We truly live in an age of wonders. One week after the debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, we have the video available on the Internet. I plan to watch this although I already listened to it. If you haven't heard it, now you can either listen to it or watch it. 
I'm not sure if it's news, but it does say something about society!!
Last night on Anderson Cooper 360, host Anderson Cooper went on a rant about how much he dislikes Jersey Shore star Snooki. The rant was spurred by a conversation about how Snooki was paid more than Nobel prize winner Toni Morrison to speak at Rutgers University.
Deadcast, i.e., once again, though we had perfect connectivity all weekend, 50 minutes before the program, BOOM, network outages. Rich has spent the four hours since the program working on stuff, and, for the moment, we are back up and seemingly operational. For now. In any case, started off with the announcement of the 2012 Apologetics Cruise out of Galveston, TX, headed for the Caribbean. Mike O'Fallon, my dear brother who founded Sovereign Christian Cruises as a result of running our first few cruises way back when, joined me to talk about the event, which you can read about by clicking on the banner ad that Hacim, Son of Ramalah, King of Graphics, produced for us in record time. My topics are already listed, and we are looking into expanding the cruise with a possible debate. That is all up to the Lord. In any case, there is a special, and really low, price available only this week, so please take the time to look at the information and see if you might wish to join us! After talking to Mike I spent the rest of the program interacting with the William Lane Craig/Sam Harris debate. I was shocked at Harris' approach and presentation, and did not even finish his 12 minute rebuttal (I will conclude the examination on Thursday's program). Hopefully our phones and internet will be working then, and if so, I would like to hear your thoughts as well! Here's the program.
Let's take a moment and look as Wes Morriston's premises in this quote. Why should the reasons why God gives his commands be superior to God? He made and set up those reasons also. He is not playing by anyone else's rules. God made up the rules, the environment, and is in complete control. Therefore divine command theory is far from rebutted. If one does not like the way Dr. Craig establishes the ontological foundation of morality, maybe one may prefer this quote Brian Auten posted this morning.
Since [Dr. William Lane] Craig made a big deal of this in his debate with Sam Harris, here is Wes Morriston's critique of it. Link. Here's a quote:
Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God's commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false.
"If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgements conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."1
- Francis Schaeffer
Image via WikipediaChad has compiled a nice little summary of links collecting the links for resources of materials that show William Lane Craig's interactions with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris, and Daniel Dennet - "The Four Horsemen of the New Atheism". Follow the link below
Image via WikipediaHere is a great essay from Elder Harvey Burnett. In this relatively short essay he takes on an often raised objection from atheists. Here it is as stated by Christopher Hitchens."Everyone in this room is an atheist, there's not one of you who isn't. You don't believe in the temple of Diana at Ephasus. You don't believe in the Egyptian Thor. You don't believe in Oden. You don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, y'u-know the other Aztec gods. None of you do. You're all atheists so far as that's concerned. Some of you believe that one of these is OK and that it's true. I just say, I'll go you one better and say I'll be an atheist and I'll be a consistent one."
Image via WikipediaMichael Licona is an excellent scholar. I enjoy his work and his resources. Today, Brian Auten posted links to a good video online series Dr. Licona has made available that walks people through the evidence for Jesus' Resurrection. Follow the link to Apologetics 315 to get the series.
19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. - 1 John 2:19"Blind" Faith - believing something without or despite evidence - is not to be respected. This is also confused with the "faith" discussed in the Bible. When I go sit in a chair in my house, I have faith that it will support my weight because it has held up my weight in the past and I haven't seen anyone fall from it. That's how faith in God works. It's an ongoing relationship where we trust God and God continually shows that He is faithful.
Image via Wikipedia
Image via WikipediaI'm not sure I worded that clearly, so here is a summary of what I am trying to say:
- Krauss has a scumbag friend who has exploited child prostitutes for sex.
- Krauss was an imbecile in the manner he chose to defend his friend.
- Since the pedophile is Krauss's friend, Krauss's behavior might be looked at through the lens: it is never easy to throw a friend under the bus--even when he richly deserves it.
- The free-thinking Gnu crowd is incapable of such nuance, because what Krauss did strikes them as anti-feminist, and nothing anti-feminist deserves a nuanced look.
