Skip to main content

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.

Comments

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."
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..."
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
Birdieupon 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!

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist