HT: Erik Williams
HT: Erik Williams
While I work on directing, filming, editing, and producing today’s challenge response video, you can enjoy this debate between James White and Shabir Ally on the deity of Christ:
Some of my friends from the Discovery Institute will be teaching a one-day conference on intelligent design at the Rock Church in San Diego (Point Loma campus) on Saturday, September 15. Jay Richards, Casey Luskin, John West, Ray Bohlin, and others will be covering topics like junk DNA, science and faith, intelligent design 2.0, C.S. Lewis and scientism, human origins, and more.
UPDATE: There’s incentive to be one of the first 200 attendees.
In the video below, Muslim apologist Shabir Ally explains the two main reasons why he doesn’t accept the doctrine of the Trinity:
How do you respond to this challenge? Tell us how you would answer Shabir Ally, and we’ll hear Brett’s answer on Thursday.
Here’s my response to the latest STR Place Challenge:
This week’s challenge is adapted from an objection sent by Doubting Eric:
You said that objective moral values are self-evidently true. How can we know this? Why would the fact that I intuit something to be true be considered evidence that it really is true? How would we be able to tell the difference between a truly objective moral value and a genetic adaptation that encourages moral behavior? They would both “feel” the same. You would “just know” that torturing babies for fun is wrong in the same way that you would if that was an objective moral truth. (The instinctual genetic origin of such a moral intuition or conscience could be easily demonstrated with examples from the wider animal kingdom.)
I don’t think we can tell the difference by our intuition. All we can really know is that WE PERSONALLY feel like this or that is the right thing to do. There is no reliable way of determining if there are moral values and duties that are actually objective.
Any ideas about how to respond to this one? Leave your thoughts below, then stick around for Thursday when we’ll hear Brett’s response.
Here’s my response to this week’s challenge:
Here are some related posts that address a few of the challenges made in the flowchart.
If you haven’t seen this chart on Facebook yet, you probably will. How will you, or how did you, respond? It saddens me because it shows that people aren’t aware of the arguments actually being made against same-sex marriage, and they have even less of an understanding of Christian theology. But they’re unaware of their lack of understanding on both counts because they’re getting all their information from the people they agree with.
But now, here you are! Your friend is asking you what you think, and you have an opportunity to answer. What do you say? Tactically, how would you go about responding to this? The difficult thing about a chart like this is that it expresses so many different objections that could be addressed. Your friends are unlikely to read an extremely long, detailed answer on Facebook, so how would you engage them on this topic in a productive way? What would you address first, knowing that you may not have a chance to answer everything?
Give us your ideas, and we’ll hear a response to this chart from Alan on Thursday.