Video

More than 20 minutes to get to it ??

Hello Dr. Wielhouwer. Do you have a video of Part 1? I am having my class read Ch. 1 and 2 of your book and would love to add this video as a supplement.

Great video, I found it put a lot of elements in perspective, so that was very helpful. Very slight criticism of how one claim was framed-- If someone concludes a teen crime problem is mainly caused by drugs and that the government should play a role in the solution, it does not automatically follow that the *police* should be a major part of that solution. We'd need to look at the social mechanisms and incentives behind the drug-crime link. Under a variety of conditions (not all), an increased police involvement can make the incentives worse and exacerbate the mechanisms which strengthen the drug-crime link, thus increasing total crime without necessarily reducing teen drug use much if at all. My impression is that the scholarship on the drug-crime link and the role of drug criminalization and policing in its mechanisms is filled with uncertainty and emphasis on context-sensitivity.

Here's a skeptical argument McGrew likely hasn't dealt with: What's more important? An atheist's need to drive to work? Or his being in danger of divine judgment? McGrew probably wouldn't say that the atheist needs to stop taking the shuttle van to work so as to free up more time to read the bible, so McGrew commits himself to the premise that an atheist can reasonably justify ignoring Christianity for at least part of the day. So we have to wonder: how many other aspects of an atheist's daily life would similarly make it reasonable for him to avoid the issue of Christianity? McGrew likely wouldn't say the atheist should stop taking the kids to school, stop going to the bathroom, stop answering knocks at the door, get divorced from an atheist wife, etc, etc, merely to free up more time to study the bible. But if so, well how many hours would be left in the day to study the bible? Suppose the atheist is in the middle of putting the kids in the car to take them to the park. McGrew walks up and says he would like to discuss the gospel. The atheist says "sorry, I'm on my way to the park to bond with my kids". If McGrew would walk away, then here's another bit of time in the atheist's life that he an reasonably ignore Christianity. So we have to wonder whether, if we ask enough such questions, would McGrew be forced to admit that sometimes atheists can be so busy with the affairs of earthly life, that they can justify NEVER reading the bible? If McGrew cannot justify telling an atheist what he or she must do to free up more time to study the bible, doesn't he forfeit the right to balk if those busy atheists decide for themselves whether or not they will try to make room for Jesus in their schedules? McGrew might know a lot about Christian apologetics, but he fails miserably in trying to refute arguments like this, which are called pragmatic counter-apologetics. He could avoid the e problem by saying Jesus is more important than the atheist's own kids (Matthew 19:29, give up custody of your kids so you can free up more time to follow Jesus around), but McGrew refuses to be this fanatical, and therefore, unless he plans to increase the number of hours in a day beyond 24, the atheist's concerns in this daily life really do succeed as a superior pragmatic justification for ignoring Christianity.

Great lecture!

Very nice

My professor shared this in our google class in MPA ( :

Extraordinary Sir

0:36 amazing-sweety-girls.online

0:17 amazing-sweety-girls.online

Sup boys

Where is the first video?

Useful presentation thank you

Useful lecture, thanks for posting.

Well done and to the point. thanks allot.

is there a link for part 1?

thank you so helpful. writing exam on Tuesday

This is very helpful. Clear and very precise. Thanks a lot.

This really broke the process down simply. Thank you Sir.

Dear sir, would you mind explaining about positivism and post-positivism to Policy analysis?

Very helpful. Clear explanation!

This is very useful.

my question is the reliance of minor discrepancies in accounts to be normal and accepted even today because people make mistakes. Should this also apply to the bible where every word is the inspired and inerrant word of god? If this was a book by some authors who knew some general history and recorded a story in the day I would expect some discrepancy, but if I am being asked to take every word as the words of a superior being, then I question if they should exist.

Excellent presentation writing exam on Monday.

a good intro

thank u peter Mr peter it is really help full

O that ended abruptly! Yikes!

Who visited Jesus' tomb after his burial? Depends on which gospel you read! When did they visit? Depends! What was their purpose for visiting the tomb? Was the stone rolled away when they arrived? Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Where were the messengers seated? Did the women tell what they saw? After the woman, to whom and where did jesus first appear? How long did jesus stay on earth? Where did his ascension take place? I ask these questions because the answers all depend on which gospel you read. The gospels are our only glimpses into the resurrection narrative. Therefore, from a historical perspective, we have to establish a level of reliability of these stories. Miracles are a matter of faith, and do not fall under the scope of historical research. In other words, events which are by their very definition the "most unlikely of occurrences" cannot ever be found to be the "most likely occurrence" of times past. So we are left with the gospels, and there ability to establish faith. Paul basically states in Corinthians 15:13-17 that Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if anyone is being intellectually honest, it must be determined that the gospels are not reliable documents on which to hinge an entire belief system!

Ad hominem attack on Hitchens and his accent are so fallacious and immature. "Don't assume your professors are always right" LOL! That would be including you sir. You are being intellectually dishonest, while being hopelessly devoted to your particular faith. Bottom line, you cannot explain away all of the contradictions, even with your flexible mind gymnastics.