How to Debate William Lane Craig
Andrew at Evaluating Christianity has put up some excellent posts of advice on how to debate William Lane Craig (one, two, three, four, five). The reason Craig wins all his debates with atheists is not because his arguments are sound, but because he is a masterful debater. Craig has been honing his debate skills literally since high school. Not only that, but he is a Ph.D. philosopher and encyclopedic historian: an expert on the two subjects he debates, the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.
Let me repeat. Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects, and has been debating since high school.
So yeah, that’s right. You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Richard Carrier? Austin Dacey? Quentin Smith? Bart Ehrman? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Louise Antony? Christopher Hitchens? Eddie Tabash? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Frank Zindler? Gerd Ludermann? Hector Avalos? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.
“What about some people who would like to debate Craig?”
Mark Smith? John Loftus? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.
“Okay, well, is anyone qualified to debate William Lane Craig?”
Nobody comes to mind…
The atheist’s only hope in debating William Lane Craig is to offer better arguments. Remember, Craig is defending the theory that an ancient Semitic sky god created the universe with his magical powers, let it evolve in violence and meaninglessness for billions of years, then intervened quite recently by sending a man-god to earth, who rose from the dead into a new body with superpowers and now talks to you and grants you wishes as your invisible friend. That is literally what he has to defend, so one would think that even without equal debating skills an atheist would stand a chance to defeat that theory.
But here’s the thrust of what Andrew and I are trying to say: You can’t just know the arguments to win a debate (though many atheists fail at even this, anyway). You must also know how to debate. It’s a skill. If you haven’t specifically studied and practiced debating for several years, then you suck at debates. You might think you can debate because you “win” little arguments with uber-ignorant Christian fundamentalists, but trust me: you suck at debates. Your suckage will be especially obvious if you debate a master like William Lane Craig.
How to win
So, how should the atheist debate William Lane Craig?
- Know the arguments. Craig always uses the same 5 arguments, so it’s not too hard. In fact, you should map these arguments. Know what every supporting argument is, what the best rebuttals are, which rebuttals lead to dead ends, etc. I’ll be doing much of this for you, if you’re patient. I’ve started mapping Craig’s most famous argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, here.
- Know how logic and argument work. If possible, get a Ph.D. in philosophy. Be able to call out logical fallacies and explain them in a few words. Know how to rip apart a poor analogy. Understand entailment, set theory, propositional logic, and probability theory. I’ll be covering all these topics – in plain talk – in my Intro to Logic series.
- Practice writing. Know how to make a point as forcefully, memorably, and quickly as possible. Know how to organize and repeat your thoughts in the most effective ways. Master your rhetorical skills. Train yourself to use simple words and short sentences.
- Practice speaking. Be comfortable speaking to large groups of people. Master your body language, vocal tonality, and speaking pace. Project confidence and comfort. Be loud. Join Toastmasters and go from zero to hero.
- Practice debating. Debating is a difficult skill, and requires years of willful practice. If you don’t enjoy it, you probably won’t master it. Read the Ultimate LD Debate Handbook. After that, take debate classes, judge Lincoln-Douglas style debates, and get a few debating coaches.
Now that’s a lot to ask. Nearly impossible, you say. And I agree. But in that case, you are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. You may not like that it takes long years of hard work to be qualified to design a nuclear power plant, but guess what? If you don’t make the cut then you are not qualified to design a nuclear power plant. The same goes for debating a Jedi Master like William Lane Craig.
But if everybody took my advice, then there might just be nobody debating William Lane Craig. Is that what I want?
No.
Debating Craig brings the atheist viewpoint to lots of people who would otherwise never listen to atheistic arguments in their entire life. Especially in the USA. In a Christianity-saturated culture, presenting Christianity does very little, but presenting atheism does a lot.
So, my advice to Mark Smith, John Loftus, and others who want to debate Craig? Go for it! But first, spend as much time as possible on the 5 steps above. Especially the last two steps, since those are the ones usually neglected.
71 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
It looks like Yudkowsky is considering being the next one to challenge Craig.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/c3/the_sin_of_underconfidence/
and also
And whom have Hitchens and Carrier both recently debated? The Lanecraigmeister.
(Quote)
I find it offensive that you place me in the same category as Mark Smith.
(Quote)
I’m wondering what is mean when you or Andrew say that someone is ”not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.” Is that statement a matter of fact that potential debaters should consider for themselves? Then why name people? And who made you the judge anyway, when you name people? Do you know me and what I am capable of doing?
If the statement is a rhetorical device telling someone he or she should first bone up on debate tactics and on the issues, then fine. But then, why name people?
Are you trying to issue an imperative that would prohibit non-qualified people from debating him? What reason do you have for issuing such an imperative? Is it because you think non-qualified people who lose to Craig somehow do your position less than justice? If so, what reason should a potential debater have for obeying your imperative? Would YOU obey your own imperative if Craig emailed you and invited you to debate him? What obligations does a potential debator have toward you if he wants to debate Craig, since it’s an honor to do so?
Besides, I do indeed think I have what it takes. Don’t try to tell me otherwise. But then why should I give a damn what you think anymore when you place me in the category of Mark Smith?
(Quote)
I’d be interested in hearing who was least unqualified to debate the Jedi master (Sith Lord?) WLC… I was most impressed with Louise Antony, of all Craig’s victims she seemed to display the skills which you praised in this post.
(Quote)
“Pride goeth before a fall.”
Besides, I do think that Craig’s arguments are sound. A master debater can resort to rhetoric to cover up bad logic and technically win a debate, but in the analysis the logic still failed. I think giving Craig all the credit (although I agree, he is a top-notch debater) could be simply a diversion away from the strength of the arguments.
If debating ability is the key issue, then the plan of attack should be directed to the arguments themselves, on paper, rather than in a debate setting.
(Quote)
John:
I’ll repeat what I said earlier on your blog as well as mine. When I say that someone is “unqualified” to debate Craig, I mean it in exactly the same sense that the very best high school baseball player is unqualified to play in the majors.
That prep star may have all the “tools” necessary to be a star in the major leagues; he might have a great batting eye, power, speed, you name it. But the one thing he’s missing is <i>experience</i> standing in against major-leaguers. That’s why even Hall of Famers start off in the minors and generally struggle for at least a little bit when called up to the Show.
Let me be clear: John, I love your book, and I think you’re exactly like that prep star. I think you’ve got all the tools to be one of the great ones. What you’re missing is experience, and I find it odd that you don’t seem to want to take the necessary steps to get that experience.
cheers,
-Andrew
(Quote)
You are both in the category of “people who want to debate William Lane Craig” and also the category of people who “do not match the academic credentials and debate experience to compete with William Lane Craig in a debate about the existence of God.” There are also many categories to which you belong but Mark Smith does not, and vice versa.
No, as should be clear from my last paragraphs.
As I said in my article, I encourage you and others to debate Craig. I said: Go for it! Just please bone up on debate skills and technique.
If Craig invited me, I would decline, or else I would say, “May I get back to you on that in 10 years?”
None, obviously!
Did you read my article at all, John? I specifically said TO YOU, JOHN LOFTUS: Go for it! Just please pay attention to your debate skills. Atheists have been studying up the arguments but not paying attention to their debate skills.
(Quote)
Thanks for your post Luke, it is useful even for the next generation of WLCs. Maybe, we can add Schopenhauer’s book : <a href=”http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/”>The Art of Controversy</a>. What do you think ?
I really enjoy your thoughtful posts ! Keep bloggin’ !
(Quote)
Sith Lord William Lane Craig… lol!
If memory serves, in a debate about moral ontology, Louise Antony never once mentioned moral ontology.
Surprisingly, young Austin Dacey is a decent debater.
(Quote)
Yup, and that’s what I’m attempting to do on this blog!
I’m not trying to distract from the merits of Craig’s argument. I suspect both you and I are tired of atheists rambling about irrelevant issues during debates with Craig, instead of engaging Craig’s arguments and giving him a chance to defend them against strong attacks.
(Quote)
Indeed. Posts like this and my mapping of the Kalam and other arguments will be of equal use to theists and atheists and a benefit to the audience. Hopefully it will mean less rambling, dead-end debates and more focused debates over the substantive issues of each argument. Thanks for the encouragement.
(Quote)
It seems to me that the effectiveness of a debate performance depends on the audience, and that what impressed people like you and Andrew, who are knowledgeable about LD debates might not impress the general public. For example, Andrew linked to an example of a high school LD debate, and a commenter notes how fast the debaters talk. Covering a lot of points might impress the debate judge, and people who appreciate the format, but I think overly fast speech might turn off a non-debate fan.
(Quote)
I think skeptics are in “scared mode” after watching Hitchens and Carrier both lose to Craig such that they are unwilling to recommend a better more knowledgable debater to debate Craig, me. I commented further on Andrew’s most recent post <a href=”http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/advice-for-debating-william-lane-craig-part-4-answering-loftus/#comment-482″>right here</a>.
(Quote)
RE the photo you chose for this post: that tie Craig is wearing is evidence against the existence of God.
(Quote)
I would have written the exact same post before the Hitchens and Carrier post. In fact, I was planning to, but Andrew’s post gave me the opportunity to integrate it with what he wrote.
John, I say once again: Go for it! I look forward to seeing you debate Craig. I hope it will happen some day.
(Quote)
Talking super-fast like in that video is not what I recommend. What I do recommend – and what works on audiences, too – is stuff like (1) summarizing your opponent’s arguments and how you have defeated them, (2) responding to each of your opponent’s points in a brief and persuasive way, (3) always reminding the audience of the relevant threads of argument, and pointing out why some of the opponent’s points are irrelevant, and more. Craig does all this very well. His opponents do not.
(Quote)
Dan Nelson,
Thanks for the Yudkowsky link. I kinda bet Yudkowsky is even referring to my review of the Hitchens debate.
(Quote)
I know! He always wears the worst ties!
(Quote)
This article has some good points. However, I’d disagree with the author’s ridicule of Christian theism. Debate skill is incomplete without a serious proposal. The number one error an atheist can do is to underestimate their opponent’s position with mockery. After critical refutation of theistic arguments, Christianity might amount to “magical” nonsense which is clever rhetoric since it has the negative connotation (in this context) of being nothing more than tricks that aren’t realistically possible.
The point I wish to make here is that Craig has a rational case for Christianity that one would be epistemically warranted in believing to be true. It is perhaps not the most rational position, for it could be rather rationally short-sighted but nevertheless deserves our serious attention and consideration. When atheists reduce Christianity to mere some mere sky-daddy or delusion, you severely underestimate the rationality of the position which causes one to take their opponent less seriously. In other words, I believe such rhetoric encourages atheists to be arrogant about their position.
This is clearly not always the case! I am sure someone like yourself does see Christianity to have merit worth consideration while also believing that ultimately, it isn’t realistically proven (just like magic) but you seem open enough to be corrected. This might not be a irrelevant point, but I just thought I’d share my thoughts. Thanks for making some interesting posts!
We do know that “magic” has the negative connotation of being nothing more than deceptive tricks that aren’t realistically possible.
In the end, I suppose Christianity is nothing more than a God who has “magical powers”. Such rhetoric bleeds with connotations of our society that magic is nothing more than deceptive tricks.
(Quote)
I know next to nothing about formal debating, but an idea occurs to me.
Perhaps it would be best to concentrate on refuting just one of Craig’s arguments. That might not win the debate in a formal sense. But if you can undermine some listeners’ confidence in just one of his arguments, that might get them to think more critically about his entire case, and isn’t that what matters? It seems reasonable to me for a debater to say “There isn’t time to address all my opponent’s arguments with the thoroughness they require, so I’m just going to concentrate on one.” But for all I know that could be an old idea and maybe it’s considered bad form.
(Quote)
Richard,
I think it’s better if the debaters just agree that the scope of the debate is a single argument. I’d like to see more debates like that.
(Quote)
<i>The point I wish to make here is that Craig has a rational case for Christianity that one would be epistemically warranted in believing to be true.</i>
Do you have similar respect for non-Christian religion, or do you ask special treatment for Christianity? Why would you consider Christianity to be more rational than every other religion? And which brand of Christianity?
(Quote)
Do you have similar respect for non-Christian religion, or do you ask special treatment for Christianity? Why would you consider Christianity to be more rational than every other religion? And which brand of Christianity?
I have the same respect toward atheism. In regards to other religions, however, I do not think they have taken up the modern challenge of rational justification like Christianity has done (which Lukeprog pointed out in his latest post). You could always counter this with some evidence in favor of another religion (e.g, Islam claims that it’s “elegant” writings are proof of divinity) but they’re quite weak. Brand? Mere Christianity.
(Quote)
It’s true that other religions have not really even made an attempt at modern intellectual defense, but I don’t think this is because they are necessarily intellectually less plausible than Christianity. For example, nearly all the arguments for the Christian God are equally good arguments for any monotheism. Also, I think that certain religions’ conception of a pantheon of limited creator gods better explains the mix of pleasure, suffering, and chaos found in our world than the postulation of a single, all-powerful, all-good God.
(Quote)
I don’t think you are being quite fair to Antony. The subject question of that debate “Is God Necessary for Morality?” could quite easily be taken as bringing up questions of moral motivation or epistemology rather than ontology. Craig certainly tried to cast the debate in terms of ontology (and deontology) because he evidently believes that grounding moral values in an immaterial, ineffable, invisible friend is somehow vastly preferable to considering the desires and needs of mere earthly creatures.
That aside who is current top tier of freethinkers who have debated, other than Dacey? Who would you pull from the bench if you were assembling a dream team? Also, which particular set of naturalistic arguments would you use against Craig, in addition to those fielded by either Dacey or Stenger?
(Quote)
(Quote)
Damion,
I’m not sure which atheistic dream team I would assemble for Godless Smackdown XVII. The problem is that atheists aren’t usually on a “mission” like Christian apologists are, so they aren’t very interested in doing tons of public debates. I would assemble heavyweights in philosophy of religion like Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, etc., but they don’t do debates and so they would get smacked down hardcore.
(Quote)
Clearly it’s possible for some atheistic philosophers to debate WLC and score a convincing win. Indeed, listening to this debate is instructive in exactly how to defeat WLC – that is, you must go on the attack and when he fails to refute your point you need to remind him (and the audience) of that. It’s exactly the same strategy he employs and it’s quite effective.
(Quote)
I have to agree. WLC is not just a skilled debater using sophistry and illogic. He is using classic logic, attacking atheism at the level of assumptions, and following classic arguments from them. Most atheists are skilled at banter and polemic, Hitchens and Dawkins esp., and they do suck in debates. Carrier is no better, though perhsaps to some he is more credible, since he, like Ehrman, were once evangelicals of a sort. But of course, that does not validate or invalidate their arguments.
I have a little more respect for Sam Harris’ logical skills, but I’m not sure he would be good enough for debate.
The only atheist that I thought has ever given WLC a run is John R. Shook (mp3). I don’t know what his reputation is in the atheist world, but as a Christian, I found him to be the only one so far that has seemed a good challenger to WLC.
However, I think that among up and coming theist debaters, Dinesh D’Souza is quite impressive. After hearing him fairly trounce Hitchens (hotair), I bought the audiobook of What’s So Great About Christianity and found it quite impressive. He also pretty much trounced Dan Barker at Harvard recently.
(Quote)
Actually, I was reading Sir Norman Anderson in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 1, and he discusses why the eastern religions fail in this regard. With respect to Hinduism, he says that they have on interest in rationally or historically validating their claims, but rather, don’t think that intellectualism and history really apply to spiritual stories. I’m not doing it justice, but I can transcribe it if anyone is interested.
With respect to Buddhism, no one disagrees that the Buddha existed, but his claims were entirely experiential, so there is no historical validation of such.
Also, Anderson was an expert in Islam, but I didn’t get to the part where he discussed that.
(Quote)
I may misunderstand, but he is not arguing the merits of an invisible God v. man’s intellect, but rather, an objective, outside source of objective truth v. the subjective opinions of man. Correct?
Further, I think that he is positing that, as per the ontological argument, if we can conceive of an ultimate objective good, it must exist. But I am still coming up to speed on all of these arguments.
(Quote)
danielg,
Dinesh is… well, I want to call him a moron but that would be too harsh. He says the most ridiculous things, like that Christianity invented the idea of compassion. Most of his arguments are irrelevant to the topic at hand, like the worst atheist debaters.
(Quote)
He is not the only one to argue that compassion was not a huge cultural value UNTIL the teachings of Jesus, esp. in the west. I think that the argument has merit – not that xianity INVENTED it, but if you will, popularized it by providing a world view that valued it, and in a world view that extended it to general society and public policy, not just within the private or religious community sphere (as the affront of the parable of the good Samaritan accomplished, since Jews hated Samaritans – putting a Samaritan as the hero conflicted with most superficial views of compassion).
I think that we take for granted that this view is now common, and think it was always so. It may not have been, as D’souza argues.
In Rome, it was considered a weakness. In many of the eastern religions, suffering was considered a karmic thing, not something to invoke compassion. Even today, in India, while many people help after disasters, there is a lingering cultural saying/value of ‘if it’s not your family, don’t worry about it.’
I would like to know more about why you are so dismissive, if not irritated with D’Souza. His educational credentials and his elocution show that he is not a ‘moron’ as you claim. Is it his sometimes mocking tone? His audacious claims, or his actual argumentation that you find ridiculous? Your reply doesn’t seem like a serious one to me.
(Quote)
Oh my god. Don’t get me started. D’Souza is a waste of my time.
(Quote)
Can you at least point me to some good discussions/evaluations of WHY he is a waste? Thanks. I understand if you don’t want to aggravate yourself discussing it
(Quote)
Sorry, no. D’souza is best ignored. Just pretend I’ve never heard of him and am very busy responding to the apologists I find most compelling.
(Quote)
OK, I understand, but I think that this approach was used towards Craig initially, which is what this thread is all about in the first place. He was ridiculed and ignored until he made significant inroads. Seeing as D’Souza is already challenging, and many say beating, many of the same atheist ‘debaters’ like Barker and Hitchens, and is already on that ‘high level’ playing field, I’m not sure it is wise to poo poo him like you did Craig. That’s all.
(Quote)
I don’t think he beat Barker and D’Souza at all, and I had never poo poo-ed Craig. Anyway, I have nothing more to say about D’Souza.
(Quote)
I’m gonna go with Luke on this one. Craig is at least intelligent–Dinesh D’Souza is really not a good thinker, nor debater. If you want to see the difference, take notes on the threads of argument in a Craig debate and in a D’Souza debate. You will find that Craig follows what is happening in the debate fairly well, while D’Souza frankly loses track of the argument and utilizes strawman responses to his opponent’s claims (like, as Luke said, the worst debaters of any ideology do).
Also, I’m puzzled as to why you find his education impressive. He hasn’t really done much.
(Quote)
OK, I’ll do that. Please suffer one more question. Are there any other theist or christian apologists that you find challenging besides Craig? I don’t know them all, but I am thinking guys like
Alvin Plantinga
Michael Licona
Douglas Wilson
Kyle Butt
James White
Phil Fernandes
(Quote)
I screwed up the Douglas Wilson link
(Quote)
There are a great many theists who offer serious arguments. Many of them are listed on my page of philosophers of religion.
Wilson, Butt, White, Fernandes only barely familiar with. I am more interested in the apologists who, for example, are published in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Licona is going to be sorry that he denies using Bayes for history. He is going to be left behind, like those who have hitched their wagon to intelligent design or anti-gay doctrines. He’s going to become rapidly irrelevant if he does not acknowledge the power of probabilistic logic in doing history and everything else. Even Craig, a stalwart defender of “argument to the best explanation”, is beginning to admit this. I heard him defend a point in a debate with an atheist by saying, “but that assumes a frequentist view of probability, which isn’t the dominant view of probability” – unfortunately, the atheist had no idea what he was talking about. Also, the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (which Craig edited) contains a huge chapter defending the resurrection with a thoroughly Bayesian account.
Plantinga is the top defender of theism in the last 50 years. I could spend years doing nothing but responding to Plantinga, one publication at a time.
(Quote)
In the debate between Kagan and Craig, Craig was beaten pretty badly. It shocked me because, for a long time, I thought he was truly unbeatable.
Kagan is very confident, knowledgeable, and charismatic – a philisopher Dr. House! It was painful seeing Craig so stressed. Of course, it wasn’t a severe win, considering the debate’s lenght and topic. I’m sure Craig’s still unbeatable when it comes to the topic, “Does God Exist?”
(Quote)
I’ll go ahead and give an example of the sort of thing d’Souza does that really rubs me the wrong way. In a debate with Peter Singer over God’s existence, Singer defended the argument from evil. When d’Souza was pressed for a response, his main point was that atheists talk about the problem of evil like they invented it, even though it’s found in the Book of Job, and that Christians have thought harder about the issue than atheists have. This, of course, is not even the beginning of a response to the argument. Instead, it is mere rhetorical posturing, a way of boosting one’s own side and playing to the crowd and scoring meaningless points rather than carefully examining the issue with an eye towards the truth. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from a lawyer or advertiser or snake-oil salesman or politician.
I remember several other examples of this kind of conduct from the debate with Singer. It made me want to take a shower and re-read the Gorgias.
(Quote)
I guess I’ll have to finish watching it. I stopped because I don’t really agree with Kagan’s views on the objectivity of morals (would rape really still be wrong if no one thought it was wrong? on what basis do we say that?), and he didn’t seem to be arguing for that position so much as assuming it.
(Quote)
People keep saying that Kagan beat Craig, but I don’t remember it that way.
(Quote)
Thank you Luke, there is a lot there for me to study, that was very helpful.
(Quote)
First, let me say that I am not trying to be argumentative, or off-topic. If I am, please smack me down gently. But I am interested in discussing this in line with ‘how should we debate such questions.’
I think that in your example (good one, btw), D’Souza is not trying to be disingenuous or sophistic, per se (let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument
. Rather, I think he is taking a different approach or viewpoint.
That is, rather than discussing the simple (if not water tight
logic of the traditional argument (god can’t be all good, powerful, and knowing and let suffering exist), DD is arguing that, at the very least:
1. Xianity does not IGNORE suffering as if it is some affront to the nature of God, but actually faces it as Job wrestles with the reality of suffering,. Because he feels that he is ‘innocent,’ he is tempted to blame God with injustice, which is essentially what this argument does. It is useful to see that Christianity recognizes this difficulty, and presumably has an answer to it.
2. Further, he is arguing that Xianity gives an answer to this problem which, though unsatisfying to the rational mind, is nevertheless authoritative and unequivocal - that is, God is OMNI-x even though ‘unjust’ suffering exists. No explanation, no apologies from God – it is one of the few places that scripture says “you can’t understand entirely, I am God, and you are not, get used to mystery.” Or as the man in black said, “Get used to disappointment.”
The conclusion in Job is shown when he actually ’sees’ God face to face, and says in Job 42:1-6 :
3. I think that DD is also taking an offensive tack by also saying that atheism itself doesn’t have good answers to these questions, perhaps even worse ones. And of course, he brings up the corresponding ‘problem of good’ for atheism, which is an interesting turn.
Anyway, I am not saying that he is the best. Yes, he may be a little irritating with his attitude, sloppy handling of classic arguments, and with respect to the problem of evil, his counter-intellectual, but biblical answer (’God is omni AND lets suffering exist, and even though that doesn’t compute in your ’simple’ logic, it is true, deal with it’).
A Related Principle to Discuss / Reject
But just as a related note, I would like to express this thought, which I have found both profound and helpful, though it might be a tad distasteful to the materialist approach. I have found that many profound truths appear in paradoxical pairs (free will / determinism, love/truth, justice/mercy,), and they can’t seem to logically co-exist, yet experience tells us that they do, and that reason sometimes breaks down at the cusp of these ‘mysteries,’ kind of like Newtonian physics breaks down where relativity takes over.
Some of these topics are not fully explainable using ‘classic’ logical reasoning, but do we have the ‘Einsteinian’ or ‘quantum’ logic to go the next step? It may include non-traditional forms of epistemology (intuition, anyone?).
Just a thought. You guys may have already considered this. But back to the subject at hand. I wanted to close with some ’support’ for DD’s appeal to mystery as an anaswer to the problem of evil.
Paul the Apostle answered similarly in xxx when pressed about the predestination/free will enigma. When it gets to the point of blaming God with injustice, he responds in Romans 9:18-21:
Basically, similar answer to DD’s approach to the problem of evil. I know that this may seem superficial or avoiding the question, but there is a point to be made that the biblical answer to this problem is indirect, and basically says ‘your approach of pure, simple logic is insufficient to answer this question,’ just as Newtonian physics was insufficient in some ways. So in defending DD, I am merely saying that I don’t think he is such a boob, though he may be sloppy and irritating
.
(Quote)
Very nice list. I just so happened to come upon these related lists today. Enjoy.
Scientists Worth Knowing
Philosophers Worth Knowing
Historians Worth Knowing
Apologists Worth Knowing
(Quote)
danielg, I appreciate your contributions here, and your gracious acceptance of my very personal policy on Dinesh D’Souza. toweltowel or anyone else may want to take you up on that discussion.
The scientists link is pretty bad. Only Polkinghorne has any respect among scientists. And why not include Francis Collins if they’re looking for apologetic scientists? Actually, all of these lists are really for apologists, not for the most important Christian philosophers or scientists. For example, an easy choice for one of the most important Christian philosophers is Inwagen, but they’re not going to list him because he’s also a materialist.
(Quote)
I agree, the lists are short, and most are apologists. They probably excluded Collins b/c he is a theistic evolutionist (which I think is less logical than either creationism or Darwinism).
I didn’t say that they were high quality lists, only that I happened to stumble upon them today. Anyway, I’ll keep my eyes open. Your list is still impressive.
And I am more interested, not just in apologists for various ideologies, but for those who do public debate – I know of some xians, atheists, and muslims, but that’s it. I think ideological debate is invigorating and interesting, and I would love to do it someday, but right now, gotta raise the kids
(Quote)
I notice that, with the exception of Polkinghorne, the scientists are all creationists. I wonder if that has anything to do with it–perhaps Collins, who is a bit less friendly to the creationist position than is Polkinghorne, is too much of an evolutionist.
Ken Miller deserves to be on the list as well. Michael Behe is Catholic, so it can’t be that they are only including people from protestant denominations.
(Quote)
danielg,
You may want to consider this.
(Quote)
Evangelicals, while they reject many RCC doctrines, have no problem including or quoting Catholics when they agree with their theology
, and they pretty much do consider that many Catholics are Christian, even if the Catholic preaching creates fewer true believers than it could, do to their poor communication of the gospel, which is lost in tradition, works-salvation, and marianism. But that’s another discussion.
(Quote)
I did
See my comment there (reproduced below)
That is a great quote, and I would love to open it up. I would also follow it with a quote from someone like Francis Bacon, father of the scientific method, or one of these others:
Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man. Francis Bacon
A little philosophy inclineth a man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. Francis Bacon
Or one of the other quotes from 101 Christian Quotes on Faith, Reason, Unbelief, and Atheism
(Quote)
Hopefully we can agree Bacon is just wrong here–there are plenty of deep philosophers (and shallow philosophers) on both sides of the debate. Francis Bacon’s opinion is still just one person’s opinion.
(Quote)
Furthermore, take a look at any study that compares education level to religiosity to see that the quote is flat wrong. The more educated you are, the more likely it is that you will reject religion–especially fundamentalist religion.
(Quote)
danielg,
Oh yeah. That was you. Sorry.
(Quote)
I agree, but Kagan did about as well as anyone I can think of right now, except maybe Tabash who came out with a barrage of affirmative arguments, rebutted point-by-point, and called out drops.
The only guy who comes to mind as a match for Craig is Jeff Lowder, but I’ve not heard even rumors about a possible matchup for a couple years now.
(Quote)
You do realize you’ve pretty much annihilated the meaning of debates, right? What’s the point of having a debate if the end result won’t be an understanding of the quality of the arguments involved? You MUST understand how pathetic this blog entry looks from the Christian’s perspective, right?
I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that anybody could win as many debates as Craig has won with crappy arguments that are plainly wrong. “Any given Sunday” is one thing, but EVERY given Sunday? There must come a point when the reasonable man stops and considers the possibility that “hey, this guy JUST MIGHT be on to something.” If you’ve already stopped and considered that, then fine. If not, then PLEASE shut up and consider it already. You don’t have to convert. Just consider it.
And if Craig ever DOES lose a debate, it’s wont be because his arguments were bad but because his opponent was just better at debating. That’s pretty much the only way he could lose.
(Do you see how that sounds? Do you?)
(Quote)
Craig has lost a debate, look up his debate with Shelley Kagan, he got freaking spanked, it was a really good debate actually, Kagan laid out the premises of objective morality without God, and Craig was not really able to rebut it.
(Quote)
I can say the same thing about Craig’s opponents. They didn’t lose because their arguments were bad but because Craig is simply better at debating. Do YOU see how that sounds?
I largely credit Craig debates for my atheism. After listening to him regurgitate the same arguments over and over again, I couldn’t help but see how ridiculous the whole concept of Christian faith was. So thank-you Dr. Craig for pointing the way!
I’m with Luke. The more debates the better. It gets the message out that there is an alternative to belief. Anyone who has an ounce of doubt is going to come away from a debate with far more questions than answers.
(Quote)
If Craig wins anything it’s because of the structure of debates that scores points by making good-sounding statements in rounds, rather than making a sound argument.
Everything in his pet Kalam argument hinges on assuming that the universe can’t come from nothing, but god could.
W. T. F?
Anything based on these arguments is just obviously bunk. Only the tired ivory-tower debate structure protects him. He’s scored so many good-sounding ‘points’ about frequentist this, A-Theory time that, and Lorentzian special-relativity that the judges forget his whole point is “We don’t know, so god MUST have done it!”
Debating him in ‘his’ turf is pointless. Even if you could win, and it’d be more like prepping for Bill O’Reilly on Fox News – more like hostile speech-making than really debating an issue, you’d just have proved you could play the game.
I’d do it, if debates worked with chess clocks and any argument depending on a fallacy automatically lost.
The a-theist viewpoint is tremendously simple. All theisms are horrible failures with circular proofs, fallacious arguments, inconsistent and meaningless visions, etc, and no predictive power. Once you reject one the rest are more obvious. Once all are gone, you have no theisms.
WN vs WLC (or anyone else) – “Is (strong) atheism the only logical theistic viewpoint (with our evidence)?” In 5000 characters, or 5m on a chess clock.
(Quote)
You have no idea how narrow minded and arrogant this sounds. If anyone takes Dr. Craigs claims seriously, it is because of his great debating skills (although I think he probably lost to Tabash and Kagan) and seems to be a kind and charismatic person. His arguments all have large amounts of objections and powerful refutations. This is because THEY ARE NOT NEW and atheists have had centuries to develop strong counter arguments. Being a great sophist has nothing to do with truth, it just makes you a better public speaker, this means Craig and his opponents are neither right or wrong from winning or losing a debate.
(Quote)
“You have no idea how narrow minded and arrogant this sounds. If anyone takes Dr. Craigs claims seriously, it is because of his great debating skills (although I think he probably lost to Tabash and Kagan) and seems to be a kind and charismatic person. His arguments all have large amounts of objections and powerful refutations. This is because THEY ARE NOT NEW and atheists have had centuries to develop strong counter arguments. Being a great sophist has nothing to do with truth, it just makes you a better public speaker, this means Craig and his opponents are neither right or wrong from winning or losing a debate.”
—–
Craig’s arguments are both simple and deep. There is no hocus pocus. He makes his arguments as easy and simple to follow, his assumptions clear, and his objections are clear and to the point. Those are not the characteristics of a sophist.
From what you can tell, you are appealing to a distorted view of the history of philosophy of religion in order to dismiss the mere possibility that there must be something to Craig’s case. If you take a philosophy of religion class, you’ll find that the debate concerning God’s existence continues to this very day. Sure, there are atheists today publishing reasons and objections to why they don’t believe in the existence of God, but that is because they are in conversation (via the philosophical literature) with philosophers who do believe in the existence of God. In fact, the existence of God has once again become one of the hottest topics in the Philosophy of Religion.
(Quote)
WHAT the heck does John Loftus have against me? Damn, did I spill coffee on him or something? I do admit to buying his book, and trying to read it; however, having gone thru 30 or 40 pages, it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I have not bad mouthed it to anyone, but were someone to ask, no, I do not recommend it. Too verbose and drawn out for my taste.
As for debating Craig, I have a whole section on my website regarding that topic JCnot4me.com and it pretty much agrees with what Common Sense Atheism has stated here.
(Quote)
Mark,
I had to skip the opening part of John’s book, which you’re right is very verbose, but the rest is quite good.
(Quote)
Actually I think Craig is a waste of time in a debate. He relies on his dumping strategy too much, where he crams more points then is even possible to rebut, let alone remember…I was glad that Richard Carrier called him out on that. Once I noticed that, his debates became much less interesting. And in his Resurrection debates,he also cannot be aloud to appeal to majority opinion to establish historical “facts” about Jesus, then deduce from those fallaciously established “facts” the probability of a supernatural explanation. It is just absurd, but too many of his opponents let him get by with it by failing to call attention to it. Anyway, just an observation.
(Quote)
Judging by all of the books being sold, I think that there is a lot at stake, particularly for atheists. Aside from the Internet, few if any would have any interest in freethought knowledge if not for the books published and promoted largely though debates and talkshows.
Unfortunately, when trained Christian apologists wipe the floor with these authors, they quickly loose their appeal and are reduced to atheistic caricatures rather than legitimate thinkers in the global arena of ideas.
Is ‘truth’ rising to the surface or is skill over-riding “truth”?
(Quote)
I just watched the Kagan-Craig debate. And I’m surprised that two of you (by my count) think it was a tie. Really? Maybe Craig’s opening was stronger than Kagans (though I think Kagan’s was quite good), and perhapds you don’t feel that Kagan’s positive account of moral objectivity was compelling.
But Kagan not only answered every one of Craig’s challenges, he clearly had the upper hand through the whole question and answer period. He scored several hits against Craig that were never adequately answered. These included (1) Craigs question-begging argument that only meaning at a cosmological level was real meaning (2) that Christians, contrary to Craig’s claim, don’t act against self interest in the grand scheme of things given that they ultimately have a motive to get into heaven (3) the lack of accountability implicit in being able to ask for forgiveness after a life of sinning, and (4) the devastating point about the limited responsibility toward animals that Craig’s view advances, compared to what Kagan was able to say about taking care of them.
Where did Craig counter-balance this? His point about people not agreeing to the social contract maybe? I thought that might have been going somewhere, but even that one was answered by Kagan, and petered out. I don’t think Kagan’s account was completely satisfactory, but for the purposes of the debate itself, Craig just couldn’t puncture the social contract theory, he could only say “It’s hard to see why…” and criticize naturalism in general.
As a side note, the moderator didn’t seem really good. Asking Kagan about methods for preventing people from going against the social contract was off topic. And the question about differences in culture between societies wasn’t a point of disagreement between them. And while Craig was listing countries he felt that had a morally deficient character, why on earth interrupt to ask specifically about Saudi Arabia? And Craig didn’t prepare a closing statement, which suggests to me that it was an impromptu suggestion on the part of the moderator.
(Quote)
I would debate Craig in a heartbeat. I would need 4 weeks of prep time, no more. Assuming maximized publicity (unrealistic) and excellent exposure after the fact (realistic), Craig’s debating career would be over.
The reason Craig wins debates is not, as the author states, that he is so knowledgeable and such a skillful debater. As far as information is concerned, he repeats the exact same ‘facts’ in every debate I have seen…details that anyone could gather by reading apologetic resources for 60 minutes or less. Or by watching one of his debates.
And he does not ‘win’ because he is a skillful debater, he wins because is a skillful bullshitter. A skilled debater and a bullshitter are very similar, but different in that the debater’s arguments are at least respectable and reasonable on some level and so require serious consideration and engagement. The bullshitter’s arguments are inane and incoherent and capitalize on nothing more than semantics and misdirection. Craig is a bullshitter, and there is only one way to deal with a bullshitter: mock the stupidity of their arguments in a way the audience can appreciate. Craig’s opponents take him too seriously, and continually fail point out the stupidity of his semantic arguments and the pettiness of his misdirection games. He must be dealt with like a know-it-all seventh grader, and the audience needs to be prepared for his silly games via a pointed opening argument that tells them exactly what nonsense to look for when he speaks.
To put an end to Craig’s games, the prepared opponent should assemble as an opening argument: (a) a mockumentary alerting the audience what obvious fallacies to look for hidden in Craig’s arguments and rebuttals and (b) a five-minute address of Craig’s 5 (sometimes 6) central arguments, with each one concisely and utterly destroyed in such a way that Craig’s future rebuttals violate clearly/are unable to overcome the initial rebuttal. Future rounds should consist of only minimal, concise positive argumentation and rely heavily upon prepared, forceful rebuttals to Craig’s standard whining and wolf-cries about ‘logic’.
To humiliate a bullshitter, you cannot take them seriously. You must call them on their bullshit and demonstrate to everyone else that they are, in fact, a bullshitter with no real regard for the ‘rules’ they attempt to capitalize upon in their arguments and rebuttals. As odd as it sounds, your goal must be to expose their disingenuousness – not to actually engage them.
(Quote)