Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

[buffalo]

Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.
This month president of the British Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: “These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there’s no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies.”

Read more: foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/#ixzz1Va1ObvDh

 

[_Abyssinia]

“hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

In other words, she knows she’ll fail. Wlliam Lane Craig is one of the best debaters I have ever seen.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

“hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

In other words, she knows she’ll fail. Wlliam Lane Craig is one of the best debaters I have ever seen.

It’s difficult to understand that lady’s excuse. I’ve listened to most of his debates, and while I don’t agree with all his views (on Catholicism, in particular), he’s very learned, always interesting to listen to, and always conducts himself as a gentleman. I’ve never heard him resort to ad hominem arguments or get snarky with this opponents, he’s always well-prepared to discuss the topic of the debate, and he stays on target on the specific debate topic while his opponents drag in every non-relevant objection or gripe they have against Christianity in the hopes of gaining an emotional reaction from the audience. Most don’t have the formal training in debate he has. Dr. Craig uses the same simple format each time, so it’s no great surprise what he’ll do - he begins by citing 4 or 5 relevant arguments in favor of his position, and defends them in an articulate fashion throughout the debate. He points out philosophical weaknesses in his opponent’s arguments, or why they are not relevant to the debate topic, but never attacks the opponent personally or insults his/her intelligence for holding his/her beliefs. These are hardly underhanded, bombastic, Elmer Gantry-style tactics.

The reasons above are why atheists don’t do well against him. They are either underprepared, (frequently) want to argue something other than the debate topic, don’t have effective answers for his arguments (which are rarely new or unknown to a potential challenger - his books lay out his arguments clearly), or simply throw up their hands and say “you simply can’t believe all this Christian nonsense!” which doesn’t play well in a debate.

Dawkin’s unwillingness to debate him is interesting, as Dawkins claims he is not sufficiently notable to share a stage with the learned Dr. Dawkins (which is pretty funny, considering some of the intellectual lightweights Dawkins has debated), and that Dr. Craig only wants to line his pockets with filthy lucre (whereas Dawkin’s books, paid appearances, etc., are only done out of strict scientific charity, one supposes.)

 

[buffalo]

Same old tired arguments? LOL. The truth is the same and old. By definition it has to be. The new atheists bring our the same old irrational arguments.

 

[shoe]

[Sam] Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".

 

[James1215]

lol! I’m not that surprised that people object to his debating style, but what I am surprised about is that no one has bothered to find a way to deal with it.

He’s been saying the same thing at these debates for decades! Look at his website, where there are transcripts of previous debates. He always puts out 4 or 5 arguments going from ‘there must be a creator’ to ‘Jesus is the one’. Where he does fail is erring on the side of the rhetorical rather than the intellectually honest. He is happy to leave contentious issues untouched that would throw serious doubt on his reason to believe, as long as his opponents are stuck dealing with layer upon layer of his other, complex points. He is also happy to reinforce our intuition and sentimentality with his points, whilst neglecting to tell us that this does not make them true.

For example, if you accept his main points, it still leaves you with the question of why we should think that Jesus and the Creator God are the same, among many alternatives. Why a personal god? How do we suppose to communicate with something we say is infinitely greater than us and outside time, yet eternal? The problem of evil, Divine Command Theory of morality and many other issues are left uncomfortably clouded. And as to his famed ability to stick to the topic, when dealing with Sam Harris on whether one can have objective morality as an atheist, he presupposes God himself without allowing Harris to presuppose no god.

Still, why would I be making these points if he wasn’t a formidable speaker?

 

[Luke_K]

The reason he’s formidable is because he’s an expert in 3 areas: philosophy of religion, the resurrection of Jesus, and verbal debating. I don’t think anyone else can claim to be such an expert in these three areas at once. If an atheist is deficient in even one of them, he’s going to lose.

That said, his opponents often come unprepared. Off the top of my head, one argument that I can remember an atheist using is that God’s perfect justice and perfect mercy are contradictory. I mean, come on! You have to know how the Christian would rebut that. Craig said exactly what would be expected: that Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled God’s justice but also his mercy on us. It’s like his opponents only know how to make the first move in a game of chess, but after that they’re toast.

 

[belorg]

The reason he’s formidable is because he’s an expert in 3 areas: philosophy of religion, the resurrection of Jesus, and verbal debating. I don’t think anyone else can claim to be such an expert in these three areas at once. If an atheist is deficient in even one of them, he’s going to lose.

That said, his opponents often come unprepared. Off the top of my head, one argument that I can remember an atheist using is that God’s perfect justice and perfect mercy are contradictory. I mean, come on! You have to know how the Christian would rebut that. Craig said exactly what would be expected: that Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled God’s justice but also his mercy on us. It’s like his opponents only know how to make the first move in a game of chess, but after that they’re toast.

It’s is true that his opponents often come unprepared, and that’s why I think it’s a good idea to refurse to debate if you know you aren’t sufficiently prepared.
And it is very difficult to be sufficiently prepared against someone like WL Craig, partly for the reaons you state, but also because most of his opponents simply do not have the time to get prepared in the way Craig is.
Religion is Craig’s full-time job, so he is virtually paid for preparing his debates. I do not know many atheists who have a full-time job refuting theist claims. Most of the time ahteist philosophers are philosophers who happen to be atheists. Very few of thme, if any, are ‘philosophers of atheism’ in the way Carig is a philosopher of religion.
Very few of them are full-time atheist apologists. So, I thin it would be evry difficult to build a carreer as an expert in philosophy of atheism, the (non-) resurrection of Jesus and verbal debating.

 

[exnihilo]

Religion is Craig’s full-time job, so he is virtually paid for preparing his debates. I do not know many atheists who have a full-time job refuting theist claims. Most of the time ahteist philosophers are philosophers who happen to be atheists. Very few of thme, if any, are ‘philosophers of atheism’ in the way Carig is a philosopher of religion.
Very few of them are full-time atheist apologists. So, I thin it would be evry difficult to build a carreer as an expert in philosophy of atheism, the (non-) resurrection of Jesus and verbal debating.

What you say might be true. But then we have to consider the why of that. Christians are willing to freely give to support WLC. There are many proud atheists who are convinced religion is holding back humanity. There are many atheists who make good money peeddling their books. Can the atheists not orgnaize and pool their money to make just one good opponent for WLC? That wouldn’t show atheism in that great a light if they cant manage something so simple as making one decent opponent for WLC. Supposedly the mind of the atheist is liberated from the mind destroying effects of Christian thought. So it shouldn’t be hard to have at least one atheists capable of being made into a good debater. I think the lack of just one good opponent is a very telling fact.

 

[belorg]

What you say might be true. But then we have to consider the why of that. Christians are willing to freely give to support WLC.

If they are so sure of their beliefs, why would they give money to support WLC?

There are many proud atheists who are convinced religion is holding back humanity. There are many atheists who make good money peeddling their books. Can the atheists not orgnaize and pool their money to make just one good opponent for WLC?

The problem with this is that atheism isn’t organised the way most religions are.

That wouldn’t show atheism in that great a light if they cant manage something so simple as making one decent opponent for WLC.

Who says most atheists are even interested in showing athiesm in that great a light.
I personally know that most of WLC’s arguments are weak. But I have no interest in paying anybody to beat him in a debate. Would you become an atheists if WLC lost a debate? I have discussed lots of WLC’s arguments with Christians, and although they are often unable to refute my arguments, they do not become atheists. So, I am not going to waste my money.

Supposedly the mind of the atheist is liberated from the mind destroying effects of Christian thought. So it shouldn’t be hard to have at least one atheists capable of being made into a good debater. I think the lack of just one good opponent is a very telling fact.

Well, for one, WLC has had ‘good opponents’, and secondly, you overestimate the power of the ‘atheist movement’. I am no even aware there is such a thing. There are several secular movements, but most of its meebers do not really care too much about academic discussions.
And a friendly word of warning to all actholics around here : WLC is not a catholic, and once he runs out of atheist opponents, he might very well come after catholics.

 

[Wesley7]

Most official debate can be summarized as a ‘I’m right you’re wrong’ scenario.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There are many proud atheists who are convinced religion is holding back humanity. There are many atheists who make good money peeddling their books. Can the atheists not orgnaize and pool their money to make just one good opponent for WLC?

I’m sure that those that feel that debate is the best way to get across what ever message it is that they wish to communicate it is possible to pool money together. Though I don’t think debate is the best way to communicate a message. In most of the ones that I have seen the people on either side of the debate tend to say what excites their supporters and at the end of it I don’t feel that people that have feelings for either side of the debate have come any closer to understanding the other side. I think that some of them are detrimental as they may move people farther away from being able to empathize with one another.

Some people that follow no religious practices think the world is better with out them. Some think that religion is not something that they personally need, but see it as something that is helpful to others. Some religious and non-religious people are united in feeling that religion should have no role in certain public matters. There are some people that have just decided not to practice a religion any more and don’t really consider themselves theistic or atheistic (much like some one that doesn’t care about politics might not consider themselves democratic or republican). Would sending some one to debate with WLC would be a good representation of these non-homogeneous dispositions? (on that note should WLC’s views be considered representational of the views of Christians of various denominations?) I think it would do more to divide rather than unite among those that watch the debate.

The last few public displays I’ve encountered about non-theistic positions seemed to aim to let people know that non-theistic people exists in the USA and that they are every day people. They also seem to serve the purpose of letting other non-theistic people feel that they can make known that they don’t follow a religion. There’s one in which people can volunteer to have their picture put on a billboard with a statement of their choosing to announce that they are an atheist. There’s been nothing intentionally offensive in the messages I’ve seen (though some people are offended to see a public declaration of not following any religion). There are also various pushes asking people to let others know that they are an atheist (such as the “Out Campaign”). The Freedom from Religion organization had some billboards up around my city and they got enough attention to make a few news stories. Among those that want to say something there is something being said. .

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s is true that his opponents often come unprepared, and that’s why I think it’s a good idea to refurse to debate if you know you aren’t sufficiently prepared.
And it is very difficult to be sufficiently prepared against someone like WL Craig, partly for the reaons you state, but also because most of his opponents simply do not have the time to get prepared in the way Craig is.
Religion is Craig’s full-time job, so he is virtually paid for preparing his debates. I do not know many atheists who have a full-time job refuting theist claims. Most of the time ahteist philosophers are philosophers who happen to be atheists. Very few of thme, if any, are ‘philosophers of atheism’ in the way Carig is a philosopher of religion.
Very few of them are full-time atheist apologists. So, I thin it would be evry difficult to build a carreer as an expert in philosophy of atheism, the (non-) resurrection of Jesus and verbal debating.

A big problem for atheists, unless it concerns a very specific topic (like the veracity of the Gospels or the historical evidence for Jesus) is that most issues concerning the existence of God are primarily arguments in the realm of philosophy. There are atheist philosophers, such as Dennett, but many atheist apologists, particularly those who are attempting to argue from a hard-science background, simply disdain philosophy as a way of approaching truth. If we are arguing about the existance of a supernatural being that by definition would be outside our space-time continuum, the physical sciences are a useful tool in some respects but you do need to know something about philosophy as a formal discipline. Most current philosophers use a post-modern viewpoint that simply does not share the (largely) Thomist metaphysics of many Christian believers, are ignorant of them, or willingly misstate them out of intellectual dishonesty, as Dennett has done. Those who were educated in the physical sciences, such as Dawkins, have at best a very rudimentary acquaintance with classical philosophy or theology, as Dawkins’ books show.

As an example, Dr. Lawrence Krauss (a theoretical physicist at ASU) did very poorly in his debate with Dr. Craig. Krauss argued from his opening statement that he didn’t like philosophy and only considered “empirical and scientific” evidence to be acceptable, which denies what the average person would consider to be good evidence, such as history, logic, or philosophy. Krauss further stated that only things that are falsifiable count as evidence, which would deny the average listener’s experience with things he or she consider truths, such as love or patriotism (and actually, science itself.) (The very statement that “only empirical evidence can be considered” is itself unsupported by empirical evidence and is simply a philosophical opinion.) Krauss’s attempts to engage with philosophical concepts, such as objective morality, were contradictory and his attempts to use arguments such as the supposed Euthyphro Dilemma were about what one could expect from a freshman Philosophy 101 student. (I mean, c’mon, Krauss has a “Doctorate of Philosophy” (Ph.D) in Physics, and I pay his salary at a state-funded institution, he should at least be able to defend a basic logical proposition.) , stating that he is “not a fan of philosophy” before claiming that Craig’s arguments are mere personal biases: "“He [Craig] doesn’t like the idea of infinity, he doesn’t like the idea of a beginning, he doesn’t like the idea of chance, and in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like a universe in which morality is defined as allowing rape.”

Huh?

 

[James1215]

I do think there has been at least one opponent against whom he has ‘lost’, that is Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Their debates (2 I think) have been synthesised into a publication which I most likely got from WLC’s website:

‘God? A Debate Between A Christian and An Atheist’

William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Published by OUP, pdf online.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I do think there has been at least one opponent against whom he has ‘lost’, that is Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Their debates (2 I think) have been synthesised into a publication which I most likely got from WLC’s website:

‘God? A Debate Between A Christian and An Atheist’

William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Published by OUP, pdf online.

James, why do you think Craig lost that debate? I’ve heard that debate and neither side produced any new arguments or objections I haven’t heard before. Sinnott-Armstrong seemed better prepared and organized than most, but certainly didn’t score any knock-downs (so to speak).

 

[buffalo]

What you say might be true. But then we have to consider the why of that. Christians are willing to freely give to support WLC. There are many proud atheists who are convinced religion is holding back humanity. There are many atheists who make good money peeddling their books. Can the atheists not orgnaize and pool their money to make just one good opponent for WLC? That wouldn’t show atheism in that great a light if they cant manage something so simple as making one decent opponent for WLC. Supposedly the mind of the atheist is liberated from the mind destroying effects of Christian thought. So it shouldn’t be hard to have at least one atheists capable of being made into a good debater. I think the lack of just one good opponent is a very telling fact.

I think many atheists just want to pick low hanging fruit.

 

[exnihilo]

If they are so sure of their beliefs, why would they give money to support WLC?

If a person thinks they have truth, and any sense of humanity, they’ll want to share that truth with others. People give lots of money to politicians not to convince people of their beliefs but to force it upon them through government.

The problem with this is that atheism isn’t organised the way most religions are.

William Lane Craig is not a Catholic, as you point out. If so you could say he had a very large organization behind him. I think he goes to a large Baptist Church in Atlanta. But I’m actually not sure how he pays the bills and what all organizations he is affiliated with. We’d have to know the specifics to debate that point. But regardless I’m pretty sure he gets his resources from people who voluntarily organize and contribute. If atheism cant organize maybe that says something about the nature of that belief system. But they certainly did organize under various communist systems with pretty terrible results.

Who says most atheists are even interested in showing athiesm in that great a light.
I personally know that most of WLC’s arguments are weak. But I have no interest in paying anybody to beat him in a debate. Would you become an atheists if WLC lost a debate? I have discussed lots of WLC’s arguments with Christians, and although they are often unable to refute my arguments, they do not become atheists. So, I am not going to waste my money.

There are lots of folks very hostile to religion. They can be seen commenting throughout the internet about how terrible religions is. They make several authors well known. If they are willing to pay money to an author and make him famous for his atheism why would they not be willing to pay money to show WLC in debate how poor his arguments are? Their enthusiasm in so many realms contrasted with their disdain for serious debate is sad.

I would not become an atheist if WLC lost a debate. My faith is not based on WLC’s arguments. Those arguments only help me to better understand my faith. Personally I can say I went through a period of if not unbelief at least tremendous indifference. I returned to my faith in part through logical arguments.

I agree most people are not going to be persuaded by a debate. I believe the value of a debate is for the small minority of people who are on the fence or near the edge of unbelief.

I’m sure that those that feel that debate is the best way to get across what ever message it is that they wish to communicate it is possible to pool money together. Though I don’t think debate is the best way to communicate a message. In most of the ones that I have seen the people on either side of the debate tend to say what excites their supporters and at the end of it I don’t feel that people that have feelings for either side of the debate have come any closer to understanding the other side. I think that some of them are detrimental as they may move people farther away from being able to empathize with one another.

I dont think of debates as something that will cause the vast majority of those who witness it to change their mind one bit. We are all committed to our beliefs. Big shifts in what we believe are rare. In one sense this is good. What would the world be like if people’s beliefs were so easily changed?

I see a debate as planting a seed for some. We know that the opinion of man does change over time. There are plenty of issues, like gay marriage to pick one, where the opinion of the average person has changed in just my lifetime. So I dont think debate is worthless in the long run.

I do agree that a debate can turn people off to your side. Debate must be done with respect. For instance I noticed in one debate the Bart Ehrman insisted on calling WLC ‘Bill’ when WLC always referred to Ehrman as Dr. or Professor. The lack of respect from Ehrman was telling.

philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

I think many atheists just want to pick low hanging fruit.

I definitely believe that is the case. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and other silly ideas are easily destroyed by great minds like WLC’s.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I see a debate as planting a seed for some. We know that the opinion of man does change over time. There are plenty of issues, like gay marriage to pick one, where the opinion of the average person has changed in just my lifetime. So I dont think debate is worthless in the long run.

I can’t say that I know of the gay community using debates as a major tool in getting their message across (it’s possible that they did but I some how didn’t encounter it). I do remember seeing a lot of public demonstrations that were done to show other American’s that gay people were a part of every day society (parades, slogans like “we’re here, we’re queer, get use to it”, and television shows that featured gay protagonists). The views in favour of gay marriage or grievances that some gay people have that I am familiar with were introduced to my by gay associates, friends, and coworkers.

I don’t see debates being as useful for a non-religious person trying to plant seeds. If the debate became very passionate at any point it would be an opportunity for some one to present it in a manner that could reinforce an angry stereo type. I’ve tried watching a few religious debates and the ones that I’ve seen were overflowing with subtle insults and tension. The negativity just turned me off to the idea of watching any more. On occasions there are moderated discussions in which two people sit together, exchange views, try to understand one another and walk away not necessarily changing their positions but having gained some level of respect for the other views. I find those discussions enjoyable, but rare.

I don’t think that either of those two types of discussions does much for reaching out to every day people. For those that have reaching out to a broader audience in mind I think that their time can be more effectively applied through activities not related to debate.

If atheism cant organize maybe that says something about the nature of that belief system.

An analogy to that. If you put people in a stadium that are enthusiastic about various football teams they might organize themselves according to what team(s) they like. If you put people that don’t care about sports or any teams at all they might connect with other people based on something else. What does that say about people that don’t care about sports?

I mentioned before those that are not religious have various dispositions and backgrounds. I’ve got one friend since high school that has gone from being polytheistic to atheistic. There’s a general assumption that atheists are rebelling against Yahweh and Christianity, but with him that can clearly be shown to not be the case. I’ve got an associate that lost his faith in Allah and Islam. But he has no plans to make a public statement since his family would become hostile to him if they knew. While both this ex-poltheists and ex-monotheists could both be called atheist trying to infer their backgrounds from that label alone could lead to a lot of invalid conclusions. Those that were Christian before were Christians under different denominations and left their religions for various reasons. There are also some that were never a part of a religion at any point in their life.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It’s difficult to understand that lady’s excuse. I’ve listened to most of his debates, and while I don’t agree with all his views (on Catholicism, in particular), he’s very learned, always interesting to listen to, and always conducts himself as a gentleman. I’ve never heard him resort to ad hominem arguments or get snarky with this opponents, he’s always well-prepared to discuss the topic of the debate, and he stays on target on the specific debate topic while his opponents drag in every non-relevant objection or gripe they have against Christianity in the hopes of gaining an emotional reaction from the audience. Most don’t have the formal training in debate he has. Dr. Craig uses the same simple format each time, so it’s no great surprise what he’ll do - he begins by citing 4 or 5 relevant arguments in favor of his position, and defends them in an articulate fashion throughout the debate. He points out philosophical weaknesses in his opponent’s arguments, or why they are not relevant to the debate topic, but never attacks the opponent personally or insults his/her intelligence for holding his/her beliefs. These are hardly underhanded, bombastic, Elmer Gantry-style tactics.

The reasons above are why atheists don’t do well against him. They are either underprepared, (frequently) want to argue something other than the debate topic, don’t have effective answers for his arguments (which are rarely new or unknown to a potential challenger - his books lay out his arguments clearly), or simply throw up their hands and say “you simply can’t believe all this Christian nonsense!” which doesn’t play well in a debate.

Dawkin’s unwillingness to debate him is interesting, as Dawkins claims he is not sufficiently notable to share a stage with the learned Dr. Dawkins (which is pretty funny, considering some of the intellectual lightweights Dawkins has debated), and that Dr. Craig only wants to line his pockets with filthy lucre (whereas Dawkin’s books, paid appearances, etc., are only done out of strict scientific charity, one supposes.)

I agree with this. I particualrly find Dawkins unbelieavably arrogant in refusing to debate Craig. The gall of the man in saying Craig is “too lightweight” to be debatable is astounding.
Seems to me Dawkins and some of his atheist collegues are just plain scared of beimg beaten by Craig.
Period.

 

[Spock]

I would love to talk to him, or any heavyweight believer. But there is a serious problem I can foresee: it would be next to impossible to find a common starting ground, a mutually acceptable definition of basic concepts. Especially the question of “evidence” must be resolved up-front. How does one substantiate a proposition concerning God? What is the definition of God? What do certain words mean, like the so called “omnimax” attributes? It would not be proper to say: “well, we all know what we talk about”, because we do not.

Also, who keeps the “score”, so to speak? Is it possible to agree upon such points? I doubt it, but I would love to be proven wrong.

On of the posters above said that Craig “rebutted” the problem of the contradictory nature of “justice vs. mercy”, and said that Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled them both. If that is an example of Craig “scoring” a point, then the whole debate would be a joke. I have hardly ever heard a dumber line of argument and to call it a “rebuttal” is mind boggling.