ry

 

Fg are a err ce inp

open

en a RR RR REE a a RY EEE

 

WHAT IS THE MAI? -

Come and find out on Friday, February 27", at 1 PM
Room 2203

A Presentation by Noel Schacter, Director of thte International
Branch in the Ministry of Employment and Investment for BC

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is presently being
negotiated in Paris by 29 of the world’s most advanced, industrialized
nations under the auspices of the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Canada is one of the key participants: the MAI has implications
for medicare, the environment, consumers, workers, and small
businesses.

Join the discussion on Friday. Come to hear Noel Schacter,
the spokesperson for the province on trade policy issues.

C U | tu f e a&e@op.douglas.be.ca =

Continued from page 5
for suspension of judgment. Hornér
argued that his explanation was the
better of the two choices available,
because it was the one with the higher
probability of truth. The main problem
for arguing on the basis of probability is
that it begs the question: is religious
belief a mattér of probability, or is it a
matter of apprehending the awareness of
the existence of a supreme being based
on a series of logically valid arguments?
Or, is it a matter of private belief, where
the logical validity of the position is
immaterial to the question, as it is more
important what one ‘knows’ intuitively?

However one views the issue, when
taking the philosophical approach we are
dealing with the evaluation of arguments
and not of opinion (which is the hidden
clause lurking behind the idea of
religious belief as being justifiable as a
privately held matter, outside the reach
of the deffiands of philosophy) and thus
we must yield to the demands of
philosophy.

Nicholls was unable to make a sound
argument for atheism simply because he
could not produce any direct evidence
for God’s non-existence. But then again,

 

 

LEMGUES

REGISTRATION

 

Individuals / New Teams Invited
- Rec, Intermediate, Elite

Seven-a-side, Non-contact

For More Information Call

 

 

Football BC
MEN’S & WOMEN’S

Burnaby Lake Sports Complex
March 5, 1998 @ 6:30 PM

Novice & Experienced Players Welcome

The Touchline 444-8223

  

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
   
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
    
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
   
   
  
  
   
  
  

contrary to his (Horner's) assertion
the start of his speech that he need
give the best probabilistic evidence f
God’s existence and not absolute pr
of it (that, Horner claimed, was rese|
for the atheist position), Horner ign
the fact that if Nicholls was require
prove absolutely that God does not
then the same burden of proof is up
him (Horner) as well. It was never
clear during the debate why Horner
that Nicholls’ atheism required mor
proof of his claim than did his own
(Horner’s). If the debate was on the
question of “Does God Probably Exi
then the theist side might have had
weight behind its probability based
positions.

One serious flaw was revealed in
debate when Horner concluded his
opening argument with a huge ad
hominem (lit. “To the man”; a form:
fallacy in logical argumentation me
that the statement is based on irrel
personal information concerning on
or one’s opponent. For example, if o
rejected Plato's theory of forms on t
grounds that Plato was a practising
homosexual, that would be an ad
hominem). In this case Horner mad
aside that he had once been a Christ
in name only until he had what he
deemed to be a spiritual revelation.
therefore recommended that the
audience explore their faith because
could claim knowledge of the truth
the religious position, from his own
experience. Sorry, but you cannot h
both ways. Horner had to argue the
evidence for God’s existence on its 0
merits and accept or reject any alter:
tives to his position depending on t
philosophical strength. By stepping
the arena of proselytization at the e
his opening address he rendered hi
intellectually inert.

It is vitally important that people
actively engage with their beliefs on
daily basis, but when one subjects o
beliefs to philosophical scrutiny the
one must live by the outcome of tha!
scrutiny. By slipping into personal
testimony the theist position was
undermined.

Nicholls’ rebuttals were engaging
became gradually more biting and
derisive as his obvious contempt for
question (and some of the questione
at hand almost escaped his control.
one point in his rebuttal he referred
the “psychopathology of religious be
in an attempt to reach his concludin
remarks when it was becoming clear
the proceedings were not going to
provide the atheist position sufficien
time to present its case. This was th
greatest drawback to the event as a
whole, as the theist position was
relatively simple and clear in its
presentation but the atheist position
unable to make all of its points with
enough depth due to the time limits

The upshot of the debate was
generally positive. Aside from a was
less than knowledgeable questions fr
the audience (with notable exceptio’
Dr. Simak), the event allowed Doug
students, who filled the room to
overflowing, to get a first-hand taste
two minds engaged in the active
contention of a once lethally volatil
issue. Perhaps if there are further de'
in the future it might be advisable t
select a topic that the non-philosop
majors in attendance can grasp with
knowing the technical jargon involv
Then again, judging from the level
inquiry that the audience was opera'
at, a simple enough topic may never
available at this institution.

It must have been a break period
Criminology majors. @®

 

6 February 25, 1998 The Other Press