There’s a lot of great stuff here that you’ll want to make use of. I downloaded quite a bit last night and started listening to Bruce Ware’s lecture “Feminist Revisions of the Doctrine of God.” It is facinating to me how both complementarians and egalitarians are charging each other with revising the doctrine of the Trinity—and heretically so—to fit their preconceived view of gender roles.
What started out as an interchange between Wayne Grudem and John Piper developed into a discussion involving 9Marks’s Mark Dever and Aaron Menikoff. The dialog—no longer really a back-and-forth debate—continues.
Abraham Piper raises the question of whether Baptists should consider paedobaptists as unrepentant sinners, which seems to be the necessary conclusion if, from the Baptist’s perspective, non-first-generation paedobaptists are failing to obey the Scriptural teaching to be baptized after conversion. It would seem logically that, if they are sinning unrepentantly, they are destined for hell.
Douglas Wilson expresses well one of the many problems with atheism in this portion of his latest reply to Christopher Hitchens in the ongoing debate: “Is Christianity Good for the World?” Wilson’s words remind me of Van Til and Bahnsen, who argued transcendentally that atheism cannot account for objective laws like the laws of math, logic, science, and morality.
Now we really need to address the point you continue to miss. I am not talking about whether atheists must do evil, or if they can do evil. I have denied the former, and you have now granted the latter. But that is not the point. We are not talking about whether your atheism compels you to run downtown this evening to shoot out the street lights. I grant that it does not. And we are not talking about whether atheists can do vile things. You grant that they can. We are talking about (or, more accurately, I am trying to talk about) whether or not atheism provides any rational basis for rational condemnation when others decide to misbehave this way. You keep saying, “I have come to my ethical position.” I keep asking, “Yes, quite. But why did you do so?”
So the point is not whether we could rustle up some nice places governed by atheists or some hellholes governed by Christians. If given a choice between living in a Virginia governed by Jefferson and living in a Russia under the czars, I would opt to live under your beloved Jefferson. Fine. But this is not a concession, because it is not the point.
Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, “I did it my way.” And then he adds, chuckling, “Got away with it too.” In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to him, and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism—and it must challenge the morality of his choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences. You mention this to him, and he shrugs. “Tomayto, tomahto.”
I am certainly willing to take the same thought experiment. I can imagine some pretty vile Christians, and if I couldn’t, I am sure you could help me. The difference between us is that I have a basis for condemning evil in its Christian guise. You have no basis for confronting evil in its atheist guise, or in its Christian guise, either. When you say that a certain practice is evil, you have to be prepared to tell us why it is evil. And this brings us to the last point—you make the first glimmer of an attempt to provide a basis for ethics.
You say in passing that ethical imperatives are “derived from innate human solidarity.” A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? What is easier to read, the book of Romans or innate human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says?
And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?
Christianity Today is hosting an ongoing debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens (website) and Christian theist Douglas Wilson (blog). The topic of discussion is “Is Christianity Good for the World?”
Here’s a bit from one of Wilson’s replies:
So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you must do more than employ words like “casuistry” or “evasions”—you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows . . . how?
The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.
Hitchens is either not following Wilson’s questions and arguments or is simply choosing not to engage them—perhaps because he realizes that he cannot, given his atheistic presuppositions, give a logically coherent answer.
Patrick Burwell with the Christian Worldview Network attended the recent debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and “Kelly” and shares his evaluation.
Comfort’s and Cameron’s own evaluation is that “the debate went wonderfully.”
Just a quick note to let you know that the debate went wonderfully.
When I say “wonderfully,” I have to qualify it. It was like an open air with an unreasonable and loud heckler. The “heckler” in this case wasn’t just the two atheists we were there to debate, but the fifty atheists in the audience. As per ABC’s stipulations, the audience was composed half-and-half—fifty Christians and fifty atheists. The Christians were very quiet and polite—the atheists weren’t. It was very apparent who was who in the audience. It seemed that no matter what we said, it was completely ignored by Brian and Kelly (the atheists) and then followed up with their anger, mockery, and insults. But as with a good open air, the heckler is simply a platform to speak to the crowd who is listening. In this case there is a crowd of millions who will hear clear, concise evidence for the existence of God. How incredible. So I am delighted, because of what we were able to say.
NEWS RELEASE: Atheists’ Mockery at ABC’s “Face Off” on God’s Existence
A 100-year-old Baptist church in the heart of New York was the venue Saturday for an ABC debate on the existence of God. Actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort “faced off” against two atheists from the “Rational Response Squad,” in a debate moderated by ABC Nightline’s Martin Bashir.
“We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case,” said Comfort, “but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. ‘Nasty’ is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum.”
In the debate, Comfort presented proof for the existence of God, while Cameron offered evidence to show that the theory of Darwinian evolution is unreasonable and unscientific. They pointed evolutionists to www.IntelligentDesignVersusEvolution.com, where they’re offering $10,000 to anyone who can provide a genuine, living transitional form supporting evolutionary claims. The debate also addressed such questions as “Who made God?” and “What about the heathen in Africa who’ve never heard about God?”
“The atheists made it very clear they didn’t like what we said,” Cameron explained. “They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn’t viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life.”
While Comfort and Cameron will have to wait until Wednesday to see what the public thinks of the debate, they report that they’ve already received encouraging email from one audience member who commended their presentation: “Good job last night! Although I received my invitation to the show via the atheist camp, I must confess that I was impressed with the two of you (and that I was embarrassed by at least two atheist audience members, whose hostile questions bordered on heckling—I admired your calm and courteous responses). . . . I find the ‘Design means there was a Designer’ argument to be perfectly logical. I just have yet to come across convincing evidence that this Master Designer of the Universe inspired the Judeo-Christian Bible.’”
Another encouragement, Comfort added, was that both mothers of the two atheists in the debate are Christians—one of whom was in the front row of the audience. Comfort stated, “Both sincerely thanked us for our stand, and said that they were earnestly praying for us.”
The entire debate will be streamed Wednesday, May 9, at 1:00 p.m. EDT ( 10:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/, then again at 2:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/abcnewsnow/, and an excerpt will be aired that night on ABC’s Nightline.
We will have the debate available for viewing online from our video sharing accounts. The videos will be available for viewing after ABC streams it live on their website Wednesday, May 9. You can visit the following link to find the video when it is available. Keep checking after ABC streams it live.
The debate took place on Saturday and the first half was aired today at 1 PM and again at 2 PM. A condensed version will appear tonight on Nightline. The second half will air tomorrow at the same times.
We’ll have much more on the Face-Off tonight on Nightline at 11:35 p.m. You can also watch the rest of the debate Thursday, May 10 at 1 p.m. on ABCNews.com and 2 p.m. on ABC News Now.
The debate on the existence of God between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and two atheists with the The Rational Response Squad, who back in January issued a “Blasphemy Challenge” (see our post), is scheduled to take place on Saturday, May 5 in New York City with Martin Bashir moderating. It was originally going to be streamed live on ABC’s website, but instead has been rescheduled for Wednesday, May 9 at 1:00 2:00 PM EST. A condensed version of the debate will also be featured on Nightline on May 9.
Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) will butt heads with two ardent nonbelievers using only scientific fact in a debate sponsored by ABC. Comfort says that the evidence will “absolutely” confirm that there is a God, and he will not speak about his faith.
“Most people equate atheism with intellectualism,” explained Comfort in a statement, “but it’s actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God’s existence is a matter of faith. It’s not, and I will prove it at the debate—once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.”
Comfort’s confidence that he can absolutely prove the existence of God in 13 minutes without using the Bible has my curiosity piqued. I think I’m going to have to watch this.
“What do you think of Richard Dawkins’ argument for atheism in The God Delusion?” Dr. William Lane Craig responds with a devasting critique of Dawkins’s illogical argumentation:
This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist” seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn’t follow from the six previous statements.
Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist,” then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
. . .
So Dawkins’ argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false.
In addition to requesting your prayers, Ray and Kirk are looking for a church to host the debate.
We need a small church building in the New York City area—seating for 100 to 150, stained glass windows—lots of character. Can anyone help us? This is urgent. Please contact us at mark@livingwaters.com or call 1(800) 437-1893 and ask for EZ.
Well-known evangelical pastor Rick Warren and atheist Sam Harris recently met at Warren’s Saddleback Church in California for a four-hour discussion of the question, Is God real?
WARREN: Sam, do you believe human beings have a spirit?
HARRIS: There are many reasons not to believe in a naive conception of a soul that kind of floats off the brain at death and goes somewhere else. But I do not know.
WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?
HARRIS: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.
WARREN: OK, then why can’t you just take the next step? Because right now you’re talking in extremely nonrational terms.
HARRIS: There’s nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that “I’m just spirit, and I can transcend the body.” That’s not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don’t think it’s the best conclusion.
WARREN: You’re more spiritual than you think. You just don’t want a boss. You don’t want a God who tells you what to do.
HARRIS: I don’t want to pretend to be certain about anything I’m not certain about.
Rick, last thoughts?
WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We’re both betting. He’s betting his life that he’s right. I’m betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he’s right, I’ve lost nothing. If I’m right, he’s lost everything. I’m not willing to make that gamble.
The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW) has launched a new website, which has a host of free resources available. These include articles, journal articles, book reviews, sermons, conference audio, and online books. They also have a new Gender blog, to which you can subscribe.
.
What started out as 
Patrick Burwell with the Christian Worldview Network attended the recent debate between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and atheists Brian Sapient and “Kelly” and 
The debate on the existence of God between 
Well-known evangelical pastor 