|
Duffduff
|
|
Posted 10/19/11 at 04:30 PM
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
I dont really think that Richard Dawkins would have much trouble with him. The problem with the people who William debated is that they were not really prepared, and to argue unprepared is a serios risk, you would easy fall into an unespected trap.
BUT, there are people who debated William prepared, for example Austin Dacey or Shelly Kagan. And these debates went not good for WLC, that alone shows that most of the other debaters of WLC sucked. I really think, that if you prepare your arguments, then people like me or even some random people could show that these arguments are not really watertight if thes would do some research.
Greets
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Chris9809
|
|
Posted 10/19/11 at 05:09 PM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Craig would embarrass Dawkins. I don't see how Craig had a rough time with Austin Dacey, or Shelly Kagan. On the other hand, Kagan and Craig largely agreed on most of the things they talked about, but Kagan argued a point that he himself didn't really believe (Social Contract). While in Happy Go Lucky Rainbow Land such a contract would work, in a practical setting it isn't plausible to get people to agree.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
LNC
|
|
Posted 10/19/11 at 08:53 PM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Duffduff
I dont really think that Richard Dawkins would have much trouble with him. The problem with the people who William debated is that they were not really prepared, and to argue unprepared is a serios risk, you would easy fall into an unespected trap.
BUT, there are people who debated William prepared, for example Austin Dacey or Shelly Kagan. And these debates went not good for WLC, that alone shows that most of the other debaters of WLC sucked. I really think, that if you prepare your arguments, then people like me or even some random people could show that these arguments are not really watertight if thes would do some research.
Greets
Apparently, Richard Dawkins thinks he would have problems debating William Lane Craig, which I believe, not withstanding his avowed excuses, is the reason he continues to avoid the chances that are so often put before him.
Dawkins is not in the league of an Austin Dacey or Shelly Kagen philosophically. Dawkins' God Delusion was panned by many who thought the arguments were weak and easily refuted. I know of plenty of atheists who were not happy with TGD. I think that Dawkins would suffer the same fate as his buddy, AC Grayling when he debated Craig.
LNC
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Killjoy
|
|
Posted 10/20/11 at 04:01 AM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
|
I don’t think Dawkins would fair very well against Craig. That’s because as a scientist he is used to arguing on the basis of scientific facts, not philosophical gibberish. If he could be coached on some of the potential pitfalls of debate rhetoric, and bone up on the physics, ethics and history that form the “factual” (such as it is) core of Craig’s preferred arguments (Dawkins is a biologist, after all, and Craig rarely employs arguments from biology), then his ability to elucidate facts would be an advantage and he might wipe the floor with Craig. But that’s a lot of ‘ifs’, so it probably won’t happen.
This is where a lot of Craig’s opponents come unstuck. They are used to using logic and reason as tools to uncover the truth – not tricks to bamboozle lay people into thinking you’re smarter than you really are.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
LNC
|
|
Posted 10/20/11 at 10:15 AM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Killjoy
I don’t think Dawkins would fair very well against Craig. That’s because as a scientist he is used to arguing on the basis of scientific facts, not philosophical gibberish. Isn't it interesting that science started off as the discipline of natural philosophy. It's too bad that scientists are not better educated in philosophy as it might keep many from making the logical errors that they do. I use The God Delusion as a prime example. Quote: Originally Posted by Killjoy
If he could be coached on some of the potential pitfalls of debate rhetoric, and bone up on the physics, ethics and history that form the “factual” (such as it is) core of Craig’s preferred arguments (Dawkins is a biologist, after all, and Craig rarely employs arguments from biology), then his ability to elucidate facts would be an advantage and he might wipe the floor with Craig. But that’s a lot of ‘ifs’, so it probably won’t happen.
Check out Craig's debate with Francisco Ayala (Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology School of Biological Sciences) where he did employ arguments against many aspects of evolution and did very well. I don't think that Dawkins would do any better than Ayala against Craig and I think that Dawkins knows that. Quote: Originally Posted by Killjoy
This is where a lot of Craig’s opponents come unstuck. They are used to using logic and reason as tools to uncover the truth – not tricks to bamboozle lay people into thinking you’re smarter than you really are.
If they were used to using logic, it seems that they would be able to uncover any "tricks" that Craig might be using. You seem to underestimate the intelligence of his debate opponents. Look at the list of people he's debated, I've already mentioned Ayala, the list also includes Antony Flew (PhD, Oxford), prominent philosopher, Kai Nielsen, theoretical physicist, Lawrence Krauss (PhD, MIT), developmental biologist, Lewis Wolpert (PhD, Kings College), Massimo Pigliucci (PhD, botany, UConn, PhD, philosophy of science, UTenn), Peter Atkins (PhD, Oxford, chemistry), Paul Kurtz (PhD, Columbia), Quentin Smith (PhD, BC), A.C. Grayling (PhD, Oxford), and Victor Stenger (PhD, UCLA, physics), among others. It seems that Craig has faced many worthy opponents on the debating floor and he was never used to wipe it up. Read the reviews of any one of these debates to find out who carried the argument. Even skeptics will agree that it was more often Craig who did, and by good arguments, not tricks. The fact is that Craig hasn't varied his argument much over the past 25 years, but his opponents still fail to adequately address them. The force is in the arguments more than in the debater. LNC
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Spritzophrenia
|
|
Posted 10/21/11 at 03:58 AM
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
It seems that Dawkins has publicly stated why he won't debate WLC. He alleges that WLC supports genocide, and that such people are too morally repugnant to debate. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=SRCH Here's what I replied on another website. I don't have answers, I thought there might be some official response here on WLC's.
====
There is something about this situation that leaves me feeling uncomfortable, like someone has “pulled a fast one”. I’m finding it hard to figure out exactly what my opinions are, as there are several intermeshing problems, so this is a first attempt to get some ideas on paper.
I think there are two questions at issue.
A1. Are there any opinions which render someone so far beyond the pale that merely to meet and engage with this person is morally wrong?
A2. If yes, does WLC fit this category?
On A1, I am still unsure. There are certainly plenty of people who agree that holocaust deniers should never be allowed to speak about their opinions (and it should be stressed, WLC is NOT a holocaust denier). Incidentally, this kind of argument also applies to Dawkins. Unless he is morally perfect in every respect and in every statement he has ever made, no-one should debate him. I can suggest an argument which might make him on the same level as his accusation of WLC in many peoples’ eyes. But I won’t follow this line of thought any further, it all feels rather too ad hominum to me.
My values around academic freedom and freedom of speech find the idea of A1 problematic. I also note that the issue Dawkins and WLC would likely debate is not the issue of whether God ordered genocide at some point in history, which means WLC’s opinions on this may not even be relevant in this particular debate.
So I have to leave A1 unresolved at this point, though I lean towards “No, no person is so far beyond the pale that they should not be debated”. (There may even be an argument that they SHOULD be debated, for exactly the reason that they need to be publicly defeated.)
So then, question A2: Does William Lane Craig have morally horrific opinions? Specifically does he consider genocide morally permissable?
I think this question is too vague. It seems to me that some people are trying to argue:
B1. WLC argues that God commanded genocide at a specific time and place hundreds of years BCE.
B2. Ergo, WLC argues that God agrees with genocide now and in the future.
I don’t think you need me to show the flaw in connecting B1 and B2.
Considering B1, I think we then have to argue: Anyone who believes that genocide has ever been morally acceptable is wrong. This leads to the essential problem with B1, which I think is: How do we know God would never command genocide? I think it is possible that God could command genocide. A morally perfect God could have reasons for commanding genocide which we don’t understand, especially when we don’t have all the facts. I think WLC is trying to discover what those reasons might have been. So far he may not have come up with good reasons, but this leads to an important point:
All Christians and Jews have to make sense of those Biblical passages. To be consistent, Dawkins would have to refuse to debate any Christian or Jew (and possibly Muslim). He has not done so, and as far as I know is willing to debate believers again at some point. I have to say I find this all rather convenient for Dawkins.
Let me make two assertions which I don’t have evidence for other than my sense that WLC is actually a very compassionate and morally sensitive man, based on some of his writing which I’ve read.
C1. William Lane Craig does not approve of any modern-day genocide, including the Nazi holocaust of WW2.
C2. WLC believes that God will not and cannot command genocide again, and anyone claiming God can do so is wrong, and always will be.
I bring these up, because I think this is the position of many believers today and is likely to be that of WLC. Regardless of what may have happened in the past, never again. Including in modern-day Israel.
What if WLC were to publicly agree with my second set of points? Would Dawkins debate him then? I suspect not. I think at bottom, Dawkins is looking for an excuse not to engage.
Jonathan from Spritzophrenia
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Killjoy
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 07:58 AM
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by LNC Even skeptics will agree that it was more often Craig who did, and by good arguments, not tricks. The fact is that Craig hasn't varied his argument much over the past 25 years, but his opponents still fail to adequately address them. The force is in the arguments more than in the debater.
However Craig wins debates it isn't with good arguments. This much is obvious to anyone watching the debates (as I have) who has enough background in philosophy and other relevant disciplines to see the faults in those arguments. He wins debates because his opponents don't use the time allotted to adequately expose those faults - which, I agree, they certainly should be able to.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Duffduff
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 10:35 AM
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
On the other hand i can say:
hhm strange that all the opponents who debated with dawkins were not prepared and had no good arguments and failed to respond to his arguments all those years. Why werent they prepared with WLCs arguments?
Greets
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
bdsimon
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 02:27 PM
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Duffduff
On the other hand i can say:
hhm strange that all the opponents who debated with dawkins were not prepared and had no good arguments and failed to respond to his arguments all those years. Why werent they prepared with WLCs arguments?
Greets
I would suggest that you watch Dawkins' debate with John Lennox. He did not fair well and Lennox (although I could listen to him talk for days) is not WLC. I would also add that this is excuse number 8 or 9. It is just as well for Dawkins if he holds to his word. Craig would dismantle his arguments quickly and make Dawkins look foolish with rhetorical style. I think Dawkins would probably end up punching Craig.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
LNC
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 03:11 PM
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Killjoy
However Craig wins debates it isn't with good arguments. This much is obvious to anyone watching the debates (as I have) who has enough background in philosophy and other relevant disciplines to see the faults in those arguments. He wins debates because his opponents don't use the time allotted to adequately expose those faults - which, I agree, they certainly should be able to.
Although I would agree with you that many of his opponents are not skilled debaters, I would disagree with you regarding the soundness and quality of Craig's arguments. WLC has been using basically the same arguments for over 20 years and so it should not catch his opponents off guard when he introduces them in the debate. Yet still after 20 years his opponents still cannot bring compelling counter arguments or effectively refute his arguments. Remember, that it is no only on the debate stage that Craig interacts with those who challenge his views, he also does it through peer reviewed articles, online through his website, and in other venues. You would think that if his arguments have been refuted, as you claim, that these would be the arguments that his on stage opponents would bring up. I don't see these arguments that you claim or anyone pointing out fatal flaws to his.
Maybe you could bring up a few of these flaws or refute his arguments. Start with the one you think the weakest and we can go on from there.
LNC
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Duffduff
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 05:45 PM
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Hmm, take these for a start:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Greets
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Duffduff
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 05:47 PM
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
@bdsimon For example take WLCs debates with shelly or austin dacy he did not well...bla(put in your own sentence)
Greets
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Duffduff
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 06:02 PM
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
ahh, and of course, a few articels(critics) written on him:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
LNC
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 09:59 PM
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
|
It would have been nice if you started with a sight that made less use of ad hominem and had better understanding of Craig's actual arguments.
For example, there is a blatant misrepresentation of Craig's view of divine command, one that Craig makes very clear when he writes or debates morality. God does not command from free will, but from his immutable nature. Second, there is no reason why God cannot command what is moral, yet leave it up to man in his free will to obey or not to obey. Third, the author confuses moral ontology with moral epistemology.
On Kalam, the author makes assumptions about quantum mechanics that are not settled science (e.g., that some events have no cause). The fact that no cause is evident is different from no cause is existent. If the author wants to so easily dismiss causality, then it seems to jeopardize the whole scientific enterprise. And, by the way, that would argue more for theism than for atheism as we could no longer say that the universe is reducible to chemistry and physics.
Second, the author makes a false assumption of question begging. The first premise does not in any way beg the question for God as we don't simply conclude that God is the direct cause of all effects. Third, the idea that the universe began to exist is not deduced from the idea that everything within the universe began to exist, it is a scientifically deduced that the universe began to exist.
I could go on, but it doesn't seem to get any better with the rest of this article. The treatment of the ontological argument is quite amateurish. Let me see if your other sources are any better.
LNC
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
LNC
|
|
Posted 10/25/11 at 10:02 PM
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
|
Why don't you pick out the best argument and let's discuss it rather than throwing a bunch of .... against the wall to see if anything sticks.
If that's what you want to do, then here is my response.
LNC
|
|
Loading...
|
|
