This particular episode of an otherwise challenging and entertaining podcast was a disappointment. Phil and Skye are two intelligent, reasonably-well-informed guys who, in their discussion of atheism, fell back on reasoning that sounds good only in the evangelical echo chamber.

The low point was the story about the frat bro who admitted that he wouldn't believe in God even if God were proven because he wanted to continue to have sex with his girlfriend. The implication: "See, those atheists are intellectually dishonest! They'll never listen to evidence because they don't want to obey God!"

Phil calls for a retreat into Stephen J. Gould's non-overlapping magisteria because God, after all, is beyond scientific investigation. He is not part of nature - he is supernatural. That's actually the God of the philosophers, and the corollary in philosophy is that such a God is unknowable, because he stands outside our universe.

This, of course, isn't the evangelical position at all, nor is it biblical. Phil and Skye know this, but they don't seem to notice how they effortlessly switch, when they need to, to the God who is so involved in our lives that he answers prayer, does miracles, and can be known personally. That's the biblical position, but notice that it brings God into our universe and has him taking actions which could be investigated and proven or falsified.

When Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins say, "Well, you don't need God to explain this or that", the evangelical thing to do is to retreat to "God is above nature", that is, invisible. So how do we know he is there? "Because of all the miracles he does, and because people I know and people I have read about say they have a relationship with him". So God is above nature when science goes looking for him, but he's right here among us when I need him to be.

If Krauss and Dawkins are "desperate" as one of you said in the podcast, it may be desperation for a more cogent explanation than this.

It sounds like evidence (but only to fellow believers) to say, "Look at the miracles and answered prayer people claim, even people at my church!" But since people of every religion and superstition claim the same sort of thing, it doesn't sound like evidence at all to unbelievers. It sounds desperate.

Bottom line: This episode kicks at a straw man standing in for atheism. Sure, there are intellectually dishonest atheists who want to go on sleeping with their girlfriends (guess they haven't visited an evangelical church recently, since that kind of stuff isn't a big deal anymore). Are there intellectually dishonest Christians? Are there Christians, atheists, Muslims and Mormons who have never even asked the basic question, "How do I know any of this?" Are there people from all belief-systems who simply go along with whatever plausibility structure they inherit?

Of course. But that isn't what establishes or debunks their beliefs.

I'm an evangelical minister with good friends who turned to atheism after years of belief and training in the Christian faith and ministry. I can't dismiss their unbelief by looking for evidence of bad behavior they want to justify. On the contrary, in some cases their atheism is principled and costly, but they hold it because they are committed to truthful living.

For what it’s worth, I’d like to hear you revisit this topic sometime with an atheist who understands Christianity and rejects it on principle.