R. K. McGregor Wright - Debate in Johnson City, TN

[Civbert]

Anybody familiar with Dr. R. K. McGregor Wright?

He's to be in debate tonight in my area (Johnson City).

Here's a email that was passed on to me:

Debate!

Can Christianity Be Defended?

Debaters: Dr. R.K. McGregor Wright, author and presuppositional theologian

And Dr. Paul Tudico, prof. of philosophy at ETSU

(This should be good-Bob, our former teacher, should be well prepared to

blow this guy away-hopefully! Bring your logical, skeptical friends!)

Hosted by ETSU Philosophy Club &

ETSU RUF

Wed., March 12

7:00 - 9:30 pm

ETSU Ball Hall room 127

(behind the mimi-dome, uphill from the Music Bldg.)

I don't know if the author is cheering for Wright or Tudico.

All I've found on Dr. R. K. McGregor Wright is he seems to be a Vantilian type presuppositionalist - so I suppose he's going to use Bahnsen or VT arguments. He's also written a few articles and books which I haven't read yet.

I'm hoping someone here's familiar with him since I don't have time to learn much more before the debate tonight. I hope he does well.

Thanks.

 

[Pilgrim]

I would go see it if I was in the area. Dr. Wright is author of the book No Place for Sovereignty. Although Wright holds some positions that would be at odds with most on the PB (egalitarianism, some form of NCT, antipaedobaptism, historic premillenialism) he is also a Vantillian presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics. I believe he lives in E. Tenn.

 

[Civbert]

Thanks. I'm going to try to go.

Now I'm trying to get confirmation that there will be a debate. I can't find any announcements other than the email which was forwarded to me. I've sent an email to Dr. Tudico, and to David Balzer at Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) at ETSU (a sponsor of the debate).

I can't find any announcements of the debate on the RUF at ETSU, or by the ETSU Philosophy Club. You'd think that they would post it somewhere on-line ... but it's a small town and small University, so maybe they didn't. The only website for the Philosophy Club I found hadn't been updated in a while.

 

[Civbert]

I got confirmation from David Balzer (sent via his Blackberry - love technology ).

In case anyone is interested in going, he wrote:

... 7PM tonight in Ball Hall. That's the set building near the sculpture garden.

 

[Pilgrim]

I want to say that Kerry Gilliard knows Wright or has been at conferences at which he has spoken.

Apparently Wright has been on Unchained Radio as well.

I've been on several Yahoo groups with Dr. Wright in the past few years. He has written a good number of articles on various topics but you have to email him and have him send them to you. Some of them are available online at various sites but some are not.

 

[Pilgrim]

Anthony,

Did you go?

 

[Civbert]

Yes! It was an excellent debate. Wright debated like a Clarkian!

The atheist's response was very good too. He did his research and went after the Van Til/Bahnsen style of presuppositionalism. However, his complaints were mainly physiological, rather than logical. But it was refreshing to hear from an atheist who knew (fairly well) the type of arguments he might expect from a presuppositionalist.

Ironically, the points he contended against, were not the points made by Wright. Wright avoided some of the weaker Bahnsen arguments (specifically the TAG), and stressed the necessity for all world-views to start somewhere - specifically with the axioms or presuppositions needed to develop your view.

Wright also showed that the Christian world-view was fully coherent, comprehensive, and able to produce objective moral standards.

Both Write and Tudico agreed that Atheism was not a world-view.

Tudico complained about the harsh treatment received by presuppositionalists. He quoted some presuppositionalist basically saying the unbelievers were incapable of being rational or able to understand Christianity. (At lest one Bahnsen quote given.) One can understand why this was an "issue" for the atheist. However, this also was not a point argued by Write.

All of Tudico's complaints were reasonable, even if none were defeaters of Christianity. He noted coherentism did not prove a correct world-view. He also said that there were many none-Christian ethical theories that produced objective moral standards. He was right on both counts. But Wright never claimed coherentism proved truth, and the term "objective" has a specific frame of reference in ethical theory, that misses the point of the objection of the Christian.

I could go on and on, but don't have time.

Overall, it was an excellent debate. Wright was not as skilled as Bahnsen, but his arguments were generally stronger. Tudico did better than other atheist I've heard, simply by having done his homework and being prepared. Tudico was perhaps a better preacher than Wright. Most of Wright's positions were never directly challenged - simply because Tudico agreed in principle on many of them.

Therefore, I think Wright very successfully defended the affirmative position to the question "Can Christianity Be Defended?"