Odd. When I mention that I don’t tell people I know that I’m an atheist because of the possible repercussions, people doubt me, or claim that my qualms are unfounded, etc. But you automatically assume that this anonymous person’s claim that he would ‘suffer’ at the hands of his colleagues (did he tell you exactly how he would suffer? They are colleagues, not employers, so exactly what are they going to do? Beat him up? Or is disagreement or even mockery grounds for claiming to ‘suffer’?), and of course, that is not only true in his case, but it is sufficient to challenge the idea of ‘free thinking’ in our society.
Guess, as long as you’re siding with Plantinga, you’re both telling the truth, and your worries have foundation. If he was siding with Dennet, would you give him such automatic creedence?

kannbrown, within the education setting, atheists have little to worry about.
Odd. What possible repercussions are you speaking of? Have you described them? Are you holding this anonymous philosopher to a different standard than you hold yourself to (at least on this blog)?
If you question how he would “suffer”, without describing your own “qualms” – a bit of a different standard, wouldn’t you say?
Do you thing you would get beat up for being an atheist? (especially in an education setting?)
Guess, as long as you’re an atheist, you’re telling the truth and your worries have foundation. If the anonymous philosopher was siding with Dennet, would you be questioning him?
(in other words, what about the content of the debate, rather than attacking the credulity of the reporter? Or is this another bait and switch?)

Odd. What possible repercussions are you speaking of? Have you described them? Are you holding this anonymous philosopher to a different standard than you hold yourself to (at least on this blog)?
I’ve been specific, in the past. On this blog, and in other posts on this site. So, no. No different standards. Besides which, the difference can be solved both ways. Either by demanding specifics by both sides, or by NOT demanding specifics from EITHER side, but accepting both sides at their word.
If you question how he would “suffer”, without describing your own “qualms” – a bit of a different standard, wouldn’t you say?
Once again, I have. My qualms (Which qualms are apprehensions, not experiences. Sufferings would be something you have experienced) have been repeatedly described.
Do you thing you would get beat up for being an atheist? (especially in an education setting?)
Why especially an education setting? If you want to be specific there? Yes, you can, depending on the setting. I’m guessing if you go to Bob Jones University and become an atheist there and admit it, you could have to deal with that. But I never said the ‘education setting’. And yes, I have been threatend with violence, have worried about losing my job, have actually lost friends. My son has has dealt with all the above as well.
Guess, as long as you’re an atheist, you’re telling the truth and your worries have foundation. If the anonymous philosopher was siding with Dennet, would you be questioning him?
Nope. As I said, the issue could be equally solved by NOT challenging EITHER person.
(in other words, what about the content of the debate, rather than attacking the credulity of the reporter? Or is this another bait and switch?)
What bait and switch? The lion’s share of the post, and the only actual expression of the writer’s opinion deals with the poster’s potential sufferings and what that means for free thought and group think. That would seem to be the primary subject, given not a single specific about the debate is provided.

Why especially an education setting?
Because that’s the setting of the debate. End of story.

And again…would you like to converse about the debate? (you know…the topic of the post?) Or just attack Michele?

Well, dealt with the ‘educational setting’. But her claim wasn’t confined to the educational setting. She didn’t say ‘says for free thought and the end of group think, in an educational setting’.
But anyway..
As to the debate. I was rather turned off by fact that the writer seemed to be more concerned with the facial expressions and body language of the debater than the debate itself. You have to wade through accounts of supposed smirking and turning away before you even get to what anyone even said IN the debate. Myself, I probably wouldn’t debate this one at all, and give Plantinga the benefit of the doubt, and ask him to spend his time talking to his fellow theists instead. Last thing I’d want to discourage is the thought that theism can be compatible with science. I’d tell him, good for you. I certainly hope so. Who the heck am I to tell you what your belief is compatible with? As long as you’re not denying actual past actions. Just go forth and convince your co-religionists.

As to the debate. I was rather turned off by fact that the writer seemed to be more concerned with the facial expressions and body language of the debater than the debate itself.
Yes. Right up to the point where the debate started and the recorder started a minute (almost) by minute rundown of what was being said.
I am not a young-earth creationist, so I appreciate these sorts of discussions (not here, obviously, since the debate seems to be a non-starter).

I don’t know. The site I saw, I saw rather vague synopsis, and still plenty of commentary on the expressions and supposed tone of the participates. Such as..
2:34 pm – The session begins. Plantinga is speaking and Dennett is replying. There will be a half hour of questions after an hour of ‘going at it’, to use the host’s words. Dennett notably doesn’t clap for Plantinga.
2:35 pm – Plantinga begins to speak. He looks like Abraham Lincoln. Dennett looks like Santa Claus. Feel free to imagine these two as those characters.
2:36 pm – Plantinga begins to define his terms. He will speak about whether theistic belief is compatible with science. Christian belief is the intersection of the Christian creeds. He will argue that there is no conflict between theistic religion and science.
2:37 pm – Plantinga discusses possible sources of incompatibility. You probably are aware of these standard lines. They are going by too quickly for me to record in my cramped position.
2:38 pm – Plantinga argues that contemporary evolutionary theory isn’t incompatible with theistic belief. But instead is in conflict with naturalism. He also thinks that theistic religion could be rational even if science conflicted with it (this last is particularly controversial claim, to my mind).
2:39 pm – The conflict is between naturalism and science. Dennett is smirking under his grand beard. If Plantinga missteps his description of evolution, Dennett is going to pounce on him. Ultimately the argument doesn’t quite hinge on all the details of how evolution occurs, so I hope this does not side-track them.
Again, though, I wouldn’t be discouraging theists from thinking they can believe and still support science in the first place. Seems counterproductive.

What’s Plantinga doing at ND? (that’s a serious question but I think I know the answer)
I saw rather vague synopsis
I found the live blogging novel … and well-done. It’s been a while since I’ve sat in an overcrowded hotel ballroom listening to a lecture … but you can listen to the audio if you prefer.
I regret that I didn’t get far in philosophy …

Reading the live blog, the question that comes to my mind is, isn’t God supposed to be beyond human understanding? Then why is it so necessary to have neat definitions–assuming, of course, you’re honest about the fact that you don’t have them?
I have long believed the two creation stories in Genesis were wonderful metaphor. I think taking them literally devalues them into something that would be irrelevant even if it were true.

the two creation stories in Genesis were wonderful metaphor.
I meant to mention Genesis, as we read a bit about Noah yesterday (today):
God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “See, I am now establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of the ark.
God’s agreement isn’t only with rational beings. (maybe that throws folk’s theology off, but I’m breathing a sigh of relief over here)

They’re not so much “compatible” as “unrelated”. Like how oil drilling is unrelated to baking. Just two different things. Science deals in the physical and religion deals in the metaphysical.

Philosophical Differences Separating Religion From Science:
1. Any religion worthy of the name, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural (e.g., gods, devils, holy ghosts, angels, heaven, hell). Science, however, addresses only naturally occurring phenomena ans thus, by definition, excludes consideration of the supernatural.
2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.
3. The religious adherent believes that “all things are possible to them that love God.” If asked whether Jesus could throw a rock faster than the speed of light, the religious believer would unhesitating say yes. Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light.
4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God, the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his church, even when those teachings are provably false. The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.
5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.
6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically and with a closed mind – never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.

“There is obviously an important difference between an establishment [i.e., science] that is open… and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as do to wickedness of heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questions the infallibility of the Bible. Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith.” -Morris R. Cohen (1880-1947)
“That religion is inherently irrational is surely true. Why one set of beliefs that are offered without argument or evidence rather than another?” – Noam Chomsky
“After Newton, it was but a short stop to removing God altogether.” – B.R. Hergenhahn

Google: Library: Modern Documents: Theism: Christianity: Christian Apologetics and Apologists: Alvin Plantinga
This page contains solid refutations of a lot popular Christian apologetic literature including the inane ramblings of Alvin Plantinga.
All the reasons Christians give for their beliefs are shown to be completely retarded and their circular reasoning and other logical fallacies are mocked and ridiculed by brilliant atheists. Read ‘em and weep.

More differences between religion and science:
Language – The language of science concerns prediction and controls. The language of religion concerns expressions of commitment, ethical dedication, and philosophies of existence. The semantic content of scientific and religious languages are completely different.
Methods – Observation, hypothesis, and experiment characterize the scientific method. Religion’s method involves divine enlightenment. The religious method is not repeatable, nor is it available to every investigator.
Reality – Science is directed toward discovering reality. In contrast, religion presupposes the nature of reality. Science embodies a basic belief in the comprehensibility of the universe. This belief is not shared by many religions.
Models – Both religious and scientific models are used to organize images for interpreting life experiences. But the religious model says, basically, “live by these rules think this way and you’ll see that it works.” This rigid faith-based philosophy clearly contrasts with science.
Paradigms – Scientific paradigms are subject to constraints, such as simplicity (Occam’s Razor), falsification, and influence of theory on observation. These features do not exist in religious paradigms.