1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

religion in a state school

Discussion in 'Workplace dilemmas' started by harshipper88, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Top right corner of the page, Skinner, under the avatar and at the bottom of the roll-down; that's where you'll find 'Log Out'.
  2. Principal-Skinner

    Principal-Skinner Occasional commenter

    Do use it yourself then.
  3. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Last in, first out.
  4. Principal-Skinner

    Principal-Skinner Occasional commenter

    thank goodness for the ignore option,
  5. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Yes, use it. Your comments won't be missed.
  6. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

    Vince_Ulam likes this.
  7. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my comments directed towards WLC were on the spur of the moment and therefore unsupportable and unreasonable.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    What I said I am fully able to justify whereas it is your comments about Richard Carrier which cannot be supported and are therefore unreasonable. In the truest sense, they were indeed "sour grapes".

    In #67 you said:
    In short you launched an Ad Hominem attack on Carrier because of what he was rather than what he has said or written. This is the essence of the "poisoning the well" fallacy.
    You then repeated this attack without justification. The fact that "He's a crowd-funded historian with neither position or tenure" does not preclude the fact that he has produced serious peer reviewed academic work on the subject of Jesus which, by definition, has passed serious scrutiny. Regardless of Carrier's position and whether his arguments hold any water, this attack was unjustified. You also made this comment before I said anything about WLC.

    Second you said that WLC was a "serious scholar".

    In response to this I said:
    In contrast to your comments on Carrier,I am quite able to justify the above position:

    "…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. WLC
    arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit WLC
    [The inner witness of the Spirit] trumps all other evidence. John Loftus"

    This is WLC's position on faith vs evidence. It is quite breathtaking and personally confirmed by WLC to others seeking clarification.

    It is nothing less than an absolute declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. WLC accepts this but still wants to play the scholar.

    "I guess I’m not a true intellectual. If my reason turned against Christ, I’d still believe. My faith is too real. WLC"

    No person making this sort of statement can expect to be taken seriously as a scholar.
    The fact that WLC still pretends to be a serious scholar with this self inflicted " intellectual albatross" around his neck is more than enough evidence to justify the use of the word "charlatan". Now WLC could avoid this charge and not really change too much what he is already doing but [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions] the charge stands.

    Now note this is not about faith, many scholars have faith but still manage to discharge their scholastic responsibilities.

    I could finish at that point but WLC provides much more.

    WLC is well known for rigging the debate he engages in and there are many complaints about this. This includes the title, the timing and the fact that he insists on speaking first. He then engages in dishonest tactics to ensure he "wins" the debate. If you look at the video you posted in #67 beginning when WLC starts talking you will see two of them.

    1. WLC says he will "assume that God exists". This is called "loading the dice". It is like saying in a debate about whether "can a man fly?" that you are going to assume Superman exists. In connection with the subject of this debate it is an unwarranted assumption and unfair because it frees WLC whilst at the same time making life very difficult for his opponent. It can be a fair position but it seems clear from the video that WLC is using it as a tactic.

    2. A few moments after this WLC then lists some names to justify this position. Fair debating practice would be to show a quote for each name to demonstrate the position they hold so that the opponent can address the relevance of the corroboration. WLC is being unfair by not doing this. In addition (not necessarily in this debate) the names WLC uses for corroboration have actually held contrary positions and in spite of complaints this has not been acknowledged by WLC. This is dishonest.

    These are not the actions of a "serious scholar". A serious scholar wouldn't need to use them.

    There is no doubt that WLC is a clever man. He has two PhDs for a start. So you would expect him to come with some pretty good arguments, especially after 40+ years.

    So consider his Kalam argument.

    His justification for the first premise is what?
    In fact it is an appeal to "common-sense".

    Two PhDs and that's the best he can come with and you think that is being a "serious scholar"?
    The street preacher Ray Comfort wields the same argument and he has no qualifications.
    What price two PhDs?
    As any science teacher knows, "common-sense" is one of the first hurdles to overcome.

    Kalam actually has a serious issue with equivocation which WLC's version makes worse.
    You would think after 36 years of touting this around someone with two PhDs would have sorted this out but no, it's still there.
    WLC's version of Kalam is neither sound or valid. WLC does occasionally make attempts at fending off criticism but these are often painful to watch.

    Things get even worse when WLC tries to include science into his arguments and gets into all sorts of problems including trying to deny the most tested theorem in physics. He then uses the names bit (as above) to try to fool the audience into thinking he knows something he doesn't but again the problem of the names actually contradicting WLC comes up which he then, again, doesn't acknowledge.

    Now this is the very essence of the definition of a "charlatan" which I quoted. Remember WLC mainly debates before lay audiences who wouldn't know the difference and therefore there is a particular burden on him to be completely honest with the information he presents. Again it is possible for WLC to avoid the charge by doing things slightly differently but [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions] the charge stands.

    Now, of course, you would think that someone with two PhDs would be clever enough not to try this in front of somebody like a world class physicist who would be able to instantly call them out. But no, WLC even managed to do this with the inevitable result.

    This is not the action of a "serious scholar".

    [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions] . Other academics make complaint after complaint and WLC just brushes this off. Even where he does change, he does so without acknowledging his mistake.

    WLC is only well respected within a small area of Christian based academia. Within the wider world of Philosophy, only Kalam is taken half-seriously. The rest of the stuff he produces is so full of errors and fallacies that it is not worth any academic's time even to tear it to pieces.

    In short, my comments (which are not original and are in the public domain) can be justified. Your comments have not been and indeed, in view of your factual inaccuracies, cannot be justified. They were said without regard for accuracy and are simply "sour grapes".

    Now to other matters:
    What a ridiculous and childish post. What makes you think the rules change for you just because someone expresses an opinion you don't agree with? Grow up.

    We are all responsible for our own posts irrespective of what others may say. I have accepted my responsibility for what I have said and have given a justification that is perfectly satisfactory. You won't agree with it,of course, but that is beside the point, I am entitled to my honest opinion based on the evidence I have seen and I have justified it also based on the evidence. Your judgement in this has no special status.

    This brings us to your [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions] posts. The charge stands and your excuses don't hold water and are rejected. I've already explained [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions] so I don't feel the need to repeat that information. If you can't post honestly then don't post at all otherwise what's the point? I find your justification above particularly irksome and completely unacceptable and really don't see why I need to put up with it. This is why I will be using the ignore option.

    Now you may be tempted to reply to this post but, since I am going to be ignoring you, allow me to urge caution on this , because you would have nothing to gain by such an enterprise.

    Have a Merry Christmas instead.

    [This comment/section has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2015
  8. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    When I were younger I would have relished the opportunity for an extended forensic back-&-forth with you, @irs1054, but I've learnt that it's impossible to have a productive discussion with an ideologically motivated atheist who will go around the world and back again to avoid admitting what is objectively true. This being so I'm just going to point you back to post #92. which lays out the evidentially indisputable differences between William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier.

    I will make further comment about the Kalām Cosmological Argument. The 'wider world of Philosophy' is no more concerned with ontology than the 'wider world' of physics is concerned with cosmology. The KCA is taken seriously by those philosophers with allied interests e.g. the Plantinga Conference 2014, in the same sense that cosmology is taken seriously by cosmologists. The KCA simply points out that consistent with what is known of physics & of mathematics the Universe had a beginning, something which is taught of as fact to all children with reference to the Big Bang. That an undoubtedly world class physicist like Lawrence Krauss (who bet that the Higgs Boson did not exist but that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure) would agree to three successive informal debates with WLC shows that he takes the KCA seriously, despite during these debates admitting that he believes the Universe had a beginning. I shall embed these debates below, around five hours and forty-five minutes in total, and people may judge for themselves the arguments and the decorum of the two participants.

    Merry Christmas to you and to yours.

Share This Page