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

[cornbread_r2]

I wonder how well WLC would do in an unlimited, written debate.

 

[exnihilo]

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 wasn’t clear. I meant that as an example of people’s opinion changing over time. I dont know of any great debates. I agree that the change of opinion was brought about purposefully through sloganeering, TV propaganda, and indoctrination in education institutions.

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…

But there are people who are enthusiastic about atheism. There are people who buy books like ‘The God Delusion’. There are people that go to WLC debates who are atheists to support the atheist debater. There are people who bash Christianity and any other religion any chance they can get. There are people who enjoy making fun of what they think is Christianity specifically without taking any time to actually understand it.

I’m sure there are atheists who are lukewarm about it. There are lukewarm Christians. Each Sunday there are a large percentage of people in a church who really dont care about being there and have very little belief in God. But for both groups there are also those who are fervent in their belief. Why cant the fervent atheists muster up just one good debater?

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?

I dont see how it is hard to find common starting ground. In fact in my experience what most who debate WLC do is equivocate and misuse words. They also often refuse to debate the points WLC makes about God without inferring the Christian understanding of God even when Dr. Craig is not talking about the Christian God. WLC is more than happy to define God for the context of his argument. Anyone who is interested can find out exactly what he means by it. Guys like Dawkins think God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and think they is clever in that claim.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Life After Death: The Evidence - you might find very interesting in finding the common ground for evidence.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

exnihilo: 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 think that’s very true. When people fall away from their faith, its often because of one or more specific issues rather than a general loss of faith - the Problem of Evil, the concerns about the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels, perceived conflicts between scientific evidence and revelation, misunderstandings about church doctrine such as salvation for the unbaptized, or interfaith marriage etc. If poorly catechized, they may feel those objections are insurmountable and abandon their religion. This seems to happen particularly in those who left the church as teenagers or young adults. As a core of interest in those issues often still remains for such individuals, listening to a debate or reading a book (or even visiting a website such as this) may help such people realize that these issues have been addressed by the Church and many theologians and philosophers, the issues may have been misunderstood or are not in conflict with the Faith, and may, through further study and reflection and the Grace of God, lead them back to full communion with the Church.

I think that the true value of apologetics lies in that - it is unlikely to convert someone who is a hardcore, committed atheist (although it could and has happened) but can often lead believers back by giving answers to some of their objections.

A classic work from the 1930s which led many back to Catholicism was Difficulties: A Correspondence About the Catholic Religion by Msgr. Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn in which an unbeliever and a Catholic Monsignor carried on a years-long debate by letter (think of a very slow Internet debate) about the objections Lunn had against the teachings of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It is a masterpiece of philosophical apologetics between two brilliant men, but ends with neither side giving ground. Years later, the seeds of thought planted by Msgr. Knox resulted in the conversion to the Catholic Faith by Lunn (a champion mountain climber and skiier who invented the slalom course, BTW), who became an author of many apologetic works, as well as books on numerous other topics in journalism, politics, sports, etc. (Lunn asked Msgr. Knox to be his godfather at his baptism, also BTW) His book And Yet So New is also recommended.

 

[Spock]

I dont see how it is hard to find common starting ground. In fact in my experience what most who debate WLC do is equivocate and misuse words.

Oh that is possible. But I think that the problem goes much deeper. Words like “love”, “evil”, “good”, “faith”, “justice”, “mercy”, “evidence” need to be defined before any conversation can even start. Epistemological questions need to ne ironed out. Craig seemed to “win” his debates, because his opponents neglected to rub his nose into his own “proverbial substance”.

 

[Spock]

Life After Death: The Evidence - you might find very interesting in finding the common ground for evidence.

If there is an on-line version, I would take a peek. But I am not interested in reading apologist books and texts. I read too many, and they were all irrelevant, and worse (some were outright junk).

If you wish to present a short summary here, I will read it, and then we can talk.

 

[buffalo]

If there is an on-line version, I would take a peek. But I am not interested in reading apologist books and texts. I read too many, and they were all irrelevant, and worse (some were outright junk).

If you wish to present a short summary here, I will read it, and then we can talk.

I guess one has to read the right apologetics book.

Here is the summary:

   **Product Description**

  Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no  appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing  on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics,  evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D Souza shows  why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the  striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after  death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and  significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope.   *--This text refers to the      [Audio Cassette](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1441706291/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155)  edition.*\

Here is a sneak peak.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But there are people who are enthusiastic about atheism. There are people who buy books like ‘The God Delusion’.

As a side note, my sister and mother both read “The God Delusion.” They are both still Christian but read the book because they had heard a lot about it. If a book get’s enough “buzz” people will buy it. Reading books and watching debates are some what passive activities in which the participants can come from a spectrum of backgrounds. One of my coworkers (polytheists) has that and other books too because he thinks they are interesting possibilities.

But for both groups there are also those who are fervent in their belief. Why cant the fervent atheists muster up just one good debater?

I can’t say I have ever met some one that I would describe as being a “fervent atheist”. Or if I did we may not have been engaging in an interaction that would make their disposition clear. In seeking an answer one place to start may be with the question “What would be the motivations/goals for some one that wants to engage in public debates?”

People that engage in some of the activities that you listed seem to be content sticking with those activities. For example, Seth McFarlane and Matt Groening some times make fun of religions (not just Christianity) among other things in the cartoons they make. I’m assuming their goals to be to get a laugh, get ratings, and get paid. I don’t think debating is something in which they have interest.

 

[exnihilo]

Oh that is possible. But I think that the problem goes much deeper. Words like “love”, “evil”, “good”, “faith”, “justice”, “mercy”, “evidence” need to be defined before any conversation can even start. Epistemological questions need to ne ironed out. Craig seemed to “win” his debates, because his opponents neglected to rub his nose into his own “proverbial substance”.

I dont entirely agree. You could have a debate on what love or justice mean. Many people have very poorly thought out ideas about those topics. I agree some level of agreement is necessary but the world is not understood by humans in such a simple way. Anyone who truly understands a word like justice knows that it is not a simple word. When is it unjust to be merciful? I dont know myself and I’m not sure any mere mortal really knows that perfectly.

As a side note, my sister and mother both read “The God Delusion.” They are both still Christian but read the book because they had heard a lot about it. If a book get’s enough “buzz” people will buy it…

I can’t say I have ever met some one that I would describe as being a “fervent atheist”…

I’m sure all sorts of folks read Dawkins. But how did he get popular in the first place? His biggest claim to fame is being an atheist. I think he is fervent. We can both recite anecdotal evidence. In the end all I’m saying is that the *only *contribution of organized atheism is the gulags of Russia where many a priest and believer was killed. As a foundational principle this philosophy has contributed absolutely nothing good to the world. The legacy of followers of Jesus of Nazareth is not without blemishes but at least is some tremendous good for the world. If philosophy has nothing on its positive side then of what value is it to the individual?

 

[Spock]

I dont entirely agree. You could have a debate on what love or justice mean.

Certainly. That means we keep “pushing back” the topic. As the conversation starts, it will probably bring up other topics, which also need to be clarified. Which is, of course, perfectly fine, but it makes very hard to make a progress. I have already tried it many times. Started threads along these lines, and they all died out due to lack of interest.

Many people have very poorly thought out ideas about those topics. I agree some level of agreement is necessary but the world is not understood by humans in such a simple way. Anyone who truly understands a word like justice knows that it is not a simple word.

Actually, it is a very simple concept, though it is not easy to implement it in practice. At least for humans, for God it would be a breeze.

Here is a definition: “a punishment must be precisely commensurate to the deed, after taking all the mitigating and extenuating circumstances into account”. It expresses a precise mathematical equivalence.

For humans it is impossible, since we can never know “all” the circumstances, and we cannot decide exactly what the punishment should be. So our justice is always just an approximation. God, on the other hand has no such limitation. So while human justice will always be imperfect, God’s justice can be perfect. So far I hope you agree.

Now, for mercy: “mercy means that the punishment meted out is somewhat less than deserved - again after taking all the necessary circumstances into consideration”. A hanging judge would give out a disproportionately harsh punishment - which is NOT just. A too mild-hearted judge only gives a “slap on the wrist”, instead of a deserved punishment - which is also not “just”.

Not even God can give a punishment, which is both precisely what the perp deserves (true justice) and also less than what he deserves (merciful) - since it would be a logical contradiction. Mathematically speaking it is impossible that “A=B” and also “A<B”.

As such if God is supposed to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, then God is simply a logical contradiction - much worse than the FSM, God became a married bachelor. And no amount of twisting words can rescue God - as long as “justice” and “mercy” have a meaning.

 

[Jocko_VT]

What’s silly about these debates, to me, is that they would all disappear if religious people would stop trying to force the general public to genuflect to their beliefs. Stop trying to teach creationism/“intelligent design” in the public schools, and people like Dawkins will go back to their day jobs.

Furthermore, these debates always consist of two people talking past one another. Nothing will ever be accomplished through them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In the end all I’m saying is that the *only *contribution of organized atheism is the gulags of Russia where many a priest and believer was killed.

I can see one coming to that conclusion if one is not aware of any charitable activities by organized atheists. The ones of which I know tend to concentrate of gathering and supplying things such as food, clothing, shelter and clean drinking water to people that are victims of natural disasters and crimes. Some don’t work alone but cooperate with other organizations.

 

[Spock]

Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope. –This text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.\

Here is a sneak peak.

I will take a peek, thank you.

The foreword is not promising, though he is right that the “afterlife” is based either on speculation or revelation. Obviously atheists do not accept revelation. An ancient book, where the level of knowledge is that value of “pi” is 3, does not bode well for a “revelation”. And empty speculation tells much more about the “speculator”, then what he is speculating about.

Then he takes the next step and writes (too bad I cannot copy and paste): “If this life is all there is, there is no basis for any meaning, hope, purpose or significance to life”. What utter nonsense! That is why I stay away from the apologist books. This is precisely the “proverbial substance” I find in all of them. I hope the author will be better than the writer of the foreword. But since the author did not grab a huge red marker and strike this text immediately, I have no real hope.

 

[Spock]

Here is a sneak peak.

Well, I did look more. Unfortunately it is impossible to copy and paste from the text. I am not inclined to manually type in quotations, and then criticize them, it would take far too mauch time. To say the least, I am not impressed. If you wish to go on, you are welcome to summarize a chapter, and we can talk about it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, I did look more…To say the least, I am not impressed. If you wish to go on, you are welcome to summarize a chapter, and we can talk about it.

I thought about checking it out too until I read the Audible/Amazon reviews Held off on saying anything as not to influence you. But seeing that you’ve decided not to get it either I don’t think that’s a risk any more. There was one Amazon review (4/5 stars) that I thought nicely summed up what I was seeing in the other reviews.
Amazon Review:

I think it’s misleading. Life After Death: The Evidence. Seems pretty general. But it’s anything but. It should have been titled Life After Death: Reason for Belief from a Christian Perspective or something to that effect. Also, I don’t know if I like the term ‘evidence’ as its used. Semantically, it sets up the expectation that the book will be mostly data-centered when the book, though comprehensive, is mostly rhetorical.

Overall this reviewer was pleased with the book. But the title of the book alone has caused some to have expectations that were not met. So I’m holding onto my audio book credit for another title.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I did look more. Unfortunately it is impossible to copy and paste from the text. I am not inclined to manually type in quotations, and then criticize them, it would take far too mauch time. To say the least, I am not impressed. If you wish to go on, you are welcome to summarize a chapter, and we can talk about it.

I expected your comments. The book is either worth reading or not. Your choice. You are curious or not.

 

[buffalo]

I thought about checking it out too until I read the Audible/Amazon reviews Held off on saying anything as not to influence you. But seeing that you’ve decided not to get it either I don’t think that’s a risk any more. There was one Amazon review (4/5 stars) that I thought nicely summed up what I was seeing in the other reviews.

Overall this reviewer was pleased with the book. But the title of the book alone has caused some to have expectations that were not met. So I’m holding onto my audio book credit for another title.

Don’t like evidence as it is used?

evidence

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

---

I think you two guys are actually afraid to read it.:yup:

 

[Spock]

I thought about checking it out too until I read the Audible/Amazon reviews Held off on saying anything as not to influence you.

I did not even think about reading the reviews, precisely so they would not influence me. When I saw the mentioning of NDE’s I was already disappointed. Such anecdotal “evidence” (is that evidence??) is being mentioned with a straight face? Then I jumped ahead and looked at the mind-body “problem”. The mind is the activity of the brain, precisely as walking is the activity of the leg-muscles. In neither case is there a necessaity to postulate a “spiritual” causative factor. Just like the “walking” will cease when the muscles die, so will the “mind” disappear when the brain becomes inoperational. The author did not attempt to tell us (at least I did not find it) just how would the mind survive the death of the underlying infrstructure. And of couse even mentioning the “soul” without defining it is just another reason why the book simply does not “cut it”.

 

[lemondiesel]

I do hate the argument that “science will eventually uncover the answers.” As to believe a tiny spec on a single grain of sand, on a vaste sandy beach, surrounded by infinite “nothingness” will one day have the capability to understand it all.

Craig argues that science and faith are connected

couldn’t agree more, as I believe the Bible is Man’s gradual understanding of the known world. Faith brings about questions, and questions need answers.

he suggests that the question to ask is not whether science can prove God’s existence but rather the philosophy that "science can establish a premise in an argument leading to the conclusion that God exists.

Is this the same argument of “not trying to prove who created the watch, but to understand that there is even a watch in the first place?”

I submit my name as a challenger to Craig’s ideologies. Are there any questions outside of the article we could discuss?

 

[Spock]

Don’t like evidence as it is used?

evidence

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Sure, as a generic definition it is fine. But the devil is in the details. Evidence for the physical realm is an objective, observable, testable and repeatable phenomenon. Evidence is called proof in the abstract sciences, where a proposition is true, if it is the logical corollary of the axioms. Evidence is some testimonial when the subject is in the past, which cannot be observed directly. Its validity is subject to several criteria, not to be discussed here.

Finally: what is the “evidence” for a supernatural? Because no matter whether the author admits it or not, “life after death” is a supernatural phenomenon.

I think you two guys are actually afraid to read it.:yup:

Mighty cheap shot buddy. If that is the best you can do, I will be happy to close this conversation.