Why Civil Discourse is Vanishing and How to Bring it Back

Why can’t we talk politics or religion anymore? One reason is the social norm we’ve all heard that it’s the one thing we ought not do. But I propose it’s because we’ve developed bad habits that create an unhealthy way to talk to each other. What follows is my effort to capture the biggest obstacles that destruct our most meaningful conversations and how to overcome them:

1. We conflate the issue with the person.

Here’s a challenge:

The Contradictory Catholic: Joe Biden on Abortion

Human life either begins at conception or it does not. If it does, then abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and we have prima facie evidence that abortion is morally wrong. One way to formulate the argument is as follows:

1. It is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.
2. Elective abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

Toward the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan were asked to explain their view on abortion as Catholics. Here I want to look at Biden’s response line by line:

Rob Bell Agrees with Atheists on Hell

If you think Jesus threatens you with eternal torment unless you believe in him, you’re out of step with traditional Christianity. For those of you critical of this faulty concept, you're in the company of Rob Bell and numerous atheists he seems to agree with on this point. In the promo for his new book, Bell implies that if God is loving, he wouldn’t send people to hell (click here for his two-minute video speech).

As it turns out, this is an objection we usually get from atheists. In December 2009 I was in a panel debate on the topic, “Does the God of the Bible Exist?” where the atheists brought up this very objection. (click here for a five-minute video clip from the debate) For their objection to work, it must be based on: 1) an accurate representation of classical Christianity’s teachings on hell, and 2) a logical flow of thought. I will show it meets neither.

William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

Craig and Dawkins square off on stage later today! Yesterday I received this Facebook note from William Lane Craig. Since he sent this to all his "friends," I'm assuming it's public information. In case you're unaware, a debate between Dawkins and Craig would match up the world's most well known apologists for their respective worldviews: Dawkins for Atheism and Craig for Christianity. It's also worth noting that Dawkins has colorfully dismissed any future debate potential with WLC, which makes this so surprising.

Dr. Craig describes their first meeting...

I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de
las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US.
It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists,
scientists, etc.

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the
question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just
found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins!
It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my
hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the
panel.

He replied, "And why not?"

I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."

His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with
you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he
turned away.

¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.

"I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.

So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,
should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get
back.

The six-man debate panel is set to discuss the question, "Does the Universe have a Purpose?"



Affirmative Position: Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
Negative Position: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins



The organization's website has lots of videos posted so I'm hoping they will have this one up soon. I'll post it as soon as it becomes available.

UPDATE 11/14/2010: The video has been uploaded here on YouTube.

Is the art of debate declining due to phone apps?

The old adage, “Now, I’ve seen it all” comes to mind when viewing this article on phone apps for spiritual conversations. There are apps for Christians and Atheists alike, where users can quip back with a one liner to the opposing viewpoint at the touch of a button.

If there ever was a need for a reminder for us as believers to be diligent in understanding people and their viewpoints along with having good solid hermeneutics and biblical understanding, let this serve as one.

People are more than just their words; they have convictions and preconceived notions that need to be explored when discussing their spiritual state. Check out the link and be moved to become a more responsible steward and ambassador to the glory of God.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/technology/03atheist.html?_r=2&src=busl

Reflections on My Recent Debate

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

My recent debate with James Corbett on the topic, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?", has generated quite a stir. A number of people from various backgrounds and beliefs have chimed in with their thoughts, including a popular atheist blogger, a Christian science-fiction writer, a Christian postmodernist, the "Apologetics Junkie," and the Saddleback College paper (the debate was held at Saddleback College).

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Last November I sat down with my friend Greg Koukl while we were both at a conference in New Orleans to talk about his (then) pending debate with Michael Shermer. Greg gave me lots of helpful advice, but one quote stuck out to me in particular: “The more you sweat in preparation, the less you bleed in battle.” Given that my first debate was going to be on my home turf—in front of my family, friends, students, and colleagues—I most definitely did not want to bleed in battle.

So I prepared hard for about four months by watching debates, reading books, talking with my former professors, and even having multiple practice debates with friends of mine. I’ve probably never prepared for something harder in my life. While I have been a public speaker for over a decade, this was my first official debate. I learned very quickly that speaking skills help in debate, but they are only one component.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (2 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 2 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (1 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 1 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

Monkey Morality

This last Friday Sean McDowell debated Jim Corbett on the topic "Is God the best explanation for moral values?" If you have not listened to the debate you can download the audio here:

Full MP3 Audio here (HT: Brian Auten)

Dan Grossenbach also wrote a post debate review here.

Sean's contention during the debate was that God is in fact the best explanation for moral values. If there is no God there is no moral law-giver and hence no transcendent moral law which we can appeal to. In other words, without God we have no grounding or foundation for objective morality. We are left with mere subjective opinion.

It was not until late in the debate that Corbett actually offered an alternative explanation for the existence of objective moral values. Like many skeptics, Corbett  finally appealed to evolution as an explanation for morality. But does this work?

An Objectively Good Night

Success!!! Despite a few hiccups in pre-event planning, last night's McDowell-Corbett debate went incredibly well. Saddleback College was buzzing with students, families, scholars, and local citizens lucky enough to get a seat in an event that sold out weeks in advance over a period of about 10 days. Sadly, we had to turn away over three times the number as our room could hold but the webcast was viewed by over a 1,000 people from around the globe. In fact, Conversant Life told me that so many people logged in at one time that the server crashed three times (sorry about that livestream viewers). I would be remiss not to thank Karla Westphal (Saddleback College Freethinkers Club faculty advisor) for hosting the event and handling lots of logistics. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in her role.

Both speakers were articulate and dynamic which kept the audience captivated the entire 95 minutes without a break. Craig Hazen set the tone with his trademark wit and cordial demeanor. I witnessed first hand his unbroken contact with the timekeeper and even-handed treatment of speaker time limits. The only exception was when he granted Corbett an additional response in the Q&A portion. He even kept the course on track to about three minutes of our planned end time. Amazing work, Dr. Hazen! My only fear is the backlash I'm going to get from all those unable to attend now that Craig and Sean gave away free books and DVDs to everyone there (again, sorry webcasters).

Sean spoke first, as is customary of the positive debate position, and set the bar high for his opponent. Sean layed out his case in outline form stating two key contentions to frame the debate. 1) If God does not exist, we have no solid foundation for moral values, and 2) If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values. Sean carefully made the distinction between subjective and objective with Greg Koukl's famous ice cream illustration. He told the story of a terrible teen gang rape to show what it means for something to be objectively wrong. Sean argued that any ethical system must account for three things: 1) Transcendence, 2) Free will, and 3) Human value. Concluding that God makes the most sense of moral values, Sean then challenged Dr. Corbett to offer a better explanation.

Calvinism and Purgatory Debates

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries was involved in two separate debates this past week, both of which you can listen to for free.

The first was on the topic of Calvinism. James White appeared on Dr. Michael Brown's show Line of Fire to discuss this issue. You can listen or download this debate here.

The second was on the topic of 1 Corinthians 3 and the doctrine of purgatory. Tim Staples of Catholic Answers appeared on James White's show The Dividing Line. You can listen or download this debate here.

Visit Alpha and Omega Ministries for more resources and debates.

Enjoy.

Sean McDowell's First Debate

Apologetic Junkie is proudly coordinating the first debate in the young, though flourishing, career of Christian apologist Sean McDowell. While Sean travels widely as a popular Christian speaker on apologetics, he also heads the Bible department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools and is working on his PhD in apologetics.

His opponent, Dr. James Corbett, made his fame two years ago in a highly publicized federal case where he was sued for making discriminating comments about Christianity in class. To see a short clip from the Bill O'Reilly show click here.

During the lawsuit (which is still active), I heard that Dr. Corbett said disparaging remarks of Biola University and how he bragged about wanting to debate someone from there. So I asked Sean if he would be interested in debating Corbett, History teacher at Capistrano Valley High School. The McDowell-Corbett debate will match two men with heavy influence in the lives of Orange County youth. Last year, each of them mentored students who debated their worldviews of Freethought (Corbett's students) and Christianity (McDowell's students). Now, the mentors will meet each other on the public stage. They will debate a topic that tries to determine if the ultimate grounding of moral values can only be found in God. The debate: "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" will be held Friday night, Feb 26th at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California and will be moderated by Biola's director of apologetics, Craig Hazen.

Saddleback College student clubs Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club are hosting the event which is sponsored by Rock Ministries (Mount of Olives Church - Mission Viejo) and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Non-Saddleback students are $5 and early registration is encouraged. If you don't live nearby, it will be webcast live at http://www.conversantlife.com/ and should be posted online sometime after the event. View the flyer by clicking here.

The Debate Audio is Finally Here!

On December 9, 2009, Freethought Alliance hosted a debate at the Costa Mesa Civic Center titled "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" It was a 3-on-3 panel discussion between Christians and atheists.

The Christian side included Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and our own Dan Grossenbach from Apologetic Junkie. The atheist panel included Dr. Bruce Flamm from the Inland Empire Atheists and Agnostics group, Mark Smith, and Alex Uzdavines.

Let me warn you in advance about this debate. The debate was quite lively and unconventional, which is why some would prefer to label it a panel discussion (or even a street fight!). The structure of this "debate" made a real debate nearly impossible. Unfortunately rhetoric often prevailed over reason and prevented genuine dialogue from taking place.

Full MP3 Debate Audio here.

In addition, due to the nature of the debate we thought it would be helpful to sit down with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Grossenbach for a post-debate interview. Be sure to listen to their thoughts and reflections regarding the debate. It takes a lot more time to answer the difficult questions than it does to ask them. Hopefully this interview will answer the questions that time, format, and interruptions did not allow.

Full MP3 Post-Debate Audio Interview here.

We appreciate comments and feedback. Enjoy!

DEBATE Is Psychological Confidence Enough? Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra

it gets cut off at the end

The Arrogance and Cowardice of Dickie Dawkins

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries had this to say regarding Richard Dawkins:

...it is fascinating to observe the level of hubris, simple personal self-deception and arrogance, that defines Richard Dawkins as a human being who has dedicated his every moment of existence to his leadership of, and membership in, τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Dawkins' published works have been juvenile in their philosophical, historical, and biblical errors, yet, being a "scientist" overshadows all of that, of course. Hence, he will not debate the very people who would be able to expose his numerous errors. Behold the creature in denial of his Creator:

Debate Feedback

On Wednesday, Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), Dr. Clay Jones (Biola), and I debated three atheists at the Costa Mesa Community Center in a packed room of about 300. The crowd appeared evenly split between skeptics and Christians based on a hand tally requested by two of the debaters in an early exchange.

It was one of the most unique experiences I've ever had in my apologetics ministry. In general, I've received positive feedback from Christians, but I'm curious to hear honest feedback from others who were there that night. Soon, I plan to write a summary of the arguments and give my perspective, but for now, I'm asking for input on the event. Perhaps we can start another discussion here on the Junkie. I know my perspective from on stage, but what's yours?

Ouch! Intelligent Design Guys Put the Sleeperhold on Darwin's Defenders

(Evolutionnews.org) by Robert Crowther

The great debate over the adequacy of evolution continues. Sort of. The latest head to head meeting had Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Richard Sternberg debating Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. Donald Prothero. Heading into the debate I was quite excited; these aren't lightweights, after all. The defenders of evolution are well known in science circles and to followers of the overall debate. Indeed, we've blogged a fair amount on Dr. Prothero who has, shall we say, a colorful and cavalier way with the facts. He is known more for polemical bromides and spurious personal attacks than for any serious science.

Waiting for the event to start, I was wondering if Prothero would be better behaved in person than he is hiding behind a keyboard. His partner was Skeptic magazine's head honcho, Michael Shermer, who has debated Stephen Meyer before, and is known for making more theological arguments against ID, as opposed to bringing any serious scientific criticisms bear. I expected he would be the good cop to Prothero's keystone cop. What I didn't know was that Prothero would be Ed McMahon to his Johnny Carson.

On the other side, the contenders are just as well credentialed — maybe more so — with one holding a philosophy of science degree from Cambridge (Meyer) being the less qualified, since Sternberg holds two degrees in evolutionary and theoretical biology. Not to mention that Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, is by far the most prominent book of any of the participants, having just been named a bestseller by Amazon.com, and last week honored in the Times Literary Supplement of the London Times as one of the best books of the year.

It was all shaping up to be a serious heavyweight bout. And then Meyer and Sternberg simply KO'd the competition in the opening round. If I were being generous I might say that Prothero tripped over his own arrogance and impaled himself on his condescension, but let's be honest; he was completely knocked out by Sternberg. I think Sternberg earned a third degree tonight, one in evolutionary bulldozing.

The debate video will be made available at some point by American Freedom Alliance, the sponsors of the debate, along with Center for Inquiry, The Skeptics Society and Discovery Institute.

Shermer opened by denouncing intelligent design as not science and not to be confused with science, which is what he and Prothero apparently assumed to be the topic of the debate. (It wasn't, sadly.) Then he turned it over to Prothero, who — after repeatedly repeating that science cannot resort to the supernatural — proceeded to race through a litany of complaints against intelligent design and assertions about the creation of amino acids and proteins, most of which was non-controversial and also not evidence for Darwinian evolution. Prothero made a number of claims about RNA chains, about how the evidence of the fossil record is "ironclad" or would be if people treated it fairly, and about how the Miller-Urey experiment was right, "and even if they weren't it still works" (quit laughing, he was serious!). His Darwinian motivational rant went on about how the Cambrian explosion was really a "slow fuse," not an explosion. Amazingly, he claimed that almost all the major phyla had ancestors 50 million years before the Cambrian. Alas, he was so far wrong that it wasn't all that much effort to point it out, completely discredit him, and then let him hang himself with his twisted rope of unearned arrogance and condescension. If you're going to be arrogant, you'd better be able to back it up with something better than, "I climbed some rocks in Russia and read an article in The New Scientist."

To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "creationists" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river.

This guy is to be taken seriously? I had to remind myself not to laugh every so often during his presentation — it was so pathetic and ill-informed. Basically, Shermer and Prothero blathered on about supernaturalism, and Meyer ceded his time to Sternberg, who made an interesting presentation about whale evolution. Then he proceeded to point out the topic of the debate to Shermer and Prothero: Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?, something which they never addressed because they were so busy falling all over themselves to denounce intelligent design.

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.
____________________________________________________

Brian at Apologetics315 recently posted the audio for the debate:

Full MP3 Audio here.

Enjoy!

The Failure of Scientism

Science is good, but science isn't everything. Taken to an abnormal and irrational extreme it may be properly labeled "scientism." This is the view that "science is the only paradigm of truth and rationality...Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible."(1) In other words, you can't know something unless you can prove it scientifically.

In a 1998 debate, William Lane Craig faced off against Peter Atkins on the question "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?" During the debate, Peter Atkins made the claim that science can account for everything and is "omnipotent." When questioned by Atkins regarding what science can't account for, Craig lists the following five examples of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we are all rational to accept:

1. Logical and mathematical truths
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

Watch the clip here:



If you enjoyed this short clip, download the entire debate:

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!
______________________________________________

1. See Love Your God With All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland, pg. 144.

My First Debate

I've recently been challenged by an atheist to defend Christianity. While this is nothing new, this time, it's going to be recorded before a live audience of 500. It's a 3-on-3 panel debate on the topic "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" at the Costa Mesa civic center on the evening of December 9th.

As some of you know, I'm coordinating a debate between Sean McDowell and Dr. Jim Corbett for February 26th, 2010. It wasn't my intention to get involved in another one, let alone as a debater, but I'm excited about putting my training to the test. I am blessed to report that Christian brothers Clay Jones and Hugh Ross will be seated on the panel with me.

CLAY JONES, M.Div - Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Prior to teaching at Biola, Dr. Jones was host of a weekly, call-in nationally syndicated talk radio program. Dr. Jones was the executive director of Simon Greenleaf University (now Trinity Law School), which offered degrees in law, Christian apologetics, and international human rights. Dr. Jones authored Prepared Defense, an interactive apologetics software program, encyclopedia articles on theodicy, evil, and suffering; journal articles on why God ordered the destruction of the Canaanites, and has a forthcoming book, Why God Allows Evil. Dr. Jones has been on the pastoral staff of two large churches and speaks widely on why God allows evil; Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-hunts, etc.; the glory that awaits the Christian in heaven; and related topics. Here are a few examples of groups Clay has debated:

• a Buddhism professor
• the head of the Islamic Information Institute
• a Muslim cleric
• a Church of Scientology minister
• Mormon leaders
• Jehovah’s Witness leaders
• representatives of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• the Council for democratic and Secular Humanism
• KFI’s Bill Handle
• a UCI professor on evil
• Gay rights activists
• a pastor who helps people form their own religions

HUGH ROSS, founder and president of Reasons to Believe, completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or "quasars," some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe. He and his colleagues at Reasons To Believe keep tabs on the frontiers of research and how it connects with biblical theology. In this realm, he has written many books, including: The Fingerprint of God, The Creator and the Cosmos, Beyond the Cosmos, The Genesis Question, A Matter of Days, Creation As Science, and Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. Between writing books and articles and hosting Creation Update, a weekly live webcast, Hugh travels the world challenging students and faculty, churches and professional groups to consider what they believe and why. He presents a persuasive case for Christianity without applying pressure. Because he treats people's questions and comments with respect, he is in great demand as a speaker and as a talk-radio and television guest. Hugh has debated some of the sharpest atheist minds including a recent debate on the existence of God with Dr. Victor Stenger.

And then there's me, M.A. Christian Apologetics - Biola University. I'm the amateur apologist of the group and a federal criminal investigator by profession. I also teach apologetics at Mount of Olives Church in Mission Viejo and blog on this site. My area of specific interest is with epistemology and the argument for God based on the reality of objective moral values.

The atheists on the other side of the panel include Mark Smith, Alex Uzdavines, and Bruce Goings. Mark Smith runs the anti-Christian website http://www.jcnot4me.com/. Alex Uzdavines is a leader of the atheist club at UCI. Bruce Goings from the Inland Empire Atheist & Agnostics group and has over 1,200 blog posts on the IEAA message board.

This event is hosted by Freethought Alliance which is a network of local atheist groups from the greater LA metro area so we certainly won't be on our home turf. The debate will be moderated by Brian Dunning, a skeptic blogger who runs the site http://www.skeptoid.com/. Opening and closing statements will be much shorter than usual to allow more time for a lively conversation. Five questions will be submitted in advance by each panel to the other side. At the debate, each side will alternate asking the questions of the opposing panel who will give their prepared response followed by closely moderated discussion. The remaining time will be spent addressing questions submitted online. Being an atheist site, most questions are likely to be slanted against us. Email debate@freethoughtalliance.org to submit your question today!

We hope you can join us for an exciting night. If you have any skeptical friends, this would be a tremendous opportunity to bring your conversation to a much deeper level. Let us do the dirty work in bringing up the uncomfortable questions and then you can follow-up over coffee the next day with a simple, "So, what did you think?" Unfortunately, the event isn't free, but costs just $10 if you buy through Paypal in advance (otherwise it's $20 at the door). DVDs will be available for purchase too. At the risk of sounding like a salesman, there really is limited space in the auditorium (500) so if you're interested, you might want to reserve your seat soon. Visit the Freethought Alliance website for more info.

Clay, Hugh, and I are asking for your prayers during our preparation and that ears are opened for those who need to hear the truth.

Will the Real Christian Please Stand Up?

Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama