I have an initial report from the Palmerston North Bill Craig v Bill Cooke debate held last night:

There was a massive turnout of 1399 exactly in attendance. The word is that Cooke stepped it up and performed better than in Auckland but that Craig still won. Feedback from those in attendance was that it was a fantastic evening, thoroughly enjoyed by all.

I have been promised a more thorough report later today so will update this post accordingly.

Madeleine

UPDATE:

Author of Confusion wrote this review, reproduced in part below:

William Lane Craig & Bill Cooke Public Debate (Palmy)

Last night (19th June, 2008) I attended the debate which I talked about in a previous post.
I was astounded at the attendance - the Regent Theatre in Palmerston North has a capacity of about 1,400 and it was easily 90% full for most of the night. There was an impressive diversity of age, gender, and race evident in the audience and I would say it was a fairly accurate cross-section of adult society (it certainly wasn’t an old white men’s club!). From responses to the speakers the audience was polite but predominantly Christian and this reinforces my impression is that there is a growing religious movement pushed by several of fairly active church groups in Palmerston North and it is something I am going to start keeping a closer eye on.

My overall impressions of the debate were disappointing, and pretty much match Damian’s initial impressions. Craig had a definite game plan in the debate, and it was clearly a game plan from a skilled formal debater. Set up premises and then defend them. Sadly Cooke’s game plan was to dismiss the moot, largely ignore Craig’s premises (begrudgingly discussing them, almost as after thoughts) and mostly talking to three points almost despite whatever Craig said. I will raise these first and then go on to discuss Craig’s arguments:

Cooke’s Approach

1. Atheists do not assert there is no god but that they do not see the case for god as compelling or even a coherent claim (based on weak definitions). Unfortunately, while an interesting point, Craig never really tried to pin this on Cooke so it was really not a point worth making in the debate.
2. He used Lloyd Geering’s idea that the notion of “God” is a barrier to understanding the world around us, and that focusing too much on god gets in the way of rational discourse and promotes undue authority amongst those who claim to understand it. This was an interesting tactic but it failed against the so-called “logic” of Craig because most people (including Craig) missed the connection.
3. Cooke’s final point was that we should stop arguing about our differences and instead focus on our similarities and on solving real problems. This sort of argument, while noble, is not the way to win debates. He talked about how he was happy that Craig was a Christian and that he encouraged diversity of opinion. Again very noble, but in debates it is about point scoring not nobility (one reason I dislike the format) and this counted against Cooke especially in an audience of largely opposing views.

So overall it didn’t really seem like Cooke came to debate. The only life really came from him during the Q&A when some quick witted answers did score some points, but by then it was far too late. If the debate was scored he would have clearly lost.

We really want to send out a big thanks to some of the people who helped us to pull off the Auckland leg of Dr William Lane Craig's tour.

First of all to Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship (TSCF) for bringing Bill Craig out to New Zealand in the first place and overseeing his tour and making time in his itinerary for him to travel to Auckland. Particular thanks go to Nigel, Mark and Liz.

Bible College of New Zealand gave us free use of their lecture rooms, accommodation and advertising space in their Guff Sheet. Jenny was particularly awesome in ensuring the finer details were sorted.

Auckland University Philosophy Department came to the party with hotel accommodation, lunch and hosting a departmental seminar where Bill Craig spoke. Their HoD Professor John Bishop did a great job over making sure the Craigs were looked after and of course chairing the debate.

The New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists (NZARH) booked the lecture theatre, engaged the videoing services of the talented John Welch and helped with promotions and logistics and we understand it was one of their members who came to the rescue when we got overcrowded and hooked up the live video feeds. Liz & Helen and many others put lots of work into this and were a pleasure to deal with.

Finally to the main attractions, Dr Bill Cooke for stepping up for the debate and presenting the Atheist case and Dr William Lane Craig for agreeing to all these speaking engagements and for showcasing Christian Philosophy in such a positive light.

M & M

My small idea of getting Dr William Lane Craig to have a debate at Auckland University ended up being an event that far exceeded my expectations. Despite the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) booking a larger lecture theatre at the last minute we still had to open up three additional lecture theatres with live video feeds and we still had people sitting on the floor! Question time had to be extended because of the interest. The range of people in attendance was excellent; hardened skeptics, evangelical Christians and everyone in between, young and old, high school students through to tertiary faculty.

My experience within the tertiary sector and NZ Christiandom has lead me to believe that despite the secular and popular veneer one sees in New Zealand culture and often in the church, there is a real interest in questions about God, religion and morality. The reaction last night to a civil, rational, intellectual exchange over these issues confirms my suspicion that not only are people hungry for articulate and well thought out answers to these questions but that they can handle these answers coming in a sophisticated and academic manner; the trend of dumbing down these issues in order to be seeker friendly or to have lay appeal is misguided.

Anyway to the debate; the moot was “Is God a Delusion?” Bill Craig opened by defining a delusion, in accord with the dictionary, as a false belief. He then contended (A) there are no good reasons for thinking atheism is true; and, (B) there are good arguments or reasons for believing in God.

In support of (B), he summarised five arguments which he has defended in more detail in the Philosophical literature, very briefly they were: (i) the Kalam Cosmological argument (God is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe); (ii) The New Teleological argument (God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe); (iii) The Meta-Ethical Moral argument for theism (God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral norms); (iv) God is entailed by the best explanation of certain facts about the historical Jesus and his resurrection; and, finally, (v) a brief summary of Plantinga’s thesis that immediate experiences about God provide prima facie grounds for affirming that God exists.

Cooke’s opening was disappointing. I am not saying this because I am a theist and he is not, I have read many skeptical Philosophers who provide brilliant and powerful arguments for atheism (Paul Draper and Michael Tooley are obvious examples) and although I disagree with them I think they provide challenging cases that I can respect. However, Cooke did not follow their lead. Instead Cooke opened by defining atheism as the claim that “we do not know what the word God means.” Cooke then went on to state he does not think Thiesm is false but is rather a distraction. His argument then appeared to consist of claims that the concept of God has evolved throughout history, that this belief has been used by some to commit atrocities and to not follow important social and political reforms. He stated that there are numerous other accounts of God and there are non-cognitive forms of Liberal Christianity which are more helpful to the humanistic aims he shares.

Cooke also stated his distaste for a debate format where there were rebuttals. He alluded briefly to the problem of evil; however, he did not offer or defend any of the rigorous probabilistic arguments from evil proposed in the literature by people such as Tooley, Draper and Rowe. A crucial premise of many probabilistic arguments from evil is that God has no adequate reasons for allowing the evils which exist in the world. Craig (along with many Philosophers of Religion such as Wykstra, Plantinga, Van Inwagen, Tooley, Alston) has argued this premise is unwarranted as no reasons have been given for thinking the premise is true. The arguments on this topic are fairly detailed but not complex. Cooke did not offer a rebuttal but simply declared Craig’s position as distasteful.

In rebuttal, Craig noted that Cooke’s definition of atheism was incorrect. He quoted from a standard philosophical encyclopedia a definition of atheism as the belief that God does not exist which is quite different to Cooke’s definition which is actually something more like verificationism. Craig also offered a definition of what he means by God so Cooke could be clear on the meaning of God for the purpose of the debate. Craig then pointed out that Cooke had not offered any arguments for atheism in his speech. He had dismissed a response to the problem of evil but had not argued for it.

Much of the rest of Cooke’s speech was irrelevant as the question was not whether God had good political consequences but whether theism was true. Even if a belief is the result of social evolution over time, it does not entail that it is false (people’s understanding of democracy has evolved over time, it does not follow that democracy is mistaken because it has evolved and developed over time). Craig also noted that the truth or falsity of a belief is a separate issue from the conduct of those who hold to the belief. Similarly, the fact that a belief distracts some people from certain causes does not necessitate that it is false.

Craig also pointed out contradictions in Cooke’s speech. Cooke had stated that he did not contend that theism is false but later on he had stated that God was a human invention. Craig also noted that merely pointing out that other theologians disagree with Craig’s cognitive theism and offer alternative accounts of God does not show Craig’s position is false. The existence of differing opinion on a matter does not render the matter false, the reasons offered are what must come under scrutiny.

Cooke’s rebuttal of Craig was weak. Cooke responded briefly to the meta-ethical moral argument noting that theists and atheists are both aware of certain moral truths and should work together on certain worthy projects. This response, as Craig pointed out, confuses the question of whether an atheist can know moral truths with the question of whether atheism can provide an adequate meta-physical foundation for these truths. Cooke’s position that human beings have no real significance, that morality was simply an evolved convention of some sort, was, in essence, a concession of the meta-ethical argument.

Cooke addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument and New Teleological argument by stating that he was not a cosmologist and neither was Craig. He also suggested Craig’s knowledge of the historical facts surrounding Christ were mistaken, that scholars disputed the alleged facts Craig appealed to. He suggested that Craig was not familiar enough with Gerd Ludemann whose later works Cooke himself had read.

Unfortunately for Cooke, Craig was able to counter these claims. First, as noted Craig has studied contemporary cosmology; he did his doctoral work on the theological implications of big bang cosmology and has authored a book on it as well as several published articles. In addition, he has debated Gerd Ludemann and co-written a book with him and so could point out that Ludemann in fact did accept the facts he appealed to. Moreover, Craig could produce published review articles that surveyed the voluminous literature on the subject and the results showed that the consensus was as Craig had suggested. Craig also produced a fairly amusing illustration from Kai Neilson (perhaps more ironic given that Cooke frequently cites Kai Neilson in his debates) which illustrated the counter-intuitive nature of asserting that something could come out of nothing by nothing.

Cooke did make another claim that Craig did not counter, which was that scientific discoveries are subject to change and so it is questionable to base theological claims on such an unstable foundation. This may be a valid point, the problem is it would appear to uncut a key motif of Cooke’s rationalism. After all, don’t rationalists promote science as a source of knowledge and often attack Christian belief because it allegedly conflicts with science?

So in my opinion Craig was the clear winner. He offered five arguments, Cooke offered weak responses to which Craig adequately responded. Cooke at times refused to argue at all and kept trying to address side issues and did not really offer a case for atheism.

Of course it needs to be noted in fairness, that in many respects this was a mismatch. Craig is one of the best Philosophers of Religion in the world. He has published hundreds of articles defending arguments for God’s existence in the philosophical literature and is an extremely experienced debater. Cooke is a historian of the history of free thought with little or no publications in this area. Some of Craig’s previous debate with philosophical heavyweights like Michael Tooley and Quentin Smith were less one-sided.

I thought some of the real interesting issues and arguments came out in the Q&A. Robert Nola from the Philosophy department made an important point about the New Teleological argument noting that the fact that something is highly improbable does not mean it is irrational to hold to. Craig’s response was probably not as clear as it could be, he noted that the fine-tuning argument is not based merely on the claim that fine-tuning is improbable but rather that fine-tuning constitutes an improbable sequence of patterns. (Craig has made this point more thoroughly in the literature.)

Ray Bradley, a retired Philosophy Professor, raised a version of the deontological problem of evil noting that God seems to violate certain moral duties such as do not kill. Craig’s response was that if one holds to a divine command (DCT) theory of ethics then right and wrong are constituted by God’s commands. From this, it follows that because God does not issue commands to himself, he does not have duties. If God has no duties then God cannot violate any.

However, this is not the full story; one powerful objection to a DCT is to note that God could command abhorrent things like torture and hence a DCT would entail the counter-intuitive conclusion that torture is morally required. Divine Command theorists (like Craig and myself) typically avoid this objection by noting that God is perfectly virtuous and hence there are certain things he would not command. Bradley’s question could be rephrased in terms of whether a virtuous person would command or do these things and Craig’s initial response would not settle this but there are plenty of lines of thought in the literature which could.

In another exchange Bradley raised the issue of Hell noting that the book of revelation portrays this as a place of eternal torment in fire. Craig pointed out that such passages are in fact highly metaphorical and do not in fact say what Bradley thinks they do. Cooke responded by stating that Craig was being inconsistent he sometimes takes the bible literally and sometimes figuratively and Craig (who has a DTheol in New Testament studies) does not understand that the genre of the new testament is myth.

In fact Cooke is wrong and Craig is right. Revelation has a particular genre, it is Jewish Apocalyptic and this genre is known to use special types of recognisable symbolism. Burridge has shown the gospels are written in the genre of greek biography and not myth. Moreover, the implicit assumption on Cooke’s part that when reading a piece of writing with multiple genres (such as the bible) one should either reads everything literally or everything figuratively is absurd. Even in every-day conversation one uses a mixture of both literal and metaphorical phrases and things like context and genre determine which reading one engages in. As Madeleine pointed out to me, one of her favourite books is a sci-fi fantasy novel that contains an index of characters and terms at the back. Despite the fact the index and the story are contained in one book, she would be in error to read the index figuratively or the story literally; it is not uncommon for one book to have more than one genre. Unfortunately in the short exchange, before an audience untrained in biblical hermeneutics, these points may not have been grasped. As a result I think Cooke came across the better in this exchange despite the fact he was wrong.

Critical questions were raised about Craig’s theodicy as well. Craig’s position is that God allows certain evils because they are the best way to bring about greater good that otherwise would not be achieved. Some members of the audience found this counter-intuitive. Craig responded that the goods he envisaged infinitesimally outweigh the evil permitted. Craig’s position is utilitarian; one can allow (or cause) evil in order to bring about greater good. Of course utilitarianism is a sophisticated ethical theory and there have been numerous sophisticated defenses of a utilitarian framework in the literature but of course Craig was not able to go into it in sufficient depth last night.

Overall the night was excellent, a huge turnout and a stimulating discussion of some really deep and important issues. As we left we heard people all around us discussing the ideas offered by both sides and lots of positive feedback about how much they had enjoyed the evening. NZARH arranged to have the event filmed and a copy should be online over the weekend.

Matt

Recent reports of parents being jailed for home schooling their children in Germany have made me think how greatful I am for our government (a rather rare moment).

Six years ago we removed our children from school and began home educating them. We did this because at the time our eldest son who has Aspergers Syndrome was not coping with school and school was not coping with him. The RTLB's solution was to assign him a teacher aid who basically took him into the library where Christian would roll around the floor all day. By age 8 Christian could not really read, refused to write and never drew pictures.

Knowing that Christian was bright, the children's psych department had tested his IQ and told us he scored in the genius range, we were not happy with this at all. Equally we were not happy that our eldest child, Sheridan (then 11), was often pulled out of her class to calm Christian down because she was the only one in the school who could; she was be teased horribly for having the retard brother. Christian would hide in his wardrobe and quietly cry after school about how bad he was. He was horrified at his own behaviour and quite depressed. Sheridan developed an eating disorder. It was heartbreaking to watch. So, to the horror of the psychiatrist, psychologist, RTLB and our family members who were state school teachers (but I suspect to the relief of Christian's teachers) we removed Christian and Sheridan from school and began home educating them.

What about their social skills? Someone with Aspergers desperately needs social interaction. How will you teach them science and maths and english at high school level? How will you cope having these apparently difficult and irritating children around you 24/7?

We didn't know the answers to those questions when we first began but we knew that we would find them. All we knew for sure was that the situation at school was doing far more harm than good and that our children needed their parents.

The home education community told me to give both kids a break of at least 6 months to recover, that many peer reviewed studies show that it only takes 2-4 years to learn enough to enter life. I thought they were insane. Both kids were "behind" so I did not listen to begin with.

For the first 6 months Sheridan acted like she was in state of relief, liked she had survived a near miss. I had not fully appreciated the stress she was under at school until I pulled her out. She threw herself into all the work I set her and never looked back. However, Christian would scream and throw his work accross the room if I asked him to do anything and seemed to be going backwards so I decided to take the home educator's advice.

They said to limit his TV and computer time and to make sure that I read to them and talked to them and did fun learning actitivities with them where I integrated learning into life experiences. Pretty soon car trips would involve discussions about the different cloud formations we could see and the purposes of farming and forestry. Shopping would see me getting the kids to help calculate the discount in percentage off sales and I would have them calculate the best value in terms of price and quantity in the supermarket. I began to notice that Christian was trying to read billboards and would say things like "oh, now I know what that word looks like written down." Sheridan's eating disorder disappeared as we worked through the latest studies in nutrition.

Christian had begun reading thin books with pictures but would not progress to chapter books. One night Matt pulled out the Magician's Nephew, first book in CS Lewis's Narnia series, and read the first chapter. In typical Asperger style Christian appeared to not have been paying attention at all but we knew by then to ignore that and hope that he was. We put the kids to bed and watched a movie. As we were tidying up the kitchen and locking up, Christian walked into the lounge with the Magician's Nephew in his hand, he said, "I've just finished it." From there we couldn't keep his head out of books.

We went on from there to develop our home education method in the following way, borrowing from the Trivium. Up til age 10 we encourage phonics based reading, basic facts in maths and critical thinking/logic and we foster a love of learning accross a broad range of subjects by talking to them about it and reading to them about it and doing practical things like science experiments. We also teach them to ask questions and how to find out the answers. We work with the child's readiness and we do not stress if they are 8 and cannot read. The term "behind" is not used. We find that the kids will spontaneously write stories and push themselves.

Between 10 and 12 we get them doing some written work, we focus on punctuation and sentence structure and we begin to really up the logic/critical thinking stuff and we start doing maths exercises written down. We teach them how to find answers from primary sources and encourage them to read widely and all sides of a position. No other subjects are formally covered beyond English, Maths and Critical Thinking/Logic. Our phisosophy is that if you can structure and understand an argument and can clearly express yourself and you know how to research you can study anything.

By 13, if they want to, they can choose 1 or 2 other subjects that they find interesting. We found with both our teenagers that they had gravitated towards different subjects anyway; Sheridan is into Ancient History/Archeology and Biology and Christian is into Computer Animation and Science.

Since moving to Auckland we have put 3 of our kids back into school. As Matt's mother was dying we needed the babysitting that school afforded and now as we both work we can really only have Sheridan at home as she is very self-motivated and will go through her work on her own whereas Christian, being Aspergers, likes his days to be structured by someone else and the other two children are too young to be home alone anyway. Hopefully in the near future we will be in a financial position to remove them all from school again but in the meantime school is it.

This is where each of them are at currently:

Noah, aged 6, has struggled to settle into school, he really is not a kid for whom school is a good option as he is a bit of a rascal and like a lot of boys he has taken a while to be ready for school but he is a very bright kid whose curiousity constantly has him in trouble and now his reading is coming on (thanks to us pulling our phonics readers out and largely ignoring the 'guess it from the pictures books' the school sends home).

Brittany, aged 8, was promptly put up a class where she is the youngest in the room. She too is a deep thinking, bright cookie. She has settled well and is the sort of kid who settles easily into any environment.

Christian, aged 13, is academically doing very well. We received a letter home from his science teacher informing us that after exams he was the top student in his form. His maths teacher tells us he has to set Christian harder work than the rest of the class and he is doing great in art and technology and in his other subjects. The guidance counsellor is incredibly impressed with his social skills as he is now well ahead on that score than most Aspergers kids his age.

Sheridan, turned 16 in May (the only one still homeschooled), has just this week been accepted by Auckland University despite her lack of NCEA or Cambridge qualifications. She will complete a foundation certificate and then go on to do an undergraduate degree. As she is really into Ancient History and Archeology so a BA seems to be the way to go but she really enjoys Biology too so she may do a double degree.

We turned to home education not because we wanted to shut our kids away from the world, far from it. We always believed that home education was the superior form of education because it meant you could open the world up to your children, that due to the one on one nature of home education you could really help your children learn at a pace suitable to their ability and to a depth that the dumbed down education system in NZ just does not go to.

When the education system failed out special needs child (though Aspergers is really more of a gift than a disability) we were able to step in an help him to excel. I am horrified to think that families who observe their children stuggling with the school system or who have bright kids that the school system does not cater for enough do not have the option in Germany to assist their children. Worse of all though is the blatent disregard for human rights that the German government is exercising in denying parents the right to educate their children.

Madeleine

I meant to post this ages ago but I have been waiting on the accompanying photos. In a recent post I alluded to Madeleine winning her last equestrian event (pre-car accident). In the last few years she has resumed her sporting interest in horse riding and when our daughter Sheridan bought her horse Trogdor the Burninator (Troggy for short) and had some behavioural problems with him, Madeleine took him on and got him sorted out.

Troggy appeared to not have had any jumping or showing or eventing experience and as Sherry wanted to do pony club Madeleine taught him how to jump and entered him in a couple of events. At his first event, a darby day which is cross country jumping mixed with show jumping stations, they were placed 5th. Which was pretty good for a first outing for Troggy and for Madeleine's first outing in 15 years.

A few weeks later though at the Massey One Day Event (ODE) an event comprising of a Dressage test, a Showjumping round and Cross Country jumping round Madeleine and Troggy found themselves placed second in the Dressage. They went on to jump clear in the showjumping and clear in the cross country. The rider ahead of Madeleine at the close of the dressage did not ride clear so Madeleine won first place.

Here is Madeleine following the prizegiving with her Blue Dressage Rosette and her Red First Place Overall Rosette.

Here they are clearing the last jump of the Cross Country, securing their win.

Madeleine had hoped to compete on Troggy for the rest of the season and to have brought him up a couple of levels for Sherry but the car accident has put this on hold.

I clearly have been spending to much time at Auckland Uni. The other day I was walking from one of Madeleine’s Law lectures. (I have been taping lectures and note taking for her while she has been injured) when a sign caught my eye. It stated “ I only date those who vote green” Now the person who put this sign up was making a point. They were not simply telling the world of their romantic preferences. The sign was intended to make a political point. To advertise the Green party presumably to encourage others to vote for them.

But why? What reasons do the Greens suggest we base this decison on? Voting is a serious business. Parliament legislates: it lays down rules for everyone to follow and backs these up with sanctions. If I refuse to obey these laws by liberty and property will be taken from me. If I refuse to comply I can be physically restrained, beaten, tasered or even shot. This is a serious business, we need to ensure that when people pass laws they do so for good reasons, that they are justified in doing so. If they are not then the state is merely an armed thug who arbitrarily intmidates and assaults others simply because they do not do what it wants.

For these reasons it’s important that we are careful what parties we vote for. We need to be sure that as far as is possible the people who get in will support policies and platforms that yields this awesome power. Justly, that it will use force against aggressor and those guilty of serious crimes while safeguarding the freedoms of the innocent.

The Greens apparently demur. Apparently they think that I should support a party platform merely because doing so will get me a date. Apparently, such questions as whether or not another’s liberty is restricted, whether another person is thrown in jail or their property and economic livelihood is taken from should be determined by whether the person who advocates it looks sexy and is attractive.

These posters then tell us one thing. Don’t vote green, people who hold your and my liberties in such disregard and commend and encourage such a superficial regard for the political process as this are unworthy of office. Anyone who will advocate use naked force against third parties merely to get a date is to corrupt to go anywhere near parliament.

I just got emailed the proof for the cover of the Auckland University In House Short Courses brochure which features me.

Initially Madeleine was diagnosed with whiplash but her pain levels were extreme and she was constantly back and forward with her doctor adjusting pain relief regimes and reducing her work hours. Finally, at work one morning she lost feeling in her arms and legs so was rushed to the doctors and ordered to basically lie on the couch - no work, no driving, no walking anywhere, no physio and of course no horse riding. She was referred to a neck and spine surgeon who ordered an MRI scan.

There was a very real risk that something far more serious than just whiplash had been missed hence the extreme caution imposed by the doctors. Thankfully we now have the results of all the tests and know that she will recover and that there will be no serious long term effects. A disk in her neck was damaged and it will take time to come right. She has another month off work and then they will reassess her to see if she can resume work part-time. The good news is she is allowed off the couch and can drive and walk short distances (long distances cause too much pain).

I have been attending her lectures and tutorials at Uni and taping them for her and taking notes so that she could maintain her law studies. She sat her first test of the year last night and is very sore today but she has done well to have kept up with her readings and with making herself sit through the taped lectures.

Her car was written off but the insurance payout was twice the agreed value so at least that was something. We are not sure if the police have charged the driver who caused the accident, I hope they have as the woman that hit her never even came to check Madeleine was ok, Madeleine never even saw her face. Apparently she just got on her cell phone and stayed by her car! It was passers by and the people in the car in front of her that came to her aid. Even when the ambulance officers took her out of the car the driver at fault kept away.

Our lives have been turned upside down, Madeleine has been in awful pain and has to live on pain drugs, her career has been jeopardised (well not really as her employers are so amazingly supportive - but it will be hard for her to pick things up when she goes back as the nature of her job is very full on with lots of balls to juggle), her income is at 80% and a lot of her medical costs are not covered by ACC at all, her long awaited resumption of her LLB has been put at risk, she had to withdraw from the remainder of the equestrian events for the season and next season looks in doubt after winning her last start and this woman couldn't even say sorry or check she was ok.

I need to apologize to my readers for blogging infrequently at present. I am extremely busy, with marking papers, setting exams, part time jobs, getting another paper published, and generally running a family of 6. I would like to share one project I have been working on over the last few months.

Regular readers will note that occasionally I refer to the work of William Lane Craig. Craig is a Philosopher/Theologian of some caliber. He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He holds a PhD from University of Birmingham (England) and a D.Theol from the University of Munich (Germany). William Lane Craig has authored or edited over thirty books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity in addition he has written over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology. He was President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society from 1996-2005 and is currently President of the Philosophy of Time Society. He also is one of the few professional Christian Philosophers at this level who also interacts at a more popular level. Craig also is a very proficient debater, he has debated every major skeptic and atheist in the US and UK including Michael Tooley and Anthony Flew.

Any way a few months ago I heard that Craig was visiting New Zealand at a conference at Victoria University; several other really good Christian Philosophers were also at this conference. Trenton Merrick’s Thomas Flint, Peter Van Inwagen to name a few. Had the date not coincided with my 10th anniversary and my daughters 8th birthday I would have planned to attend. Nethertheless I let Craig’s presence in NZ slip to some acquaintances of mine in Palmerston North. Before I knew it they were organizing a nationwide speaking tour for him.

Not to be pushed out, and letting Massey take all the thunder. I lobbied for Craig to visit Auckland and speak at the college where I speak part time. I also contacted the New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists (NZARH) and suggested that we stage a debate at Auckland Uni. My initial suggestion was to pit Craig against Lloyd Geering, but left it to them to decide who would be the most appropriate person to represent their position.

My lobbying has come to fruition, On June the 16th and 17th William Lane Craig will visit Auckland. He will give a public lecture at BCNZ on the evening of the 16th (in LR1) at 7:00 pm where he will critique the arguments put forward in favour of atheism by zoologist Richard Dawkins. On Tuesday 17th of June 2008 at 7:00 pm he will square off against Bill Cooke from NZARH at the Owen G Glenn building (Lecture Theatre OGGB5) in a public debate at Auckland University. The moot is ‘Is God a Delusion? John Bishop the HOD at Auckland’s Philosophy department has generously agreed to moderate this debate. Auckland’s Philosophy department have also suggested he present a paper to their department but I have yet to hear back from them about this yet.

Anyway, if my readers enjoy my blogs then they will probably find both these events quite interesting. I suspect we will also have an interesting audience at these events given some of the differing people who have told me they are interested in attending.

I write this post to offer my sincerest congratulations to my good friend Glenn People’s (who runs an excellent blog here). Today Glenn Graduated from the University of Otago with a PhD in Philosophy for his research thesis entitled Religion in the Public Square. Glenn’s thesis was an examination and critique of the thesis, propounded by numerous contemporary liberals such as Robert Audi and John Rawl’s that religious premises should be excluded from public discourse and debates about public policy.

Glenn and his wife Ruth have been good friends of Madeleine and I for some years. I met Glenn when I was doing my Masters in the Philosophy department at Waikato Uni. At that stage Glenn was a music student at the Waikato Polytechnic with a keen interest in Theology. Since then we have followed each other around the country, I followed Glenn to BCNZ in 2000 where he did his BD and followed him to Otago Uni in 2002. Oddly enough there was a kind of symmetry in our careers. Glenn did a Bachelors and Masters in Theology before switching to Philosophy. My under grad and masters were in Philosophy before I switched to Theology. We also both began in Waikato moved to Henderson and then to Otago,. We always joke that he and Ruth will now follow us to Auckland so the circle is completed.

Apart from our similar interests Glenn and his family have been close friends and confidents Madeleine and I really miss the time we spent with them in Dunedin and the mutual support we could offer each other as PhD students struggling to provide for a family on Otago University Scholarships.

Anyway, I wont prattle on, Glenn it's your day today, congratulations, its good to see all the hard work has come to fruition. I hope you and Ruth enjoyed the pomp and hype of the ceremony and your achievements were given the honour and recognition they deserve. We wish you continued success and look forward to the next time our paths cross.