheists because of our "sin". And Feser called RD a "loud mouth ignoramous".

As I have pointed out here to the assertive ignorant from time to time: All knowledge is arrogant from the viewpoint of ignorance. Beyond a certain profound level of ignorance it begets know-it-all confidence. David Dunning and Justin Kruger have quoted Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge") - as in the absence of any scientifically verified knowledge whatever, any simplistic wild ideas can seem credible to the incredulously ignorant, while any technical details are far beyond their grasp!

"a so-called former atheist turned Catholic named Edward Feser."

Pathetic viewpoints usually need some endorsement from an "authority figure", to add perceived weight and credibility to their absence of substance!

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:21:59 UTC | #894253

Sample's Avatar Comment 6 by Sample

I'd like to think that shows like these are tangible signs that evidence-based claims about reality are capturing the attention of those who employ faith-based claims about reality. Yes, the nonsense is frustrating, but overall I think this is a win on the long road to ending superstition and/or classifying it as a mere hobby of the future.

In other words, people are talking. That is an encouraging sign.

P.S., Catholicism has a subtle advantage they press at every turn: Discriminatory comments are never official doctrine, but the culture of Catholicism is so large, that radio shows like these, etc., effectively do the Church's dirty work without leaving any breadcrumbs back to Rome. It's a brilliant strategy (either explicitly or implicitly condoned) and I've been waiting for the book or essay that tackles this reality to be published.

Mike

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:22:53 UTC | #894255

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 7 by alaskansee

@ sample,

Yes I enjoyed the way any discussions that conflicted with the overlords is quickly sidelined as something that has been discussed earlier. Should have been there I guess.

It was over all, after an hour of patient listening, utterly appalling and without any substance whatsoever! It really was like a couple of school kids discussing Santa's sled and how it operates. Sean stuck his nose in to point out that it has yet to be established that Santa isn't just your mum and dad.

That went well. :-(

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:26:54 UTC | #894313

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 8 by susanlatimer

I listened to it. It was brutal.

The host was appalling. Every legitimate point that Sean brought up was evaded and when Sean brought up morality, the host used the old "How can you talk about morality if you don't believe in god?" and then the "philosopher" was obsessed with Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig.

It was infuriating.

I go through phases thick and thin between anger and hope of making rational contact.

Right now, I'm thick with anger.

Pompous ignoramuses.

What evidence do you have? How complicated is that? How can you possibly evade that question and still think there's anything worth asserting?

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 06:25:59 UTC | #894318

Sample's Avatar Comment 9 by Sample

alaskansee & susanlatimer,

Yes the host and the guest employed childish rebuttals and/or dodges. They really did. But without a doubt, Sean took the alotted time (which was surprisingly ample) and made it his "bitch" as they say in the vernacular. :-j

No fence-sitting Catholic could ignore his points. Bravo Sean!

Mike

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 06:56:41 UTC | #894322

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 10 by susanlatimer

Comment 9 by Sample

True enough. Sean's points were well made and when I was a fence-sitting catholic, they would have stuck with me.

It might have taken a few years because the argument from ignorance and the argument from authority are very powerful things but Sean's presence would be key for me, even if not immediately.

It just makes me furious though that a guy with a philosophy degree ignored first year philosophy so dishonestly, as did the host. Aquinas. Aquinas. Aquinas. As though no one ever addressed Aquinas' arguments.

I know from experience that they don't sway catholics who've studied philsophy. They mostly sway catholics who haven't studied philosophy by implying that if they HAD studied philsophy, they'd agree with Aquinas.

I agree though. Way to go, Sean. Nicely done.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:05:03 UTC | #894323

DorianK's Avatar Comment 11 by DorianK

Honestly, this didn't fair very well in my point of view. Sean kept answering questions with attacks on the catholic church belief rather then answer the question. He gave lawyer speak and red herrings for a debate about philosophy and theology. I was hoping to get enlighten with atheist view but didn't get it. The needless attacks even come in this blog post:

so-called former atheist turned Catholic

really? do you need to say "so-called"?

And then you hurl more hate by tell everyone to

inundated [this show] with atheist callers.

This is just destructive behavior and doesn't help anyone.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:26:10 UTC | #894325

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 12 by susanlatimer

Comment 11 by DorianK

Honestly, this didn't fair very well in my point of view. Sean kept answering questions with attacks on the catholic church belief rather then answer the question. He gave lawyer speak and red herrings for a debate about philosophy and theology. I was hoping to get enlighten with atheist view but didn't get it. The needless attacks even come in this blog post:

Which questions did you feel that Sean didn't answer? How did he attack the catholic church beliefs instead?

Please provide some examples of lawyer speak and red herrings. Where did he fail philosophically? Why should he have responded to theology until catholics give at least one iota of evidence for the god they claim their theology is based on?

What needless attacks came in this blog post?

It's a very simple thing, as far as I can tell. The god that catholics claim exists does not exist and they take no responsibility for establishing that this god DOES exist.

Please explain why you believe this god exists or more importantly, why anyone ELSE should believe that this god exists.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:37:26 UTC | #894327

Quine's Avatar Comment 13 by Quine

Truly bad. The claim that the New Atheists don't know philosophy or the history of theology is just bogus. Our side has top tier philosophers and former theologians (some former clergy). The reason that we don't spend time on the old masters is that scientific discoveries after the time of Darwin have falsified so many of the premises upon which they did their thinking. Once that happens, you have to toss out what they did, no matter how aesthetically beautiful or moving it might be. Some great works can be brought forward, such as the Euthyphro example from Plato, but that was a rare case that made no supernatural assumptions and was not premised on anything that violates what we now know to be true.

Dr. Feser claims that Revelation must match what we find out about the natural world, but study of the natural world shows that the Genesis story never happened, so no Original Sin and no teleology for a Redeemer. You really can't get much farther out of match than that. As far as I can tell, Dr Feser has spent so much time picturing the world as seen by Aquinas et al., that the facts known by modern science have faded from his awareness.

Then there is the mudslinging. Dr. Feser calls Dr. Dawkins a "loudmouth ignoramus," and quite understandably, Sean is not going to sit and take that while WLC, who really is such, is held up as a counter example. And, it just gets worse thereafter.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:44:17 UTC | #894351

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 14 by Nunbeliever

I am a bit puzzled by many of the threads that are posted in the discussion section, since they really don't lay the ground for any discussion. But, perhaps I have misunderstood the point of this section?

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:45:42 UTC | #894364

Grundibular's Avatar Comment 15 by Grundibular

"so-called former atheist turned Catholic named Edward Feser"

I agree that "so-called" is not needed. Take people at face value. Take what they say at face value. There's no need to be second guessing or implying dishonesty.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:13:43 UTC | #894379

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 16 by Starcrash

Comment 1 by (R)evolutionist :

Everything you say on their show can and will be used against you. Or in other words: You call - they cut you off - you will have to listen to them talking about you being an ignorant sinner and how you are the perfect proof of their theories

As sad as it is

The atheist call-in shows - The Atheist Experience and Ask an Atheist - can and do cut people off. It's just the nature of the business. Whether Xian or Atheist, a caller can be profoundly stupid and found holding a weak argument. There's only so much time that you can grant someone who doesn't bring any new information to the debate.

I haven't heard this radio show yet, but I downloaded the .mp3. I'll give it a listen, and maybe I'll even call the show. But... as brave as I feel while writing arguments, I'd rather have the chance to consider the argument, reread my statements, and edit them. My name is Supernova, so you guys will recognize me if I do decide to call in.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:40:59 UTC | #894407

Sample's Avatar Comment 17 by Sample

Just the pairing of Catholic with Answers brings to mind the ridiculousness of Buddhist biology and Jewish physics. Why on earth would I want a potentially complex "Catholic answer" when a simple answer is hard enough to grasp?

It seems that self-mortification is alive and well if not of the physical stripe, certainly of the linguistic type.

I'd have to have a hole in my head to waste time (potentially on hold) for that.

Mike

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:47:31 UTC | #894436

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 18 by mirandaceleste

Comment 11 by DorianK :

And then you hurl more hate by tell everyone to

inundated [this show] with atheist callers.

That's not "hate". Really, it's not. You may want to choose your words a little more carefully in the future.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:56:44 UTC | #894478

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 19 by Alan4discussion

Comment 13 by Quine

Truly bad. The claim that the New Atheists don't know philosophy or the history of theology is just bogus.

It is a well known fact, that most atheists cannot follow "Catholic reasoning", to arrive at the same conclusions as RCs do! (No surprise there!) Perhaps that is what the apologists are saying, when it is translated from theospeak!

Catholic Answers

To all scientific questions - Easy peasy!

god-did-it,

god-did-it,

god-did-it,

god-did-it,

Repeat as necessary;

Fill in the run ups to these conclusions with any obscure obfuscation and any big scientific words which come to hand, and try to sound philosophical. (Quantum is always good for a start! Throw in a bit of postmodernism too for extra obscurity)

I think that covers it!

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:13:02 UTC | #894484

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 20 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 15 by Grundibular

"so-called former atheist turned Catholic named Edward Feser"

I agree that "so-called" is not needed. Take people at face value. Take what they say at face value. There's no need to be second guessing or implying dishonesty.

Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 6:13 AM | #894379

I'm not sure if he was alluding to this at all, and you could be right. But there are numerous psychological studies which show that Christians (and probably more sects) who are "born again" often describe themselves as athiests before their epiphany. Research into the history of these individuals reveals that most were at least professing Christianity before their "conversion." The epiphany is so life changing that they tend to disavow their previously held religious beliefs as insincere. One of my good friends is a "born again" Christian who describes himself as an atheist until his epiphany, even though he was a member and attendee of a church. I am not certain that Faircloth is aware of this but he certainly might be.

Even epiphanic religious conversions take time--usually quite a bit--until the person is overwhelmed by an existential experience and "converts."

On the other hand, if he was just trying to be mean-spirited, I agree with you.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:14:28 UTC | #894485

Patrick Coffin's Avatar Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin

What an education I just received in reading this thread. In Hollywood shorthand, the sum total of the sentiments expressed here is Childish Ad Hominem Meets Sarcastic Red Herring. Fine, you disagree with Catholic teaching and theism in general. But why is the air is so thick with anger in here?

As the host of Catholic Answers Live, while I am very far from perfect, I deliberately highlight contrary opinions and let any caller ask anything. The Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate; and since we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the truth is what we're after. The fact is, I kept Sean Faircloth on for four times longer than most callers. I have to agree with DorianK: When Dr. Feser asked him the simple question, "Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig?" he repeatedly dodged it, preferring instead to use his time to attack aspects of Catholicism that offend him.

Just a suggestion: it would be refreshing to see at least one of you combox pontificators step out of the atheism echo chamber and voice your objections and arguments on live radio. It's easy to be brave in your basement. Consider stepping into the sandbox where real arguments happen. The toll free phone number is (888) 318-7884. If you self-identify as an atheist from this site, I'll ensure you get on first. You'd be welcomed with respect and courtesy. We air Monday - Friday for two hours 6-8 PM EST or Channel 130 on Sirius, and around the world here: www.catholic.com/radio.

Thanks for your time. [Preaching removed by moderator]

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:55:18 UTC | #894493

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 22 by Alan4discussion

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin

we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the truth is what we're after.

Ah! The troooff! (See19) Start with the conclusion in the (special) definition, and then construct a question-begging circular argument ------

The Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate; and since we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the truth is what we're after.

.. and call it "reason" (also see19) Funny, when its members come here for debate their evidence and reason usually seems to be missing, - but this sort of prerequisite question-begging often features..

"Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig? he repeatedly dodged it,

OOOOoooh! it's such a big secret!?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig

Consider stepping into the sandbox where real arguments happen.

Actually real arguments happen here, but they remain on record for the analysis of unevidenced assertions, irrational claims, dishonest tricks and various forms of paradox. - but then we debate real science here, so don't need specially contrived pseudo-answers.

@OP "sin darkens the intellect and makes you stupid",

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin - the sum total of the sentiments expressed here is Childish Ad Hominem Meets Sarcastic Red Herring.

I think this is what is known as "a theist mirror projected image". (see19) A common substitute for a reasoned answer. RC Sin = dogma before human suffering. Not what I would call moral!

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:37:07 UTC | #894510

Alex, adv. diab.'s Avatar Comment 23 by Alex, adv. diab.

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin :

What an education I just received in reading this thread.

The best education is often free...

In Hollywood shorthand, the sum total of the sentiments expressed here is Childish Ad Hominem Meets Sarcastic Red Herring.

Oh sure, like you, someone who wants to burn all atheists at the stake, would know.

Like that? :)

Fine, you disagree with Catholic teaching and theism in general. But why is the air is so thick with anger in here?

Because people feel that the catholic church promotes an unethical, misanthropic and misogynist agenda, and that in addition your obfuscating debate technique is a slap in the face of rational inquiry, and all this angers them. It's those stupid values, it turns out atheists have them.

As the host of Catholic Answers Live, while I am very far from perfect, I deliberately highlight contrary opinions and let any caller ask anything. The Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate; and since we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth,

That's the axiom you start with? I find that an obstruction to free inquiry, to put it mildly.

the truth is what we're after. The fact is, I kept Sean Faircloth on for four times longer than most callers.

That's fine. He is not just any caller.

Just a suggestion: it would be refreshing to see at least one of you combox pontificators step out of the atheism echo chamber and voice your objections and arguments on live radio.

Uh, sounds like an invitation! Who's up for some fun?

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:39:45 UTC | #894511

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 24 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin

the Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate

Are you joking? Tell it to the Brazilian child who was excommunicated at age 9 (was it 9 or 11) for having her rapist's fetuses aborted to save her life. Tell it to the pope who lies about condom use spreading aids. Tell it Galileo and Bruno and the tens of thousands of people who were executed by the RC church because they didn't believe in the same superstition.

As for debating WLC, I wouldn't debate him either. I wouldn't even be caught in the same room with that piece of shit who has no morals of his own, but gets them from goatherd tales.

Peace

JHJ

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:57:42 UTC | #894518

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 25 by Starcrash

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin :

What an education I just received in reading this thread. In Hollywood shorthand, the sum total of the sentiments expressed here is Childish Ad Hominem Meets Sarcastic Red Herring. Fine, you disagree with Catholic teaching and theism in general. But why is the air is so thick with anger in here?

As the host of Catholic Answers Live, while I am very far from perfect, I deliberately highlight contrary opinions and let any caller ask anything. The Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate; and since we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the truth is what we're after. The fact is, I kept Sean Faircloth on for four times longer than most callers. I have to agree with DorianK: When Dr. Feser asked him the simple question, "Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig?" he repeatedly dodged it, preferring instead to use his time to attack aspects of Catholicism that offend him.

Just a suggestion: it would be refreshing to see at least one of you combox pontificators step out of the atheism echo chamber and voice your objections and arguments on live radio. It's easy to be brave in your basement. Consider stepping into the sandbox where real arguments happen. The toll free phone number is (888) 318-7884. If you self-identify as an atheist from this site, I'll ensure you get on first. You'd be welcomed with respect and courtesy. We air Monday - Friday for two hours 6-8 PM EST or Channel 130 on Sirius, and around the world here: www.catholic.com/radio.

Thanks for your time. [Preaching removed by moderator]

Brave of you to step into The Lion's Den.

Having heard Sean's call, I agree - he dodged the questions, and wanted a soapbox to preach. Is this what you also wanted here? Thanks to the moderator, I can only assume it, but I really don't know.

I've addressed this issue of William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins myself, and my answer is still the same - William Lane Craig is objectively a better debater. Debating involves skills of preparation, organization, communication, and summarizing, which can be gained through both training and practice. William Lane Craig has a lot of both, and Richard Dawkins has little of either. There's a good reason why theists want to hear this debate, and why they aren't calling for a debate between Richard Dawkins and somebody other than Craig.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig could argue the atheist side of the debate much better than any of us.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:31:58 UTC | #894525

Quine's Avatar Comment 26 by Quine

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin:
When Dr. Feser asked him the simple question, "Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig?" he repeatedly dodged it, preferring instead to use his time to attack aspects of Catholicism that offend him.

Patrick, I suggest you continue your education, here, by viewing the several threads we have on debates, especially the ones with WLC. Sean was not obliged to speak to what Richard Dawkins thinks is worth his time, but you should know some of the context. A few years ago there was a publicity stunt by the media preacher, Ray Comfort, to increase Ray's perceived stature by getting Richard to "debate" him. Richard refused to do so and Ray dogged him about it, for a while, and then went away. There has been quite a bit of discussion about that, here, and I can only summarize the part of it I know, but you can read the threads and reach your own conclusions. The short form is that Richard Dawkins spends his time writing books and giving lectures; others are welcome to do the same. To get a view of what the religious side has written to play catch-up, please read the review that Paula Kirby wrote and the thread that discussed the same.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:41:10 UTC | #894527

Quine's Avatar Comment 27 by Quine

Starcrash: In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig could argue the atheist side of the debate much better than any of us.

WLC has worked his rhetoric skill up to be his form of performance art. Yes, he could give the performance just as well on either side. That is because he does it with empty words in a context where form trumps content.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:48:38 UTC | #894528

Moderator's Avatar Comment 28 by Moderator

Moderators' message

We have recently had a very long thread about WLC, which has been linked to above. In the interests of not repeating the discussion that took place there, we would ask users to ignore any bait proffered to lure them down that route again on this thread, and to remain focused on the main topic of the OP.

Thank you.

The Mods

Terms of Use

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:52:51 UTC | #894531

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 29 by Starcrash

You're right, moderator. Besides, Mr. Coffin gave us a perfectly good forum to continue this argument.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:55:47 UTC | #894534

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 30 by mirandaceleste

Comment 21 by Patrick Coffin :

The Catholic Church is madly in love with reason and philosophical debate; and since we hold that Jesus Christ is the truth, the truth is what we're after.

Oh, wow. Um, well, you've demonstrated that you're "madly in love" with circular reasoning, I'll give you that much.

Just a suggestion: it would be refreshing to see at least one of you combox pontificators step out of the atheism echo chamber and voice your objections and arguments on live radio. It's easy to be brave in your basement. Consider stepping into the sandbox where real arguments happen.

FYI: being a condescending jerk is not an effective way of showing us how very open-minded you are.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:09:08 UTC | #894540