14 thoughts on “AS211: Matt Dillahunty and Blake Giunta, Part 2”

  1. Very entertaining. Thanks everyone for taking the time.

    I still think we’re debating the existence and ETA of someone not very much more interesting or consequential than Godot. A god that hides him/herself for any reason kind of forfeits any right to demand worship or any other kind of recognition or compliance. The game doesn’t start until God makes him/herself known. And then it’s over. Bummer.

  2. I listened to it all, but a good portion of it was boring/irritating. Whats the point of treating assumptions 1-5 seriously, if there is no testable outcomes? To me, the only reason to make assumptions is to make progress. Blake’s assumptions are circular and add nothing to our collective bank of knowledge. Sorry to say, it just seems like mental masturbation… the people doing it have fun, but there is very little long term gain.
    If we could get some of those assumptions killed off or weakened or abandoned, that would have been a gain. I guess thats what I was was hoping for in listening to this, but the focus was mostly on working within the assumptions.

    I love Matt, but please dont have him back to talk on this subject. Other subjects, YES!

    1. Matt enjoys this stuff, and I honestly think Matt will eventually help Blake become a rational, reasonable thinker (Atheist).

      Blake is so smart and then so dumb at the same time, it blows my mind.

      The whole argument I was imaging them talking about Three headed monsters or Tribbles instead of the word G.O.D. Because as Blake speaks the whole time he doesn’t realize his argument is just as good at proving a three headed monster. In other words, it’s circular.

      Well god could do this and that and this and that. Well so could a three headed monster.

      Just because you imagine a G.O.D is great and perfect does not mean we should bother to waste our time explain why it’s wrong as a GOD vs a Three Headed Monster.

      Complete Naval gazing.

    2. Blake will make some comment about logic and how that or this isn’t true because logic and then Matt would question his justification (why god is perfect for example) and his response, well …. that’s just what i believe.

      Like he gets some philosophical pass because he wasn’t using logic.

      No you don’t, if you can’t justify your belief, then it’s not logical. Matt gave him a big pass at one point in the first part I forget where. Matt was speechless for a few seconds right after Blake made some claim, dangit I forget where.

  3. There is literally nothing more annoying than listening to the semantic word games that comprise this (and most) type of apologetics.

    Low key, it seems like a huge waste of the opportunity to have Matt on the show. The 2-3 appearances from blake that come to mind have all been similar apologetics like this, and frankly it’s just too irritating after the premises have all been laid down and everyone involved knows which type of bending of logic the apologist will be employing today.

      1. Definitely enjoy the show, i suppose i prefer a more conversational discussion if the debate format seems to go off the rails. Also suppose that any time people are debating a third persons positions, quite a bit of signal crossing is bound to happen.

        Either way, didnt mean to sound overly critical at all. You do in the post mortem say that you find blakes arguments quite lacking, so we may have wound up in the same place at the end of the day.

        …and the real reason to reply, lol… ‘low key’ just makes something an aside.

        Thanks for the show man, keep it up.

  4. I am an atheist, but I want to point out that Matt was incorrect in asserting that Blake was using circular reasoning. Blake wasn’t trying to prove god exists (if he was, then, yeah, starting with the premise god exists would be circular), just that Schellenberg hasn’t proved god doesn’t exist. Schellenberg’s “proof”, as I understood it from the episode, was that, assuming the god in question does exist, there could be no non-believers, which there are, so the premise is false. Blake just has to show that the premise hasn’t been proven false, so he has to show that, while assuming this god exists, we can still reasonably expect to find non-believers in the world, so, of course, he can start with premise used in the original “proof”, that god exist.

    Also, FYI, I enjoyed the show

  5. It sort of reminded me of times I’ve seen an academic (Blake) on a show with a political pundit (Matt). They both were trying to do something totally different in the conversation than the other person. Like they were each having a different conversation.

    Unlike a lot of commenters, I actually think Blake wasn’t being dumb or circular at all. He came to talk about a very particular argument in philosophy and his counterpart wasn’t interested in it and then they had no disagreement when it come to Matt’s weaker version.

    I’ve spent a lot of time listening to Matt and I think his interactions with the more fundamental theists have produced a very specific approach to the dialogue that just isn’t really appropriate with Blake. Matt sticks to a very safe agnostic atheism and is never willing to take on any burden of proof. I think a better person for the job would have been a stronger atheist who would actually be willing to take up the real argument of divine hiddenness and talk about Blake’s actual answers to it.* Someone like Dr. John R Shook perhaps? At the very least he’s actually interested in the actual content of philosophy of religion.

    Surely we can do better than just hide behind not having the burden of proof all the time? Schellenberg actually has something to say. In contrast Matt’s weak version of the argument really doesn’t. When you can present your entire argument and a theist goes “I completely agree with all of it” it does zero work.

    * In the last half of this episode Matt (and Thomas) finally start dealing with some of the content of Blake’s presentation but then things get derailed in accusations of assuming the conclusion and circular reasoning which were totally inappropriate given what Blake was responding to when he said the things he did (as in, as an answer to Shellenberg).

    1. You sound like a very sharp listener, Matt. I think you summarized very accurately here. I’ll look into Dr. Shook and maybe see about extending an invitation. Thanks for the comment!

      1. Sorry about the double post. I had a javascript issue and didn’t think it went through.

        There’s a youtuber called Ozymandias Ramses II that was one of Dr. Shook’s grad students and he might be interested in your show as well. He’s very capable in terms of philosophy.

  6. It sort of reminded me of times I’ve seen an academic (Blake) on a show with a political pundit (Matt). They both were trying to do something totally different in the conversation than the other person. Like they were each having a different conversation.

    Unlike a lot of commenters, I actually think Blake wasn’t being dumb or circular at all. He came to talk about a very particular argument in philosophy and his counterpart wasn’t interested in it and then they had no disagreement when it come to Matt’s weaker version.

    I’ve spent a lot of time listening to Matt and I think his interactions with the more fundamental theists have produced a very specific approach to the dialogue that just isn’t really appropriate with Blake. Matt sticks to a very safe agnostic atheism and is never willing to take on any burden of proof and his go to argument is basically to accuse his opponent of assuming their conclusion.

    I think a better person for the job would have been a stronger atheist who would actually be willing to take up the real argument of divine hiddenness and talk about Blake’s actual answers to it.* Someone like Dr. John R Shook perhaps? At the very least he’s actually interested in the actual content of philosophy of religion.

    Surely we can do better than just hide behind not having the burden of proof all the time? Schellenberg actually has something to say. In contrast Matt’s weak version of the argument really doesn’t. When you can present your entire argument and a theist goes “I completely agree with all of it” it does zero work.

    * In the last half of this episode Matt (and Thomas) finally start dealing with some of the content of Blake’s presentation but then things get derailed in accusations of assuming the conclusion and circular reasoning which were totally inappropriate given what Blake was responding to when he said the things he did (as in, as an answer to Shellenberg).

Leave a Reply to Baller14 Cancel reply