All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Events

Preview of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate

21 Comments

UPDATE: I have now posted a preview of the William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate!

UPDATE: The video and audio from the Krauss-Craig debate are linked in this post.

I’ve put together some relevant resources to prepare you for tonight’s BIG debate (and to get tweeted by Brian Auten of Apologetics 315, I hope!)

The Big Bang and the Fine-Tuning

First, since Lawrence Krauss is a physicist, I expect that there will be some disagreement about the the kalam cosmological argument and the cosmic fine-tuning argument. To prepare yourself for the cosmological argument, you should print out this peer-reviewed article written by Craig. To prepare yourself for the fine-tuning argument, you should read this paper by Robin Collins.

And then you can watch this 10-part lecture delivered by William Lane Craig at the University of Colorado, Boulder. It is entitled “Beyond the Big Bang”.

Beyond the Big Bang

Here’s part 1:

The full playlist is here.

If you watch the full lecture, you’ll notice that Craig takes a question from famous atheist Victor Stenger. Stenger is a physicist whom Craig had debated before the lecture on the existence of God at the University of Hawaii. You can watch their entire debate on Youtube, and I’ve linked it below.

William Lane Craig vs. Victor Stenger

Here’s part 1:

The full playlist is here.

Keep in mind that Craig recently debated arch-naturalist Francisco Ayala (link goes to Youtube playlist), so he will be fully prepared to debate philosophy of science, should that come up. I don’t recommend watching the entire debate, because Ayala is difficult to understand.

The moral argument

The owner of the Persistent Questions Exchange blog informed me that Krauss has actually spoken out on morality and science in the past, so we may see some sparks flying on the moral argument. It may therefore be worthwhile for you to review Craig’s recent comments on Sam Harris’ theory on scientific foundations for morality. I think that Krauss may say something similar. (Also note that Harris will be debating Craig on April 7, 2011 at the University of Notre Dame).

You should either read Craig’s paper on the moral argument OR watch a lecture he recently delivered at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Here’s part 1:

The full playlist is here.

If you want to see the moral argument played out in a couple of debates, you could watch the William Lane Craig vs. Paul Kurtz debate on Youtube. Yes, that’s the same Paul Kurtz who wrote the “Humanist Manifesto”. Or you could watch the more recent William Lane Craig vs. Louise Anthony debate on Youtube, if you’ve already seen the Kurtz debate.

So, I think that’s where the clash is going to be tonight – on those three arguments.

Extra credit

Brian Auten maintains the William Lane Craig Audio Debate Feed here, in case you get through all of these and would like to see how well Bill Craig performs against other famous challengers, like Marcus Borg, Lewis Wolpert, Arif Ahmed, Bart Ehman, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, John Dominic Crossan, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, etc.

News

A closer look at Stephen Harper’s Family Tax Cut plan

5 Comments
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

From Life Site News. (H/T Jeanie)

Excerpt:

On the campaign trail Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a family income-splitting plan that pro-family groups are saying would correct a tax system that unjustly discriminates against single-income families or those where one spouse earns significantly more than the other.

Harper said the current tax system treats married couples like “roommates,” because spouses are taxed individually.  He is proposing a Family Tax Cut that would allow families with children under 18 to share up to $50,000 of their household income for federal tax purposes.

But the catch is that the change won’t take effect until the budget is balanced, which the Conservatives aren’t promising until at least 2015-2016.

Speaking in Saanich, B.C., the Prime Minister said the proposal will make the income tax system fairer for families and will provide tax relief to about 1.8 million families who will save, on average, $1,300 per year.

The plan is projected to cost $2.5 billion per year.

“There’s a tax unfairness that exists right now.  This will move towards a more fair analysis,” said Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, which has been pushing the income-splitting idea for five years.

Under the current tax system, two families with the same household income can end up paying different amounts of tax.  For example, a family with parents earning $60,000 and $20,000 would pay $1,292 more in tax than where each spouse earns $40,000.  And a family with one parent earning $70,000 and the other staying at home will pay $1,992 more than a family where each spouse earns $35,000.

Quist pointed out that when families seek a loan or mortgage, the lender’s decision will be based on household income, not individual, so the tax system should operate the same way.  “It’s only fair that when we’re looking at income tax levels, that we look at household incomes and household tax levels as well.  That’s the real benefit,” he said.

Some are complaining that the move encourages women to stay at home, but Quist says his organization’s research consistently shows that most families want one parent to stay home with the kids.  In fact, child care always comes up as their last option.

“Why don’t we afford the tax breaks to families so they can choose how to best use the money to suit their unique family needs?” he said.

Read the rest here. This policy is directly targeting single-earner families for tax benefits, while families with two working parents get nothing. That is a clear message being sent to couples. Being a stay-at-home mother and wife is a valuable contribution to society.

Let me be clear. My candidate for president in 2012 is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. But there was a time when Congresswoman Michele Bachmann stopped her career in order to homeschool her five children. She didn’t think that the public schools were doing a good enough job. She also took in 23 foster children into her home at various times. And all I am saying is this: Michele Bachmann did not make a mistake by putting her family first. And what we need is a government that recognizes the high calling of wife and mother. Yes, I hope that Michele Bachmann will be President in 2012. But I don’t want her to feel guilty about staying home to raise and educate her own children. We need to put in place financial incentives for all women to raise and educate their own children if they choose to. And then they can go on from there to run for President (or Prime Minister) – just like Michele Bachmann.

Back to Harper’s policy. There are policies that have nothing to do with abortion and same-sex marriage that are socially conservative. The more money that families keep away from government, the better off the children will be. This plan by Harper, a social conservative who does what he can do, will strengthen marriages and encourage mothers to stay home with their young children during the crucial early years. It makes marriage an even better deal financially, and will encourage couples to get married and stay married. There are policies that incentivize social liberalism, like government-run day care, taxpayer-funded abortion or single mother welfare. And then there are policies like Stephen Harper’s policies which incentivize stronger families and healthier, happier children. This is what you get when you elect a socially conservative economist. Pro-family policy. Pro-marriage policy. Pro-child policy.

Do you know what he should tackle next? A federal right-to-work law (or a federal law making the payment of union dues voluntary), and a federal choice in education law, (i.e. – vouchers). But maybe he’ll need a majority to do that.

The latest federal election poll is here. Harper leads the Liberals 41-24.

Related posts

News

New study finds that children of separation/divorce die 5 years earlier

5 Comments

From Life Site News. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

While many studies have shown the positive effects of stable natural marriage on the physical and mental health of husbands and wives, an eight-decade-long research effort initiated in 1921 by Stanford University psychologist Lewis Terman has found significant negative effects on the children of failed marriages.

The study found that such children died almost five years earlier, on average, than children from intact families.

In 1990, psychologists Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin began a follow-up of the work begun by Lewis Terman, whose main interest lay in a study of 10-year-olds in San Francisco, with the goal of forming a test to identify the potential of high intellectual achievement. One of the results of Terman’s work was the Stanford-Binet IQ test.

Friedman and Martin found that Terman’s original interviews with the children were so detailed and comprehensive that an analysis of follow-up interviews, and a study of the causes of death in the death certificates of participants, could shed some light on the significant factors that affect longevity.

The results of Mr. Friedman and Ms. Martin’s research are published in a book titled “The Longevity Project” and provide some sobering insights.

“Parental divorce during childhood emerged as the single strongest predictor of early death in adulthood,” the authors said.

“The grown children of divorced parents died almost five years earlier, on average, than children from intact families. The causes of death ranged from accidents and violence to cancer, heart attack and stroke. Parental break-ups remain among the most traumatic and harmful events for children.”

The authors noted that the early death of a parent did not have the same effect on children’s life spans or mortality risk as that of parental divorce and family break-up.

I think that depriving a child of a relationship with two opposite-sex parents over the long-term is child abuse. Children need to grow up with someone of each sex who is dedicated to them in a permanent, involved way. When will adults learn to think of what children need, instead of thinking of what adults want? Having a child is a very particular thing. There are certain beliefs you need to have, certain skills, certain assets and certain moral values. It’s not like buying a hamburger. It’s a little person that you are committed to. That little person will impose obligations on you. It is not there to entertain you, it is there to be loved and supported by you in effective ways. It’s not for you to use children like slaves to meet your own needs. Don’t have them if you won’t raise them.

Andrew sent me these articles from the UK about single motherhood by choice and fertility clinics for same-sex couples.