Topics discussed:
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
About Matt Nelson
Show Notes and Mentioned Resources
wordonfire.institute – Word on Fire Institute
https://bishopbarronbooks.com/arguing-religion-book – for Arguing Religion, Bishop Barron’s new book
– Bishop Barron at Google –
– Bishop Barron at YouTube –
https://amzn.to/2IUKSDQ – For Matt’s book, Just Whatever: How to Help the Spiritually Indifferent Find Beliefs that Really Matter
Related Episodes
…
How to Be Better at (Almost) Everything
Be sure to snag a copy (or two!) of Pat’s new book How to Be Better at (Almost) Everything while it’s still on sale over at Amazon here for just $14: ==> https://amzn.to/2MHdHSh
Want some cool bonuses to go with, including an intense 5-day fitness plan, and a collection of 1-page skill building cheatsheets? Then simply email us at PatFlynn(at)Chronicles(of)Strength(dot)com with your receipt, and we’ll send them right along.
…
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Mallory Jackson says
Interesting discussion about bland tolerance and violence. A false dichotomy? That’s food for thought because it’s always been conventional wisdom when it comes to faith. I was confused about what you meant by religious argument Matt Nelson. One of my biggest concerns is discussing faith with anyone because it always seems uncomfortable and sometimes I feel out of my league. I’m learning a bit coming here, but I just don’t know if I have the background to have an informed argument (as you define it) with someone about faith.
Michael Rickard II says
Intelligent and rational discussion? That’s all but unheard of when people talk about anything whether it’s their favorite TV show or their faith (not that I’m equating the two things). Matt’s analogy about hockey fights was right on the money. I know from my days as a legal beagle that I could argue with an opponent in court and still maintain a good relationship. Now, in some cases, a person is going to enter an argument without an open mind. As you say Pat, people should go into an argument with the goal of having a better understanding of what they’re discussing. When a person is just going to argue without an open mind, there’s a question of whether I should engage them. I truly gained a better understanding of what arguments made so thanks Pat and Matt. Now when I discuss things with friends, it doesn’t have to seem personal when we might disagree on things.
Jeff Beyer says
I just listened to the broadcast of the conversation between Pat and Matt and loved it. I was very interested in the part of the discussion about voluntarism- will preceding reason.
Just last night I was reading a section of Fr. James Schall’s “On Islam” and he talks bout the inability of a true dialogue between Islam and Christianity because the dominant view of Allah in Islam is one of voluntarism. I was not aware, but Fr. Schall says that in Islam, it is thought that Allah can today say one thing is true and then tomorrow can say the opposite is true. That is wild.
I would love to hear the two of you delve into that more!