I already say this on my works page, but I just want to make sure everyone knows that I’m available to do religion-related debates. Live, podcast, or radio, all are good.
While I’m at it, I want to say something that I hopes gets broadcast loud and clear through religion-debating circles: If I debate William Lane Craig on the resurrection, I will win.
It would be nice to actually be able to debate Craig some day and prove this directly, but I don’t know if if this will ever happen, and I actually think it’s more important to get people to understand why this is true.
The reason is, as I put it to a fan on Facebook the other day, that there’s no credible evidence for the resurrection outside the Bible, and the Bible isn’t credible evidence either. If I debated Craig, I would say this in every round of the debate, and point out Craig’s efforts to keep the focus off this issue.
Once you understand the basics of Biblical scholarship, and you can avoid getting too worked up over Craig’s bloviations and dishonesty, Craig’s arguments about the resurrection become pretty funny. If you read the transcript of Craig’s debate with Bart Ehrman, you see Craig constantly repeating statements like, “We have got good, early, independent sources that in fact Jesus…” when what he means is “several different parts of the Bible say that Jesus…”
The reason Craig doesn’t say what he really means is he can’t, not without sounding silly. And if I debated Craig, I’d be sure to point out these silly rhetorical gambits as often as possible.
I know that debating Craig would mean being the subject of a lot of irrelevant personal attacks. This is what happened to Richard Carrier when he debated Craig, and sadly, Carrier took the bait and tried to refute as many of these attacks as possible, rather than pointing out Craig had mostly ignored the points Carrier made in his opening speech.
If I debated Craig, I’d do the opposite, and at the end of the debate, Craig would be exposed as the charlatan he is (at least on that issue).
I know in advance of posting this that some Craig fan will see it and blindly insist that Craig being right is the only possible explanation for why he sounds so good in debate. To which I reply: don’t be an idiot. Try to at least consider the possibility that someone could sound good in a debate by using silly and sometimes sleazy rhetorical tricks–against opponents who aren’t prepared to call out those tricks.
While I’m on the subject, though the issue isn’t quite as simple as the resurrection, I could probably win a debate against Craig on God and morality. When Craig brings up morality in a debate on the existence of God, it usually goes like this:
Craig: Morality couldn’t exist without God. Michael Ruse said so.
Atheist: …
Craig: My opponent didn’t respond to my argument. I win!
Atheist: Wait, what the hell are you talking about? I’m an atheist, and I believe in morality.
Craig: My opponent hasn’t proven morality could exist without God. I win!
Atheist: …
Craig: Once again, my opponent failed to respond to my argument. I win!
Third party, commenting on debate after the fact: Craig was just basing his argument on appeals to authority.
Craig: I did too have other arguments for my view! So I still win!
Not letting that happen is pretty straightforward.
Note that, while I’m happy to debate specific topics like these, I’d have to think carefully before doing a “Does God Exist?” debate. Against Craig or a Craig-wannabe who tries to cram as many arguments as possible into his presentation, it’s hard to see a debate on that topic being of any benefit to the audience.
It’s fun to think about working hard to master the stupid debating tricks necessary for a rhetorical win in such a debate, but I wouldn’t agree to a debate on the existence of God unless I thought there was a good chance of the debate being enlightening to the audience.
But enough quibbling. Just so no one–especially no one involved in running a campus atheist group forgets–I’m available for debates.
The world of the skeptic is littered with debate casualties from people who thought they would be able to manhandle people like Gish, Morris, etc.. It is really hard to do it well, no matter how much stronger you think your arguments are, that just doesn’t matter.
Just be prepared if you do, or you will be yet another skeptic that looks like an idiot. I largely agree with Scott on debates:
http://ncse.com/rncse/24/6/confronting-creationism
BDK,
Why do you think it’s hard to do well? As I see it,
part of the problemthe main problem is that many of these issues are complicated, and it’s very hard to concisely answer every conceivable point an opponent might make on them.The resurrection, though, isn’t a complicated issue. Anyone who knows their Biblical Studies 101 realizes there’s very little evidence for it.
Seriously, listen to the Carrier-Craig debate. I think it’s obvious that Carrier would have come out looking very good if he had simply pointed out that Craig was ignoring the main issues, and kept coming back to the points he made in his opening statement.
If you go in thinking it is mainly about content, you will be destroyed. That’s my main point. You need to have honed specific debate skills, rherotical skills, charisma, likability, go through multiple practices like you were prepping a witness for cross-examination.
Don’t take it lightly you will end up looking awful. I have seen this so many times by these Christian-organized debates. I would never do it unless I could devote a month full time to prep, and it was a topic I was already an expert on. So, resurrection is good for you, as you seem to have some knowledge there. But that is only 1/10 the battle.
I’m not making a point about content, debates are so much more. If it were about content, why not just have an internet written debate? Do you have the charisma necessary to pull this off? I don’t know, can’t answer that, have never seen you speak.
I’m just sayin’, don’t go in all confident just because you have the better material. That’s how a hundred scientists ended up looking horrible in their debates with young earth creationists in the 80s and 90s. They were debacles, and that’s why Eugenie wrote that piece, it was based in practical experience with destruction of the scientists.
That said, if you do enter a debate, good luck, and I’d be happy to look over any material beforehand. I have a good eye for what works in these circus atmospheres.
Thanks for the offer. I’ll keep in touch.
are you the guy who was shouting at Willam Lane Craig during the debate with Hector Avalos? I must admit I didn’t like the opening remarks by Craig but most people including myself believe that Craig won the debate. Winning a debate doesn’t necessarily mean you are right or wrong. Craig was just better at articulating good arguments.
@Peter,
No.
Sure Chris…. Of course you’d win. And then your dad can do free dentistry on you after eating such bold claims.
“The reason is, as I put it to a fan on Facebook the other day, that there’s no credible evidence for the resurrection outside the Bible, and the Bible isn’t credible evidence either.”
Hi Chris.
I’ve thought about this before too. But, in a debate over the authenticity of the resurrection is saying “the Bible isn’t credible evidence either” anything more than rhetoric that Craig would call you on otherwise?
Whether it’s credible or not, that seems like a completely other debate.
And the reply to the credibility of the Bible seems to make sense: “If you discount the credibility of the Bible then there goes so many works from late antiquity that we find as credible. And if it says that for late antiquity…. so much for earlier eras”.
I just don’t like the tactic. And with Craig’s rhetorical skill I’m quite certain he’ll spin it back on you.
I know profs of Philosophy on both sides of the divide. Respectable men and women that are incredibily knowledgeabe and wise who would never in their life even be interested in debating. All seeming to view these formats as little more than sophistry. And reading your post it seems like you’re more than willing to consciously enter the fray simply for scoring points.
You know, it was a philosopher who was a devout catholic who really made me see the problems in Craig’s and Plantinga’s position. And you know how he did this? With he and I meeting up to discuss these topics over a 3 year period.
So, go score some points. Maybe you’ll even win. But no one worth a damn will care one way or the other.
@Timk
Almost didn’t approve your comment, but I’m morbidly fascinated by the creepers who make a big deal of having known me in high school but are too cowardly to use their real name.
@charlie
Obviously I’d say more than just that in the 45 minutes allotted to me (assuming the format Craig usually uses). I’d talk about the lack of evidence for the traditional authorship claims of the gospels, why we should dismiss hearsay reports of miracles, etc.
That line is just what I’d be returning to to avoid getting “off message,” which is one of the big problems people like Carrier have had facing Craig.
>>”Whether it’s credible or not, that seems like a completely other debate.”
No it isn’t. The question of whether there is credible evidence for the resurrection is the entire point of the debate. Craig tries to get around this by making appeals to authority in support of his “four facts,” but it doesn’t matter what the scholars say unless the scholars have good evidence for their claims.
>>”If you discount the credibility of the Bible then there goes so many works from late antiquity that we find as credible. And if it says that for late antiquity…. so much for earlier eras.”
Well, many sources from antiquity should be discounted. I still remember my shock when I figured out that what one of my grade-school textbooks said about the Spartans was just cribbed from Plutarch, who clearly had no idea what he was talking about.
Also, there are plenty of ancient sources that historians are willing to sometimes trust, but happily dismiss when they report miracles – i.e. Herodotus’ report that the Temple at Delphi was miraculously protected from the invading Persians.
A lot of apologists seem to have the idea that we are under an obligation to believe whatever any ancient document tells us. But that’s not how real historians operate.