Brian’s new Reasonable Faith chapter in Belfast, Ireland
WLC’s new book “On Guard” for beginning Christians (coming out in March!)
WLC’s upcoming debate with physicist Victor Stenger on March 1, 2010
WLC’s upcoming debate with philosopher Michael Tooley, later on in March
How did WLC become a Christian?
Which books and scholars influenced WLC the most?
What is the focus of WLC’s current research
What books should a beginning Christian read to start defending their faith?
What books should an intermediate Christian read to start defending their faith?
What degrees can a Christian do to be accredited in apologetics?
The importance of having a mentor to help direct your studies
What dicipline is an essential jumping-off for Christian scholars?
Whice argument for Christianity is the most effective?
What should a person study to develop their personal character?
What skills are necessary for study, and how do you develop them?
Which scholars does WLC admire as role models?
How can a person develop to improve their public speaking skills?
What does WLC do to prepare for this debates?
How does apologetics connect with the concept of “spiritual warfare”?
How can you use apologetics to help the development of your children?
How important is your marriage compared to your studies?
What is the ultimate goal of the apologetic enterprise?
Does God have a specific or a general will for each individual?
What legacy does WLC hope to leave behind?
Brian did a good job on this interview. He’s a very nice person, too.
In fact, he’s so nice that he managed to persuade Biola University to offer a 10% discount on William Lane Craig’s Philosophy of Religion DVD set. It’s big and expensive ($135!), but you only need to buy it once, and Brian recommends it. I think that this set is a lot better than the Kalam Cosmological Argument set that is also available.
“A Conflict of Visions” is the most difficult Thomas Sowell book I ever read. So I hope these five videos from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University will give you all of the benefits without so much of the hard work.
In “A Conflict of Visions”, Thomas Sowell proposed that the fundamental difference between the policies of the left and the right derive from their respective views of human nature.
The left sees man in general as perfectly malleable. It sees every individual’s problems as being caused by society as a whole. Criminal behavior under this theory is merely a response to injustice; poverty is a condition brought on by greed; depression, drunkenness and illness are all seen as a fault of the medical system or our general “awareness”. Since individual problems are the fault of the whole of society, the solution must be to fix society by massive government intervention.
People on the right take an inverse view of the situation. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. This means, if someone commits murder, he is bad. If someone is poor he has declined to take advantage of opportunities manifest within a free market system. If someone is uneducated, he has not worked hard enough to secure education for himself. This attitude among conservatives means that the perceived solution is not to change society in a general way but to get government out of the business of regulating the people in mass and making them take responsibility for their actions in particular. Social man then is not malleable, but the individual can be guided by market forces.
And here are the videos.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
If you’re interested in learning how the world really works, you can’t do much better than Tom Sowell.
Today’s interview is with Jim Wallace of PleaseConvinceMe.com and host of the PleaseConvinceMe Podcast. As a cold case detective, Jim brings a unique perspective to his approach to apologetics and a very down-to-earth logical style. In this interview, Jim talks about his approach to the evidence (inference to the best explanation), Tactics and apologetics, debate vs. dialogue, pitfalls to apologists, and more.
Topics:
Jim’s background as an Catholic-raised atheist, and cold-case detective
Jim believed in the progress of science to answer all the unresolved questions
How did Jim become an atheist?
Why didn’t Jim respond to Christians witnessing to him without evidence?
What approach worked to start him thinking about becoming a Christian?
What did Jim do to grow as a Christian?
How did Jim’s police training help him to investigate Christianity?
What investigative approach is used in his police work?
Does “abductive reasoning” also work for investigating Christianity?
What sort of activities did Jim get involved in in his community?
How Jim’s experience as a youth pastor convinced him of the value of apologetics
How young people learn best by training for engagement with opponents
How Jim takes his youth on mission trips to UC Berkeley to engage the students
Is it possible to run an apologetics ministry part-time while keeping a day job?
Do you have to be an expert in order to have an apologetics ministry?
What books would Jim recommend to beginning apologists?
How the popular apologist can have an even bigger impact than the scholar
How the tactical approach is different for debates and conversations
Jim’s advice for Christians who are interested in learning apologetics
How Christian apologist need to make sure they remain humble and open-minded
How your audience determines how much you need to know from study
Jim’s reason for becoming an atheist, (his mother was excluded from the Catholic church after her divorce), is one I have heard before. Without saying anything about the Catholic church’s policy. I like the way he eventually came back to Christianity. No big emotional crisis, just taking a sober second look at the evidence by himself, and talking with his Christian friends. I’m impressed with the way he has such a productive ministry, as well.
and apologetics, debate vs. dialogue, pitfalls to apologists, and more.
WINTERY KNIGHT 