William Lane Craig is promoting his Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK this October. He would like to debate atheists during his visit to the United Kingdom because it's good publicity and a good revenue generator [see william lane craig resources if you want to contribute].
So far, he hasn't been able to
The President of the British Humanist Association has pulled out of debating renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and prominent critic of religion, readily agreed in April to debate Craig on the Existence of God but withdrew her involvement last week saying "I hadn't realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig's debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum".What could possibly have convinced her that this was a set-up—one where Craig has no intention of actually addressing the issue? Well, the data are readily available, even on YouTube.
I'm going to show you a YouTube video made by Craig's supporters. It's a clip from his debate with Christopher Hitchens at Biola University in 2009. Ignore the text comments—they're simply an extreme version of the debating technique that Craig employs.
None that Christopher Hitchens does a perfectly fine job of defining his version of atheism—it happens to be the same as mine. Hitchens has not found any convincing evidence that gods exist so he doesn't believe in them. He also doesn't believe in Santa Claus for the same reason, he's an a-santaclausian. Watch how Craig then present Hitchens with a false trichotomy. He demands that Hitchens choose between three beliefs, none of which correspond to what Hitchens has just described. Finally, Craig gets Hitchens to say that there are no gods. Then he pounces, demanding to know how Hitchens can prove a negative.
This quickly morphs into a discussion of whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Hitchens, to his credit, does not view that as an open and shut proposition since, as we all know, absence of evidence is, indeed, part of the reason for not believing in gods. But to a slick apologist like Craig, that can be a devestating admission.
The point is that William Lane Craig is a typical Christian apologist who would prefer to focus on rhetoric than on truth. Most atheists will find this method of debate frustrating and aggravating. They have to be constantly on their guard against a "gotcha" moment, knowing that Craig will pounce whenever he gets a chance.
Here's another example of the style of argument used by Craig. You can see the trick. He simply refuses to accept the analogy being made and prefers to twist it around to make his point. Listen to what he says about "evidence" that there is no Santa and that there's no teapot. Don't we have the same kind of "evidence" for the non-existence of gods? Of course we do, but it's not "evidence" of nonexistence of Santa and teapots—it's simply evidence that particular claims about Santa and teapots have not been proven. Lots of claims about gods fall into that category as well.
Who wants to spend half an hour debating the meaning of atheism or whether we can prove the non-existence of teapots in space? The real issue is whether gods—or in Craig's case the Christian gods—actually exist?
Here's another example of Craig's style of argument. Who in their right mind wants to engage in this sort of debate?
I'm with you on this one. There are very few people who have been able to debate with Craig successfully on HIS terms. The reality of it is, most people who debate Craig aren't prepared for him.
ReplyDeleteI've been watching the line-up for the tour for the last few months, and I'm glad few notable atheists have accepted. That said, I'd like to see some people debate him on specific topics where they are specialists in that field, great debaters, and be prepared to point out the crap in his arguments.
ReplyDeleteI can only think of one debate where someone's preformed really well against WLC; Shelly Kagan debating morality.
If you want to see Craig really get his ass handed to him, look no further than his debate with Shelly Kagan. The difference is that they did a more casual format where they could banter back and forth instead of the more conventional "academic" debate style in which each person can rant unanswered for 20 minutes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaunicornist.com/2011/04/william-lane-craig-in-hot-seat-on.html
Concerning the final video in your post Moran says:
ReplyDelete"Here's another example of Craig's style of argument. Who in their right mind wants to engage in this sort of debate?"
My reaction to the last video is that Mr Craig makes the argument that I have made elsewhere on this blog.
It is not a valid criticism of ID that the evolutionist believes that God would not act that way.
The evolutionist has no expertise whatever about how God should act.
As Mr Craig points out - that is a theological question. It can never be a scientific criticism of design.
The really nonexistent and almost fraudulent distinction between atheism and agnosticism continues to aid an endless verbal diarrhea on both sides of the [stupid] debate.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Anon, atheists do not have any expertise in how magick should act.....but neither do IDiots.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't prevent them from pretending to know that their God would not permit junk to permeate the human genome.
Sam Harris did very well against Craig at Notre Dame a few months back. And the crowd much to Craig's surprise turned hostile towards him!
ReplyDeleteTruti
Is Craig holding a copy of Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in that photo in the OP? How much does Denton talk about evolution? That by itself is a huge weakness if he goes in for creo stuff, at least if his opponent is well-informed.
ReplyDeleteHello Brent.
ReplyDeleteI have made the point elsewhere that religious folks do not need to assert that there is no "junk".
We as humans are intelligent and design things. But of course we produce junk.
That does not mean we are not intelligent and design things intelligently.
So whether there is junk DNA or not, it is irrelevant to the subject of ID.
Do you see what I mean?
The point is still valid that:
It is not a valid criticism of ID that the evolutionist believes that God would not act that way.
The evolutionist has no expertise whatever about how God should act.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIf ID is ever to be a positive science, and hence falsifiable, it must set some limits on what the Designer can reasonably be expected to do. Otherwise whatever scientists discover can be explained as the whim of the Designer. If that question is off-limits to science, ID is not and never will be a science.
I've seen quite a lot of debates on religion, several with William Lane Craig. Each time he brings forth arguments that discredit themselves. He doesn't even need a rebuttal. Just look at the debate with Bart Ehrman.
ReplyDeleteCraig brings forth Bayesian probability. I was most pleasantly surprised. He then does on to promptly disprove his own position - without ever noticing it due to his mathematical ignorance.
Also it is very telling how Craig literally has nothing to say when Ehrman points out fallacious reasoning from the gospels. First Craig claimed he couldn't respond because he was out of time; yet when given a second chance to respond, Craig switches the subject.
All in all watching Craig feels like watching any fraud, from Popov to Monckton. Sadly so many people seem not to notice all the verbal and non-verbal tricks these charlatans are using.
David Evans says,
ReplyDeleteIf ID is ever to be a positive science, and hence falsifiable, it must set some limits on what the Designer can reasonably be expected to do. Otherwise whatever scientists discover can be explained as the whim of the Designer. If that question is off-limits to science, ID is not and never will be a science.
Exactly. The IDiots claim they have methods of detecting design and, hence, proving the existence of god(s). Those methods depend on things like complex specified information and irreducible complexity. In other words, things that an intelligent creator would make.
If Intelligent Design Creationism is to be treated seriously then it has to have an explanation for what we observe in nature. If the basic assumption is that nature looks designed then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that some thing don't have the appearance of design at all. Pseudogenes, for example, or the fact that our abdominal muscles run the wrong way.
When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable, they have lost the battle. What this means is that everything can be an example of god's handiwork no matter how crazy it appears on the surface. That pretty much destroys the "scientific" argument that we can detect intelligent design.
When the IDiots are forced to resort to such arguments they have left science and embraced faith. It's them, not us, who are pretending to know the mind of god (oops, I mean the intelligent designer).
The whole point of bringing up bad design in nature is not to refute the idea of god the creator—it's to expose Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, not science.
You can see this in Craig's response to bad design in nature. He immediately links this to theodicy, but theodicy presupposes not only the existence of god(s) but also their motives and personalities. He is conceeding that Intelligent Design Creationism is just a front for a certain kind of Christianity.
Moran posted:
ReplyDelete"When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable, they have lost the battle. What this means is that everything can be an example of god's handiwork no matter how crazy it appears on the surface. That pretty much destroys the "scientific" argument that we can detect intelligent design."
Can you give us a link to a reference where an ID proponent has
claimed that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable?
I am asking you for a quote from an ID proponent.
Please do not quote from somebody else.
NickM: That by itself is a huge weakness if he goes in for creo stuff, at least if his opponent is well-informed.
ReplyDeleteCraig rides the ID bandwagon
When Craig speaks on cosmology, he selectively chooses the tidbits he finds which can be distorted to support his view, and ignores the rest.
ReplyDeleteDebunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig
Likewise, when he speaks on mathematics, he says very questionable things about probability and infinity.
He relies on the time constraints of the debate format, the lack of preparedness of his opponents, and the inability of the audience to distinguish between a scientific argument and a "sciencey" but shallow argument.
Craig is the poster boy for the case that the debate format is not a good way of getting at truth.
@Anon:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Search for "Paul Nelson". Read the entire paragraph.
Or search in Google for Behe's own words: "Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."
I am asking you for a quote from an ID proponent.
ReplyDeletePlease do not quote from somebody else.
I have personally debated with ID-proponents who went as far as to claim that everything we observe in biology is optimal design, including stuff like the route taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This particular fellow actually asserted that the argument that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is suboptimally designed is flawed because, according to him, we simply haven't yet figured out how it is actually superior design. If we simply did more research, we would realize the recurrent laryngeal nerve is taking the most optimal route.
When you are arguing with people who think like this, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that no observation could be made tha twould falsify the design inference. To these people, everything simply is designed, and sometimes we simply haven't figured out yet.
They start with the presupposition : Life was intelligently designed, and then go on to force-fit everything they see to it.
It all boils down to this: Without some method of scientifically determining the wills of the designer, the design inference is unfalsifiable. The reason for this is that, for all we know, the designer could intentionally be designing life to look like it evolved. That's why ID isn't science and never will be.
Anus the utmost IDIot asked:
ReplyDeleteCan you give us a link to a reference where an ID proponent has claimed that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable?
Just browse through Cornelius Hunter's blog. He has made this claim in different wordings. As for other cdesign proponentsists, they do this too, only you have to put the pieces together. Please don't be a hypocrite. Oh, sorry, I was forgetting that's your job exactly.
I see that Anonymous has not returned after being crushed. I'll bet he will continue to make the same b.s. argument at a later date, though.
ReplyDeleteMoran posted
ReplyDelete"When the IDiots try to counter this evidence by claiming that we can never know good design because god is inscrutable,"
Moran has not supported that claim.
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism. That is the root of his problem.
But it is all political anyway.
No point in arguing with someone who is simply making a political argument.
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism.
ReplyDeleteThat's because it's the same thing.
Look up "cdesignproponentists".
Good point Anon, how could anyone conflate creationism with Intelligent Design?
ReplyDeleteAfer all according to "Biology and Creation"
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"
But "Of Pandas and People" lets us know that:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Moran does not distinguish between ID and creationism...But it is all political anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou answered your own objection. Go read The Wedge Document. ID = as attempt at judicially filtered creationism. It is poliics, not science.
Obvious troll is obvious.
ReplyDeletePeople here are conflating your assumption of the motives of some ID proponents with the actual IDEAS involved.
ReplyDeleteThe IDEAS of ID are of course independent of creationism. Everyone here knows that.
Pretending otherwise just makes you less credible.
Like Moran, you want to pretend to not get it, for your own purposes.
Anyone looking at this objectively sees what you are doing.
I am interested in ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas.
The IDEAS of ID are of course independent of creationism.
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. The ideas of ID were created specifically to attempt to get creationist ideas past the courts by omitting the blatant religious aspects of creationism. Again, see the Wedge Document. Or do a google search on the use of the terms "creation science" and "intelligent design". You'll notice that, in what must seem to our anonymous friend as a bizarre coincidence, those pushing "creation science" suddenly stopped using that term and instead started using "intelligent design" to describe the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS.
Everyone here knows that.
Pretending otherwise just makes you less credible.
Indeed, everyone does, and pretending otherwise does indeed make you less credible, as far as such is possible.
I am interested in ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas.
There aren't any.
Anus. the utmost IDiot,
ReplyDelete... blah, blah political ... blah, blah, blah .... ID IDEAS independent of creationist ideas
Aren't you ashamed to be responsible for that load of bullshit? Aren't you ashamed that your arguments, just like the bad disguising of creationism as ID, rest entirely on ignorance and hypocrisy? Well, you should. Now begone you scum.