For those all who’ve regularly been reading this blog for the past couple years (all zero of you), you’ll know a few things about me. For those who haven’t been following along, well, let me fill you in. And then, once I get that background out of the way, we’re off to the races. (Here we go)
“I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.” – William Lane Craig
Craig’s entire schtick is that it is reasonable to have faith in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity that calls for genocide; that that deity gives rules for the proper care and beating of slaves; that that deity created humans without the knowledge of good and evil, and then punished all humans, forever, because the first humans did something that was evil… which god had specifically and deliberately made it impossible for Adam and Eve to know. Besides the inherent absurdity of trying to rebrand faith from “belief without evidence”, to some strange alchemical modification of knowledge, there is the utter absurdity of Craig’s deliberate, patent, and freely confessed intellectual dishonesty.
My first video-cast debate.
I’m sorry the sound for my AC was so thoroughly awful. (Did kinda like that my lips blurred on film, that was kinda cool.) Here’s the text for my AC, and I’ll see if I can’t find the time to write up a transcript one of these days.
debate case and counter cases
Contention: Uncertainty is King.
Our probabilistic reality makes the Null Hypothesis mandatory. Nor is pure reason the answer; logic is subject to Godel’s Incompleteness, and axioms can be falsified by empirical investigation. Many of our linguistic and logical concepts are meaningless. (e.g. “nothing”, “identity”, “non-contradiction”, “locality”, “dead people”, etc…) Faced with the limits on certainty, the burden of proof is upon any claimant. The Null Hypothesis has to be falsified in order to accept any claim as provisionally true, and the null hypothesis is always the negation of the claim. And even when the dominant view is falsified, that does not mean that you can use the Fallacy of Bifurcation to substitute an unproven claim. While this does not prove that unproven claims are false, the assumption must be that they are.