Tom Gilson

Street Epistemologist Supporting the Cause of Credulity

Here’s something that I think everyone, whether theist or atheist, believer or skeptic, should be able to agree on:

An evidence-oriented, scientific approach wants to explore all reasonably possible interpretations of data, gathering as much surrounding information as possible, so as to guard against bias and select the best possible interpretation from among all the possible choices.

A credulous approach draws conclusions based on insufficient information, and is especially eager to draw hasty conclusions from snippets of data that support prior beliefs.

Is that a fair statement?

With that in mind, is it possible that Dr. McGrew’s allusion to the “knock-out” could have been more thoughtful in its original context than street epistemologist Anthony Magnabosco wants to make it appear in this video? Wouldn’t an evidence-oriented viewer want to explore and find out, before jumping to any conclusions? Does Magnabosco’s quote-mining invite that kind of exploration?

Literate, educated people universally know that there’s only one way to discover what any writer or speaker intends any analogy to mean: by reading or listening to what they say about it. That information is missing in this video.

Is this video then more supportive of an evidence-oriented, scientific approach to knowledge, or of thoughtless, biased credulity?

A “street epistemologist,” for those who don’t know, is someone who practices “intervention” techniques taught by Peter Boghossian in his Manual for Creating Atheists. You can view Tim McGrew’s and my full discussion for more on this, and you’ll also hear what Dr. McGrew really meant about the “knock-out game.”  Magnobosco wants us to be embarrassed over it, but in context, for those with enough curiosity to push past credulity and explore the evidence, that just doesn’t work.

The series begins with:

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

35 thoughts on “Street Epistemologist Supporting the Cause of Credulity

  1. Did you read all of “A Manual for Creating Atheists” to your audience in these videos before quote-mining Dr. Boghossian’s proposed dedinitions of faith and presenting them out of context? I don’t recall that as I slogged through all seven…

    In any case, I’m interested to hear what your perception of Dr. McGrew’s knock-out game analogy was, and how Mr. Magnabosco’s refutation mischaracterized it.

  2. We read a whole lot more of it than Magnabosco played in his video.

    My perception of Dr. McGrew’s knock-out analogy is that he meant what he said.

    You can tu quoque all you want, but, “Did you read all of ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ to them?” is a straw man. No one does that kind of thing, and you know it. Educated and intellectually involved people do, however, handle analogies appropriately.

    The question at hand is this: what do we do with the fact that people who take Magnabosco’s video at face value aren’t exercising their education, which should lead them to understand that analogies have specific purposes, which can only be determined from their context. They’re not exercising their vaunted value of drawing conclusions from evidence alone. They’re not examining their own biases.

  3. If “no one does that kind of thing” (read a whole book to the audience before addressing quotes from it), then why would you imply that Mr. Magnabosco should have done the equivalent for this video?

    What portion of video 3 and/or 4 should he have included in order to make his refutation fair in your eyes? The language used by Dr. McGrew throughout the surrounding several minutes is tinged with the imagery of physical violence… “bam” “hit him” “preying”. If you both care about language and definitions as much as you say, then you would acknowledge this is a poor analogy that mischaracterizes what Street Epistemologists actually do. You want to accuse someone of sophistry and persuasion? Fine. But leave the violent, emotional imagery out of it.

    And aren’t you making quite an assumption that his viewers are NOT following the given links to evaluate the evidence for themselves?

  4. Metaphor.


    But what you don’t understand is that the emotional imagery is not out of place. Street epistemologists’ purpose is to talk people out of belief in God, which is to talk them out of life itself. That’s deadly. That matters.

  5. And aren’t you making quite an assumption that his viewers are NOT following the given links to evaluate the evidence for themselves?

    I didn’t make any assumptions at all about viewers. The question I asked was, “Does Magnabosco’s quote-mining invite that kind of exploration?… Is this video then more supportive of an evidence-oriented, scientific approach to knowledge, or of thoughtless, biased credulity?”

  6. “Literate, educated people universally know that there’s only one way to discover what any writer or speaker intends any analogy to mean: by reading or listening to what they say about it.”

    “My perception of Dr. McGrew’s knock-out analogy is that he meant what he said.”

    “But what you don’t understand is that the emotional imagery is not out of place. Street epistemologists’ purpose is to talk people out of belief in God, which is to talk them out of life itself. That’s deadly. That matters.”

    Sounds like Mr. Magnabosco got the context just right.

  7. A couple of questions and a comment…

    First, building off SRJ’s comment, in using the analogy of the knock out game, can you explain how you find that it applies to Anthony’s interviews? What specifically is Anthony doing in his interviews or in the way he approaches people that would lead you to characterize the encounter as an ambush? I’ve seen many of his videos and can’t find the connection so specific examples would be quite helpful.

    Second, are you asserting that your comments were taken out of context and your position was mischaracterized? If so, would you then explain how best to interpret them? I’ve started watching the videos (easy to do since all source materials were referenced by Anthony in his response) and haven’t yet come across anything that looks like Anthony is twisting what you’ve said. Again, please point out specific examples where you find this to be the case.

    Lastly, I disagree that SRJ’s comment can be classified as a tu quoque fallacy. She is commenting on how you are addressing Anthony’s arguments, not the argument itself. It appears that you’re criticizing Anthony for presenting excerpts of your talks and not the entire presentation while you admit to only presenting excerpts from Peter B.’s book. In your comment you even claim it would be ridiculous to expect such a thorough presentation of the source material. If my interpretation of your criticism is correct, then please explain why you would hold Anthony to a higher standard than you would expect from anyone else.

  8. Tim, have you viewed our video series? I think we’ve explained how the knock-out game analogy applies, and I think any viewer should also be able to discern what we are not saying applies.

    Were our comments taken out of context? Are you kidding???? Wow.

    I’m criticizing Anthony for presenting our comments without any hint of any attempt to encourage reasonable thought about the analogy he’s ridiculing. That’s not holding him to any higher standard.

  9. Sorry, I didn’t make my point clear.

    “Sounds like Mr. Magnabosco got the context just right.”

    As in, you and Dr. McGrew *do* equate Street Epistemology with physical violence. Mr. Magnabosco’s refutation doesn’t require any further contextual analysis of the quotes he used. What he shows is exactly what you mean. Thank you for clarifying.

  10. Tom,

    You didn’t actually answer my question about whether your comments were taken out of context. You merely restated it and expressed disbelief that I would even ask it.

    I’m not trying to be glib. Assuming your answer to the first question is “yes”, I’m asking what you consider to be taken out of context because I haven’t yet seen it (I’ve watched some of the series but haven’t yet made it through entirely yet. Trying to fit it in between work and family obligations.).

    You also didn’t answer the first question. In your videos, you liken Anthony’s approach to the knock out game by calling them both a type of ambush. What I’d like to know is what specifically have you seen him do that could be characterized in such a way.

  11. You merely restated it and expressed disbelief that I would even ask it.

    You understood that correctly.

    My answer to your first question was, “Have you viewed our video series?” Thanks for trying to get through it.

    The “ambush” parallel has to do with coming up to people without prior warning and asking them to address questions they haven’t really thought through, questions that often have a sophistical sense of significance (like rating one’s belief on a percentage scale), and leaving them to wonder after five minutes what just happened.

    Now, if you view the whole video, and if you really pay attention to what Tim McGrew said about the knock-out analogy in particular, you’ll know that we’re accepting some of the responsibility for the defenselessness of these interviewees. That’s a major part of what we’re trying to communicate, not just in this talk but in our other work.

    But we’re also pointing out that success in sophistry is hardly a worthy goal, and that there is indeed a great deal of error in critical thinking to be found in Boghossian’s street epistemology.

    Note carefully, by the way, when we did these talks. If I recall correctly (I haven’t reviewed it recently) the first one was before either of us had heard of Anthony Magnabosco. If you think we’re ignoring him there, there’s actually something else going on. Our criticisms were not of Magnabosco then, but of Peter Boghossian, whose “critical thinking” is of truly execrable quality.

    If you’ve viewed the second one to get the full context, thank you on behalf of the copyright owners (not me, but someone else), because that means you’ve paid for your access to it–it’s behind a paywall.

  12. Hey Tom,

    I can see what you mean by taken out of context. I think McGrew was pointing at the participants in these SE sessions weren’t properly educated in apologetics. The target audience for you and Dr. McGrew is for apologists. You were evaluating a new trend and explaining how to deal with it from the apologist perspective. That is why the emphasis was on the “knock out game” and the definition from Boghossian’s book.

    I have been following SE for ahwile now. Not just Anthony’s videos but others aswell. The emphasis on the definition of faith is irrelevant. In almost all of the videos, and even my SE exchanges, they allow the participant to define faith.

    The “knock out game” reference was to doing SE with people that aren’t informed about apologetics. In the sense that there is more than just “faith” as to why you believe what you believe. Correct me if im wrong please. However, most believers have never heard opposition to their belief. I think I touched on that during the atheist pannel last year. So what you’re saying is essentially by not providing contradictory ,in your perspective, evidence or reasoning. The SE is bypassing what a debate/argument format without taking the evidence or reasoning into account.

    I don’t think that is the case at all. What the SE is doing is asking if how they got there was reliable. In doing so it should lead them to a path of non-belief or into apologetics.

    Nice to talk to you again.

  13. “My perception of Dr. McGrew’s knock-out analogy is that he meant what he said.”

    Technically, if you’re using an analogy or metaphor, isn’t it the case that you don’t mean what you say?

    I get that SEists aren’t being accused of violence, but they are being called ‘thugs’. Sure, in some “metaphorical” sense, but it’s really not a nice thing to call someone. When someone engages in the actual knock-out “game”, the word ‘thug’ is highly appropriate, not because their victims are unprepared, but because it is non-consensual violence. They are actual thugs. (Well, technically the word comes from the Thugee, who engaged in even worse behaviour…)

    I’m sure that, with your “eager[ness not] to draw hasty conclusions from snippets of data that support prior beliefs”, you have sampled enough of Magnabosco’s videos to see that at least a few of his interlocutors have expressed appreciation for the discussion. What do you think might account for this?

  14. Technically, if you’re using an analogy or metaphor, isn’t it the case that you don’t mean what you say?

    Literate listeners know that he said what he meant, he meant what he said, and he said it using a metaphor. If you get that SEs aren’t being accused of violence, then you also know what he meant by “thugs.”

    His interlocutors have expressed appreciation for obvious reasons. It’s because (a) he’s a likable guy with a friendly approach who expresses interest in them, (b) they like talking about themselves and their beliefs, and (c) they don’t realize what kind of sophistry they’re being engaged with, because they have little training in critical thinking.

    So why would we still consider SE to be thuggish? It has a lot to do with the man behind it all, Peter Boghossian, who supposedly has training in critical thinking, and who therefore ought to know better than to teach and encourage SEs to practice street sophistry.

  15. I’ll just betcha that every person here who finds it hard to deal with obviously figurative language also thinks Christians take the Bible too literally.

  16. Tom, you said:

    … Street epistemologists’ purpose is to talk people out of belief in God, which is to talk them out of life itself. That’s deadly. That matters.

    I perceive the urgency of your concern here, but don’t understand what you mean by “talk them out of life itself”? Could you elaborate on what that means?


  17. So if I understand you correctly Tom, you 1) have very strong feelings about eternal life, and a person’s relationship with God/Jesus 2) You feel strongly that others would benefit from believing as you do, and 3) the SE movement could directly prevent people from having this same beneficial experience? Does that sound right?


  18. Let me add this, however. The language of feelings is inadequate. If I am right about eternal Iife in Christ, as I think I am, then my position is a matter of urgent and universal reality, not merely of feelings. If I am right, then God is your God as much as he is mine. Your future is in his hands. Your relationship with God determines your eternal future.

    I have strong feelings about that. Who could do otherwise? But it’s not merely about feelings.

  19. I think I understood everything after “the language of feelings is inadequate”; Basically, if you’re right then the urgency is understandable and your concern for my (and all unbelievers’) welfare is clearly commendable. I definitely get that. You compassion and concern for your fellow man is certainly evident.

    You didn’t elaborate on how/why the language of feelings is inadequate though, and that’s probably the part I’m not getting. Could you expand on that? What, other than feelings (which are inadequate), is it about?


  20. The language of feelings is inadequate because my convictions are not mere feelings. I do not merely feel these things, as you worded it in #20. I’m convinced they are actually true.

  21. So, are the “feelings” we’re talking about just the feelings about the urgency should your beliefs hold true? And the way you know they’re true is only because of evidence? Or, do the feelings have some bearing on how you know your beliefs are true, in addition to the evidence? I thought you were saying the latter, but maybe I misread, and you instead meant the former.


  22. Why do you ask about feelings again, j.h.? You’re the one who brought up feelings. I’m trying to tell you this is about convictions first, and feelings secondarily.

    The way I know this is true is through multiple means, including all sorts of evidence from history, philosophy, science, theology, sociology, and personal experience.

  23. I think the only reason I keep talking about feelings is because of your powerful emotional response to SE. It’s very evident, but I can’t understand what it is about SE that would spur this response from you, or anyone else. But you have, in fact, provided a pretty clear and direct answer to that in #20 above, so I’ll stop talking. (-: Thanks for your patience with me.


  24. Until you can show, not merely baldly claim, that there is something wrong in Boghossian’s critical thinking skills, I’ll feel free to reject your dismissal of him.

    It’s interesting to hear you call certain tactics “thuggish” when those tactics are a part of the repertoire I see in a lot of evangelism.

    I would especially like to mention //[interlocutors] don’t realize what kind of sophistry they’re being engaged with, because they have little training in critical thinking// and ask: Which would you prefer that people learn? Apologetics or critical thinking?

  25. Stephan, I’ve shown his critical thinking failures on this blog (use the search function, you’ll find plenty), I’ve shown it in my book on Boghossian, and we showed it in these lectures. It’s been more than adequately shown.

  26. I wrote a tu quoque comment in response to your tu quoque on apologetics vs. critical thinking, then I deleted it. I don’t wa not to get into that game. The point is that Boghossian has made his easily identifiable errors.

    I don’t think we’ve made similarly easily identifiable errors. If we have, no one has actually explained them. I’m not saying no one has said we made errors, but that no one has pointed at anything specific we’ve said in these videos and explained some error in it.

    If we have, then show me. If not, then barbed statements about some evangelists somewhere really have nothing to do with this subject, and should be dropped.

  27. Here, without any tu quoque, is the meat of my response on apologetics vs. critical thinking: it’s just a false dichotomy, a question based on a fallacious premise. That’s all. No need to answer further.

  28. A sort of flowing, drifting….. floating…..through a bit of seriousness mixed with a bit of levity……

    …… out of the S.E.’s (street epistemologist) silliness and through, say, three tiny, elementary steps to arrive at, well, not the S.E.’s silliness but, rather, the exacting steps of critical thinking:

    Step one…gently…. casually…..

    A bit of liberty to paraphrase Feser vis-à-vis the sound-bite of the S.E. (street epistemologist) and his prank:

    “The idea is that if God were not Being Itself then he could not possibly be the ultimate cause or explanation of things. Anything less than Being Itself would merely participate in being and thus be metaphysically less ultimate than that in which it participates; it would be a compound of actuality and potentiality rather than pure actuality, and thus require a cause which actualizes its potentials; and it would have an essence distinct from its existence and thus be metaphysically composite, where composites are metaphysically less fundamental than whatever principle accounts for their composition. Of course, that’s just a one-sentence summary……. But of course it would be quite silly for someone unfamiliar or unsympathetic with classical philosophy to expect me to provide him with a compelling primer on these complex ideas in the scope of a blog post a – [or in the 20 second sound-bite of a street ambush] – especially in a blog post [or street ambush] which has to address the gigantic range of sweeping assertions (about what counts as truly ”Christian” theism…… and so on) that [Atheists] casually fire off in these drive-by posts of [theirs]….. it is precisely the logic of theism itself – in particular, the logic of the key theistic idea that God is the ultimate cause or explanation of things – that drives the classical theist to characterize God as Being Itself. This characterization is thus by no means something extrinsic to theism, something arbitrarily tacked on. [S.E.’s] might not like this way of developing the idea of God…. But that is what it is a development of – and hence it is precisely a development of (rather than a reversal of, or an ad hoc addition to) ….. Christianity…”

    A few sips of water……nonchalantly…..perhaps a yawn……

    The alternative to that which just is “Necessary Being”, that is to say, that which is Pure Actuality, as per the insolvency vis-à-vis the Atheist’s paradigm is that strange abstraction of “self-sufficient nature” – of which we have no mind-dependent cognizance whatsoever, as David B. Hart touches on as we merge into:

    Step two… gently… casually strolling………

    “The most egregious of naturalism’s deficiencies, however, is the impossibility of isolating its supposed foundation – that strange abstraction, self-sufficient nature – as a genuinely independent reality, of which we have some cognizance or in which we have some good cause to believe. We may be tempted to imagine that a materialist approach to reality is the soundest default position we have, because supposedly it can be grounded in empirical experience: of the material order, after all, we assume we have an immediate knowledge, while of any more transcendental reality we can form only conjectures or fantasies; and what is nature except matter in motion? But this is wrong, both in fact and in principle. For one thing, we do not actually have an immediate knowledge of the material order in itself but know only its phenomenal aspects, by which our minds organize our sensory experiences. Even “matter” is only a general concept and must be imposed upon the data of the senses in order for us to interpret them as experiences of any particular kind of reality (that is, material rather than, say, mental). More to the point, any logical connection we might imagine to exist between empirical experiences of the material order and the ideology of scientific naturalism is entirely illusory. Between our sensory impressions and the abstract concept of a causally closed and autonomous order called “nature” there is no necessary correlation whatsoever. Such a concept may determine how we think about our sensory impressions, but those impressions cannot in turn provide any evidence in favor of that concept. Neither can anything else. We have no immediate experience of pure nature as such, nor any coherent notion of what such a thing might be. The object has never appeared. No such phenomenon has ever been observed or experienced or cogently imagined. Once again: we cannot encounter the world without encountering at the same time the being of the world, which is a mystery that can never be dispelled by any physical explanation of reality, inasmuch as it is a mystery logically prior to and in excess of the physical order. We cannot encounter the world, furthermore, except in the luminous medium of intentional and unified consciousness, which defies every reduction to purely physiological causes, but which also clearly corresponds to an essential intelligibility in being itself. We cannot encounter the world, finally, except through our conscious and intentional orientation toward the absolute, in pursuit of a final bliss that beckons to us from within those transcendental desires that constitute the very structure of rational thought, and that open all of reality to us precisely by bearing us on toward ends that lie beyond the totality of physical things. The whole of nature is something prepared for us, composed for us, given to us, delivered into our care by a “supernatural” dispensation. All this being so one might plausibly say that God – the infinite wellspring of being, consciousness, and bliss that is the source, order, and end of all reality – is evident everywhere, inescapably present to us, while “autonomous nature” is something that has never, even for a moment, come into view.”

    A few more sips….. serenely….

    From the stuff of Necessary Being we move to the stuff which Atheists desperately grab at in their vacuous attempt to fill in that metaphysical necessity (and they grab because they know they must) with intellectually muddled and metaphysically confused bits of five second sound-bites laden with feeble slices of the material order which are themselves ontologically contingent realities constituted of composite and mutable things, as we, almost without effort, stroll up to:

    Step three…. gently…. causally…..placidly…..

    Two of the Atheist’s fairly common escape hatches:

    1) New Data = Evidence for No-God

    2) Some degree of willing sacrifice to give up, surrender, in part or in whole, whatever it takes, the particular stuff which #2 is designed to evade, that stuff being: the legitimacy of the elemental categories of logic and the discriminatory powers of the intellect vis-à-vis reasoning perceiving an intelligible universe amid its orderly properties. The Atheists, here in #2, move into subtle intonations of eliminative materialism so as to free themselves from their own mind, that is to say, from Mind itself and thereby (they think) escape the inescapable pains of logic’s relentless inquiry in its unforgiving demand for lucidity through and through.

    A few sips of water……nonchalantly…..affably……

    As for #1, it is just bizarre for there could be no statements period about “This New Data” unless we already had the stuff of #2 in our hand to even fashion such statements in the first place. As for #2, that is such a desperate case that even the humility of “We do not as of yet know the answer to that” is laced through-and-through with the express fabric of #2’s ubiquitous presence, #2’s bothersome hold there in the subtext of D. Hart’s “legitimacy of the elementary categories of logic and the discriminatory powers of the intellect”. Skepticism’s capricious first principles behind Unintelligible Randomness must, to succeed in convincing us, borrow a painful chain of ontological IOU’s just to get off the ground. As if that’s not bad enough, the Bank it must borrow from has peculiar routes of funding, all its accounting being handled by One Uncanny Full Stop.


    Critical thinking emerges as a rather robust contradiction of Scientism’s hopes in the S.E.’s a priori given that, if Scientism is false and critical thinking in fact necessitates metaphysics / philosophy – and that *is* the case – then the conversation is forced to leave Scientism’s premises behind, to leave escape hatch #1 behind, to leave escape hatch #2 behind, and to, finally, move onward and outward into the wide open spaces of intellectual breathing room there in those broad thoroughfares which just do converge and sum to critical thinking which itself constitutes the stuff of “metaphysical accounting”.

    Enter stage right: Apologetics, whether of the Atheist’s paradigm or the Christian’s paradigm matters not, as, now, the critical accountability of first principles and of ultimate explanatory stopping points must all be put on the table by all participants and subjected to the meticulousness of logic’s relentless inquiry in its unforgiving demand for lucidity through and through, that is to say, for logical lucidity from A to Z.

    The proper response of the Christian is to first establish the motives of the questioner: Is this an academic accounting? Has a personal experience brought you to asking this question? Is this research? Then, given such an on-the-fly setting, the next statement should (perhaps) look something like this:

    “How did I arrive at “God Is”? Oh dear. I mean, there’s just so much….. Well, well, well. Where does one even begin? Metaphysics? The nature of being? Love’s ceaseless reciprocity in yours and my own (triune) moral landscape? Reason? The (triune) experience of being? The philosophy of mind? I mean….. how much time to do you have!?”

    To establish that they are serious, give them a list of 5 books and your email, and tell them you’d be happy to dissect the content of said five books when they’ve sorted through the relevant metaphysical accounting. And, of course, a friendly reminder that there is no such thing as, well, “free” real estate in the financing of said accounting.

  29. Precisely, you’d rather teach apologetics (“the discipline of defending a position (often religious)”) than critical thinking, specifically thinking about critical topics, how you came by your beliefs being in my view more important than defending a position most people probably merely inherited.

    But my Christian upbringing apparently didn’t teach me how to express myself in a way that you find acceptable, so, cheerio.

  30. Given that the apologetics of, the accounting of, any paradigm, whether of Philosophical Naturalism or of Theism, or what have you, just is the meticulous employment of metaphysics and of philosophy and of the physical sciences, Tom’s premise of, “Well, Critical Thinking vs. Apologetics amounts to a false dichotomy…” is clearly justified.

    Critical Thinking – that is to say – the stuff of Logic and of Reasoning emerge as fundamental, both as a Skill and as a prime slice of very, very expensive ontological real estate.

  31. Stephan @34,

    I was just at a conference this morning where Christian junior high and high schoolers are being taught the skills of critical thinking.

    I practice critical thinking the course of my apologetics, where critical thinking is defined as the application of valid reasoning in the course of interpreting evidences and arriving at conclusions.

    I do not practice another version of discourse sometimes also called “critical thinking,” which is best described as the use of rhetoric to arrive at a naturalistic conclusion, regardless of valid reasoning. That may seem like a harshly worded description, but I support it in the book True Reason.

    I do not mean to imply that every person who reaches a naturalistic conclusion reaches it in that manner, but I have observed that it’s not uncommon among the leading New Atheists and their followers.

    Now, so much (again) for your false dichotomy. I do not prefer to teach apologetics more than critical thinking, or vice versa, for they are two sides of the same coin.

    And really, that’s enough evidence-free psychologizing anyway. If you think I prefer one thing over another, it would do your position some good to explain why anyone should believe it, other than the fact that your bias leads you to that (false) dichotomy. In other words, if you’re going to accuse me of something, try to word it in some form more substantial than your thinly veiled, “Hey, Tom, do you know what? You’re stupid.”

    You say I won’t address something like this:

    how you came by your beliefs being in my view more important than defending a position most people probably merely inherited.

    How did you come by that belief?


    How did you come by it?

    Have you examined the relevant evidence? Do you know whether I’ve ever addressed it? Have you, for example, observed the hundreds of thousands of words I’ve devoted to the way in which I’ve become confident of the truth of my beliefs? (How one comes by beliefs is far less important than how one establishes that one’s beliefs are true or false.)

    I charge you here with the very fault you have charged me with: evidence-free conclusion-making.

    And you don’t even see it in yourself. That’s sad.

    But my Christian upbringing apparently didn’t teach me how to express myself in a way that you find acceptable, so, cheerio.

    Do you have any idea how many different response you open yourself up to there? But I won’t.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy