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.
Earlier overview here. Plus see "Craig debate" in my sidebar.
Stephen Law is a philosopher and author. Currently Director of Philosophy and Cert HE at Oxford University Department of Continuing Education. Stephen has also published many popular books including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit. For school talks/ media: stephenlaw4schools.blogspot.co.uk Email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org
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."
I would also like to see you two debate again.
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)?
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.
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.
Unfortunately, I'm a student and I'm pretty much broke, so I can't really fund much.
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.
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.