Wednesday, April 18, 2012

WLC debate

By the way I'd definitely be up for a round 2 with William Lane Craig if anyone wants to invite me at any point....

Earlier overview here. Plus see "Craig debate" in my sidebar.

15 comments:

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Why sweet science would you do that? Craig repeatedly lied about your views both during the debate and in the post-debate comments.

*Could say more, but I'm honestly confused and just want to hear your thoughts.*

Actually, at this point I think it's clear that people agreeing to debate Craig harmful. As you've pointed out, the "Craig machine" relies on the false impression of Craig as a great philosopher, but part of the way Craig builds that impression is by saying "hey, look at all the philosophers who've agreed to debate me."

The Uncredible Hallq said...

On second thought, a debate with Craig might be interesting if you went in with a policy of explicitly calling out any lies he tells mid-debate. Not using some euphemism, but saying, "that's a lie." Otherwise, I don't see the point.

Bradley C. said...

Yours was one of the better debates with him I have listened to. It is also the one where I thought Craig most clearly "lost" given almost any definition of the word.

I would also like to see you two debate again.

Eric said...

"Craig repeatedly lied about your views both during the debate and in the post-debate comments."

When people regularly misunderstand Craig's points -- something that happens all the time, both on the internet and in his debates -- should we say that they're 'lying'? Dozens of Craig debates, articles, interviews, etc. are available online, yet we still hear atheist after atheist, both on the internet and in debates with Craig, say things like, "It's not true that you have to believe in god to be a good person!" or "but the Kalam cosmological argument doesn't get you all the way to Christianity" or "but people are willing to die for beliefs that Craig believes to be false all the time." Are they all lying, Chris? Clearly not. But then if Craig gets something wrong with the position of someone who's views are not nearly as widely known as Craig's, why jump to the conclusion that he's lying? Surely no one would claim that professor Law's Evil God Challenge is as well known, or is as readily available, in a wide variety of contexts, as Craig's moral argument, or kalam cosmological argument, or his argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

When you implore people either to avoid debating Craig or to call him a 'liar' if they choose to debate him, you make Craig's position look stronger, not weaker. I mean, does anyone sincerely doubt that Dawkins looks worse for refusing to debate Craig (excepting the group debate in Mexico that wasn't then was a debate with Craig, according to Dawkins)?

Eric said...

"But then if Craig gets something wrong with the position of someone *whose views..."

The Uncredible Hallq said...

Eric,

All the things you quote atheists as saying are true. You may think they're not relevant, but they're true. However, Craig's claim that Law conceded that there is a creator of the universe is untrue, and there's no way someone with Craig's education who heard Law's speech could possibly believe it. Craig was lying.

And yes, I doubt that. I think that by refusing to debate Craig, Dawkins has shown that he's one of the smarter atheists out there.

Eric said...

"All the things you quote atheists as saying are true."

Chris, you missed the point: It may indeed be true that, say, one doesn't have to believe in god to be a good person, but it's decidedly false that *Craig* argues that you have to believe in god to be a good person, yet this is the view that many atheists (on the internet and in debates with Craig) regularly ascribe to him. So when they say things like this, are they *lying*, or have they *misunderstood* Craig's arguments? I've heard atheists misconstrue/misrepresent Craig's arguments far more frequently than I've heard Craig misconstrue/misrepresent the arguments of others.

The Atheist Missionary said...

I would like to see Round 2 happen in North America. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. If there is a group willing to host the event and bring in Craig, please contact me at theatheistmissionary@gmail.com. If Stephen's schedule permits, I'll spring for his flight. Of course, there will be other expenses (hotel, Stephen's beer money, etc.) and anyone interested in kicking in can also contact me. If this is held at a decent venue in a large centre such as NYC, I would think that sufficient tickets could be sold to pay both speakers a decent honorarium.

The Atheist Missionary said...

My bucket list includes setting up Stephen Law vs. Glenn Peoples in New Zealand. There must be someone out there with 10K burning a hole in their pocket to fund that one. It would be a howler ... philosophically speaking of course.

Michael Fugate said...

WLC has arguments? I thought he only had assertions. Am I missing somthing?

Thomas Larsen said...

I'd like to see another debate between you and Bill Craig! And a debate with Glenn Peoples would also be good.

Unfortunately, I'm a student and I'm pretty much broke, so I can't really fund much.

Tony Lloyd said...

"All the things you quote atheists as saying are true."

Chris, you missed the point:


I read it that Chris had mis-worded agreement with you about atheists being too quick to call WLC a liar.

Chris' point seemed to be:

- Yes, people unfairly take some of the things WLC says as lies but
- Some of the other things WLC says are lies.

And WLC does follow dishonest practices that leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

Anonymous said...

I would agree with Chris. Simply appearing on stage with Craig gives him more credibility than he deserves.

Additionally, he would be prepared for your Evil God Challenge and have a very clever (if ultimately ridiculous) counter-argument to it that would make you look bad. Remember, his whole goal isn't to have an honest conversation, it's to make the opponent look like a hack, and atheism by association look ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

You totally should Law. I imagine it'd be fun for you and the audience, but it'd make challenges to WLC more widely known, his image amongst theists needs shaking. You're the guy to do it :)

Peter Byrom said...

I would LOVE to see another debate between you and Bill Craig! You're definitely one of the strongest and most original-thinking opponents he's faced!