Maybe Dawkins really SHOULD debate William Lane Craig...

[Maia]

So here's the thrilling Youtube video (part 1 of 4) challenging Richard Dawkins to a debate with William Lane Craig (also Dinesh D'Souza and some intelligent design nut or other):



Warning: the music is appallingly bad.

The other parts are easy to find, and by the end of part 4, the author has really worked him/her/itself up into a frenzy by accusing Dawkins of being a slimy, yellow-bellied coward if he doesn't agree to a debate with Craig, D'Souza and ID Nut. Now, I have my problems with Dawkins, but I hardly think that's the reason why he isn't debating any of the above. For better or worse, he's the public voice of atheism these days. And a thought came to me... it might actually be a good thing if he DID debate Craig, anyway.

How might this go? Well, there's a way to at least get some idea. There's a series of videos taken from Craig's "debate" with John Shelby Spong over the historicity of the Resurrection...




These are all trimmed to only show Craig, unfortunately, although I think this is the one that shows Spong trying hard not to lose it and break down laughing when Craig claims that "3 out of 4 Biblical scholars agree" that the Gospels are biographies. I think the reason why Spong debated Craig (if "debate" is taken to mean "used as a floor mop"), is that they're both clerics (as a bishop, Spong really outranks him, in fact), and they're challenging each other on exactly the same ground of expertise (Biblical scholarship, which Spong knew and Craig didn't but pretended to.) A lot of evangelicals foamed at the mouth over this one, but it wasn't too well known in the general public.

So why is it that Dawkins should debate Craig? It's not that he's up to some high standard of theology-- and Dawkins has debated those who are-- but precisely because a lot more people do know who William Lane Craig is and will pay attention to what is said, and because of the specific appeal that Craig does have. There would be no point in "debating" Pat Robertson, but Craig is a good example of someone who tries to pass himself off as a theological intellectual (he isn't.) This message needs to be debunked. Spong did a magnificent job, but he just isn't well-known enough to really get the message across. I'd rather have somebody as a spokesperson who isn't as snarky as Dawkins, quite honestly, but sometimes you have to work with what's available. So yes, I think that he should do it.

 

[Dunstan]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Hitchens has debated Craig. It was rather unilluminating.

I've pretty much reached saturation point with live debates, and I'm not really sure what they accomplish. If Dawkins debates Craig, most of Craig's followers will say Craig "won," and vice versa.

I really doubt you'll see much in the way of "debunking" that will persuade anyone who really thinks Craig has a great argument. (Frankly, Dawkins wouldn't be my choice for that task anyway. I expect that Craig's "armchair philosophy" and Dawkins' empiricism would just have them talking past each other the whole time.)

And ultimately, famous atheists have to say "no" to a lot of debate requests. If Dawkins debates Craig, then Theologian X will demand that Dawkins debate him, or else he's a coward, etc. etc. Then Reverend Y will do the same. And so on.

If it entertains some people in the crowd, and amuses (or pays) the participants to do so, then sure, hold a debate. But I don't think it serves anyone's "message" or cause, unless the message is "buy my book!"

 

[kedo1981]

Dawkins should debate this clown if the topic were science, biology or the scientific basis of evolution, not theology.

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

The problems with 'debates' are simple:

a) They assume some sort of balance between the respective positions argued. This isn't always the case: there is no serious evidence to support creationism against evolution.

b) This therefore implies some kind of equality between serious thought and religious make-believe. So someone who has spent their entire career studying a particular aspect of biology can find themselves opposed to the most ignoramous ****nut religious idiot trying to defend their views. This is isn't equal. Luckily, the latter has a defence mechanism:

c Whenever there is a debate along these lines, the religious types seem to have no qualms in simply lying. We see it amply amongst threads on the forum here - particularly the lie of omission, or quote-mining, usually combined with the appeal to authority. It is a simple fact - the religious will just lie to try and maintain their position and will lie with great skill and aplomb. We can call them out for this, but it isn't always effective.

Faced with a barrage of confidently asserted lies, no matter how effectively one debates the points, the atheist always looks like they are the aggressor - attacking the apparently harmless beliefs of the believer. If they are effective, it is unfair to belittle the believer. If they are not, then they are wrong.

In short, the ignorant are essentially in a win-win situation. There is no point in debating them. *


* In a public space. Obviously it is fun to observe the desperate lies that believers will go to on this forum to try and defend their credulity.

 

[Robin]

Live debates are very good at settling the question of who is the better live debater, and little else.

 

[Hux]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't consider Dawkins, eloquent as he is, the public voice of atheism.

I will have no Gods.

 

[CurtC]

So why is it that Dawkins should debate Craig? It's not that he's up to some high standard of theology-- and Dawkins has debated those who are-- but precisely because a lot more people do know who William Lane Craig is and will pay attention to what is said, and because of the specific appeal that Craig does have.

I disagree. Dawkins is not an expert on theology, and Craig is a person who can spout apologetic BS at 90 miles an hour. Craig is pretty much a professional debater; he's good at the art form. And the art form has zero relevance to the truth of the point being debated.

The debate would look good on Craig's CV, no so much on Dawkins'.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Maybe Dawkins could send a student. If Craig defeats the student, he may then challenge the master. That's how it's done in the venerable Chop Sockey tradition.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ideally, if he still were alive, I'd vote for Carl Sagan. The best advocate for science and critical thinking.

In fact, I have never actually seen a Sagan debate. That's something I'd be interested in.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Brian Dunning had a nice podcast on the subject.

Should Science Debate Pseudoscience?

Agree with his point, which echoes what others have said in this thread - debating pseudoscience just gives it credibility.

 

[Maia]

I disagree. Dawkins is not an expert on theology, and Craig is a person who can spout apologetic BS at 90 miles an hour. Craig is pretty much a professional debater; he's good at the art form. And the art form has zero relevance to the truth of the point being debated.

The debate would look good on Craig's CV, no so much on Dawkins'.

I don't know. I don't think the Hitchens debate was what anyone would call impressive. Craig has debated a good cross-section of current radical theologians besides John Shelby Spong (Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossman, Gerd Ludemann, Bart Ehrman) and he was soundly beaten on logic and facts every time. But again, the problem is that none of these people exactly has a lot of name recognition. Ehrman and Spong are probably the closest ones... so what exactly is going on here?

Okay, here are what I see as the biggest issues involved in Craig's debates:

1.) In actual theological debates on points of Biblical history or, well, theology, Craig is always used as a floor mop. He doesn't know what he's talking about; he just knows how to sound as if he does. When he's up against other theologians, it's just smackdown time and he is revealed as an idiot.

2.) But Craig does pretty well in debates against anybody like Hitchens, not only because he's a good debater, but because he does get across a message that people want to hear-- it's meaningful to them. Hitchens didn't come across as all that impressive in the debate, but everything he said was basically true. It simply was not said in a way that people would want to hear.

3.) So the truth or falsity of Craig's arguments for the existence of God were never the issue, because the minute anyone starts to take them apart, their sheer silliness is incredibly obvious. The same thing is true of his more convoluted theological arguments (for the historicity of the Resurrection, for example.)

Conclusion:

SOMEONE needs to debate Craig who can meet him on his own ground. The more I think about it, well, maybe Dawkins isn't the person to do it, because that ground is not the rational or logical appeal that Craig has; that's only the costume that Craig dresses up in (and it's a very effective costume at that.) Someone needs to get up there and confront him with the questions that will be very difficult for him to answer, challenging the moral authority that he pretends to have.

(sigh)

Okay, here's what could happen: Richard Dawkins and John Shelby Spong need to get together. I'm not totally happy with this-- I would MUCH prefer Stephen Jay Gould in place of Dawkins, but he's not exactly available-- but I think this thing could work. Dawkins could address the scientific side of all the questions, and JSS could take theology. They'd be an unbeatable combination.

 

[CurtC]

In fact, I have never actually seen a Sagan debate. That's something I'd be interested in.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Sagan was savvy enough to see the folly in debating foolishness. I don't know whether he was ever presented with the opportunity, but I can't see him doing it.

There is nothing that I can see that would get accomplished in a debate with WLC. People who are believers think he does great. Even in that debate with Ehrman, the Christians think that WLC mopped the floor with Ehrman. People who aren't good at evaluating evidence are more likely to be religious, and they evaluate debates based on confident assertions whether they're well-reasoned or not.

 

[Maia]

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Sagan was savvy enough to see the folly in debating foolishness. I don't know whether he was ever presented with the opportunity, but I can't see him doing it.

There is nothing that I can see that would get accomplished in a debate with WLC. People who are believers think he does great. Even in that debate with Ehrman, the Christians think that WLC mopped the floor with Ehrman. People who aren't good at evaluating evidence are more likely to be religious, and they evaluate debates based on confident assertions whether they're well-reasoned or not.

I just think that nobody has really tried to come at a WLC debate from the right angle yet, and I'd like to see someone try. Dawkins could do a better job of taking him on factually than anybody has managed to do yet, but there's another factor. John Shelby Spong is the best person I can think of to tackle this aspect, and he could do it very well-- I've seen him speak in this way. It just wasn't the type of ground he covered in the actual Craig/Spong debate.

Here's a sample of how it might go...

Topic: Does God Exist?

Craig: The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument, The Moral Argument,
The Resurrection of Jesus, The Immediate Experience of God, the same 5 things he always brings up in every single debate.

(Grins smarmily at crowd. They beam back.)

Dawkins: Snarkily demolishes every scrap of anything that could be remotely called a scientific basis for Craig's assertions (and I DO think this is important, because almost half the claims are based on this.)

(crowd murmurs angrily, but still in that self-congratulatory mood. Besides, Dawkins is snarking around with that smirky look on his face, and they'd all like to throw things at him. And no, evidence isn't enough here. Craig is widely known as the "world's smartest living Christian." Could somebody insert that facepalm pic here?)

Spong: Deals very briefly with the Resurrection argument. He can use Craig as a floor mop on this one, but the audience doesn't really care, because they don't want to know what the facts are anyway, so he doesn't spend much time here.

Craig: Says some snooty things, and then.... falls into the trap! "Oh, but what about the moral argument?"

Spong: MWAH HA! I think a good beginning would be... "You clearly don't know anything about Jesus of Nazareth, because he would have a very hard time recognizing anything that you teach." (Examples could follow for several days STRAIGHT here; suffice it to say that Craig's veneer of sweet reasonableness is very thin indeed.) Correctly accuses Craig of exploiting the appearance of logic, evidence, and actually living in the twenty-first century when he is stuck in the Stone Age. Moves in for the KILL!!!

(looks at audience)

"Do you want to understand the immediate experience of God? You can either follow this message of hatred, prejudice, intolerance, irrationality, and fear, or you can answer the challenge Jesus issued-- living fully, loving wastefully, and being all that you can be. But you cannot hang onto superstition and childish beliefs. The choice is yours."



I don't know what the audience would actually do, but they would have some food for thought. It might be better to not give them anything to throw. Craig's head might also explode.

 

[pnerd]

I might be wrong, but I think Sam Harris would be a better candidate to debate William Lane Craig.

 

[noreligion]

Now, I have my problems with Dawkins, but I hardly think that's the reason why he isn't debating any of the above. For better or worse, he's the public voice of atheism these days. And a thought came to me... it might actually be a good thing if he DID debate Craig, anyway.

Yes, it is always the correct thing to do for a scientist. Debate a creationist (Lane is a creotard) and give onlookers the impression that creationism deserves to be debated as if it is a valid science.

 

[paximperium]

I might be wrong, but I think Sam Harris would be a better candidate to debate William Lane Craig.

Uh...I really really don't think that's a good idea.

 

[pnerd]

Uh...I really really don't think that's a good idea.

Could you please elaborate a bit as to why you don't think it's a good idea?

 

[paximperium]

Could you please elaborate a bit as to why you don't think it's a good idea?

While I like some of what Harris writes, he has massive holes in his knowledge base concerning biological science, theology and especially philosophy.

His last major "foot in the mouth moment" was during the TED conference with his (I'm paraphrasing) "Science can answer moral questions" debacle...which was basically wrong and which showed that he wasn't even aware of the entire field of work of ethical philosophers. It ignored a large number of Ethical Philosophers and Neuroscientists who have already are doing great research into the human brain and how it makes moral decisions.

I think he is an eloquent writer, I don't believe that he's would be great against the master of apolegetics like Craig.

 

[Brainache]

If WLC is going to argue along theological lines, then I don't think Dawkins would be a good choice.

I'd suggest someone like Stephen Fry. A comedian who I'm sure must have done a bit of debating in his student days.

Or what about a Lawyer? Geoffrey Robertson?

 

[noreligion]

While I like some of what Harris writes, he has massive holes in his knowledge base concerning biological science, theology and especially philosophy.

His last major "foot in the mouth moment" was during the TED conference with his (I'm paraphrasing) "Science can answer moral questions" debacle...which was basically wrong and which showed that he wasn't even aware of the entire field of work of ethical philosophers. It ignored a large number of Ethical Philosophers and Neuroscientists who have already are doing great research into the human brain and how it makes moral decisions.

I think he is an eloquent writer, I don't believe that he's would be great against the master of apolegetics like Craig.

I am not sure I'm following you. If neuroscientists (which Harris is) are doing research into how the brain makes moral decisions, doesn't that mean science (pay attention to the part after neuro) can answer moral questions?