Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

178101213

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    the bizarre need to write an opinion piece on a popular media organisation informing everybody about Craig's apparent obscurity?

    :D

    I love it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    To post an update to this thread. I went to see William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Gary Habermas and Peter J.Williams at the bethinking apologetics conference in London today.
    William Lane Craig systematically defended all the arguments for God's existence which Dawkins wrote about in The God Delusion. Craig is a man who sincerely cares for others and through his ministry on campuses hopes that people will come to know Jesus Christ personally and be saved. Dawkins' refusal is excusemaking as far as I see it.

    I'm in disagreement that the new-atheists have disproved the kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, or the axiological argument. John Lennox went through the arguments presented in Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design and argued for the compatibility of science and Christianity. Gary Habermas (professor of apologetics at Liberty University) went through the arguments for the Resurrection from the dating of Scriptures and from Biblical criticism. Peter J Williams went through the new-atheist objections to the Old Testament particularly the objection that new-atheists have of the Israelite conquering of Caanan.

    There is no reasonable grounds for Dawkins to decline Craig. Craig is a respected philosopher in the Philosophy of Religion. He's just a good debater and a good arguer for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Unless Craig has had some sort of personality alternation all the reasons to avoid debating him that existed before you saw him speak are all still valid.

    I appreciate you guys like him but frankly with you he was preaching to the choir. I see no genuine attempt to understand the objections to the cosmological argument in this thread, no genuine attempt to address the issues raised.

    So, frankly, the idea that you think Dawkins should debate Craig is really the reason he refuses, all it does is serve Craig's self promotion and give his nonsense respectability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    His "reasons" were smokescreens. In The Guardian article he wrote on Thursday he claimed that it was his position on Deuteronomy that stopped him.

    Before that he said it was because Craig wasn't notable, despite being one of the most prominent philosophers of religion in the world. Indeed in Thursday's article he repeated that:
    Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

    This is astoundingly ignorant considering the contribution that William Lane Craig has made to philosophy.

    If the reasons aren't holding up, one starts to wonder if it isn't because he's not able to respond to his objections to the new-atheism.

    Today he was preaching to the choir because it was an apologetics conference. This week and next week he has been and will be debating at British universities with other speakers and is engaging directly with skeptics. Dawkins is missing an opportunity if he really believes he can refute Craig's arguments. I suspect the problem is that he can't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I appreciate you guys like him but frankly with you he was preaching to the choir.

    Actually I don't like him - but if he preaches to the choir then he and Dawkins would make a perfect pair. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    For those interested in hearing Dawkins' reasons for not debating Craig then you can read his own words in this Guardian article he wrote just 2 days ago.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

    OK, so he doesn't want to debate Craig. That's fine. The truth is surely bigger than whoever is declared the winner of a debate. But why the goalpost shifting and the bizarre need to write an opinion piece on a popular media organisation informing everybody about Craig's apparent obscurity?

    Did you read the article? Craig is planning a publicity stunt by having an empty chair with Dawkins name on it when he visits Oxford.

    As Dawkins says himself he turns down invitations to debates and conferences all the time, Craig is the only person who has a hissy fit about it.

    Really that should tell you all you need to know about Craig's motivations.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    The only respect Dawkins could have is to actually debate the man. Dawkins is preaching to a choir too - but with respect to the man, that does not exclude when he is talking about 'science' only, which he has a talent for -

    and not 'scientism'...because he is a fabulous scientist no doubt and has the gift of the gab - but uses the gift in an almost cringe worthy way that exludes some with a palpable 'dogma' - deal with it! It's true -


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: There should be an empty chair there.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Before that he said it was because Craig wasn't notable, despite being one of the most prominent philosophers of religion in the world.

    Prominent by who's standards?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Most schools of philosophy in the world. I remember that we studied him at university in respect to the kalam cosmological argument in our Philosophy of Religion class.

    Dawkins in that article shows himself to be ignorant about philosophy, and the philosophy of religion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Prominent by who's standards?

    Apparently not by the standards of a biologist with a very limited grasp of philosophy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Prominent by who's standards?

    Well, the same could be said of Dawkins ramblings on religion and philosophy - he is 'prominent' by who's standard?

    and who said his standard is 'supreme'? Daring?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Apparently not by the standards of a biologist with a very limited grasp of philosophy.

    I don't think Craig would get any complaints on this forum if he refused to debate Dawkins because of Dawkins lack of understanding of Christian theology, do you? But then Dawkins is screaming for Craig to debate theology with him.

    Do you consider William Craig Lane a prominent Christian philosopher?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Actually Zombrex, if Craig was asked by Dawkins to debate and he turned it down, honestly that would be about as disappointing. As for Craig's notability it just depends on his contribution to philosophy which is demonstrated as simply as on his Wikipedia entry.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Well, the same could be said of Dawkins ramblings on religion and philosophy - he is 'prominent' by who's standard?

    and who said his standard is 'supreme'? Daring?

    So Craig isn't a prominent philosopher. So why would Dawkins debate him?

    (btw the objection is not merely that he isn't prominent, it is that he is a shameless self promotionist with no genuine interest in the atheism/theism debate).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    lol, because people would like to see it happen? win or lose, or have an opinion afterwards etc. and so on..

    Look, I admire Dawkins in very many ways, and really 'not' in some - He is not my hero, but he has something to contribute, and has imo a very real way of explaining life and has a talent to speak to so many in very understandable terms.

    He lit the fire though, he should not shy away from the moths...he should put his money where his mouth is and not turn his nose up...he can't afford to; he started it. Kinda like boxing...he's 'shying' away, because he sees himself as 'too' good....WHAT?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Did you read the article? Craig is planning a publicity stunt by having an empty chair with Dawkins name on it when he visits Oxford.

    As Dawkins says himself he turns down invitations to debates and conferences all the time, Craig is the only person who has a hissy fit about it.

    Really that should tell you all you need to know about Craig's motivations.

    No, Zombrex, I didn't read the article. There was no need as Richard phoned me up last week to run his article by me.

    Let's just clarify a couple of things. While I quite like Craig the man, I have previously stated that I don't find his particular approach to apologetics moves me. If you require further clarification on my perspective of Caig then please reread the first line of the first post of this thread and go from there.

    I don't find any evidence of a hissy fit on Craig's part. If anything I would have thought that RD's fairly uncharitable comments about Craig are exactly the sort of thing one normally attributes to a hissy fit. But perhaps you can show me otherwise? So where is Craig's hissy fit?

    Finally, it's much worse than leaving an empty chair. The organisers of the event had the temerity to start this bus campaign -

    http://youtu.be/ydB7kXDkbZY

    Poor Zombrex. I'll fetch the smelling salts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Really, Mr. Craig?
    god-is-a-delusion.jpg

    Frankly, the guy comes off as a sophist: he'll apparently use any kind of rhetorical trick he can think of to win an argument, regardless of its merits or fundamental basis in reality. Have a read of his answers to questions on his own website, here, and see whether you can make sense of statements such as this:
    On my view there is not a potentially infinite number of numbers. Rather there are no numbers at all! Numbers, if they exist, are abstract objects, and I’m strongly inclined to say that only concrete objects exist. What is true to say and what God knows is that according to standard number theory, there is an actually infinite number of numbers. Moreover, God knows that an actually infinite number of arithmetic truths follow from the axioms of standard arithmetic, like 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, . . . . But, as explained above, He does not know these truths propositionally, as I have just expressed them, but non-propositionally. Therefore, there is literally neither an infinite number of numbers nor an infinite number of propositions.
    I have to wonder: just who is Craig's audience?

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    bnt wrote: »
    Really, Mr. Craig?
    god-is-a-delusion.jpg

    Frankly, the guy comes off as a sophist: he'll apparently use any kind of rhetorical trick he can think of to win an argument, regardless of its merits or fundamental basis in reality. Have a read of his answers to questions on his own website, here, and see whether you can make sense of statements such as this:

    I have to wonder: just who is Craig's audience?

    Most of the atheist community apparently - what better advertisement could your big post, pictures, links etc. contain?

    Look, this is just a trivial matter in the big scheme of things, it's just a 'debate' really...at the end of the day. X Factor eat your heart out etc. etc.:pac: - whoever tunes in -

    ....but nonetheless Dawkins is drawing the short straw in reality....because he is living in his very own 'version' and doesn't even know it, or recognise it imo - he thinks it's 'better' this way to lead people and their morality and explain it and it's source - so let him explain it...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    No, Zombrex, I didn't read the article. There was no need as Richard phoned me up last week to run his article by me.

    If you read the article is should be perfectly obvious to you why Dawkins wrote the Guardian article. :rolleyes:

    In other news the Pope has refused to have dinner with me on Sunday, which makes you think what does he have to hide!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If you read the article is should be perfectly obvious to you why Dawkins wrote the Guardian article. :rolleyes:

    In other news the Pope has refused to have dinner with me on Sunday, which makes you think what does he have to hide!

    Craig has Debated Atkins, Ehrman, Harris, Hitchens, Krauss, Stenger and a whole host of other non-believers. To claim that he is not well known is fallacious, especially when we also consider that Dawkins shared a stage (actually, it was a boxing ring) with him and a number of other guests this year in Mexico. To then write an article criticising Craig's apparent lack of popularity is -- and I'm being kind here -- self-defeating. To refuse to debate him because he supposedly approves of genocide -- an analysis I imagine Craig would disagree with -- is a complete red herring.

    While you may have nothing but contempt for Craig the simple fact is that he is amongst the most popular and well known Christian apologists out there. If Dawkins is going to prattle on about faith-heads then he should be prepared to defend his position against such people.

    So perhaps you could tell me exactly when Craig had his hissy fit? Or was that just for dramatic effect?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    In other news the Pope has refused to have dinner with me on Sunday, which makes you think what does he have to hide!

    If the Pope takes the time to write an article in a national newspaper explaining why he refuses to have dinner with you on Sunday, then I will gladly concede that he certainly must have something to hide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bnt: That's about as lame an accusation as the excuses that Dawkins has made not to debate Craig. To claim that he is not well known in philosophy as Dawkins did in his article is clearly wrong also.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    bnt wrote: »
    R
    I have to wonder: just who is Craig's audience?

    People who are capable of understanding philosophical concepts such as non-propositional and propositional knowledge, abstract and concrete objects, and the idea that omniscience involves knowing everything that is true - rather than knowing what doesn't actually exist, is not true, but might have been.

    Based on the level of the debates we've had in this Forum and on the A&A Forum (eg concerning omniscience and free will) I would think that will probably comprise quite a small audience.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Most of the atheist community apparently - what better advertisement could your big post, pictures, links etc. contain?
    That's quite a revealing response, I think. Are you of the "all publicity is good publicity" school of thought? That a stunt like Craig's empty chair is going to bolster your cause? I think that partly answers my question about who Craig's audience is.

    Even if Dawkins debated Craig, and Craig "won" the debate, what would that achieve? Lots of crowing on one side, and a shrug of the shoulders on the other. Do you think that would result in the conversion of any atheists to Christianity? Can Craig's "sophisticated" theology win over people who don't agree with the basic theology? Based on what I've seen of both Craig and Dawkins, they don't speak the same language and would just be talking past each other.
    PDN wrote: »
    Based on the level of the debates we've had in this Forum and on the A&A Forum (eg concerning omniscience and free will) I would think that will probably comprise quite a small audience.
    Yes, we know, most atheists are not sophisticated theologians or philosophers, we haven't boned up on all that jargon. Effective communication requires that you get your point across to the audience that you have in front of you, not the audience you wish you had. Complaining about your audience does nothing to change the situation. It never fails to amaze me; how philosophers demand that reality conform to the sophisticated mental models on which they've lavished so much time and effort. You build castles in the sky, totally unconnected to the ground. I've said it before: until you can convince people of the basic theology, there's no point throwing your sophisticated theology at them.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Considering that philosophy was the parent of natural science, psychology, and logic that approach to it seems a little bit silly?
    bnt wrote: »
    Do you think that would result in the conversion of any atheists to Christianity?

    God works through all things, and I think that through his arguments God has brought many to Him.

    Atheists seem to have the strange idea that they can never come to faith. The reality is that many do, I've seen people come from being avowed skeptics to Christians over a number of years. The main purpose as to why Craig does what he does, despite claims of him being a self-promotionist is to bring the Gospel in an effective manner to people so that they might know Jesus personally.

    All evangelism falls under the category of Christ-promotion rather than self-promotion. Or at least it should.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    bnt wrote: »
    Yes, we know, most atheists are not sophisticated theologians or philosophers, we haven't boned up on all that jargon. Effective communication requires that you get your point across to the audience that you have in front of you, not the audience you wish you had. Complaining about your audience does nothing to change the situation. It never fails to amaze me; how philosophers demand that reality conform to the sophisticated mental models on which they've lavished so much time and effort. You build castles in the sky, totally unconnected to the ground. I've said it before: until you can convince people of the basic theology, there's no point throwing your sophisticated theology at them.

    No, most atheists aren't sophisticated theologians or philosophers (neither are most Christians) but some are.

    Who's complaining about an audience? :confused:

    I have no problem with the fact that philosophy is a minority interest. Where I do have a problem is when those who won't take the time to pursue such an interest, then persist in posting in philosophical discussions and bleat, "But it doesn't make sense to me."

    There are lots of things in life that don't make sense to me (eg the intricacies of atomic physics or how algorithms work in computer programming). But I have more sense than to parade my ignorance by entering or initiating discussions on those fora and then saying, "But I don't understand - and it's all yout fault for not explaining it in terms I can understand."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    bnt wrote: »
    That's quite a revealing response, I think. Are you of the "all publicity is good publicity" school of thought? That a stunt like Craig's empty chair is going to bolster your cause? I think that partly answers my question about who Craig's audience is.

    OK, you don't understand the arguments. Fine. But Craig obviously has sufficient popularity that the likes of Dennett, Hitchens, Harris and Krauss felt him worthy of their time. The cynical tone of your question aside, Craig's audience during such debates is obviously a mixture of supporters, detractors (note the hecklers during his recent debate with Stephen Law) and those just there for the show.

    Interestingly, the key words "William Lane Craig" produces about 2.5million hits on Google, whereas "Daniel Dennett" produces a mere 1.7 million hits. Make of that what you will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Craig has Debated Atkins, Ehrman, Harris, Hitchens, Krauss, Stenger and a whole host of other non-believers. To claim that he is not well known is fallacious, especially when we also consider that Dawkins shared a stage (actually, it was a boxing ring) with him and a number of other guests this year in Mexico. To then write an article criticising Craig's apparent lack of popularity is -- and I'm being kind here -- self-defeating. To refuse to debate him because he supposedly approves of genocide -- an analysis I imagine Craig would disagree with -- is a complete red herring.

    Again I have to ask did you actually read the article, because if you did the reasons Dawkins has for not debating him are clearly laid out and not the ones you are attributing to him.

    Dawkins was not refusing to debate him based on his "lack of popularity". He is refusing to debate him because of his lack of seriousness as a philosopher and a debater.
    So perhaps you could tell me exactly when Craig had his hissy fit? Or was that just for dramatic effect?

    The constant need to complain that Dawkins hasn't debated him, going so far as these publicity stunts, is to my mind a hissy fit.

    He should have a little more dignity particularly if he wants to combat Dawkins assertion that he is not a person to be taken seriously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    If the Pope takes the time to write an article in a national newspaper explaining why he refuses to have dinner with you on Sunday, then I will gladly concede that he certainly must have something to hide.

    Really? How naive of you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again I have to ask did you actually read the article, because if you did the reasons Dawkins has for not debating him are clearly laid out and not the ones you are attributing to him.

    Dawkins was not refusing to debate him based on his "lack of popularity"

    When RD opens his article by calling into questions the man's standing amongst the public and his standing amongst his peers these opinions are proffered as reasons not to debate him. If they aren't reasons for not debating him then we should just dismiss the first paragraph of his article as uncharitable verbiage.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    The constant need to complain that Dawkins hasn't debated him, going so far as these publicity stunts, is to my mind a hissy fit.

    He should have a little more dignity particularly if he wants to combat Dawkins assertion that he is not a person to be taken seriously.

    You do realise what a hissy-fit entails? Craig may have been doggedly persistent but I haven't heard any anger from him. (If you want to hear Craig's version of their brief private meeting before the boxing ring debate then you can listen here - 8:25 to 9:45.) Now unless you want to redefine the meaning of words then you should either present evidence that Craig has been ill-tempered and thrown tantrums, or you can withdraw your claim. You can then please explain to me how RD's various rude responses don't qualify as hissy-fits?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement