Talking about the "things that matter most" on July 19
4:00 – Fired for Presenting Church Teaching While Teaching a Class on the Catholic Church?
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have sent a letter to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class. A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student. Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by Howell. Ken joins us with his attorney, Jordan Lawrence.
5:00 – The Godless Delusion - A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism
The New Atheists came on the contemporary scene with an unprecedented mixture of confidence and scorn. And, sadly, most of the books written in response have conveyed an impression of ad hoc defensiveness. But not this one. The Godless Delusion by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley wages a full-scale frontal assault on the tallest turret of the New Atheists’ stronghold— the claim to moral and rational superiority. With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it. Pat joins us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Would speaking out against 42% of American Indians being sterilized without their knowledge or consent be considered a hate crime?
ReplyDeleteClarification- 42% of American Indian Women were sterilized without their consent or knowledge. Any idea who was responsible for these crimes?
ReplyDeleteExcuse please
Re: Patrick Madrid and The Godless Delusion
ReplyDeletePatrick,
1. You pointed out that Richard Dawkins "is a scientist, not a philosopher, so he's really not even competent to discuss the question of whether or not there is a God."
If Dawkins lacks the competence to discuss the existence or non-existence of God, then he also lacks the competence to believe in the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore Dawkins should be an agnostic, which strictly speaking he is.
2. I don't see the connection between having a thought and the existence of God. Did you prove in your book that having a thought implies the existence of God? (When you talk about thoughts and memories being immaterial things, I picture all of us with invisible thought and memory bubbles hovering around our heads, like in cartoons. Is that how you imagine it?)
3. You said that morality cannot be a human construct because things are right or wrong of themselves. I disagree. I think it's obvious that morality is a product of human experience and human thinking, and that moral concepts have become more and more sophisticated over time. So this really boils down to the problem of human thoughts, addressed in Point 2, only on a larger scale. If we can have thoughts without God, then we can have morality without God.
I'm looking forward to reading your book and checking out the proofs of your assertions.