Events

William Lane Craig to debate Hitchens, Carrier

4 Comments

UPDATE: Audio and video from a  panel discussion with Hitchens, Craig, etc. is linked here.

UPDATE: My play-by-play transcript of the debate is here.

William Lane Craig is arguably the most effective active defender of evangelical Christianity. He is currently finishing off a 5-day debating/ speaking tour in Ontario, Canada, but he also has an upcoming 4-day debating/ speaking tour in Quebec, Canada in February.

A listing of many of Bill Craig’s debates is here, along with links to transcripts, audio and video. Here is audio from a debate between William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong which I think is one of his better debates. It was later incorporated into book debate between the two scholars, which was published by Oxford University Press, 2004.

Craig is scheduled to debate Richard Carrier and Christoper Hitchens this year. The debate with Hitchens will be held on April 4, 2009 at Biola University. Radio show host Hugh Hewitt is the moderator. The debate with Carrier is scheduled for March 19, 2009 at Northwest Missouri State University.

Richard Carrier is a strong proponent of atheism, and did well in his debate (audio, video) with Mike Licona on the resurrection of Jesus. Licona has since been awarded his PhD from the University of Pretoria in South Africa with high grades, and would presumably do better in a re-match. Craig and Carrier debated before on Lee Strobel’s “Faith Under Fire” TV show.

Hitchens may be more of an easy win for Craig, as he struggled with the scientific and philosophical issues in his previous debate with Dinesh D’Souza, (video here). Hitchens also debated at Stanford University against Jay Wesley Richards.

UPDATE 1: Welcome, visitors from RichardDawkins.net and SherDog.net! While you’re here, why not check out my snarky series on the the war between science and atheism, in which I analyze recent scientific discoveries and how atheists responded to them! Part one, part two. WARNING! These two posts are deliberately mocking the new atheism by being as mean as they are on purpose!

UPDATE 2: Panel discussion in Dallas, TX with William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Christopher Hitchens on atheism is also scheduled, details here. Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009 from 1:00 – 3:00 PM.

UPDATE 3: You can get a LIVE FEED of the upcoming Craig/Hitchens debate for yourself or group viewing for $98. Details here!

UPDATE 4: Welcome visitors from Ace of Spades HQ! Ace wins Conservative Blog of the Year every year. Thanks for the link, Ace! New visitors, please take a look around. My blog is half conservative/libertarian politics and half analysis of arguments and evidence for and against the Christian faith. The goal of the blog is to bring together fiscal conservatives with socially conservative Christians, by improving understanding between the two factions.

Here are some posts that explain Christianity for non-Christians: the hiddenness of God, the problem of evil, religious pluralism, and the problem of the unevangelized. I also have posts on why men are leaving the church, how to make a pro-life case without appealing to religion, explaining the resurrection without assuming the Bible is inerrant or even reliable, etc. Please make yourself at home, and leave your challenges in the comments. Challengers always get the last word here, after my 1 rebuttal.

UPDATE: I analyze Hitchens’ case against God here, from his debate against Frank Turek.

News

Birth control funding to stimulate the economy?

Leave a comment

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is an ideal exponent of the view that conservative libertarian capitalists do have an interest in promoting intact families as the best environment for raising children. She argues that certain social issues can impose huge costs on the taxpayer, and also increases the size and scope of government. Government should at least do no harm in discouraging traditional marriages and even stay-at-home mothers.

In this article, she examines Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments regarding the inclusion of contraceptives in the the Democrat’s so-called stimulus package. This bill is no stimulus. It is a giveaway to the secular left’s special interest groups, on the backs of the productive private sector. Dr. Morse argues that supporting marriage instead of contraceptives would reduce taxpayer costs.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Morse’s excellent article:

If Nancy Pelosi wants to reduce the costs to taxpayers, she should be promoting marriage. Out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the surest roads to poverty and, thereby, to taxpayer expenditure. A recent study by the Institute for American Values conservatively estimated the taxpayer costs of non-marital childbearing to be $112 billion per year, or roughly the GDP of New Zealand. Responsible, sustainable childbearing takes place within marriage. And, incidentally, if Speaker Pelosi really wants to reduce abortions (which she hinted at, but did not say) she should also be promoting marriage. Some 80 per cent of abortions, year in and year out, are performed on unmarried women.

Here is a related research paper by Christine C. Kim of the Heritage Foundation on teen sexuality and the effects of family structure and stability in curbing it.

News

Domestic violence and censorship

Leave a comment

Here is a fascinating article from the Canadian journalist Barbara Kay in their national newspaper, the National Post.

The article describes how the Justice minister of a Canadian province was stripped of his Cabinet position for daring to suggest that men could be victims of domestic violence (DV) and not only women.  He did this in an internal e-mail – this was not even said in public.

Some special interest groups and their government allies have a vested interest in making sure that the public thinks that all DV is committed against women. There is a lot of taxpayer money at stake. If it were discovered that male victims of DV existed, that taxpayer money might have to be shared. Canada might then need a Minister for the Status of Men, an Office on Violence Against Men, a Violence Against Men Act, a National Council to Reduce Violence against Men and their Children, etc. I think that we should condemn DV against women and men, equally.

Here are the numbers from official government surveys in the UK and Canada:

UK numbers:

In the event, the CASI method found relatively high levels of male victimisation, to the extent that men appear to be at equal risk to women of domestic assault (4.2% of both sexes reported an assault in the last year).

Canada numbers:

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

Here is a related research paper by Dr. Linda Kelly, a professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law.