Why am I writing this post? Because I care about more than baseball, that's why! This afternoon I came across a transcript of a debate between William Lane Craig (Talbot School of Theology) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill). I have written previously about Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman is a former fundamentalist who lost his faith and became an agnostic. Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, of the Colbert Report interviewed Ehrman, and told him what an agnostic in reality was, but I'll let you google that for your own discovery, if you wich. The tragic thing is that Ehrman is the Chair of Religious Studies at UNC.
The debate was held at Holy Cross University in March of 2006 on the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. You can download the transcript of the debate in PDF. I found it interesting that the moderator of the debate mentioned that his all-time-favorite debate was between a man (whom many of us know and love), Alexander Campbell and a Roman Catholic Bishop, James Purcell, held in Cincinnati in 1837. That debate lasted for 6 days, and each participant was very wordy. If you should care to read the transcript of the Campbell-Purcell debate, you can read it all (360 pages of it, with the exception of page 348, which is a tad bit blurry) by clicking here.
I do care about more than baseball. But I am excited about watching the Cubs in the post-season. Eamus Catuli!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I've read the debate. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Do you think they seem to be answering the same question? What do you think about Erhman's epistimology regarding history? What do you think about the discussion of miracles and Hume? Other thoughts? I thought it was fascinating.
I hope you are doing well. Maybe next year will be better for my Rangers!! Probably not. In the mean time, go Cubs, I guess.
No, I don't think they were on the same page. I think Ehrman is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He speaks as an historian. Concerning the New Testament documents, he cannot know anything for certain, because he can't vouch for the reliability of the witnesses, etc. If he would apply the same methodology to his favorite subject, the alternative christianities, he would not be able to know anything for sure about them.
I get angry most times I read him. I gave the debate a cursory look at, but probably need to give it a closer read.
This just shows to go you :) how important it is to recognize one's own presuppositions.
Did you watch the Ehrman interview by Colbert? Do you know what Colbert asked him about what an agnostic is?
Greet my other Mustard Seed friends.
Post a Comment