VIDEO: The Feb 1, 2013 Craig- Rosenberg debate: “Is Faith in God Reasonable?”

_{kairosfocus

February 2, 2013

Philosophy, Video, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Thanks to Bornagain 77’s diligence, we are able to bring to UD’s readership, this important debate on the reasonableness (or otherwise) of theistic faith in an era dominated by Science, with Scientism an influential worldview rooted in the prestige of science:

[youtube bhfkhq-CM84]

(NB: The debate proper begins at 4 10 mins 27 48 seconds in, with the moderator’s introduction.)

Let us watch, let us reflect, let us discuss. END

PS: I have also put up the Dawkins-Williams Jan 31st 2013 debate here. (HT: SG.)

PPS: I think it worthwhile to add this David Wood video on the argument from reason:

[youtube xKX-QtEo2fI]

Comments

NOTICE: I have had to go through the thread and clean up. Pending an apology and promise to do better, JM is hereby invited to leave this and any other blog thread I own. He has had ample opportunity to take up reasonable alternatives -- make your own blog [5 minutes at blogger for instance] and link to it, or use an already derailed thread, but insisted on engaging a pattern that predictably would derail this thread if left to the natural course. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Lessons from the Alex Rosenberg – William Lane Craig Debate - Carson Weitnauer - February 2, 2013 http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/02/lessons-from-the-alex-rosenberg-william-lane-craig-debate/?fb_source=pubv1bornagain77_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

Guys I am at work and away from a computer or my IPad so cannot deal with your replies at the moment . I have made it clear repeatedly that debating such issues should be done by email. It's on record AGAIN that it is not me that is starting the derailing process. I am increasingly getting the impression my presence on these threads is causing a lot of discomfort and maybe a few of you ate trying to get me banned. _________________ My comment here is that a look at the thread above shows different, as you hopped on in the first several posts and set a very poor tone [can you imagine the reaction of the objector sites if I had let that stand as though it represents my view? And that is apart form the fact that I find it completely wrong-headed, I am trying to open your eyes to see what you did . . . ], which I tried to correct gently. You resorted to personal attacks against the thread owner right away, as I noted on already. See comment 4 with my annotations and cautions. Someone else did take up at 10, and I have noted on not feeding a derailment. The attempt to divert blame for derailing behaviour in the teeth of two proffered reasonable alternatives, is duly rejected. If you had had a civil intent you could easily have noted please go here to my new blog, or you could have easily used the already derailed thread, derailed by your attacking persons and their character. Your incorrigible behaviour has earned you a request to leave this and all threads I own. That is not banning, and I will leave open the opportunity of an apology and promise to do better as a basis for restoration. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

Removed as further distraction in the teeth of reasonable alternatives. JM could easily have spent five minutes creating his own blog, and could have invited response there. he could even have called on those interested to go to the previous, derailed thread. instead, in the teeth of repeated warnings, he insisted on trying to derail this thread. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

Jesus is a Jew. Muhammad is an anti-semite. Go figure.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

JM, If Jesus was a prophet in the service of Allah, surely he proclaimed the same message as Muhammad ____ Mung, please do not respond further to trollish distractions. I have taken action to request JM not to involve himself further with threads I own for insistent thread derailing and personalities etc, even when reasonable alternatives were given. This behaviour is more and more making me pretty sure this is a Dawah advocate coming here to push an agenda, not to seriously engage issues in a civil fashion. The only material thing is that it seems the vid we looked at recently shows a new Dawah strategy of latching on to work by ID thinkers and Creationists, then rebaptising hem into a Dawah context, using the typical proselytism talking points that I have already given major references on addressing. BTW, I feel fully justigfied in taking excerpts from that vid and returning them to their proper purpose. KFMung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Quit worshipping Jesus who never told u to but directed his worship and yours to God and return to the religion of Abraham. Abraham never worshiped Allah, so why should anyone else?
Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Steohen B: No , Paul completely distorted the message of Jesus Christ pbuh which was the Mosaic Law and crucially the theology in he name of God clearly showing that it was some Demon spiri thatt appeared to him on the road of Damascus. [ --> NB, kindly cf here in Ac 15 for the response of the Jerusalem circle of leadership to the teachings of Paul in light of his encounter with the risen Christ as Son of Man in light of Dan 7:9 - 14 (echoing Stephen's similar vision at his lynching, in Ac 7, esp 54 - 60), and his partnership in the gospel. [NB: Onlookers, given the events in the cave outside Mecca and onward falling into trance prophetic states in which further statements were made, such visions are particularly relevant in an Islamic talking points context: Daniel speaks of Son of Man coming on clouds in glory. Jesus, at trial under oath-bound extortion, says that yes this will be so of him. Stephem irst Martyr -- at his lynching -- has, live, such a vision of the glory of the Son. And Paul, pivotal witness against him (significance of the clothes of the stoners laid at his feet) then sets out to make havoc, only to find himself seeing the light and knocked off his high horse in the presence of his companions in persecution by the same glorified Son; then later the gospel explained to him personally by Christ is CONFIRMED formally by the Jerusalem apostles and elders unanimously as being in accord with what they learned on the streets and fields of Palestine from the mouth of Jesus. So, if one is looking for visions and revelations, one OUGHT to look to the risen Christ who personally arrested Paul, who obviously knew the official they stole the body spin and knew it to be hollow, or he would never have believed the vision. in this regard, the official AD 48/9 letter of the Jerusalem leadership in Ac 15 and their solemn official summary of their witness in 1 Cor 15 -- recorded AD 55 based on events dating to 35 - 38 AD, are utterly decisive. ] Note especially the terms of the letter sent out by those apostles with a delegation: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers[c] who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you[d] with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. . . . " I need not more than show the Johannine prologue that was written decades after Paul had passed off the scene by the last remaining Jerusalem Apostle, to highlight that Paul's view was in fact reflective of that gospel and faith once for all handed on to the saints. We may also point out that this all is due to the demand of Islam in the Quran that Jesus was not crucified, in direct contradiction to a fact of history recorded by both Christian and non-Christian sources alike, that is as well grounded as any we would reasonably expect. Multiply, by the sort of gross misrepresentations of both Jewish and Christian theology that are also in the Quran, and we see a very different view on the merits. Instead of railing, though, I just ask this, of JM: had I suggested the like on M's visions of "Gabriel" at that cave, how would you have responded? That should speak volumes on problems of tone. KF] Muhammad saws on the other hand by revelation from God was to progressively abrogate a few things so as to make it easier on the Pagan Arabs. That is a massive difference as compared to Paul who completely defaced Jesus and the Religion of Abraham. So I have misrepresented nothing. Quit worshipping Jesus who never told u to but directed his worship and yours to God and return to the religion of Abraham. ______ Allowed to stand, as a part of an exchange with a correction by SB just above in which there was a call to return to thread focus. The talking points made are of no credibility as can be warranted otherwise -- cf here and here on the debate (and here and here [Fr Boutros of Egypt] on the underlying questions on the foundations of Islam for those who need that) -- but that is not germane to the subject of the thread. Cf here on the Paulianity thesis, for those who need it. Also, cf here on the history that the position being advocated by JM has such a challenge addressing. This provides a 101 on why Christians believe as we do about Jesus of Nazareth. KF.JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Joe Morreale1187
Paul abrogated not only Mosaic Law which Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfil BUT also the pure monotheism of Abraham which by the Mercy of God was fully restored through His last Messenger Muhammad saws.
Paul did not abrogate the moral law of the Old Testament. On the other hand, Muhammad did abrogate Quran teachings in the name of God. I don't want to be unkind, but as long as you continue to misrepresent Christian teachings and rationalize Islam's errors, I will issue corrections on both counts. It will be far better to stay with the topic of the thread, which focuses on the contrast between theism and atheism. Stay with that, and we can do business.
So stop throwing pebbles my friend…….
I am not throwing pebbles, I am responding to pebbles that have already been thrown. I have asserted nothing that is not a fact about either Christianity or Islam. If we stay with the subject matter on the table, all will be well.StephenB_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77 Kantian Naturalist is a mysterious thinker, isn’t he? It is difficult to persuade him to descent, for a moment, to my humble level of basic straight talk philosophy.Box_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

nullasalus:
The problem is you don’t need “justifications”. Justifications are required in systems where there exists some standard of good and evil – the justification would be the argued, reasonable exception to the objective rule.
Mung:
If atheism is true, why does it need justification?
616Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Anyways KN, we do appreciate your presence here. I can't wait to get to Socrates Meets Kant! Currently working through Socrates Meets Hume.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

The first few things I read about Rosenberg's excogitations (also the last) gave me the impression that he was 'a little on the simple side'; and was puzzled as to why William Craig would dispute with him. One example of this egregious simple-mindedness was his objection that Craig was re-stating an argument he had made before, in another debate.....! What was he supposed to do? Change it to make it more interesting?!?!Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

KN:
Anyway, Kairosfocus is right — there’s a lot going on in the Craig-Rosenberg debate that merits close examination.
At least Rosenberg got one thing right! The debate format does leave something to be desired. But that's no excuse for not being prepared. Now, my memory is for beans unless my lessons are accompanied by pain/reward stimulus (at least that's how I justify my particular fetish) so I cannot recall the actual arguments, but the following seems relevant: The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of NaturalismMung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

“Irrational,” maybe not. “Unreasonable,” yes. If someone is devoid of empathy, lacks all sense of justice and fairness, it would be impossible, I conjecture, to get that person to adopt the moral point of view through reason alone. But I submit that no one who has empathy, care, concern, a sense of justice, etc. would wish that it were otherwise. (No one would want to become a psychopath.)
'Justice' and 'fairness' don't amount to much on atheist materialism anyway. And what's this "THE moral point of view" anyway? It's just the name for another subjective set of values and judgments. If what you mean is 'unreasonable... from the perspective of a certain, ultimately subjective perspective', sure. But really, who cares? Likewise, you say no one who has empathy, care, concern, etc would wish it were otherwise. I question that - more than that, I wonder why their inability to wish otherwise would matter given atheism and materialism. Would it matter if a person who lacked those things would never want them?
I think that nihilistic atheism is implicitly committed to the same presuppositions as the theism it supposedly opposes.
Insofar as both may agree that X is required to eradicate nihilism, and the theist thinks X exists and the atheist thinks X doesn't, perhaps.
Hence: to deny the conditional itself is to be beyond both theism and atheism. It is to believe that acknowledging the fragility of goodness is fully consistent with affirming the value of goodness.
The 'fragility' is not simply related to its 'eternality', but its grounding and ultimate nature. For the materialist atheist, the only kind of 'goodness' there is amounts to subjective judgment calls - and the psychopath can make a call that's every bit as valid as the "nice, kind" person. Again, you're trying to flower up the language and paint the distinction in poetic terms, and in the process you just highlight the problem even further. Saying that the non-nihilist atheism appreciates the 'fragility of goodness' makes it sound as if 'goodness' is this precious, delicate, wonderful but ultimately transient thing. But that's not the problem. The problem is what the nature of 'goodness' and such is. When the "fragility" is a fundamental kind - where 'goodness' is fragile in that it can mean 'being nice to old ladies' and 'cracking their skulls in with a hammer' because, ultimately, it's all about a subjective call - then the poetry goes away, and the real issue is made more stark.
It is to believe that acknowledging that my entire existence will end when my life ends — that the death of the body is the annihilation of the soul — is no justification for depravity, wickedness, or even just being an insensitive jerk.
The problem is you don't need "justifications". Justifications are required in systems where there exists some standard of good and evil - the justification would be the argued, reasonable exception to the objective rule. But there are no objective rules for the atheist materialist. There are just, at best, some material/physical facts of the matter - and 'goodness' is just a subjective judgment call. Hence, while you're talking about justification, the nihilist replies that their acts are beyond justification. They do not need it anymore.
No one just “decides” that something is a brute fact — whether a fact is ‘brute’ or not depends on where the inquiry takes us. Now, I do think that both theism and naturalism each have their “brute facts” beyond which explanations cannot go.
No, the 'brute fact' represents the end of inquiry. You don't discover 'oh, this is a brute fact that has no explanation' by anything but metaphysical assertion. The classical theists deny that they have any 'brute facts' - and that would be why the Principle of Sufficient Reason has its most prominent defenders as theists, and detractors as atheists. Either way, yes, you really can just decide that such-and-such is a brute fact, in part because 'inquiry' in principle never ends. You have to decide to end the inquiry - and that decision involves claiming something is a brute fact. Again, it's the naturalist/atheist version of 'God did it'.nullasalus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Thanks vjtorley for providing a link to Edward Feser and his excellent review of Rosenberg’s book. After reading some of the reviews I’m starting to like Rosenberg for his clarity and consistency.
E. Feser on Rosenberg: “Since what is real is only what is reducible to physics, there are no meanings, purposes, designs, or plans of any sort, not even at the level of the human mind. Our thoughts only seem to be “about” things. And if they have no meaning, we cannot really have any plans and purposes at all. Indeed, the self that appears to think meaningful thoughts, to form plans, and to persist through the continual rewiring of the neural circuitry of the brain is also an illusion.”
Rosenberg’s consistency is simply a joy for the mind! It confirms that consistent - stripped naked - atheism / naturalism is just laughable. It’s rather puzzling that Rosenberg seems to believe that his book contains a credible worldview. How would it be like to be living in his mind?Box_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Box, thanks for your comment in 89,, https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/video-the-feb-1-2013-craig-rosenberg-debate-is-faith-in-god-reasonable/#comment-445723 i.e. Just what and just what not is KN willing to stick his neck out and claim as rigidly and objectively true about reality so that we can test the merits of his worldview???bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Removed as off topic and as ad hominem, multiplied by derailing in focus in the teeth of reasonable alternatives. JM, you are now kindly asked to cease from threads that I own, as you have shown incorrigible derailing behaviour. GEM of TKIJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Removed for offensive language. Regarding the sins of Western civilisation, you -- and the onlooker -- may find Bernard Lewis' remark commented on here helpful once you have calmed down. And no, your behaviour in public gives me no reason to try to spend time on a personal email exchange. if you had been serious about a civil exchange, you could easily have commented in the previous thread, or even created a blog. Derailing is simply not acceptable. And, I think the astute onlooker will be able to see how I have "faced the truth" about Western Civilisation, which, despite its many flaws is well worth defending. And I say that as a descendant of slaves, one who understands the role the gospel played in the liberation of my ancestors. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

No problem KF, I knew a long time ago you couldn't handle the truth....... _______ Ad hominem. See below esp the onward linked. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

KF: Do yourself a favour and rid your self of the absurd Islamaphobia to which you are ignorantly or conveniently a victim of . The enemy as I have described above are nor a few criminal Muslims roaming about that are largely supported and manipulated by intelligence agencies of CIA, MI6 and Mossad. What is happening in the world is in great part due to high level Freemasonry/Illuminati and Zionism which are paving the way for the one eyed (see one dollar bill) anti Christs arrival. Sadly knowing you you probably will dismiss this as conspiracy theories. Be that as it may.... _______ JM, I will let this stand, as it is ever so inadvertently revealing of the problem. However, I ask you that any future comments in this thread be strictly germane. You are on strike three. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

JM: I have had to remove two off topic posts (one is about to go . . . ) that are clearly repeated derailing in the teeth of more than fair warning. You should have realised that the annotated posts and a warning were serious. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Removed as a continued derail attempt in the teeth of warning. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist (74): I don’t think that everything reduces to atoms and void (or sub-atomic particles and quantum vacuum), and I don’t think that mental states [e.g. consciousness, intentionality, rationality] inhere in some non-physical substance or substrate.
So what is not reducible to atoms and void?
Kantian Naturalist (74): Instead, I regard mental properties are the properties of a living animal, just as its physical properties are. So I start off with the idea of animals as being the sorts of things that have both mental and physical properties, rather than thinking of mental properties as properties of something non-physical.
Living animals have mental and physical properties. The question is: what is your ‘living animal’? Is it itself both non-mental and non-physical but does it have (emergent) physical and mental properties? Or is the living animal itself just physical and are only the mental properties emergent?
Kantian Naturalist (74): To anticipate the objection, “how did the mental properties of living animals first come into being?”, I think that I think that mental properties as being, most generally, emergent properties of extremely complex, holistic systems of particular kinds. So yes, I am committed to a pretty demanding version of emergentism.
You say that mental properties are emergent properties of ‘extremely complex, holistic systems of particular kinds’. Are ‘extremely complex, holistic systems of particular kinds’ mere physical systems subjugated to natural law? Can ‘extremely, holistic systems of particular kinds’ be explained by Darwinism? What do you think of physicalism and the causal closure principle?Box_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Removed as inappropriate and in the face of repeated warnings. There were several one sided claims on matters of history and theology that are best answered elsewhere. At first I was going to just strike through, but this one passed the threshold. Any further derail attempts, and I will ask JM to leave this and any other threads I own. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

I'd like to request that anyone who wants to engage with me in this thread read all of (36), (51), (54), (60), (74), and (77). In particular, in my (77) I suggested a road-map of how I position myself with regards to both Rosenberg and Craig, and even if you don't want to engage with me in particular, you might find some value in how I've set up the contrast between them. In a few other posts over the past few weeks I've also discussed my qualified defense of teleological realism with respect to living things, different kinds of irreducibility (the irreducibility of normative facts to natural facts is different in kind than the irreducibility of biological facts to physical facts), anti-foundationalism in metaphysics and epistemology, and a social-pragmatic account of meaning and justification. (Contra StephenB's suggestion, however, I do not reject the correspondence theory of truth.) Well, I don't know about you, but I'm getting a lot out of this! :) Anyway, Kairosfocus is right -- there's a lot going on in the Craig-Rosenberg debate that merits close examination.Kantian Naturalist_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Steady the Buffs! You should know, it's an occupational hazard on here, BA .... you argue with atheists and their assumptions are all haywire, so you get nowhere ... slowly.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

But alas KN, if you have no actual basis in reality (and I certainly can find no basis whatsoever for your philosophy), what is all your philosophical posturing really worth??? Nothing!!!bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

My apologies, KN. Just reading your response now.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Ah, but while Islam has contributed significantly to the advancement of empirical science, Joe, Christianity has contributed more substantially. However, the Shroud is a uniquely momentous deifact(!), which no one can seriously doubt, if they watch the video, so that the rug is pulled well and truly from under the atheists' feet. Their invocation of a multiverse of unicorns, pink pixies and the like, as their basic hypotheses becomes not so much, wrong, wrong, wrong, as 'not even wrong, wrong, wrong'. That is why that video and the posts of mine concerning it, have a place on this blog, KN. Not that my posts have always been as directly germane. Have you answered BA's criticism yet concerning the endlessly-evasive character of your reasoning? _______ Axel, you have a right of reply to KN. A trace of a miracle would indeed be germane to many issues, however I would appeal not to make this a shroud thread. This debate is very important as it is the obvious stand in for the Craig Dawkins one that we are obviously not now going to get. KFAxel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply