These include:. Never cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you. Always seek to learn something new. Teach your children how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence and how to disagree with you. Treat your fellow human beings with respect. Whether or not he does, Craig will be using his UK tour to expose The God Delusion to critical analysis and to present strong rational grounds for belief in God.
On Tuesday 26 th October at 7. If Professor Dawkins changes his mind, Dr Craig extends a warm invitation to him to debate the existence of God on that evening.
Far be it from me to quote a distinguished scientific colleague who, when challenged to a debate by a religious spokesman of whom he has never heard, is in the habit of replying: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine. I'm afraid my answer is no. I write as an atheist and in reference to your refusal to participate in a one-to-one debate with the philosopher William Lane Craig.
He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. On the contrary, the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.
While I have your attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion , it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga.
William Lane Craig is Christianity's 1 living apologist. He's thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab.
Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. He is a conservative evangelical, but he is smart, with a doctorate in philosophy from Birmingham and one in theology from Munich.
He has developed such a reputation that when he began a day speaking tour of Britain on Monday he drew an audience of 1, at the cavernous Central Hall in Westminster.
He is unafraid to range across ontological theology and moral philosophy and talks with ease about new developments in cosmology, mathematics and physics. He has a ready command of easy analogy and can be funny. He is a million miles away from the evangelical rhetoric that amuses and bemuses our secularist and modernist establishment.
Proof, he says, is not about scientific or mathematical certainty; it is about a cogent and logical argument which is more plausible than what opponents argue. This is not the style of the Dawkinsites' preferred adversaries.
Their debating techniques tend to be catalogues of religion's historical atrocities, coupled with psychological sideswipes about the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas. Dawkins in the past has been notable for seeking out extreme oddball fundamentalists.
He and his followers routinely erect a straw man — defining religion in ways unrecognisable to many mainstream believers — and then knock their caricature to the ground. But Craig is an opponent of a different calibre who focuses ruthlessly on failures of internal logic in his rivals' arguments.
What is striking to the outsider is the ad hominem abuse that has been hurled his way. Dawkins has blogged of his "almost visceral loathing" of Craig's "odiously unctuous, smug and self-satisfied tone of voice". Craig, he says, is a "deeply unimpressive On Dawkins's website his supporters have called Craig a "debased freak" and "snakeoil salesman".
When A C Grayling was invited to debate Craig's assertion that, without religion, there are no objective moral values, only social conventions, he scornfully replied: "I would be happy to debate him on the question of the existence of fairies and water-nymphs.
So who's afraid of William Lane Craig? Such selectivity is as hoc at best. Yes, I agree, we can use logic in investigating premises. But one can not investigate forever. The cascades of reasoning that go into investigating a premise are easily overtaken by subjectivity.
In fact, I think that subjectivity is alredy taking place at the logical argument level — before even looking into the premises — followed by after-the-fact justifications. I think that any thinking person can see this. I think that logic is useful, yes. Unlike you I seem to be able to admit that there are valid arguments on most sides for most topics. Perhaps this also reflects our differing worldviews. You seem to think that since the world is as you believe it to be, that logic must necessarily be on your side, and you are very sensitive to this.
I, on the other hand, think that there is a world out there, but that our understanding of it is fuzzy. Which is exactly why there are conflicting logical arguments out there! My worldview — empiricism — allows me to be free to acknowledge opposing arguments. It is not that I think your arguments are invalid; it is your belief that things are all one-sided that is wrong. You would command a great deal more respect — and converts — if you were able to just state things as they are NOT one-sided.
As for my beliefs. Have a look at this; this is interesting, too! Unknown in the sense that virtually none of our knowledge of the world is absolute; and this has been shown throughout history, we make models of the world and we improve on them.
As is the previous statement! And I can be cognisant of this even while stating it. What you percieve as self-refutation is really the acknowledgment of the limits of our knowledge, but at the same time a recognition that our knowledge has validity. Besides, the only reason that your epistemology is not recursive, too, is that you have a cheat card; just claim that god zapped things such that they are the way they are.
At any rate, you do not agree with me that knowledge is a gradual, tentative and empirical process. You want there to be absolutes. If there are absolutes you can prove that Christianity is true. And I find it interesting that this is almost the antithesis of the way it actually works. Virtually no one, if anyone at all, becomes a Christian because of logic. Not because Christianity is not logically defendable, but because logic does not serve Christianity any more than most other worldviews.
But you can. I like your explanation Bob : In my opinion and yours from what I gather empirical science can only make truth statements with regards to what it can measure. We can only measure a thing which the 5 senses can perceive and comprehend.
We know the results are facts true. We can then also make reasonable deductions based on the results. In other words, we make a leap of faith. In my experience every worldview whether Christian or atheist is based on empirical truths and deductions based on those truths faith. Thats such a simplistic analysis of the terms and Craig's affiliation with them as this deserves a chiding response.
Craig is a creationist in the sense he believes that God is responsible for the creation. He is not a creationist in the sense that the term is most commonly employed today often derogatorily , which would be a young-earth-literalday-creationist.
I don't think Craig does say he is a progressive creationist, but rather that he is comfortable with a progressive creationism. But even that more nuanced description of his view shows he is not a creationist in the way that is meant in modern usage, and probably by Dawkins in the video.
Intelligent design is not creationism which is a theological doctrine. It is a scientific hypothesis with theological implications. What the court actually determined was that what was masquerading as Intelligent Design in that instance was actually creationism supported by those with their own theological agenda.
Besides that fact that courts do not prove anything — their job is to assess the evidence and show that the truth or falsehood of something is beyond reasonable doubt, the court has nothing to do with determining what does and does not count as a legitimate scientific hypothesis.
So Ramses, its probably best to keep your proverbial mouth shut rather than offer such superficial analysis as the above. Stuart, even if Ramses is wrong, does that justify such an arrogant tone? We don't acquire knowledge without effort and work but as Christians we also know that everything we enjoy is ultimately a gracious gift from God 1 Cor Shouldn't this give us cause for humility — especially when confronting someone who lacks what we have?
And even if unable to show humility, surely respect? You're doing great work in your ministry, but as Christians, I pray we can do better. Jared Clark. If I said your response to me was condescending and abusive, what would you say? You have accused me of no less than being arrogant, prideful, and disrespectful. My response: I don't write with a tone so its surprising to me you can read one there. But maybe you are right and my reply to Ramses does have a tone: then the shoe you claim I wear fits your foot as well.
The differences are that yours is hiding behind a veil of spirituality, and mine is attacking the ideas and not the man. When ideas are bad — they are bad, and I'm not afraid to call them such. Some ideas are even deserving of ridicule. I'm not saying there isn't a place for criticism. Not at all. I wouldn't have made my comments if I thought otherwise. But telling someone they should keep their mouth shut? I'm struggling to see how you could imagine such a response as respectful discourse.
You've warned commenters on this site for far less. Is passing on the same advise as scripture disrespectful? The Bible also says that the fool denies God in his heart, and I take that as good advice, but that doesn't mean it's the first thing I should say to my atheist friends. You may take Proverbs as good advice yourself I'm tempted to say that if you really did, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place but that doesn't mean it's always an appropriate verse to offer in criticism.
Especially when it is offered with an air of self-importance, and without sensitivity or respect. Isn't that the kind of attitude that Dawkins is displaying here in this video? As Christians, we're called to higher standards in our discourse 2 Sam. Like I said, I appreciate your work, Stuart, but I disagree with you here. And what are these strongest arguments anyway? Ken thinks faith and fact are mutually exclusive categories… an erroneous belief.
Stuart, Yes I would accuse you of the same.
0コメント