I know its not much of an advance notice, but I will be appearing this evening on CARM Radio at 5:00 PM Pacific time. I will be talking with Matt Slick about atheism and Christianity. Specifically, I wish to bring up the topic of original sin, as I have found this topic to be rather interesting as of late.
Tune in to the radio show and listen!
UPDATE: the link to the CARM site seemed to be broken. I fixed it. I'm still trying to get an MP3 copy of the show as well.
13 comments:
Sounds cool. Good luck on the show!
So did anyone listen? Any comments, criticisms, etc... regarding how I was on the show?
I gave out my blog coordinates during the show. I hope some Christians show up and tell me what they think.
I listened to about 45 minutes and then my streaming audio got congested so I had to stop.
I think your always asking for trouble, if not a hard time to say the least, when you try to argue against a Christian principle on their own terms. Case in point your Original sin argument didn't really pan out.
Anonymous,
Why dont you think my master-slave argument and self-ownership arguments panned out? I am looking for constructive criticism, and that includes specific reasons why you came to that conclusion. So if you could explain why you think my original sin argument didnt pan out, I would appreciate it. Also, there were many good points said by both sides in the last 10 minutes of the show that did move the discussion along a good amount more.
Matt Slick's argument of God owning everyone and choosing, in our stead, for Adam to represent us (again in our stead), didnt seem like it panned out to me. He used special pleading to claim that God owns everything and can do whatever he wants with it and make the rules, but then he tried to deny that that equated with a master-slave rleationship.
Anyway if some Christians or atheists could chime in and give me specific examples of what sounded effective and what didnt, and why, I would appreciate it.
Aaron,
for now let me just state that they do pan out under the atheist worldview but the problem was that you were taking a concept of the Christian worldview and trying to internally critique it which you couldn't do in that case.
For example, you cannot grant the existence of immaterial entities and then say that immaterial is not a distinguishable property from material. Either don't grant their existence or grant their existence and thus their distinctives.
Or for example: B equals A. A Equals C. C equals B. You cannot assume my two premises but try to deny the last one while assuming my other two. In order to argue against me you have to argue against my other premises.
Furthermore, which I don't think Slick exploited as much as he could have (at least while I was listening) was your claim to Original sin as illogic. The debate from all that I heard simply turned into a "who has the better ethic" squable.
I'll get back to you with some more thoughts later.
Later.
is there anywhere to download the show?
I havent found one yet Zach, unfortunately.
Anonymous,
Aaron,
for now let me just state that they do pan out under the atheist worldview but the problem was that you were taking a concept of the Christian worldview and trying to internally critique it which you couldn't do in that case.
Actually, I thought I was doing an external critique based on the concepts of self-ownership and individualism, and I was trying to point out how his worldview denied the concept of self-ownership towards the end of the show. Atheism says nothing about morality itself, so ANY moral system will "pan out" under the negative claim of atheism. No suprise there. My argument was coming from the moral system that is instinctive to everyone when put to the test: self-ownership.
If it sounded like an internal critique, thats a shame. I obviously should have stated more clearly that I was using individualism and self-ownership, which are EXTERNAL concepts to Christianity that it in fact borrows from.
For example, you cannot grant the existence of immaterial entities and then say that immaterial is not a distinguishable property from material. Either don't grant their existence or grant their existence and thus their distinctives.
When I pointed out the indistinguishability of immaterial entities from material ones (in the case where immaterial entities can be detected/interacted with by material entities), I was quite specifically NOT granting the existence of immaterial entities.
Or for example: B equals A. A Equals C. C equals B. You cannot assume my two premises but try to deny the last one while assuming my other two. In order to argue against me you have to argue against my other premises.
Furthermore, which I don't think Slick exploited as much as he could have (at least while I was listening) was your claim to Original sin as illogic. The debate from all that I heard simply turned into a "who has the better ethic" squable.
Actually, yes it did. And I was giving examples of how individualism and self-responsibility, which are antithetical to original sin, are a better ethic, and I tried to provide examples of where even a Christian would intuitively adhere to individualistic principles.
I also nailed Matt Slick with the "rape-baby" letter that he responded to. Maybe you should read what Matt Slick wrote on his Carm website. He says literally that children should not suffer for the crimes of their parents. So much for original sin! The only way Matt could get around that was by making a special-pleading case where he tried to justify a might=right system, but instead he liked to phrase is "right=right". But a master-slave relationship by any other name will smell just as bad.
I'll get back to you with some more thoughts later.
I hope you do. You still havent told me why you think my original sin argument didnt pan out. Instead you only went back to the immaterialist post from awhile ago (I now assume that you are the same anonymous as I was talking to on that post?) and you said that Matt Slick didnt exploit me as much as he could have.
Sorry if it sounded like I was making blind assertions.
Let me be a little more specific, though I will still have to get back to you when I have more time,
"Self-Ownership" is indeed an atheist concept which is one of the reasons why it didn't work against Original sin. That's what I was trying to point out. All you prove when you prove that self-ownership is incompatible with Original sin is that atheism is incompatible with theism on more then one level... No surprises.
My point about immaterial entities was merely an example... I wasn't trying to go back to any former topic and I wasn't trying to quote anyone's previous statements that's why I said "for example". And the example still stands that if your going to grant existence then etc...
The reason why I don't think your self-ownership, rape-baby example, slave-master example, etc.. etc.. arguments won't work against a Christian concept of Original sin is because the nature of the relationships which you are trying to use are not analogous to the Creator/creature relationship which you are trying to argue against.
My last comment regarding matt slick "exploiting" you just meant that I don't think it was wise to call Original sin illogical unless you were ready to give a specific example of which law it violates - which Matt originally asked you to do, but then let the conversation move elsewhere. It didn't seem you were ready to do that, but I don't know maybe you did after I had to stop listening. Can you?
Do try to find a recording of program if you can. I'd like to listen to the whole thing again.
Peace.
Thank you anonymous, that was much more specific and helpful :)
The reason why I don't think your self-ownership, rape-baby example, slave-master example, etc.. etc.. arguments won't work against a Christian concept of Original sin is because the nature of the relationships which you are trying to use are not analogous to the Creator/creature relationship which you are trying to argue against.
My last comment regarding matt slick "exploiting" you just meant that I don't think it was wise to call Original sin illogical unless you were ready to give a specific example of which law it violates - which Matt originally asked you to do, but then let the conversation move elsewhere. It didn't seem you were ready to do that, but I don't know maybe you did after I had to stop listening. Can you?
I see your points. Well, to me at least, Christian morality is illogical because it violates the law of identity in that is assigns blame or responsibility to entities that did not perform the given sin, nor did they consent to anyone representing them. I didnt want to take it down that road however, I wanted to instead show that it was intuitively immoral and I tried to do that by providing analogous examples where it would be plain to see that justice was not served.
I was trying to compare self-ownership vs. chrsitian original sin and show that original sin is repugnant while self-ownership is intuitive to everyone in any real world example. Obviously I could have given stronger arguments or been more specific with my analysis of examples used. I think that I was able to stress my points a little bit better during the last few minutes of the show... but of course I may be biased and I wish you were able to hear those last few minutes.
I thought that Matt Slicks admission that god owns us all exposed his moral system as bankrupt and nothing more than a master-slave relationship. The way he admitted it to me made it seem very obvious to me at least that his moral system was inferior. Of course, the Christians listening probably didnt hear it that way, but athiests listening would probably agree with me. Thats the problem with audiences to these kinds of discussions. The Christians already agree with a master-slave morality in the abstract concept of a creator God, while they will recoil from any master-slave scenario in a real world example, like with the example I gave where I would volunteer to be put to death in the stead of the 9/11 terrorist and he could go free.
I also tried to push "responsibility" and "representation" to their logical conclusions: that God is responsbile for original sin. I did this by taking Matts own words and saying that if Adam represented me then God represented Adam. But of course MAtt usesd special pleading to try to dodge that one.
Did you hear the part when I used Matts own rape baby letter to show that intuitively, humans believe that guilt cannot be passed down? In the letter, MAtt says that children should not suffer for the crimes of their parents, and I took that principle to original sin. Matt mostly ignored it, but I think it was a very important point, especially because Matt so instinctively "knew" that the rape baby should not be blamed or held respnsible for the crimes of its parents, but then denies this completely when adam and eve are brought up.
I cant find any download links on myfamilyradio.com, which is a shame, but at the least you should be able to listen to me next time I go on the show. Matt invited me back and tentatively we are looking at early May for my next appearance. I will give more advance notice on my blog once my next appearance date is finalized. But I dont think we will talk about original sin next time but the evidence for God or godlessness instead.
I will email Matt and see if there is any way I can get an Mp3 of the show. I would like to listen to it again too and hopefully improve my debate technique.
I hope you're able to get ahold of an MP3! I'd be very interested in listening!
Thank you Cassandra, and yes I am trying. :)
Yeah, make a post when you get an mp3 copy. I want to hear it as well.
As do I! Let us know, Aaron.
Post a Comment