Michael Shermer on WHI

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
If anyone has not listened to the most recent edition of the White Horse Inn (here), I would encourage you to do so. Michael Horton interviews well-known skeptic Michael Shermer. The interview is very enlightening in revealing many of the problems with an unbelieving naturalistic worldview.

I was somewhat surprised, considering how bright Shermer is, how poorly reasoned his worldview actually is. He made several logical fallacies (and Horton called him on most of them). He has a poor understanding of Christianity and makes a very careless error about Islam. He favors a multiple universe theory (even though he admits there is absolutely no way to prove it) as a basis for his worldview. Truly it is a great example of suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteousness.

Next week Horton will be talking with Greg Koukl about the interview.
 
I liked it, but I don't think Horton did great, but than again Shermer did worse (as you said the basis of his worldview, etc.). I thought Shermers reasons for becoming an agnostic where lame.
 
Last edited:
Sean, I would agree with that. Horton is not very confrontational on these sorts of things, but I thought he did a decent job calling Shermer out for appeals to emotion, ad populum etc. He should have pounced more on the Osiris resurrection comment. I can only imagine how a skilled debater like James White would have done. I can't wait to hear the rest of Greg Koukl's comments next week.
 
Sean, I would agree with that. Horton is not very confrontational on these sorts of things,

I haven't heard this yet, but I recall being very disappointed by Horton's interview with Robert Sungenis. Perhaps his lack of confrontation is why enemies of the faith agree to be interviewed by him.
 
I thought Horton did a good job. At no point did Shermer win a single point. In fact he looked bad even though Horton went relatively easy on him. Koukl was even better the next week.
 
I wondered if there was an agreement between the parties that it wouldn't be too hostile, since it came across as a book promotion. But Shermer's arguments were incredulously poor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top