Friday, September 22, Healthy And Unhealthy Skepticism I'm continuing a discussion with Jon Curry on some issues related to early church history in another thread. Some subjects have come up there that I think warrant some attention in a post of their own. I want to address three points.
As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. For some atheists, it is rather maddening. Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it and for this, I respect him.
He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say.
Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints Falsification a healthy and critical skepticism have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear.
So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig. They think it will be easy to win an argument with anyone who has a wish-granting invisible friend. Craig for raising the level of debate on this issue. Though he makes many patently absurd arguments, they are no less absurd than some of the bad arguments made by his opponents, and they are usually more relevant to the central point.
Atheists tend to ramble on about irrelevant topics when they debate Dr. Not updated to cover his debates. Also see my reviews of his debates with Mike Begon and Shelly Kagan. Sinnott-Armstrong [ book ] A superb debate. Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong took statements from two of their debates, then clarified and expanded them to form the back-and-forth chapters of this book.
Dacey [ video ] Craig gives his usual arguments. Dacey responds with 5 facts that fit better with atheism than with theism: Dacey responds to the First Cause argument by saying that some scientists think the Big Bang does not explain the initial bang, but rather what happened after the bang.
About fine-tuning, Dacey says we might someday in the future discover how physical properties emerged from simple rules.
There are so many good arguments against fine-tuning, and again Dacey chooses just about the weakest counter-argument he could have picked. Dacey 2 [ audio ] Dacey gives the same arguments as in their previous debate, and Craig sticks to only 2 arguments: Kalam and the Resurrection.
This debate is mostly a repeat of their previous debate, but a little better. Craig seems to win this one simply by presenting more information and argument than Dacey does — basically, by talking faster. Price [ audio ] A great debate between two people who really know their stuff.
This is a hard question for Craig to answer, and Bradley is a good debater — on both the emotional and intellectual levels. This might be a debate that Craig lost. Parsons [ audio ] This is the other debate Craig may have lost.
He certainly lost it on logic, though he probably won on rhetoric and organization as he always does. Parsons is full of logic, common sense, and passion. If you make mistakes like this, Craig will make you pay for them.
Crossley [ audiovideo ] Craig makes his own well-developed case for the Resurrection of Jesus, and then there is some good historical back-and-forth between the two.
|Resources for Research Ethics Education||To listen in a player, use the one above or click here.|
|Committee for Skeptical Inquiry - Wikipedia||I am very skeptic of skeptics. Control of facts and deceptive presentation are nothing new in history from eating sweet lead, to the mad hatters mercury mishaps.|
Again, Craig wins by way of superior organization and rhetoric. Slezak [ audiovideo ] Slezak starts off strong, but then starts to lose quickly, and in his summary he forgets to remind his audience of all the good points he made up front.
In his first rebuttal, Craig demolishes about 20 different points made by Cavin — in a clear, convincing, well-organized way — in the space of 8 minutes. Ahmed [ audio ] Ahmed opens quite well. Craig says that objective moral values exist, and I think we all know it. Now that might pass for an argument at Talbot Theological Seminary, and it might pass for an argument in the White House, but this is Cambridge, and it will not pass for an argument here.Skepticism.
Skeptics may be born of early exposure and disenchantment with deliberate illusion. When the illusion is successful and creates a warm impression upon the youth then the skeptic’s doubt may falter, and the habit of suspicion and critique fail to develop. Introduction: I have undertaken this review of the case against Dr.
Andrew Wakefield because the issues involved are far more consequential than the vilification of one doctor. The issues, as I see them, involve (a) collusion of public health officials to deceive Continue reading →.
The need for research ethics education is specified, in part, by federal requirements from the NIH and NSF, and so some extent by iridis-photo-restoration.com of the rationale behind .
What Is “Healthy Skepticism” in Science? The exercise of critical thinking has always been one of the core principles in the study of the various scientific fields.
A healthy . In healthy societies, childless old hags are rightly shamed as failures, valued only for the menial labor (e.g. sweeping streets with a twig broom for $10 a month) they can perform before shuffling off to a . TO THOSE WHO ARE INVESTIGATING "MORMONISM" By RICHARD PACKHAM.
Revisions as of June 15, If you are investigating Mormonism (the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "LDS Church"), you are probably studying it in private meetings in .