Randal Rauser: Conversation With My Inner Atheist

20 Questions With a Believer, Authors, Critique of Apologetics, Naturalism, Podcast
Randal Rauser
Listen on Apple Podcasts

My guest this week is Randal Rauser. Randal is, in his own words, “a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion.” He is a professor of systematic theology, aplogetics, and worldview at Taylor Seminary.

Randal has written a number of books on apologetics and atheism. I first became aware of Randal’s work around 2017 when I read “Is The Atheist My Neighbor.” At least in the circles I am a a part of, Randal is considered to be a fair and honest apologist and is widely regarded for “steel-manning” atheist arguments before giving his arguments against them.

My own shifting relationship with certainty and doubt, confidence and questioning, is reflected in my history with apologetics.

This week we discuss his new book, “Conversations With My Inner Atheist.” In this book, Randal personifies his doubts as an interlocutor named Mia, My Inner Atheist, who presents the atheist, humanist and naturalistic arguments against his faith. Randal shows real vulnerability in several of these dialogues and often leaves the matter without a satisfactory conclusion by either party (believing Randal or non-believing, Mia).

Instead, I believe that certainty can journey along with doubt, confidence can welcome questioning, and together they can work to create a healthy and balanced Christian community.

As you might imagine, I have some thoughts on these matters most of which I express in the Final Thoughts section of the podcast. We also discuss a recent back and forth between Randal and Ian Mills of the New Testament Review Podcast fame on the topic of methodological naturalism.

The truth is, I’d rather accept that there are some questions I may never answer rather than return to the simple days where I thought my answers were beyond question.

Links

Blog
https://randalrauser.com/

Twitter
https://twitter.com/RandalRauser

YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/RDRauser

Books

Discussions on Methodological Naturalism

Randal’s a Miracle isn’t a violation of the laws of nature

Ian Mills (a believer) defending methodological naturalism

Randal’s Respones to Ian
https://randalrauser.com/2020/09/methodological-naturalism-as-a-wet-firecracker-a-response-to-ian-n-mills/

Interact

My Critique of Apologetics
https://gracefulatheist.wordpress.com/critique-of-apologetics/

Send in a voice message

Support the podcast
Via Anchor.fm and Stripe
Via Paypal: paypal.me/gracefulatheist

Attribution

“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats

One thought on “Randal Rauser: Conversation With My Inner Atheist

  1. This was a great interview. David you should consider that you asked him why don’t believe in Mormonism why don’t you believe in Roman divinity and he explained why with cogent reasonable answers. In your ending monologue you say what if we replaced God with Allah. And you know what there are good reasons to prefer the Christian God to the Muslim God. Just because you or John Loftus never thought through the different reasons believing in one versus the other doesn’t mean others haven’t.

    Im not trying to convince you that you should be Christian. I am just trying to challenge your view that it is just a matter of honesty.

    Why are these phd candidates in history claiming they can’t justify the resurrection on historical grounds? It has nothing to do with historical analysis. I haven’t listened to the podcast with them yet but I can already bet that they did not talk about whether the miracles were multiply attested, whether they were against interest, whether they were close in time to the events, etc. In other words they are not saying they applied historical criteria to the questions and found them wanting. Rather the problem is that the current politics in history departments is to follow Hume’s argument on miracles even though it is a philosophical argument not one based on historical criteria. So they would not still be in this field if they disagreed with these basic philosophical claims. And even if they did disagree they wouldn’t say it out loud if they want a job from departments that are run by people like Bart Ehrman.

    Again there are specific historical criteria that historians use. Did they apply them to the miracle claims?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s