Point of Inquiry

There are dozens of bestselling books on spirituality for teens (and many more not on the bestseller list), and many books on atheism as well. But, surprisingly, books about atheism and agnosticism specifically for young people are rare indeed. David Seidman was perplexed by this lack of material for teenagers questioning faith, and that led him to write What If I'm an Atheist? A Teen's Guide to Exploring a Life Without Religion. In his conversation with Point of Inquiry’s Lindsay Beyerstein, Seidman discusses several techniques for young nonbelievers as to how best to come out to religious parents, and has advice on such things as dating and fitting into peer groups — all of which are all the more difficult when identifying with a minority belief. Teenagers are rebuilding their identities as adults and losing faith can be isolating and traumatic, making the need for this book long over due.

Peter Singer has revolutionized the way we think about morals and values. He’s lead the way in providing evidence for some of the toughest moral controversies such as animal rights, abortion, and wealth inequality. Singer’s newest book is entitled The Most Good You Can Do, and it's an exploration of the philosophical movement known as effective altruism; the desire to make the world its best possible version using reason and evidence.  This week on Point of Inquiry, Singer discusses how opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive, and how effective altruism uses science-based evidence and critical thinking to uncover moral facts and open a dialogue about what values are objectively going to benefit us the most.

Our guest this week says that the U.S. Supreme Court’s power to interpret the Constitution is so great that they can use it to justify nearly anything they please. Even the American founders who forged the Constitution often had differing ideas of how its words should be interpreted. But one thing they did not foresee was the Supreme Court having the final say over all constitutional interpretation. Ironically, the most unconstitutional practice that we have may be the Supreme Court’s absolute power to determine what is and is not considered constitutional.   This week Point of Inquiry’s Lindsay Beyerstein chats with Ian Millhiser, the author of Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted. Millhiser takes a close look at how the various Justices of the Supreme Court have behaved throughout history, and rather than being champions of equality and justice, he concludes that the Court has largely served to perpetuate inequality and hinder progress. Millhiser argues that the only positive contributions the Supreme Court has made were a result of historical accidents, and that the most productive times of legislation in America’s history were during periods in which the Supreme Court was relatively inactive.   It’s a sobering and critical look at the role of the Supreme Court, this week on Point of Inquiry.

While Bassem Youssef’s satirical voice has made him widely known as the Egyptian Jon Stewart, merely five years ago Youssef was a heart surgeon broadcasting humorous political commentary on YouTube from his laundry room. His videos soon exploded in popularity, and by 2011 he had moved his satirical show to television. In 2012 Jon Stewart invited Youssef to join him on The Daily Show, and shortly thereafter in 2013 Time Magazine named Bassem Youssef one of the “100 most influential people in the world.” Unfortunately, some would like to see his influence muted, and the political climate in Egypt has made it too dangerous for Youssef to continue producing his show.   On Point of Inquiry this week, Youssef is joined by international comedian Ahmed Ahmed and host Josh Zepps, and the three of them discuss the the role of satire in provoking real political change. Ahmed, like Yousself, has had to learn the hard way that satirists walk a fine line between pushing boundaries while trying not to break them.   Youssef is currently working with a senior producer at The Daily Show to create a documentary about Youssef’s journey of standing up to an entire regime with his fearless comedy, entitled Tickling Giants.

Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociology at Pitzer College, and among the world's leading experts in the growing field of secular studies, with a deep understanding of how people's lives are lived without religion. He’s the author of the books Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions, Society without God, and Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion. There is wide range of secular people, from hardcore atheists and secular humanists to those for whom religion is simply unimportant, and Zuckerman distinguishes between the vast majority of nonbelievers who live normal, upstanding lives, and the small minority for whom secularism is an organizing force. He discusses with Point of Inquiry host Lindsay Beyerstein how empathy, rather than belief in the watchful eye of a deity, is the guiding force of secular morality, and how religion can actually hinder society’s larger moral understanding.    It’s a fascinating inward look at our own community of skeptics and humanists, and you can learn even more from Zuckerman about his ideas and research at the  Reason for Change conference, where he’ll be among the many brilliant and provocative speakers. Reason for Change takes place July 11-15 in Buffalo, New York. Visit  reasonforchange.org for more!

Negotiations between Iran and the U.S. in concert with Germany and the United Nations Security Council are set to result in an agreement on March 31, 2015 regarding Iran’s nuclear program, potentially restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Senior Historian for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and adviser to senior government officials on Iranian issues, David Crist, joins host Josh Zepps to discuss how the past several decades have lead up to this decision, and what it will mean for the future.   Though no one can say for certain what will be decided on March 31, Crist is uniquely qualified to offer his insight as author of the book The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran. While he does not hesitate to explain the ruthlessness of the Islamic regime, he also does not fail to criticize America’s shortcomings and missed opportunities. This is a fascinating and rare look into the realpolitik of one of the most consequential international challenges of our time.

Billions of dollars are funneled into federal drug programs to keep our children away from drugs and our cities safe from crime and economic turmoil. Our guest this week, journalist and author Johann Hari, has spent the last several years traveling and researching the war on drugs for his new book Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, to find out if federal programs are as effective and righteous as we are often led to believe. Hari talks to host Josh Zepps about how he discovered a the troubling beginnings of drug war riddled with corruption and ulterior motives, and argues that everything we thought we understood about drug addiction appears to be wrong.

As climate change progresses and takes its toll on the planet, the life forms we share it with continue to evolve and adapt. Some species thrive while many face imminent extinction. What we often fail to realize as humans is that the world will continue to exist long after we’re unable to live on it. Our guest this week is science journalist Michael Tennesen, author of The Next Species: The Future of Evolution in the Aftermath of Man. Tennesen explores the environmental impact climate change is having on the ecosystem, and discusses how its impact on the planet’s surviving species will be felt long, long after we’re gone.

This week on Point of Inquiry, Josh Zepps talks to Eli Lake, a journalist with extensive experience covering international intelligence, diplomacy, and the recent conflicts in the Muslim world. With the Islamic State now eclipsing Al Qaeda as a prime flashpoint for terrorism, discussing and defining the ideology behind the violence is fraught with tension, as evidenced by the uproar over President Obama's recent refusal to characterize "violent extremism" as "Islamic."  Why do new recruits flock to the Islamic State? What are its real-world political goals? What are the dividing lines between the various strains of Islamic extremism? Lake, whose reporting has been featured in outlets such as The Daily Beast, Newsweek, Bloomberg View, and the Washington Times, lends badly-needed clarity to what are difficult and murky topics.

Memory is remarkably fallible, as we often frustrate ourselves with how certain we are about where we left our car keys only to realize how entirely wrong we were. But could it be that our memories are so easily corrupted that we could be led to believe we’ve committed crimes that never happened? (And while we’re at it, could Brian Williams have sincerely believed that he had been under attack in that helicopter?) This week on Point of Inquiry, Lindsay Beyerstein talks to Dr. Julia Shaw, a forensic psychology lecturer and false memory researcher. Dr. Shaw recently conducted a study in which she found that 70 percent of college-age students were convinced that they had committed a crime that never actually took place. By mixing actual facts with misinformation, in as little as 3 hours of friendly conversation, students not only admitted to committing these fictional crimes, they went as far as to recall details of their manufactured experience. Shaw suggests that these results have alarming implications for the way we conduct criminal investigations. It seems as though our own imaginations may be working against us more than we ever thought possible.