Posts Tagged Debates

Warren – Flew Debate on the Existence of God

My grad school philosophy and apologetics professor, Dr. Thomas B. Warren (God rest his soul), has the distinction of holding the longest debate on the Existence of God on record. His debate with Anthony Flew on four consecutive nights in Denton, Texas was a masterpiece of preparation and execution. Dr. Warren’s charts and diagrams went up like smoke from a fire.

Dr. Flew was considered the world’s premier philosophical atheist. He had spent his life arguing the atheist position and had written many important philosophical works, including God and Philosophy (1966) and Evolutionary Ethics (1967). He held to the presupposition of atheism and claimed that it was the default position.

The debate covers a large swath of intellectual territory including evolution, the classic arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological and teleological arguments, and more. Dr. Warren is a skilled logician and it shows during the debate. If you have an interest in serious philosophical discussion, take a day out of your life and listen to this debate. You will be richly rewarded.

Warren – Flew Debate

Peter Atkins evidently didn’t read Newton

In a discussion with John Lennox about the existence of God, Peter Atkins (Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford) made some quite bold claims – some of them condescending to the discipline of philosophy and theology (which I suppose for Atkins is next to palm-reading). Lennox was trying to explain how science and the concept of God are decidedly Not antithetical. He details Newton’s belief in God and how that it wasn’t a hindrance to his science, but rather, was an inspiration. During this exchange on Newton, Atkins interrupts and says regarding The Principia, that “The word God doesn’t appear in it.” (27:20 into the video – see link below).

I suppose that he could be forgiven for having not read the entirety of Newton’s Principia. Most of the world hasn’t. Heck, most of the scientific world hasn’t. Doesn’t really matter. God underlies all of the Principia and is blatantly credited as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe in the first edition. See this section from the General Scholium at the end of Book III of Newton’s Principia Mathematica (first edition):

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God …, Or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, coexistent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him** are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colors, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshiped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.”

A little due diligence next time, Mr. Atkins?

The link to this fascinating discussion can be found here:

http://vimeo.com/15799514

2009 D’Souza-Singer Debate: Preview of 2010 Debate in NYC?

Here’s a link to the audio of the 2009 debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Dr. Peter Singer. The topic was, “Can there be morality without God?”  This debate may preview for us what we are in store for in NYC for the Socrates In The City event on September 13th. We would, of course, hope to hear some new material from both Dr. Singer and Dinesh.

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/dsouza-singer-debate.mp3

Thanks to Apologetics315 for link.

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/

How Atheism Poisons Everything – a debate

The Fixed-Point Foundation will sponsor this debate on September 7th, 2010 in Birmingham, Alabama. The debaters are Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinski.

Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Dr. David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  The question being debated: What are the implications of a purely secular society?  It promises to be a formidable clash of titans.  In addition to being highly entertaining and witty, these two men have a serious message they want to communicate. You will not want to miss it.

Though Mr. Hitchens has reduced his schedule of public events due to illness, this debate is one of the select few that he continues to honor.



Christopher HitchensChristopher Hitchens, an atheist and polemicist, is best known for his controversial book,God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and, most recently, for his memoir, Hitch 22, which has been on The New York Times Best Seller List since its release last month.  Hitchens has been a columnist for The AtlanticSlate, and Vanity Fair, and has debated his views around the English-speaking world.  Hitchens is one of the so-called “New Atheists”, along with other notables like Richard Dawkins.


David BerlinskiDavid Berlinski describes himself as “a secular Jew and an agnostic.”  He has written a number of books on mathematics, but he is best known for his appearance in the Ben Stein film “Expelled” as well as for his irreverent assault upon the New Atheists in his book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  Mr. Berlinski, whose immediate family was saved during the Holocaust by the “American Schindler” Varian Fry, resides in Paris.  He possesses a Ph.D. from Princeton University and formerly taught philosophy and mathematics at Stanford University and the University of Paris.

For details of the debate, go to:

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/debates/319-howatheismpoisonseverything

Reasonable Faith NYC joins Socrates in the City for the D’Souza/Singer Debate

Registration is now open for this historic debate. It will be held at The New York Society for Ethical Culture on September 13th, 7:00PM. The Society is located at 2 Central Park West and 64th Street.

To attend, register at:

Socrates In The City Website

The debate topic: Is God the Source of Morality?

For an orientation to Dr. Singer’s ethical positions, see the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

And for Dinesh D’Souza, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D’Souza

This debate will have significant ramifications because if Dr. Singer’s point of view prevails in our culture, we might well be facing not only a Brave New World, but a Grave New World.

Google Maps Link for locating The New York Society for Ethical Culture:

Map of the New York Society for Ethical Culture

Next Page »