Amazon.com Widgets

Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman debate Jesus

Religion Soup: Ehrman/Evans Debate, Night 1

Religion Soup: Ehrman/Evans Debate, Night 2

Thoughts: I think that Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the historicity of the New Testament in the first video are fascinating. I applaud him for bringing the topics under discussion into the public arena in the form of these and other debates. Would the discussion have reached the public arena, and made it onto my computer screen if Dr. Ehrman had remained silent? Perhaps, but I suspect Ehrman’s works have forced Christian scholars such as Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Dan Wallace and Dr. James White to address these issues face on, and this is of great benefit to those such as myself.

Other resources: Dr. Craig Blomberg has some really useful materials relating to these debates here:

thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/03/26/interview-with-craig-blomberg/

William Dembski Interview

Get it here: www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/01/14/william-dembski-interview/

I love Dembski. He is an intellectual genius, and honest to the heart. With the persecution he has faced both inside and outside the church, he is also like a modern Galileo.

Christopher Hitchens, April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011

New Atheist Christopher Hitchens has passed on.

Hitchens, who wrote for publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, Slate and Vanity Fair, rose to prominence for his divisive opinions, his unabashed atheism, his scorching critiques of popular figures like Mother Teresa Henry Kissinger, and, above all, his razor wit. (Reuters)

I personally admire Hitchens for having the guts to stand up for what he believed, even if I would disagree with him as his brother Peter Hitchens did (blog, Amazon book “The rage against God”).

Our condolences go out to his family.

From those I follow on Twitter…

  • C Michael Patton: Christopher Hitchens died today. #verysad vnty.fr/vFD9TU Prayers are with his family and brother.
  • Lee Strobel: Feeling grief at Christopher Hitchens’ death. I was among many who shared Christ with him; so sad he rejected Gospel.
  • Douglas Wilson: How to think about the death of the outspoken atheist.
  • Albert Mohler: The point about Christopher Hitchens is not that he died of unbelief, but that his unbelief is all that matters now. Unspeakably sad.
  • Rick Warren: My friend Christopher Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him constantly & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now.
  • Joe Fleener: Christopher Hitchens has died. Let’s pray for his family & those who he’s influenced that they may repent & trust Christ.
  • Larry Taunton: I am truly saddened to hear that my friend and debating opponent Christopher Hitchens has passed away. Our thoughts are with his family.
  • Hugh Hewitt: I am at a loss of what to say about Christopher Hitchens except that he was towards me and my audience unfailingly gracious –and dazzling.

A small book by Hitchens and friend Doug Wilson is available here:

William Lane Craig UK tour (coming soon…)

When Christians Misbehave – William J. Murray

This is a pretty interesting scuffle. William J. Murray is the son of the late atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, of whom he declared “an evil person”.

What makes this discussion so interesting is the utter blindness of the atheist to the fact that he is pushing his worldview upon others. He seems to think that he holds the neutral ground and that Christians (and others) are trying to push their views upon others. Murray does not fall for this nonsense, rightly pointing out that the secular position is NOT neutral, but is in itself a biased position that forces its views upon the rest of us.

[Well, consider the secular media. They push their views about sex, marriage, relationships, politics, and almost everything else, upon all tax-payers.]

Murray also gets it right regarding atheism, situational ethics, and the Nazis.

Gutless pathetic atheists: A.C. Grayling, Polly Toynbee, Richard Dawkins

H/T to www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/

Richard Dawkins, the pathetic coward

Even fellow Oxford professor Dr. Daniel Came has called Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate — see the video and links below…

Richard Dawkins is chicken -- too scared to debate Dr. William Lane Craig

A few links:

P.S. I wonder what the “C” in A. C. Grayling stands for? Coward perhaps?

William Lane Craig’s Reaction to Richard Dawkins’ Refusal to Debate Him

The Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig

Source: premier.org.uk/craig and H/T to Apologetics315.

In October 2011, William Lane Craig, arguably the world’s leading Christian academic apologist, will once again visit the UK for a series of lectures and debates.

Following his highly successful Reasonable Faith Tour in 2007, Bill will again present the case for the truth of the Christian faith, responding both to Stephen Hawking’s recent book The Grand Design as well as to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, which will then have just seen its 5 year publication anniversary.

Richard Dawkins has thus far declined a debate, but the door is open to him defending his book The God Delusion on 25th October 2011 at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford.

Provisional Schedule

The details of the tour are still being arranged, and the schedule below will be updated as events are finalised.

17th October 2011 at 7.30pmWestminster Chapel, London

Premier Christian Radio Debate on the existence of God with a well-known atheist (TBA)

19th October 2011 at 7.30pm Cambridge

Public lecture on Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design

22nd October 2011 from 9.30am – 5.30pm Westminster Chapel, London

Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference

Opening and closing lectures from William Lane Craig. Further lectures from Gary Habermas, John Lennox and Peter J. Williams

25th October 2011 at 7.30pm Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford

Lecture “Is God a Delusion?” A Critique of Dawkin’s The God Delusion

26th October 2011 at 7.30pm Manchester

Debate “Does God Exist?” with Dr Peter Atkins

“Why isn’t there more of this kind of thing being preached from church pulpits? If there were, I’d go more often and I’d stay awake during the sermon!”

– Comment from a self-confessed irregular churchgoer during the 2007 Reasonable Faith Tour.

Richard Dawkins called a “coward”

… by Oxford “philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist” Daniel Came for refusing to debate William Lane Craig, who has debated many “new atheists”.

Well, people have been calling Dawkins a coward for ages for this exact reason.

Imagine if a Christian wrote a book critiquing the new atheism and then said during an interview: “Richard Dawkins — never heard of him…”, yet this is what the coward said of Craig.

Source here.

John Lennox to debate Peter Singer

Details here.

Christianity and the Tooth Fairy: A UCLA law professor questions an Oxford mathematician on the claims of Jesus

John Lennox, Daniel Lowenstein
University of California, Los Angeles
6 April 2011

Children believe in the tooth fairy until their reasoning capabilities mature and they recognize this belief is neither grounded nor relevant. Does belief in Jesus Christ require a suspension of logic? Can Christianity be proven to be true? UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein interviews Oxford mathematician John Lennox with honest questions about Christianity and the grounds for faith. This will be followed by audience Q&A.

Lennox is an amazing and crystal clear communicator. It is so refreshing to see his interlocutor asking such sensible and well thought out questions (compared to the neo-atheists).

Lennox’s books are listed here.

Source: www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#!/v/1028

Audio clip also available.

William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris Debate Audio

Audio available at Apologetics 315. See also:

Videos of the debate are here:

Other stuff:

Comments: I was hoping that Harris was going to offer a solid critique of Craig’s presentation. Unfortunately in his first rebuttal Harris just ranted about how religions are bad, and terrible things happen, and how “Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice”. Unfortunately Harris came across, imo at least, as a terrible theologian, and he offered no rebuttal of Craig’s arguments.

In the second rebuttal, Craig laid into Harris’ “red herrings” and said that Harris fundamentally does not understand Christianity. He told Harris that Christianity is not a fire insurance policy. We do not believe in God to escape hell. Craig continued to assert that atheism provides no moral foundation for morality.

In his final rebuttal Harris just just as pathetic. Very sad for me because I was hoping for so much more. Finally, here is the final quote used by Dr. Craig from the final page of a paper cited below  – a very powerful conclusion to the debate.

Dr. Leff’s difficulty is the same as Dr. Harris’.  He wants to find a foundation for moral values and duties, in this case for the law, that would be independent of human opinion. It would be objective and would be in the world and he can’t find one. He says any attempt to ground values in the world is open to the playground bully’s retort, “who says!”, and this is how his article concludes:

“All I can say is this. It looks as if we are all we have. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, that is something transcendant, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless,
napalming babies is bad,
starving the poor is wicked,
buying and selling each other is depraved,
there is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.”

UNSPEAKABLE ETHICS, UNNATURAL LAW, The Duke Law Journal by Dr. Arthur Allen Leff

Source: www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law


Lawrence Krauss comments on his debate with William Lane Craig

Let’s just say that Krauss is not a happy chappy.  Apparently he put on his nice face and gentle demeanour during the debate, but now the gloves are off. And what better place to shoot off than…

… Richard Dawkins’ website … but beware of the trolls on there — they really are most unpleasant and often quite irrational.

Incredibly Krauss begins his first paragraph with:

It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week…

What is so amazing about this first paragraph however is how blind Krauss is. He accuses Christians of self-reinforced group-think, but seems unable to recognize that this is exactly what he and his Darwinian cohorts do.

It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how atheist devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals [e.g. www.RichardDawkins.net]. I suppose this is the purpose of regular scientism services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in Darwinian creation myths, the fact-Fact-FACT of molecules to man evolution, and stories of how things magically appear from nothing — which is of course not the same as not-anything…

The thing that amazes me about the “new atheist” materials I have read, watched and listened to is the anger, the unwillingness to even consider another perspective, and the intolerance.  At least Krauss actually bothered to look at some of Craig’s materials before debating him. I wonder if Sam Harris will bother?

The link to Krauss’ “Dealing with William Lane Craig” is here:

richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig

PS. Professor John Lennox who debated Dawkins twice is apparently debating Leonard Mlodinow who co-write with Stephen Hawking.  Anyone have any news on this?

Related links:

  • Review of the Krauss’ response by Bnonn at Thinking Matters here.

Live streaming of William Lane Craig versus Sam Harris debate

The William Lane Craig versus Sam Harris debate will be live streamed on the Notre Dame TV site.

On April 7, go to ow.ly/4tYVE

Thanks to @Ichthus77

An Open Letter to Dr. Jerry Coyne, from the Maverick Rabbi

Dr. Jerry Coyne is a distinguished biologist at the University of Chicago and  a self labeled “cultural Jew.”

Dear Dr. Coyne,

I’ve been contemplating the three attacks you launched against Rabbi Adam Jacobs and myself within a period of several weeks (3/7, 3/9, 3/27/11). They appeared on your website “Why Evolution is True”, and were, to a large extent,  in response to a column that Rabbi Jacobs had written for the HuffPost religion section (3/6/11) called “A reasonable argument for God’s existence.” Rabbi Jacobs had mentioned that some of the material was drawn from my book, Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. What I found most fascinating is that all these attacks were couched in terms of our Jewishness. Among the flowery gems that flowed from your highly enlightened, educated, and sophisticated pen:

“Evangelical Christians can be as moronic as they want, but when a rabbi says something dumb, well that sets my DNA on edge.”

”Frankly I’m weary of arguments like this one and deeply saddened that they come from Jews.”

And finally, “Jews can be just as willfully misguided about evolution as Christians like William Dembske and Michael Behe.”

Your first comment about setting “my DNA on edge” appears overtly racist. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as “Jewish DNA?” You say that you are “deeply saddened that they come from Jews.” Are Jews actually different than other human beings? Do you expect more from Jews? I guess you feel that we are superior to the gentiles. Has natural selection made us smarter than “moronic” Christians? What about non-Christian gentiles? Is there also such a thing as “Christian and non-Christian gentile DNA?” Gee, the next thing that might pop out of your Darwinian inspired view of reality is that there is also superior “Aryan DNA.” Hmmm, where have I heard that before? I’ll leave the analysis of your arguably racist views to some of the expert social scientists who inhabit your Hyde Park neighborhood. Let’s move on to the gist of the matter.

You stated that “Jews can be…willfully misguided about evolution.” What is so strange about this remark is that neither Rabbi Jacobs nor I ever discussed the theory of Darwinian evolution. The topic under discussion was the origin of life. When asked how life came from non-life, Rabbi Jacobs stated, “How? I have no idea. On the basis of all chemistry I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable.” Oh, excuse me. That wasn’t Rabbi Jacobs, that was Dr. George Whitesides of Harvard University, who has the highest Hirsch-index rating of any living chemist.  What Rabbi Jacobs actually said was, “The origin of life is a total mystery.” Sorry, I keep getting mixed up; that was a “moronic” Christian physicist by the name of Freeman Dyson in an article entitled “How We Know” (3/10/11) that appeared in the New York Times Review of Books. I think Rabbi Jacobs said, “We don’t know how life began…we don’t know the mechanism that turned non-life into life…we have many theories, many conjectures but we don’t know what happened.” What is with me today?! That was Dr. Paul Davies, an Origin of Life expert who made those remarks at the recent Origins Conference at ASU to a panel of some of the world’s leading scientists, including J. Craig Venter, Richard Dawkins, Sydney Altman, etc. In any case, did I mention that the title of Rabbi Jacobs HuffPost article was “Pssst, Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began?” I did it again!! That wasn’t Rabbi Jacobs, that was a senior writer for Scientific American, John Horgan. It was the title of his Scientific American column (2/28/11) reporting on the aforementioned ASU Origins Conference.

What I think is really bothering you Dr. Coyne is that Rabbi Jacobs and I, and others like us, have pointed out that the emperor is embarrassingly naked. Scientists are completely baffled how life could come from non-life and it deeply disturbs you that we would have the chutzpah to even suggest the possibility that it was created. What a slap in the face to scientists everywhere! How dare we suggest that perhaps there are mysteries that are beyond the reach of science!  After all, if scientists can build a hydrogen bomb, they must be able to do anything! At the end of your post on 3/7/11 you summed up your “slam dunk” response to misguided, medieval fundamentalists like us:

“Nope, we don’t yet understand how life originated on Earth, but we have good leads, [perhaps you should inform Dr’s Whitesides, Dyson, and Davies of the good news] and abiogenesis is a thriving field. And we may never understand how life originated on Earth, because the traces of early life have vanished. We know it happened at least once, but not how. I’m pretty confident that within, say, 50 years we’ll be able to create life in a laboratory under the conditions of primitive Earth, but that, too, won’t tell us exactly how it did happen – only that it could.”

How you “know” that life emerged through an unguided, purely naturalistic process when you admit that you have no evidence to support such an assertion, is a mystery that only atheistic scientists such as yourself, Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers understand. Imagine a District Attorney going before a judge with a petition to deny bail because he “knows” the defendant is guilty. When asked for some evidence to that effect, he replies, “Oh your honor, I’m confident that within 50 years we’ll have all the evidence we need!” The impotence of your argument, Dr. Coyne, and the weakness of your position speaks for itself.

I’m embarrassed when intelligent people present ridiculous and foolish arguments whether they are Jewish, Christian, or skeptics. Now you understand why I called my book Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist.

Sincerely, (Rabbi) Moshe Averick, 3/31/2011

Chicago, Ill.

RabbiMaverick@hotmail.com

www.RabbiMaverick.com

Videos of the Craig-Krauss debate

Here they are: eyeonapologetics.com/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss…/

Live blogging of the Craig-Krauss debate

www.apologeticalliance.org/2011/03/craig-krauss-debate-live-blog/

Jay Smith – Khalil Meek Debate: The Bible or the Qur’an?

Jay Smith debates Khalil Meek on the topic: Which Way America: The Bible or the Qur’an? Held on March 17, 2011 at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, this debate centered on the trustworthiness and implications of world views based upon the Christian Scriptures, the Bible, or the Muslim Scriptures, the Qur’an.

More here.

Live streaming Craig versus Krauss

Here is the live video stream URL for the Wiliam Lane Craig versus Lawrence M. Krauss debate:

thegreatdebatencsu.com

GREAT NEWS — IT APPEARS AS IF THE DEBATE VIDEO WILL BE DOWNLOADABLE!
[Read more...]