For the fortunate few who have been spared from the social malady known as Facebook:
Some Post-Debate Impressions by William Lane Craig on Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 8:16am
It was wonderful being back on the Notre Dame campus again. Even though I am not a Catholic, I felt very much on the home court here and sensed the support of the Christian community. Many have remarked on the terribly low quality of the questions following the debate. What you need to understand is that the audience was loaded with people from the community who are part of the local sceptics group. Last year they also dominated the mikes, with the same intellectually dampening effect. Here's an amusing anecdote we received prior to the debate:
"I found out too late about the debate, it having already sold out, and had to search Craigslist for anyone selling spare tickets. I did find a gentleman who was selling them at the regular $10 price and we agreed that I would meet him before the debate at a local deli in South Bend. After all the arrangements were made, he mentioned, to my surprise, that the occasion at the deli would be a Pre-Debate Skeptics Gathering, after which the tickets -- 42 of them! -- would be handed out. Apparently, the Skeptics Club, of which he is a part, had taken the liberty of buying up a large portion of the tickets, I'm assuming in order to pack the house in favor of Harris. . . . I was never asked if I was a skeptic, and it was never mentioned that being a skeptic was a prerequisite for acquiring the ticket, so I never had to lie. He just assumed I was one."
The Q & A was thus not representative of the Notre Dame community, which is considerably more sophisticated.
I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, "Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It's the working classes which are so secular." He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris' book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn't seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris' recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn't it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?
Cheerleaders and Analysts by William Lane Craig on Sunday, April 10, 2011 at 10:38am
I've been reflecting on the debate with Sam Harris the past couple of days, and what has struck me is the force of the three criticisms I lodged against his view in the second contention I defended. I characterized the first criticism as a "knock-down" argument, and so it was. But it occurs to me that the second and third were equally devastating: science cannot derive an "ought" from an "is," and in the absence of free will moral responsibility and duty is impossible. These are, I think, simply unanswerable objections. Couple these criticisms with the almost obvious truth of my first contention that theism, if true, gives us a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties, and you have what I think is the most powerful affirmative case I've ever presented.
So how can some atheists fail to see this, I ask myself. One reason, I think, is that some people don't know how to judge a debate. They think that the winner is the person who delivers the one line zinger like "Senator, you're no John Kennedy." In fact, you properly judge a debate, first, by weighing whether a debater's contentions, if proven, support the proposition which is the topic of the debate and, second, by determining whether the arguments presented in support of the contentions have been shown to be sound and undefeated by objections raised by the opponent. Because some people don’t understand how to score a debate, they cannot properly judge it.
But my friend Dennis has pointed out something else to me: there are cheerleaders and there are analysts. The role of a cheerleader is to support the team, no matter how badly it is losing. If a team is getting drubbed, the cheerleaders don’t lay down their pom-poms and give up. They keep cheering to the end. That’s their role. By contrast, an analyst, even if he has a personal opinion, makes a determined effort to set it aside and to judge the event on its own merits. If the side he likes does poorly, that’s too bad, but it doesn’t change his assessment of which side won the contest.
Many of those in the free thought subculture are clearly cheerleaders, not analysts. They are prisoners of their own perspective and incapable of judging objectively. There is no hope of getting from them an accurate assessment of the debate. That’s not their role. They are there to cheer.
Our aim in a debate should not be to win over the cheerleaders. It is to win those in the audience who are still seeking for truth and are open-minded to argument and evidence. Their good opinion should be our concern, not the opinion of the cheerleaders.
I thought the first question was especially great for Craig since he totally misunderstood it: "No, you're not allowed to point out a blindspot in my understanding because I didn't see it," was basically his non-response. Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics? Might we not being doing that with morality? Craig: "That's not what I meant. It was just an analogy," as though that in any way nullifies the force of the skepticism directed at his view.
"Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics?"
That's silly. Gen 1 attributes the cause of light to luminaries (sun, moon, starts), and attributes the cause of luminaries to God. So Gen 1 acknowledges the role of natural forces. However, accounting for light does nothing to account for the existence of the entire set-up.
"Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics? Might we not being doing that with morality?"
Which misses the point. The question at issue is not "attributing" morality to God, but how to ground morality. Christians don't deny that unbelievers can be moral in varying degrees. So we can "attribute" morality to unbelievers. And Christianity has an explanation for that (i.e. common grace). The question at issue is not whether unbelievers can be moral, but why unbelievers should be moral given their outlook.
I thought the first question was especially great for Craig since he totally misunderstood it
What about Harris? Do you think he performed admirably? From all accounts, both favorable and hostile to Craig, Harris did not do a good job of defending his scientific case for morality.
It should be said that Eugenics, a scientific enterprise, was used to condone various clearly immoral practices. Science is not capable of grounding morality since it is dependent on the purely physical attribution of meaning where none exists -- that is, materialism.
In a debate there is generally an affirmative position, right? Isn't it the job of the opponent to deconstruct the the premises, conclusions or logic of the affirmative argument?
If the opponent fails to address these things, don't they forfeit the debate?
1. There's no reason to narrow the scope of that woman's observation to Biblical beliefs rather than to the incorrect attributions of superstition generally in the face of our ignorance. That's the lesson theism never learns. But then again (as Ed Babinski points out in his chapter on "The Cosmology of the Bible" in "The Christian Delusion"), why is that god creating light separately from the "luminaries?" And why is he "separating" light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically? Seems like the Hebrews were acknowledging things other than "natural forces."
2. I'm pretty sure I already figured out the "ontology" distinction there. Thanks for the "heads up" as though my comment said or implied otherwise. Harris owned Craig on that point anyway, and I don't see you or any other Christian philosopher taking that conversation any further even based on what you would like to see as a correction.
You can find my continuing comments on the Harris vs. Craig debate through that link.
“1. There's no reason to narrow the scope of that woman's observation to Biblical beliefs rather than to the incorrect attributions of superstition generally in the face of our ignorance.”
i) The reason to narrow the scope of the discussion is to keep it on topic. Harris agreed to the terms of the debate. Any digression is a tacit admission that he lost. That also applies to members of the audience who don’t know how to properly evaluate a formal debate.
ii) Craig is not an OT scholar, so there’s no particular reason to think he’s especially qualified to field questions regarding Gen 1.
“That's the lesson theism never learns.”
The lesson atheism never learns is that Christian theism has always had a doctrine of second causes.
“But then again (as Ed Babinski points out in his chapter on ‘The Cosmology of the Bible’ in ‘The Christian Delusion’)…”
Since, as you know, I reviewed that chapter in The Infidel Delusion, as well as subsequent interactions with Babinski, his chapter is hardly a given.
“…why is that god creating light separately from the ‘luminaries?’ And why is he ‘separating’ light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically?”
Try raising an objection I haven’t dealt with before.
“Seems like the Hebrews were acknowledging things other than ‘natural forces.’"
I see that you’re illiterate. Did I say the Hebrews only acknowledge natural forces? No.
“I'm pretty sure I already figured out the "ontology" distinction there.”
I’m pretty sure you hadn’t…and haven’t.
“Harris owned Craig on that point anyway, and I don't see you or any other Christian philosopher taking that conversation any further even based on what you would like to see as a correction.”
That says more about the state of your eyesight than my side of the conversation.
Her question was on the history of understanding the ontology of light and how that relates to the question of the evening...so I don't see what your problem is.
"The lesson atheism never learns is that Christian theism has always had a doctrine of second causes."
Thanks for setting a low bar. We'll pretend for the sake your ego that this is true. Then I'll "learn my lesson." Next, I'll show how you can't say the same in either event. Here goes:
Wow, Steve, you're right. Christianity has always accepted supernatural and natural causes for things. That's amazing. I'll go tell all my skeptic friends.
**checks off list**
Next:
Gee Steve, it seems like those "secondary causes" are always the explanation of things that Christians and theists in general have historically wanted to attribute to the magic causes.
**checks off list**
Done and done. Now...feel free to show how you've learned *your* lesson on behalf of theism.
"Since, as you know, I reviewed that chapter in The Infidel Delusion, as well as subsequent interactions with Babinski, his chapter is hardly a given."
Thanks for the link to that new post. I'll be sure to review it soonish.
"I see that you’re illiterate. Did I say the Hebrews only acknowledge natural forces? No."
Did I say you said only natural forces? Oh...that's right. I still haven't learned my lesson. I keep forgetting that I don't know things you say I don't know!
Or...maybe you just plain ignored the argument part of my argument:
I said: "And why is he "separating" light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically?"
There doesn't need to be magic there when physics will do. But perhaps you address this in your post, so we can take it up there.
"That says more about the state of your eyesight than my side of the conversation."
Really? Don't tell me: You actually typed out an argument that shows "god's nature is good" in a non-circular way instead of that bluff and your god is sending me strong delusion keeping me from reading the words, right? I think I'm catching on!
“Her question was on the history of understanding the ontology of light and how that relates to the question of the evening...so I don't see what your problem is.”
The debate topic was the ontology of ethics, not the ontology of electromagnetic radiation.
“Thanks for setting a low bar.”
Not setting the bar high or low. Just stating the facts.
“Gee Steve, it seems like those ‘secondary causes’ are always the explanation of things that Christians and theists in general have historically wanted to attribute to the magic causes.”
Feel free to document your claim that, historically, Christians were occasionalists.
“If we're going there: I've covered pretty much everything you have. Maybe you didn't notice?”
Yes, I’ve seen your special pleading to save face for Babinski. I hope he appreciates your canine loyalty.
“Did I say you said only natural forces?”
That’s right, play dumb.
“There doesn't need to be magic there when physics will do.”
“Magic” is one of the cutesy terms that imitative village atheists are wont to use. Spares them the effort of having to think.
“You actually typed out an argument that shows ‘god's nature is good’ in a non-circular way…”
Are you now defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma?
"The debate topic was the ontology of ethics, not the ontology of electromagnetic radiation."
Such the news flash. That refutes the force of the analogy somehow? Alright, I'll put you down for "Goes for the same lame excuse that William Lane Craig used in the debate: Bu-but, that's not what I wanted you to think!"
"Feel free to document your claim that, historically, Christians were occasionalists."
1. Well...we could start by noting that there are zero supernatural explanations that modern science has validated. And that at least there were more than that asserted by theologians in the past that then got contradicted or pushed back. So there's a trend in one direction and definitely not the other. I'll put you down for "lesson still not learned" on this one again.
2. Interestingly as Paul Manata notes in The Infidel Delusion (and I document in my review of Jason Long's chapter 3) most scientists today are theists of some sort and yet they've still not managed to collectively conclude any supernatural explanation in scientific terms despite having numerous potential opportunities.
Perhaps I can put him down for, "But that's not what I wanted you to think!" too?
3. I take it to mean by "occasionalist" that secular scientists could explain literally everything in naturalistic terms and then you'd feel free to write, "and god" at the end of their "theory of everything" paper.
"Yes, I’ve seen your special pleading to save face for Babinski. I hope he appreciates your canine loyalty."
1. Well I'm forced to take pride in the fact that I actually bother to rigorously *demonstrate* your "canine loyalty" to Biblical inerrancy as well as all the cliche' apologetic feats of special pleading you have to go through to thwart the preponderance of evidence against your perspective.
3. Babinski and Tarico (and even Loftus in chapter 4) happened to have the vast majority of their ducks in a row on their chapters. The primitive cosmology of the Bible is a classic thorn in the side of creationists and inerrantists, and so was especially worth nailing all that apologetic jello to the wall. And I did.
"That’s right, play dumb."
I see you still haven't acknowledged that I actually made an argument or addressed it directly. Does that make it go away?
"“Magic” is one of the cutesy terms that imitative village atheists are wont to use. Spares them the effort of having to think."
Tell me Steve, how are god's powers distinguishable from "magic?" My definition of magic, just so you know is "has no physical mechanism or parts and performs simple to sophisticated actions or effects anyway." That's what I would use to describe Harry Potter and Jesus. Tell me what the difference is.
"Are you now defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma?"
I keep forgetting I'm not up on "Perfect Being Theology." So I'll pretend that I was "defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma" rather than addressing the Perfect Being Theology's circularity. Then I'll pretend to be corrected (I'll be devastated of course). Then after that when I pretend to read up on Craig's meaningless side-step, I'll pretend like my original criticism offered is something "new" just for you, Steve. Then you can pretend like you've dealt with the circularity issue again while not actually dealing with it, any more than any other Christian has in response to the Craig/Harris debate (which I'll be rigorously showing in my Craig vs. Harris series). If you'd like to contribute something to all that fail, feel free. Always love to have your antics in the fray of an apologetic brawl.
For the fortunate few who have been spared from the social malady known as Facebook:
ReplyDeleteSome Post-Debate Impressions
by William Lane Craig on Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 8:16am
It was wonderful being back on the Notre Dame campus again. Even though I am not a Catholic, I felt very much on the home court here and sensed the support of the Christian community. Many have remarked on the terribly low quality of the questions following the debate. What you need to understand is that the audience was loaded with people from the community who are part of the local sceptics group. Last year they also dominated the mikes, with the same intellectually dampening effect. Here's an amusing anecdote we received prior to the debate:
"I found out too late about the debate, it having already sold out, and had to search Craigslist for anyone selling spare tickets. I did find a gentleman who was selling them at the regular $10 price and we agreed that I would meet him before the debate at a local deli in South Bend. After all the arrangements were made, he mentioned, to my surprise, that the occasion at the deli would be a Pre-Debate Skeptics Gathering, after which the tickets -- 42 of them! -- would be handed out. Apparently, the Skeptics Club, of which he is a part, had taken the liberty of buying up a large portion of the tickets, I'm assuming in order to pack the house in favor of Harris. . . . I was never asked if I was a skeptic, and it was never mentioned that being a skeptic was a prerequisite for acquiring the ticket, so I never had to lie. He just assumed I was one."
The Q & A was thus not representative of the Notre Dame community, which is considerably more sophisticated.
I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, "Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It's the working classes which are so secular." He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris' book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn't seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris' recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn't it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?
Cheerleaders and Analysts
ReplyDeleteby William Lane Craig on Sunday, April 10, 2011 at 10:38am
I've been reflecting on the debate with Sam Harris the past couple of days, and what has struck me is the force of the three criticisms I lodged against his view in the second contention I defended. I characterized the first criticism as a "knock-down" argument, and so it was. But it occurs to me that the second and third were equally devastating: science cannot derive an "ought" from an "is," and in the absence of free will moral responsibility and duty is impossible. These are, I think, simply unanswerable objections. Couple these criticisms with the almost obvious truth of my first contention that theism, if true, gives us a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties, and you have what I think is the most powerful affirmative case I've ever presented.
So how can some atheists fail to see this, I ask myself. One reason, I think, is that some people don't know how to judge a debate. They think that the winner is the person who delivers the one line zinger like "Senator, you're no John Kennedy." In fact, you properly judge a debate, first, by weighing whether a debater's contentions, if proven, support the proposition which is the topic of the debate and, second, by determining whether the arguments presented in support of the contentions have been shown to be sound and undefeated by objections raised by the opponent. Because some people don’t understand how to score a debate, they cannot properly judge it.
But my friend Dennis has pointed out something else to me: there are cheerleaders and there are analysts. The role of a cheerleader is to support the team, no matter how badly it is losing. If a team is getting drubbed, the cheerleaders don’t lay down their pom-poms and give up. They keep cheering to the end. That’s their role. By contrast, an analyst, even if he has a personal opinion, makes a determined effort to set it aside and to judge the event on its own merits. If the side he likes does poorly, that’s too bad, but it doesn’t change his assessment of which side won the contest.
Many of those in the free thought subculture are clearly cheerleaders, not analysts. They are prisoners of their own perspective and incapable of judging objectively. There is no hope of getting from them an accurate assessment of the debate. That’s not their role. They are there to cheer.
Our aim in a debate should not be to win over the cheerleaders. It is to win those in the audience who are still seeking for truth and are open-minded to argument and evidence. Their good opinion should be our concern, not the opinion of the cheerleaders.
Does having an account but refusing to add people count as being spared?
ReplyDeleteI don't have facebook, so I appreciate Patrick posting these comments by Dr. Craig.
ReplyDeletethanks Patrick, I am also one of those 'fortunate few'.
ReplyDeleteI'm with TUAD.
ReplyDeleteAnother facebook-less nobody here. Thanks for posting, Patrick.
ReplyDeleteI thought the first question was especially great for Craig since he totally misunderstood it: "No, you're not allowed to point out a blindspot in my understanding because I didn't see it," was basically his non-response. Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics? Might we not being doing that with morality? Craig: "That's not what I meant. It was just an analogy," as though that in any way nullifies the force of the skepticism directed at his view.
ReplyDelete[subscribing]
ReplyDeleteBEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics?"
That's silly. Gen 1 attributes the cause of light to luminaries (sun, moon, starts), and attributes the cause of luminaries to God. So Gen 1 acknowledges the role of natural forces. However, accounting for light does nothing to account for the existence of the entire set-up.
BEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Did we attribute god as the underlying cause of light before we knew the physics? Might we not being doing that with morality?"
Which misses the point. The question at issue is not "attributing" morality to God, but how to ground morality. Christians don't deny that unbelievers can be moral in varying degrees. So we can "attribute" morality to unbelievers. And Christianity has an explanation for that (i.e. common grace). The question at issue is not whether unbelievers can be moral, but why unbelievers should be moral given their outlook.
I thought the first question was especially great for Craig since he totally misunderstood it
ReplyDeleteWhat about Harris? Do you think he performed admirably? From all accounts, both favorable and hostile to Craig, Harris did not do a good job of defending his scientific case for morality.
It should be said that Eugenics, a scientific enterprise, was used to condone various clearly immoral practices. Science is not capable of grounding morality since it is dependent on the purely physical attribution of meaning where none exists -- that is, materialism.
Has this debate been posted anywhere, audio or video?
ReplyDeleteMr. Fosi, see here.
ReplyDeleteThanks very much!
ReplyDeleteThe comments on the youtube vids are really bad.
In a debate there is generally an affirmative position, right? Isn't it the job of the opponent to deconstruct the the premises, conclusions or logic of the affirmative argument?
ReplyDeleteIf the opponent fails to address these things, don't they forfeit the debate?
Steve,
ReplyDelete1. There's no reason to narrow the scope of that woman's observation to Biblical beliefs rather than to the incorrect attributions of superstition generally in the face of our ignorance. That's the lesson theism never learns. But then again (as Ed Babinski points out in his chapter on "The Cosmology of the Bible" in "The Christian Delusion"), why is that god creating light separately from the "luminaries?" And why is he "separating" light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically? Seems like the Hebrews were acknowledging things other than "natural forces."
2. I'm pretty sure I already figured out the "ontology" distinction there. Thanks for the "heads up" as though my comment said or implied otherwise. Harris owned Craig on that point anyway, and I don't see you or any other Christian philosopher taking that conversation any further even based on what you would like to see as a correction.
You can find my continuing comments on the Harris vs. Craig debate through that link.
Cheers,
Ben
The comments on the youtube vids are really bad.
ReplyDeleteYouTube commenters are characteristically hostile, crude, ignorant, and perhaps even emotionally unstable.
I would avoid the comments and never engage them; they aren't interested in exchange.
BEN SAID:
ReplyDelete“1. There's no reason to narrow the scope of that woman's observation to Biblical beliefs rather than to the incorrect attributions of superstition generally in the face of our ignorance.”
i) The reason to narrow the scope of the discussion is to keep it on topic. Harris agreed to the terms of the debate. Any digression is a tacit admission that he lost. That also applies to members of the audience who don’t know how to properly evaluate a formal debate.
ii) Craig is not an OT scholar, so there’s no particular reason to think he’s especially qualified to field questions regarding Gen 1.
“That's the lesson theism never learns.”
The lesson atheism never learns is that Christian theism has always had a doctrine of second causes.
“But then again (as Ed Babinski points out in his chapter on ‘The Cosmology of the Bible’ in ‘The Christian Delusion’)…”
Since, as you know, I reviewed that chapter in The Infidel Delusion, as well as subsequent interactions with Babinski, his chapter is hardly a given.
“…why is that god creating light separately from the ‘luminaries?’ And why is he ‘separating’ light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically?”
I discussed that in a recent post:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/light-shade.html
Try raising an objection I haven’t dealt with before.
“Seems like the Hebrews were acknowledging things other than ‘natural forces.’"
I see that you’re illiterate. Did I say the Hebrews only acknowledge natural forces? No.
“I'm pretty sure I already figured out the "ontology" distinction there.”
I’m pretty sure you hadn’t…and haven’t.
“Harris owned Craig on that point anyway, and I don't see you or any other Christian philosopher taking that conversation any further even based on what you would like to see as a correction.”
That says more about the state of your eyesight than my side of the conversation.
"Harris agreed to the terms of the debate."
ReplyDeleteHer question was on the history of understanding the ontology of light and how that relates to the question of the evening...so I don't see what your problem is.
"The lesson atheism never learns is that Christian theism has always had a doctrine of second causes."
Thanks for setting a low bar. We'll pretend for the sake your ego that this is true. Then I'll "learn my lesson." Next, I'll show how you can't say the same in either event. Here goes:
Wow, Steve, you're right. Christianity has always accepted supernatural and natural causes for things. That's amazing. I'll go tell all my skeptic friends.
**checks off list**
Next:
Gee Steve, it seems like those "secondary causes" are always the explanation of things that Christians and theists in general have historically wanted to attribute to the magic causes.
**checks off list**
Done and done. Now...feel free to show how you've learned *your* lesson on behalf of theism.
"Since, as you know, I reviewed that chapter in The Infidel Delusion, as well as subsequent interactions with Babinski, his chapter is hardly a given."
If we're going there: I've covered pretty much everything you have. Maybe you didn't notice?
Thanks for the link to that new post. I'll be sure to review it soonish.
"I see that you’re illiterate. Did I say the Hebrews only acknowledge natural forces? No."
Did I say you said only natural forces? Oh...that's right. I still haven't learned my lesson. I keep forgetting that I don't know things you say I don't know!
Or...maybe you just plain ignored the argument part of my argument:
I said: "And why is he "separating" light from darkness as though physics doesn't do that automatically?"
There doesn't need to be magic there when physics will do. But perhaps you address this in your post, so we can take it up there.
"That says more about the state of your eyesight than my side of the conversation."
Really? Don't tell me: You actually typed out an argument that shows "god's nature is good" in a non-circular way instead of that bluff and your god is sending me strong delusion keeping me from reading the words, right? I think I'm catching on!
Ben
BEN SAID:
ReplyDelete“Her question was on the history of understanding the ontology of light and how that relates to the question of the evening...so I don't see what your problem is.”
The debate topic was the ontology of ethics, not the ontology of electromagnetic radiation.
“Thanks for setting a low bar.”
Not setting the bar high or low. Just stating the facts.
“Gee Steve, it seems like those ‘secondary causes’ are always the explanation of things that Christians and theists in general have historically wanted to attribute to the magic causes.”
Feel free to document your claim that, historically, Christians were occasionalists.
“If we're going there: I've covered pretty much everything you have. Maybe you didn't notice?”
Yes, I’ve seen your special pleading to save face for Babinski. I hope he appreciates your canine loyalty.
“Did I say you said only natural forces?”
That’s right, play dumb.
“There doesn't need to be magic there when physics will do.”
“Magic” is one of the cutesy terms that imitative village atheists are wont to use. Spares them the effort of having to think.
“You actually typed out an argument that shows ‘god's nature is good’ in a non-circular way…”
Are you now defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma?
"The debate topic was the ontology of ethics, not the ontology of electromagnetic radiation."
ReplyDeleteSuch the news flash. That refutes the force of the analogy somehow? Alright, I'll put you down for "Goes for the same lame excuse that William Lane Craig used in the debate: Bu-but, that's not what I wanted you to think!"
"Feel free to document your claim that, historically, Christians were occasionalists."
1. Well...we could start by noting that there are zero supernatural explanations that modern science has validated. And that at least there were more than that asserted by theologians in the past that then got contradicted or pushed back. So there's a trend in one direction and definitely not the other. I'll put you down for "lesson still not learned" on this one again.
2. Interestingly as Paul Manata notes in The Infidel Delusion (and I document in my review of Jason Long's chapter 3) most scientists today are theists of some sort and yet they've still not managed to collectively conclude any supernatural explanation in scientific terms despite having numerous potential opportunities.
Perhaps I can put him down for, "But that's not what I wanted you to think!" too?
3. I take it to mean by "occasionalist" that secular scientists could explain literally everything in naturalistic terms and then you'd feel free to write, "and god" at the end of their "theory of everything" paper.
"Yes, I’ve seen your special pleading to save face for Babinski. I hope he appreciates your canine loyalty."
1. Well I'm forced to take pride in the fact that I actually bother to rigorously *demonstrate* your "canine loyalty" to Biblical inerrancy as well as all the cliche' apologetic feats of special pleading you have to go through to thwart the preponderance of evidence against your perspective.
2. I felt free to disagree with Dan Barker, John Loftus, David Eller and Richard Carrier, Jason Long, and Paul Tobin when it was clear they were mistaken on various points. But I know facts aren't going to get in the way of your narrative.
3. Babinski and Tarico (and even Loftus in chapter 4) happened to have the vast majority of their ducks in a row on their chapters. The primitive cosmology of the Bible is a classic thorn in the side of creationists and inerrantists, and so was especially worth nailing all that apologetic jello to the wall. And I did.
ReplyDelete"That’s right, play dumb."
I see you still haven't acknowledged that I actually made an argument or addressed it directly. Does that make it go away?
"“Magic” is one of the cutesy terms that imitative village atheists are wont to use. Spares them the effort of having to think."
Tell me Steve, how are god's powers distinguishable from "magic?" My definition of magic, just so you know is "has no physical mechanism or parts and performs simple to sophisticated actions or effects anyway." That's what I would use to describe Harry Potter and Jesus. Tell me what the difference is.
"Are you now defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma?"
I keep forgetting I'm not up on "Perfect Being Theology." So I'll pretend that I was "defaulting to the oft-refuted Euthyphro dilemma" rather than addressing the Perfect Being Theology's circularity. Then I'll pretend to be corrected (I'll be devastated of course). Then after that when I pretend to read up on Craig's meaningless side-step, I'll pretend like my original criticism offered is something "new" just for you, Steve. Then you can pretend like you've dealt with the circularity issue again while not actually dealing with it, any more than any other Christian has in response to the Craig/Harris debate (which I'll be rigorously showing in my Craig vs. Harris series). If you'd like to contribute something to all that fail, feel free. Always love to have your antics in the fray of an apologetic brawl.
Ben