Josh’s favorite Christian apologist, Dr. Randal Rauser, joins the show. Randal describes himself as “progressively Evangelical and generously Orthodox.” Josh asks him about open-mindedness, his observations about the pro-life movement, when it’s appropriate to call leaders out publicly, and the difference between an “agitation apologetics model” and an “agreement apologetics model.”
While Josh doesn’t agree with everything Rauser believes, that’s not the point, and this isn’t a debate episode. Josh found this to be a good opportunity to listen to the views of a very careful thinker in spite of the fact that they don’t agree on everything within the abortion debate.
Dobbs was a victory for the pro-life movement, ending a nationwide judicial ban on legislation to protect unborn humans. However, while it allowed the states to pass pro-life legislation, that’s all it did—allowed the unborn to be protected. Instead of being at the mercy of nine unelected justices, unborn humans are now at the mercy of voters across the country, including in states like California, New York, and Washington.
It’s not enough to allow human rights to be voted up or down in various states. It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the human rights of unborn children across the nation.
Josh Brahm and Monica Snyder have an open conversation about biology, philosophy, and how they interact with persuasion in the abortion debate. Monica has a STEM background so she and Josh compare notes on how STEM professionals and philosophers feel about each other, and why many of them are arrogant.
They also discuss:
– How arrogance, confidence, and impostor syndrome often interact with each other;
– The pros and cons of using big words; – Whether biology vs. philosophy are more likely to change minds on abortion;
– “Should we prioritize our arguments more based on whether they are influential, emotionally compelling, logically sound, or other factors?”