Do you have any visit to India in near future? If not, can you kindly come to India? Also, could you give suggestions for Indians across the world?
And cheers for Sam Harris!
/Edited: moved notes to relevant forum of Politics-Regional/
]]>God in the Box documentary at Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/603-god-in-the-box-documentary-at-heartland-film-festival.html
There’s a clip of Acharya S at 2:05 through 2:45
]]>I foresee Dr. Craig borrowing heavily from Blackford’s review of Harris’ book, and quote-mining liberally to undermine Sam’s rather fringe ideas about morality. Given the problematic foundation of his thesis, most notably the lack of any serious research on the science of morality, do any of you feel this could be a sticky situation for Sam until such research manifests?
I have also looked at the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
and it seems to me to commit the fallacy of equivocation in premises one and two. Isn’t he confusing physical causation with the formulation of existing matter into a new identity? Is there actually any evidence that physical matter ‘begins to exist’ on a regular basis, and would then be considered caused? An H2O molecule may ‘begin to exist’ in the sense that the new form of existing matter has attained a new identity, but can it actually be said to have ‘begun to exist’ in the sense he is claiming the universe ‘began to exist’? or are they, as it seems to me, two very different types of beginning, thus committing the above named fallacy?
I’ve also found premise two, in and of itself, problematic in the use of the word ‘begin’. Since time supposedly started with the big bang, does it even make sense to say the universe ‘began to exist’? Couldn’t it be said that, since at no time was the universe NOT in existence, it is then eternal (timeless definition)? Wouldn’t there need to be a moment prior to the existence of the universe, logically entailing the presence of time, to enable the use of the word ‘begin’ and ‘cause’?
I’ve heard his response to this objection in a debate against the Atty. Eddie Tabbash, where he claims cause and effect can be simultaneous with the analogy of a bowling ball and cushion. While Tabbash’s reply to this was rather weak, It seems that Craig’s response nullifies his argument for a ‘personal’ cause, which he justifies with the chain of causality, and would then leave him with nothing but his subjective ‘this is not an argument’ argument from personal experience with which to bridge the deism-theism gap. Perhaps forcing him to grapple with the inherent contradictions between his arguments could be the key to crumbling his house of cards.
Finally, his response to the POE. He claims that the argument presupposes the theist’s position, but it then ignores the important theological nuances of the salvation defense. Once here, most of his opponent’s allow the muddy water to stagnate until closing remarks, where Craig reasserts the salvation defense as somehow solid by virtue of it being ignored. Personally, I think this is a mistake of his opponents. If they were to quickly reach this supposed stalemate and press for an actual argument, not just speculation, that would connect the dots between tsunami, starvation, and salvation (as most dead children are unable to convert to christianity, according to a poll I just made up), I think Craig would be left flopping about on dry land like a fish out of water.
I also think Craig pushes hard on most of his opponents for arguments AGAINST the existence of God, and I think most of them ignore a very strong point: arguments like the POE, failures of cognition to explain revelation, and inconsistencies in the supposed ‘changeless’ nature of God are themselves arguments against the existence of such a being. If god is supposed to be all-loving, and all powerful, wouldn’t the existence of evil be, in and of itself, an argument against the existence of a being with these attributes? It seems like the salvation defense is a total non-sequitor unless the main focus of this being is the afterlife, which then calls this entire vale of tears into question as arbitrary and unnecessarily crude (Hitchens handles this beautifully in his debate with Craig, and in his book The Portable Atheist).
—
TL;DR: I think craig’s arguments are beatable, but I *think* the key is to out-organize him. Craig’s one weakness is his numerous speaking engagements; the internet is an unrestrained glimpse at his playbook, and I hope Sam puts organization above eloquence.
]]>“Adored by secularists, feared by the pious, Sam Harris’ best-selling books argue that religion is ruinous and, worse, stupid—and that questioning religious faith might just save civilization.”
http://conferences.ted.com/TED2010/program/speakers.php
Maybe Sam can pepper us with what he will talk about…
]]>Yours,
Sarah
Christopher Hitchens will debate theologian Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University on April 4, 2009.
As of today, balcony and standard seats are still available for $10-15. A steal!!!
More info here:
http://www.apologeticsevents.com
http://www.biola.edu/academics/professional-studies/apologetics/events/#Debate
]]>Anyone attending?
]]>]]>Steven Pinker Live on Book TV on C-SPAN2 Sunday Nov 2
Join us on Sunday, noon - 3 pm ET on C-SPAN2, for a live conversation with author and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. He is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, and his latest, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Professor Pinker currently teaches at Harvard University where he holds the positions of Harvard College Professor and the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology.
You can join this three-hour conversation by e-mailing your questions to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or by calling in during the program:
East/Central Time Zone 202-737- 0001
Mountain/Pacific Time Zone 202-737-0002