David Marshall debates Barry Duke
Back in late October, author David Marshall was kind enough to do a correspondence interview with us while he was on a research and speaking tour of Britain. One of his interview segments was on the topic of "The New Atheism" (in relation to a book he published last year on the topic).
As it happens, during his trip he was invited to debate Barry Duke (editor of The Freethinker, the world's oldest continuous sceptical publication) on Premier Radio in London, moderated by host Justin Brierly. (Premier Radio is a popular Christian station in Britain.) David thought the interview went pretty well, and appreciated the civil and lively discussion.
I haven't gotten around to listening to it myself--this is kind of a standing reminder to myself that I want to do so {g}--but interested readers can beat me to it, if you haven't done so already, by following this link and scrolling down to "The New Atheism". Be aware that the link is currently at the bottom of the list, and will probably move to page two once Justin posts up a new show podcast.
Try to keep comments on topic to the interview, please; I'm sure we'll have more posts in the future where NA methodology and content can be generally debated (just as we've had in the past).
As it happens, during his trip he was invited to debate Barry Duke (editor of The Freethinker, the world's oldest continuous sceptical publication) on Premier Radio in London, moderated by host Justin Brierly. (Premier Radio is a popular Christian station in Britain.) David thought the interview went pretty well, and appreciated the civil and lively discussion.
I haven't gotten around to listening to it myself--this is kind of a standing reminder to myself that I want to do so {g}--but interested readers can beat me to it, if you haven't done so already, by following this link and scrolling down to "The New Atheism". Be aware that the link is currently at the bottom of the list, and will probably move to page two once Justin posts up a new show podcast.
Try to keep comments on topic to the interview, please; I'm sure we'll have more posts in the future where NA methodology and content can be generally debated (just as we've had in the past).
Comments
I was initially a bit disappointed to the interviewer quality when he stated that he has not research if Darwin become a Christian on his death bed, but decided to play a tape someone claiming that it happen. What ever happened to Darwin, it would have only taken two minutes for the host to check his facts. It looks like to him promoting Christianity is more important than finding the facts. (I never understood why Christians insist on Darwin's conversion).
I agree about trying to play the Darwin conversion card, btw.
JRP
At least in my opinion.
(Though I might once I listen to the debate. {g} I probably won't get a chance to do so until Sunday afternoon, though: I still have a submittal to get out this week, plus some quotes, plus helping with the year-end accounting, plus my first book signing Saturday afternoon. {s!} Oh and editing the next HSIBAS entry for tomorrow. So, I'm understandably curious to read pre-reports.)
JRP
JRP
{{Morality discussion in the end was the best part, but the host was too nice to the atheist. He should have grilled him more.}}
I think Justin gave Barry several good opportunities to explain his moral foundation. Admittedly he could have pressed harder when Barry seemed to be deferring the actual question, but that would have run against the eirenic goal of the show, I think. (Plus, live interviews are notoriously difficult to get one's head together for. I'd be willing to bet Barry put up a print defense subsequently in TFT. {s} He sounded more nervous about being on air than David, too. That can make for problems.)
{{Guests were too nice to each other to provide additional entertainment value.}}
Meh, we get enough fang-out duels already. Admittedly those have their own entertainment value (and can even have positive contributional value), but personally I was glad for the lack of hostility on either side.
{{I was initially a bit disappointed to the interviewer quality when he stated that he has not research if Darwin become a Christian on his death bed, but decided to play a tape someone claiming that it happen.}}
I'll have to suppose that that was in the recap portion from a previous show, which I skipped. I don't recall hearing it in the actual debate, and I called myself listening pretty closely, though during the second half I was often in another room listening at a distance while doing upkeep/repair work on some system software. (I wondered if it was going to come up when Barry tried to insist that Hitler was a believing Christian, going mainly by evidence from Hitler's propaganda tome Mein Kampf... {wry g} But as far as I can tell, it never did.)
Justin shouldn't have allowed the deathbed legend to play unopposed in the recap portion either (perhaps; depends on whether he's in the habit of airing phone-comments in regard to previous shows regardless of content on either side.) But if he did, he could have done so as a producer catering to a scheduled format, not as a commentator or analyst.
(Note: if it wasn't in the recap portion, let me know; I was curious how it would factor into the actual debate, but if it was there all I can say is that I missed it completely somehow. A time cue will be fine for locating it.)
Anyway. For those who haven't listened yet, the debate is largely about relative social utility between the two beliefs.
JRP
Stay tuned.
JRP