| Dr_Phil_Goode |
| Posted 03/25/08 at 09:20 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Greetings. 
Just curious as to whether the transcript from the Craig/Shook debate will or won't be made available for the purpose of discussion here and elsewhere.
Thanks.
Dr. Phil Goode
|
| Loading... | |
| Dr_Phil_Goode |
| Posted 03/29/08 at 09:08 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
From Dr. Craig's account:
Quote: ...the proceedings were less like an academic debate than the Oprah show. It was entertainment rather than education, cheering for your man rather than being challenged by ideas and learning something new.
It seems to me that an unbiased source, such as the transcript of the actual dialogue between Craig and Shook (sans table-thumps), would give those of us interested in "being challenged by [Craig's] ideas" an opportunity to see them in action.
From the same account as the excerpt above, Craig summarized the debate as follows:
Quote: As I later reflected on the debate, what was striking to me was that throughout the debate Shook was backing away from experience/reason/science. He denied our moral and religious experience, he questioned the Big Bang theory and the reality of the fine-tuning of the cosmos, he denied the historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth, and he rejected mathematical considerations about the infinite. To maintain his naturalism he had to continually deny experience/reason/science while offering nothing positive in support of his naturalism from experience/reason/science.
I can't help but wonder if the transcript would affirm that these ‘continual denials of experience/reason/science’ really took place... outside of Dr. Craig’s imagination, I mean.
|
| Loading... | |
| skunker |
| Posted 03/29/08 at 03:10 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
I want to listen to it too. I don't know anything about this debate and I can't find a recording online. |
| Loading... | |
| Dr_Phil_Goode |
| Posted 03/30/08 at 11:11 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Skunker wrote: Quote: ...I don't know anything about this debate and I can't find a recording online. That's because, at present, it's nowhere to be found... online.  Anyway, for the collective benefit of those interested in both sides of the story, the following came from an account posted on CFI's site back on 3-11: Quote: The reports on the debate from the students were similar to those I had heard when Dr. Shook debated Kirk Durston in Montreal last year, which likely points to shared training seminars for Campus for Christ debaters. Students’ eyebrows rose when Craig suddenly veered his arguments away from supporting the existence of God towards supporting his own favorite pick, Jesus Christ. Students also seemed upset that so much of the debate focused on the old ridiculous issue of the impossibility of morals without religion, as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion at hand.
"I found it kind of frustrating," said Elan Dubrosfky, the leader of the new UBC Freethinkers. "[Craig] said a bunch of things that were not really logical...[yet] you don’t get to have all the points made that you want." One classic example of this was a statement for the historical non-biblical evidence for the empty tomb, to which Dr. Shook replied that historicity needs confirmation by more than one book.
Our student leader at SFU, Blake Rieger, recalled Dr. Shook expressing his belief that no one really wins these debates. That possibly being true, there were still many losing arguments made by Craig. One of his most astounding remarks was even derisively repeated by the moderator of the event, who also happened to be the president of the UBC debate society. What did Craig say? "If you believe that raping babies is wrong then you must believe in God." Again, I'm personally after the least biased source possible - namely a transcript of the actual dialogue between the debaters, and preferably in written form.
|
| Loading... | |
| properlybasic |
| Posted 03/31/08 at 06:01 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Hey Fill, it's your dear friend, PB! Why do you think Shook's folks are unimpressed with Craig's moral argument to the existence of God? You've even felt its force!
|
| Loading... | |
| Rick_Blaine |
| Posted 03/31/08 at 06:39 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Dr_Phil_Goode...Anyway, for the collective benefit of those interested in both sides of the story, the following came from an account posted on CFI's site back on 3-11: Quote: ...Students’ eyebrows rose when Craig suddenly veered his arguments away from supporting the existence of God towards supporting his own favorite pick, Jesus Christ. Students also seemed upset that so much of the debate focused on the old ridiculous issue of the impossibility of morals without religion, as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion at hand....
I don't understand why the reporter thinks arguing for "his own favorite pick" somehow involves veering from supporting the existence of God. If someone provides an argument that Jesus Christ is God, and Jesus Christ existed, then you have provided an argument for God. Maybe if the reported spent more time listening to and thinking about the debate than watching the student's facial expressions this would be clear.
When the debate becomes available in audio form I can comment on the other claim that so much of the debate was focused on the impossibility of morals without religion. Whenever I have heard Dr. Craig speak about this the issue was morals without God, but I guess this debate might have been different.
|
| Loading... | |
| ChristianJR4 |
| Posted 05/05/08 at 12:15 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Dr_Phil_GoodeSkunker wrote: Quote: ...I don't know anything about this debate and I can't find a recording online. That's because, at present, it's nowhere to be found... online. Anyway, for the collective benefit of those interested in both sides of the story, the following came from an account posted on CFI's site back on 3-11: Quote: The reports on the debate from the students were similar to those I had heard when Dr. Shook debated Kirk Durston in Montreal last year, which likely points to shared training seminars for Campus for Christ debaters. Students’ eyebrows rose when Craig suddenly veered his arguments away from supporting the existence of God towards supporting his own favorite pick, Jesus Christ. Students also seemed upset that so much of the debate focused on the old ridiculous issue of the impossibility of morals without religion, as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion at hand.
"I found it kind of frustrating," said Elan Dubrosfky, the leader of the new UBC Freethinkers. "[Craig] said a bunch of things that were not really logical...[yet] you don’t get to have all the points made that you want." One classic example of this was a statement for the historical non-biblical evidence for the empty tomb, to which Dr. Shook replied that historicity needs confirmation by more than one book.
Our student leader at SFU, Blake Rieger, recalled Dr. Shook expressing his belief that no one really wins these debates. That possibly being true, there were still many losing arguments made by Craig. One of his most astounding remarks was even derisively repeated by the moderator of the event, who also happened to be the president of the UBC debate society. What did Craig say? "If you believe that raping babies is wrong then you must believe in God." Again, I'm personally after the least biased source possible - namely a transcript of the actual dialogue between the debaters, and preferably in written form.
Well Phil you picked a pretty biased source at CFI. The writer is not surprisingly an atheist who went to a mainly atheistic University to hear a debate on God. The reactions he collected are from fellow atheist. I must say that the writer's reaction as well as the other reactions he collected to some of Craig's arguments are just ignorance of the main issues. For example he writes Quote: Students also seemed upset that so much of the debate focused on the old ridiculous issue of the impossibility of morals without religion, as if that was somehow relevant to the discussion at hand.
Of course anyone who knows anything about Craig's arguments know that Craig defends the ontological or meta ethical argument for God's existence, not the impossibility of being [subjectively] good without religion. This misunderstanding can only be due to inexperience with philosophy or shallow thinking on the part of these atheists. I have no doubt that Craig probably reiterated the main point of the moral argument more than once, since according to the CFI report, the moderator brought it up again to Craig.
Another one is:
Quote: One classic example of this was a statement for the historical non-biblical evidence for the empty tomb, to which Dr. Shook replied that historicity needs confirmation by more than one book
Again it's just ignorance here that is causing atheist to see these "losing arguments" of Craig. First of all the New Testament isn't one book. That's indisputable. Second, history doesn't need necessarily more than one book for conformation. That's also indisputable.
From reading what Craig has said about this debate and reports like this from the CFI and others I have no doubt Craig had the better arguments. You don't need to be a Christian to say this. Even mildly informed atheists will agree that Shook's responses to Craig's arguments are either purely wrong or, like in the case of the atheist reactions, misinformed about the actual nature of the arguments (ie moral argument). For Shook then, this debate then will boil down to who had more rhetoric or table thumps/claps.
|
| Loading... | |
