William Lane Craig is a philosopher and theologian, most famous for advocating the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. As far as I can tell, he is fairly well-respected in the theology community; I cited him among other people in my recent paper. He’s also a frequent participants in debates against atheists. These are slightly weird events; everyone says they’re a terrible idea, but everyone seems to willingly participate in them. Personally I think they can be a very useful forum, if done well.
Craig recently debated Lawrence Krauss in an event that got a lot of publicity. You can read Craig’s post-mortem reflections here; in response, Krauss has offered his own thoughts on how things went down, which are posted at Pharyngula. You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, but be warned it’s a long multi-part extravaganza.
As to who won, it’s a mixed bag. Craig is a very polished debater, and has his pitch honed to a fine sheen; every sentence makes a succinct point. On the other hand, many of his sentences are simply false. For example, he argues that the universe can’t be eternal, because infinity is an self-contradictory notion, because “infinity minus infinity” has no correct answer. This is not an unfair paraphrase.
In response, Lawrence was game, but much more impressionistic, with a style more appropriate to a public talk than to a formal debate. It depends on what you’re looking for, of course; he did have the advantage of being right. Craig is sufficiently good at debating that atheists are now advising each other to stay away from him for fear of looking bad — e.g. here and here. I sympathize with the general message — don’t get into something like this unless you know what’s coming and are truly prepared — but not with the final impression, that atheists should just steer clear. We should be good at presenting our arguments, and ready to do so. Craig is wrong about many things, but he’s not an out-and-out crackpot like Hugh Ross or Ken Ham. A good debate could be very interesting and helpful to thoughtful people who haven’t yet made up their minds. Being correct is already a huge advantage; we should be able to make our side clear using the force of reason, like we’re always telling people we do.
I’m leaving a comment here because the paper our host referenced discusses fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God, which assert, basically, that the existence of humans proves the existence of God. Such arguments rarely state their crucial premise, which is that humans are the purpose of the universe. (Otherwise, why is it evidence for God instead of Fred? Or Wilma?)
That the universe allows life to exist, is proof of God only if God necessarily prefers living organisms; that it allows us to exist, is only proof of God if there is some reason to think God actually wants us.
It’s insanely narcissistic.
Dude i learned more from the comment section than any one of the debtors. If WLC is a hardline creationist(i.e. Evolution false, Miracles happen, fine tuned universe, heaven, hell) How can we take anything he says more serious than Ken Ham? The real question is how are you so sure its one god instead of multiple gods?
Craig’s approach is lifted from the post-modernist “thinkers” defrocked by the Sokal Hoax.
In a sane world doing the defrocking once would have been enough…but alas, this is 21st
Century Ahhmurica we’re living in…sigh…
Craig does not do as well when up against actual experts in their field. This can be seen clearly seen in his debate with Ehrman where he made a mistake on “embellishments” in the Gospels and spent the rest of the debate running from the historian, opening himself up to the charge that he’s not one. This was the dilemma he faced with Lawrence Krauss. Craig’s (and many of his fans) incredulousness that “2+2=5” (where “2” has higher values) only serves to underline the fact that he is a not a scientist. Indeed, his critique of Harris’ “controversial ideas” ignores the fact that his ideas on cosmology are not only not accepted by the scientific community, unlike Harris’, they are largely ignored.
The Krauss, Harris and Erhman debates mark a time when Craig has jumped the shark. When pitted against the actual experts in the fields he seeks to imitate (and ever so slightly allow for the impression he is a member of) at best all he can do is bump heads. That might seem impressive considering that he’s not a scientist or historian (and is arguably a philosopher), but each of these fields demand contribution, not a slick and coached debater who’s only goal is to quote mine well enough to prove his particular deity.
We wonder if E=C, entire cosmic content spatially constantly propagates with light/speed(E is any referent & C is light velocity in vacuum), requires divine help (when it’s doing just fine) without metaphysical inventions!!!!!!!??????? This new physics explain clearly “Information Conservation Law” – V. Goroshko
The actual infinite is the potential one, arrived one day at a time forevermore; the successive addition is the potential at work-never ending! So, WLC prattles howlers!
What a joker! He begs the question of a starting point!
He colossally begs the question of the Resurrection; we don’t know who really were these supposed eyewitnesses, who were predisposed to have hallucinations,each seeing him differently, the rectitude of the writers who contradict each other and for sure it would take incredible evidence to overcome the presumption of naturalism [ Google that.].
We never have known of resurrections, and since no one can vouchsafe the credibility of that one, it itself confirms Hume’s corollary about miracles to the preumtion of naturalism.
Deist, Jako Miklos in ” Confronting Believers,” agrees with Col. Robert Green Ingersoll and Lord Bertrand Arthur William Russell about that mere man,that jerk! Calling him a moralist is as Miklos notes- the scam of the ages!
Besides as we only know of minds in brains attached to bodies, any disembodied being would have no body and thus cannot possibly exist without a mind in a brain, per the argument from physical minds. We gnus will not permit theists to gainsay that. They must also without scriptural support provide evidence for Heaven and Hell and contra-causal free will. We dare call their bluff- and hubris!
Yes, we gnu atheists can without traversing the Cosmos or being omniscient ourselves, flat out proclaim that God cannot possibly exist! Google the ignostic-Ockham and ignosticism to further fathom that.
That Luke Barnes guy really got raked over the coals. It a shame to see an astronomer try so desperately to argue a viewpoint to support intelligent design arguments.
Sean,
I <3 things like this where I get to hear the interpretation of 'what happened' after a debate. With just 2 people, such different interpretations.
I'd hazard a guess that it 'twould be similar for the audience members.
That's why police, when interrogating multiple witnesses, they try to talk to them individually and ASAP. Before the 'communal story' happens.
I agree with Barnes. Your presentation of Craig’s argument against the actual infinite is trite and devoid of any kind of interpretive charity. And as anathasius pointed out, even if Craig is wrong about whether Hilbert’s hotel , a great deal of learned philosophers and mathematicians (including Hilbert himself) agree with him that there is no actual infinite So it is a claim that merits consideration.
Krauss was unable to grapple with Craig’s argument or their logical form , unable to understand bayesian probability and the topic of the debate.
I do think he did seem to enjoy talking about the science , but he spouted a litany of self-contradictory positions and was not able to formulate an effective response to Craig’s affirmative case.
If you want a good Craig debate Austin Dacey did a good job.
It is funny that Craig argues that infinity creates contradictions. What about an infinititely powerful being called god in this case? Can he create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it … :-)?
Just because we humble finite beings cannot contemplate infinity does not mean that it does not exist in some form – making infinity a person and calling it god conveniently solves all the problems for Craig!
Pingback: Conditional probabilities and a debate about God (Part I) « The Divergent Series