William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, etc

[itullian]

Do Catholics have people like this?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I have wondered that - where are the Catholic apologists who are debating atheists?

I am surprised that Dr William Lane Craig is a Protestant, because as a man that knows history, he should be a Catholic.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Do Catholics have people like this?

Of course, and better. Look up Fr. Robert Spitzer for a start.

 

[Sair]

I must admit I don’t know of any ‘famous’ Catholic apologists, but I recall directly from my own experience two priests who would have made great public spokesmen for the faith, had such been warranted - one was a talented composer of homilies that addressed the history and philosophy of Catholic faith, and always stimulated my mind during mass; the other was an absolutely delightful Irishman who really engaged with his congregation, and along with his deeply compassionate approach to interpreting scripture, told very gently humorous jokes at the beginning of every sermon - which were all the better, I always thought, for being delivered in that gorgeous accent

In all honesty, I don’t think it’s the famous people who really make the impact upon people’s lives and beliefs. I’ve read quite a few of Richard Dawkins’ writings, and heard him speak on one occasion (and will be doing so again next weekend at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne) - but the fact of the matter is that I would not even have given Dawkins the time of day had it not been for a friend who recommended ‘The God Delusion’; nor would I have been able to bring myself to read it in the first place, had it not been for my interactions with everyday nonbelievers who were not the monsters I had been brought up to expect, and who influenced my general beliefs in the direction of atheism. I really don’t think it counts against Catholicism that it apparently lacks a high-profile apologist.

 

[asd72]

I must admit I don’t know of any ‘famous’ Catholic apologists, but I recall directly from my own experience two priests who would have made great public spokesmen for the faith, had such been warranted - one was a talented composer of homilies that addressed the history and philosophy of Catholic faith, and always stimulated my mind during mass; the other was an absolutely delightful Irishman who really engaged with his congregation, and along with his deeply compassionate approach to interpreting scripture, told very gently humorous jokes at the beginning of every sermon - which were all the better, I always thought, for being delivered in that gorgeous accent

In all honesty, I don’t think it’s the famous people who really make the impact upon people’s lives and beliefs. I’ve read quite a few of Richard Dawkins’ writings, and heard him speak on one occasion (and will be doing so again next weekend at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne) - but the fact of the matter is that I would not even have given Dawkins the time of day had it not been for a friend who recommended ‘The God Delusion’; nor would I have been able to bring myself to read it in the first place, had it not been for my interactions with everyday nonbelievers who were not the monsters I had been brought up to expect, and who influenced my general beliefs in the direction of atheism. I really don’t think it counts against Catholicism that it apparently lacks a high-profile apologist.

I read the God Delusion also years ago. I was also initially reeled in and felt scornful of and sorry for deluded Christians.

Looking back I agree with others that he has a poor grasp of philosophy and theology. His actual field of empirical science I have no problem with.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Do Catholics have people like this?

Do we? You mean, you don’t know?

Hmmmmmm

 

[itullian]

Do we? You mean, you don’t know?

Hmmmmmm

no, who?

 

[Sair]

I read the God Delusion also years ago. I was also initially reeled in and felt scornful of and sorry for deluded Christians.

Looking back I agree with others that he has a poor grasp of philosophy and theology. His actual field of empirical science I have no problem with.

Actually, I think Dawkins has a reasonably good grasp of philosophy - only the fact that he doesn’t buy in to the obfuscatory jargon often employed by postmodernists and theologians might have lost him some favour in academic circles, and amongst those who object to plain speaking when it comes to religious matters.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Looking back at the past century, you had enormously talented and knowledgeable Catholic apologists like G.K. Chesterton, who debated Clarence Darrow and completely dominated him, as those who witnessed the debate attested. Darrow came in to the debate apparently thinking he was going to debate his fundamentalist grandmother, and never quite recovered once he realized he was debating one of the most thoughtful and witty Catholics of the 20th Century.

The brilliant Father Frederick C. Copleston more than held his own in a famous 1984 debate with Bertrand Russell that was broadcast on the BBC in 1948. You can hear part 1 here: youtube.com/watch?v=-BWFpBTqSN0. Debating Russell was a considerably more arduous intellectual endeavor that arguing with Dawkins.

Other 20th century apologists who took on atheist claims included some pretty hard-nosed Catholics who held the line against the rise of communist, fascist, and liberal-secular atheism in the middle and latter half of the last century, like Frank Sheed, whose Catholic Evidence Guild did street-corner apologetics in England, training a cadre of Catholics who would set up on a street-corner or in Hyde Park and vigorously defend Catholic beliefs against all comers (they are still active today, and have a chapter in New York - if you think debating an atheist in a formal debate on a secular campus is hard, imagine doing it in front of a hostile crowd in Hyde Park or Central Park - yet they won many converts through their works) - see his classic works, “Theology for Beginners,” “Theology and Sanity,” and especially “Catholic Evidence Training Outlines: A Classic Guide to Understanding & Explaining the Truths of the Catholic Church,” which was the training manual for his street-corner apologists. The Australian priests Fr. Charles M. Carty and the appropriately-named Fr. Leslie Rumble had an enormously influential Catholic apologist show for years that broadcast from Sydney and answered all viewers’ questions and arguments against Catholic doctrine. Their answers to thousands of questions are available on-line and are a great resource for Catholic apologists (go to radioreplies.info/ for 6,863 questions they received and responses. If nothing else, you realize the claims of the “New Atheists” are really nothing new, and that most were old-hat and easily dismissed back in the 1950s by the good Fathers Rumble and Carty.) William F. Buckley was enormously influential as a debater and through his books, newspaper columns, and as host of “Firing Line” on PBS in defending Catholicism and Christianity in general against the secularization of culture. Other apologists whose works were used in apologetics training in the 1950s through 1970s include Father G.H. Duggan’s “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” Father William G. Most’s “Catholic Apolgetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics,” and “College Apologetics: Proofs of the Truth of the Catholic Faith.” All of these books are highly recommended and although many are out of print, are available on Amazon at very reasonable prices.

Current Catholic apologists of note include Professor Edward Feser (author of the excellent “The Last Superstition”, which approaches the claims of the new atheists from an Aristotelian-Thomist perspective), Professor Peter Kreeft (his “Handbook of Christian Apologetics,” written with Ronald K. Tacelli, is in my opinion the best single-volume work for refuting the claims of the new atheist movement), Scott Hahn (whose book “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God” is essential reading for the Catholic apologist), Father Robert J. Spitzer (his recent book “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy” is an excellent refutation of the philosophical claims of Steven Hawking); Patrick Madrid (author of “The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism”); Dominican priest Father Thomas Crean (author of “God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins”); Prof. Diane Moczar is strong on defending the history of Catholicism, see her “Seven Lies About Catholic History,” “Islam at the Gates,” and “Ten Dates Every Catholic Should Know.” Fr. Thomas D. Williams is a frequent commentator for CBS-TV as their Vatican analyst - his recent “Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God,” focuses specifically on Christopher Hitchen’s book and is a short, very readable apologetic work that I would recommend to any Catholic who has been exposed to the mix of half-truths and outright lies that characterize the atheist movement today.

Those should get you started, itullian.

 

[asd72]

Actually, I think Dawkins has a reasonably good grasp of philosophy - only the fact that he doesn’t buy in to the obfuscatory jargon often employed by postmodernists and theologians might have lost him some favour in academic circles, and amongst those who object to plain speaking when it comes to religious matters.

Have you read:

There is a God by Anthony Flew, or

Answering the new atheism by Benjamin Wilker + Scott Hahn?

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t think Coplestone did very well in his debate with Russell. It just struck me that he didn’t understand what Russell was talking about with analyticity. I hate to say that, given how well read Coplestone was, but I’m just not sure how else to understand what I’ve heard in that debate.

 

[Sair]

Have you read:

There is a God by Anthony Flew, or

Answering the new atheism by Benjamin Wilker + Scott Hahn?

Neither, but I understand from other sources that the extent of Flew’s ‘conversion’ was to deism, not theism…

 

[Edmundus1581]

I love William Lane Craig. He’s very smart, well educated, and easy to listen to.

I can see why Richard Dawkins avoids debating him - it would be a whitewash!

I haven’t been reading in depth on evolution and proofs of God in the last few years, so I don’t know how the Catholic apologists compare with Craig in depth of thought. I expect that they do match him in writing, but from what I’ve seen in youtube none seem to quite match Craig for presentation and quick wit. It’s not a competition however, and it is nice to see Protestant and Catholic minds treating each other with respect. I’ve head Craig quoting Aquinas and Blaise Pascal.

 

[Zimm3r]

Yes William Lane Craig is fascinating but I find in his debates (many on youtube) on the topic of “Does God exist?” he stacks the deck by opening with a shotgun method (with FIVE reasons) and a burden of proof that I find makes the subject to broad for the atheist to respond to. Now I don’t believe he is doing it for the purpose of deceitfully winning but because it works and I don’t think he really realizes that he is using a shotgun. Probably be better if it were split into five debates one covering each of the reasons.

 

[ASimon]

Yes William Lane Craig is fascinating but I find in his debates (many on youtube) on the topic of “Does God exist?” he stacks the deck by opening with a shotgun method (with FIVE reasons) and a burden of proof that I find makes the subject to broad for the atheist to respond to. Now I don’t believe he is doing it for the purpose of deceitfully winning but because it works and I don’t think he really realizes that he is using a shotgun. Probably be better if it were split into five debates one covering each of the reasons.

You’re giving Craig a little bit too much credit. His whole debate method is a catalog of fairly shady tactics. Chief among them is starting as many small rhetorical fires as he can in his speaking time, trying to force his opponent to waste their time answering each of his (mostly irrelevant) points. When they’re smart enough not to try, he pretends that’s a victory in itself. He’s been quoted as saying that the biggest thing to remember in debates is to manage the clock. His strategy is to force his opponent to ditch their argument in favor of answering each of his individual points.

And he’s absolutely doing it because his goal is be perceived the winner, and with religious/theological questions, looking better on style means just as much as looking better on substance. The shotgun method, with its 5 points, makes him look organized and thoughtful. But it’s really smoke and mirrors.

 

[Bobber90]

You’re giving Craig a little bit too much credit. His whole debate method is a catalog of fairly shady tactics. Chief among them is starting as many small rhetorical fires as he can in his speaking time, trying to force his opponent to waste their time answering each of his (mostly irrelevant) points. When they’re smart enough not to try, he pretends that’s a victory in itself. He’s been quoted as saying that the biggest thing to remember in debates is to manage the clock. His strategy is to force his opponent to ditch their argument in favor of answering each of his individual points.

And he’s absolutely doing it because his goal is be perceived the winner, and with religious/theological questions, looking better on style means just as much as looking better on substance. The shotgun method, with its 5 points, makes him look organized and thoughtful. But it’s really smoke and mirrors.

I think that’s exactly it - at first I was disappointed to see his insistence on gaining rhetorical points rather than responding to nuance, or responding at all on topic. To be fair to him, very few people who have debated against him have bothered to look him up. If they did, they would have seen he’s been saying the same points for over a decade!

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi ASimon,

Do you have any specific instances in mind of Craig valuing rhetoric over substance?

 

[Edmundus1581]

If they did, they would have seen he’s been saying the same points for over a decade!

If he has used the same points in several debates, are you sure this was not relevant each time to the topic? Do you expect him to come up with a new proof every time? I recall him responding to someone like Hitchens saying “The is NO EVIDENCE for God”, with several of his proofs, briefly. What’s wrong with that? Similar topics tend to reappear in different debates. Dawkins doesn’t produce new evidence for his theories every time he speaks.

I’ve seen a longer debate, on the issue of “Without God there is no purpose” (or something like that). His opening speech was dedicated to the topic, and his rebuttals were straight to the point of what his opponents had said. Rather, it was Richard Dawkins who was humiliated by Craig’s ability to stay on the topic. See youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1. I’ve seen the whole debate (about 60 minutes), and this is an accurate extract.

 

[Bobber90]

If he has used the same points in several debates, are you sure this was not relevant each time to the topic? Do you expect him to come up with a new proof every time? I recall him responding to someone like Hitchens saying “The is NO EVIDENCE for God”, with several of his proofs, briefly. What’s wrong with that? Similar topics tend to reappear in different debates. Dawkins doesn’t produce new evidence for his theories every time he speaks.

I’ve seen a longer debate, on the issue of “Without God there is no purpose” (or something like that). His opening speech was dedicated to the topic, and his rebuttals were straight to the point of what his opponents had said. Rather, it was Richard Dawkins who was humiliated by Craig’s ability to stay on the topic. See youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1. I’ve seen the whole debate (about 60 minutes), and this is an accurate extract.

For a short presentation of ideas I would expect to see more self-doubt or measure in his points (caveats, provisos, etc etc), but this has appeared to be lacking in his debates, which is made more noticeable when observed over his archived years and years of debating! Most academics revise their views to make them stronger, but the fact WLC has not followed suit is irksome because it suggests he has not responded to criticism, or is not giving us the fruits of his research but rather a popular version he doesn’t think he needs to change for us. This theme of not responding to criticism is noticeable when he speaks like a debater rather than an academic. Of course this may say nothing about his academic character as it is only within the context of a debate, in which he always fights with a vengeance. But he does say literally the same thing each time, in a way which suggests a gimmick.

As to that debate linked, Dawkins may well lose, and I don’t need to watch that to believe it. I’ve had a number of moments where I want to shout at him “Do your research!”. But I remember his main contribution is to biology and there are better philosophers out there.

 

[itullian]

WLC uses the same spiel every. what trips him up is bringing up other parts of the Bible than he talks about. he won’t answer questions on the old test much and won’t comment on the credibility of many episodes.

when asked he answered it but seemed coy and embarrased when he answered.