You’ll forgive me if I am a bit snarky, but I’m not going to pull any punches. You’ve been warned. (This is also going to be somewhat link-heavy; to really follow along you might have to follow me around the internet. I will also be wordy… pack a lunch.) I have two main points. First, atheism is a paper tiger. Second, the real threat to Christianity is not found outside the church, but from within. I suppose the first bleeds into the latter in a way, but they are somewhat separate points.
Now by atheism I am referring, for the sake of this post, to popular atheism such as you’ll hear from the average person, advocated in comments on facebook, the same kind that’s advocated by the popular atheist evangelists like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. These guys are not sophisticated thinkers. They are not philosophers and they frankly, don’t even care enough to do any homework on what they speak on. The whole sorry bunch should have stuck to Dawkins’s wise decision to not publicly defend himself (see here: Dawkins is too busy to debate Craig1). Craig has systematically destroyed all of his intellectual challengers. Even the honest atheists say as much. Take this blog post for example.
William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments. I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening. Craig is a skilled debater, an encyclopedia of facts and quotes, and a careful rhetorician. If you make a logical mistake, Craig knows exactly how to skewer you for it (and for this, I respect him). He holds prepared and persuasive responses to everything an atheist might say, and atheists usually fail to clearly point out the logical flaws in what Craig has to say. Also, Craig does a great job of summarizing the points and counterpoints that have been raised during a debate, and presents them in a way to show he has decisively won. His opponents are never that organized or clear. This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig. Atheists underestimate Craig. They think it will be easy to win an argument with anyone who has a wish-granting invisible friend. Atheists do not properly prepare for Craig’s arguments, and they do not prepare for his remarkable skill and experience in live debates.
It’s interesting to note that the poster doesn’t genuinely consider that maybe Craig consistently wins because, you know, he’s right (he mentioned the remote possibility, dismissively). Note, though that Craig doesn’t just debate the popularizers. He’s debating basically anyone that’s brave enough, including some of the top thinkers in the field. Take the now deceased Anthony Flew’s debate with Dr. Craig. Flew was, before his incredible transition to theism, one of the most notable and outspoken atheists in the world. And yet, in his debate he is utterly awful. He rambles and rants more than argues. (Or argues in the negative, loud sense of the word.) One of the most thoughtful atheists on the topic ends up looking eerily like the pathetic popularizers that sell so many books.
But those guys aren’t even taken seriously by their smarter peers. Allister McGrath’s rebuttal of Dawkins, The Dawkins Delusion, has a quote from a very notable atheist-philosopher Michael Ruse that reads, “The God Delusion (Dawkins) makes me embarrassed to be an atheist…” And this is how it goes.
If you have time, listen to Craig’s two most recent debates with Krauss and Harris. Both are very interesting to listen to. I actually think struggling Christians should listen to these. If you really want to be more confident in your faith, seriously, listen to the opposition. There isn’t argument. Many of the guys that Craig debates, for example, can’t or won’t even argue on the topic of the debates they’ve selected. These guys are paper tigers. There is no substance. And this is the kind of rhetoric that’s used by the average, angry, village-atheist. Slogans, anger and belittlement, not engagement. For two examples, first listen to this call that I referenced in this blog post. Another great example was my quasi-debate I did a few years ago after I was challenged to defend myself (after being trolled and egged on on my own blog). Here, the man I talk with does nothing but opens with nonsense and ramblings. When I asked him for anything of substance to work with, he removed my posting access, posted a John Lennon song, and shortly thereafter deleted the site. Fortunately I was quick enough to save the text. Really, there is nothing there, in atheism.
I was one. I joined in all the thoughtless rhetoric. I’ve since grown up (at least in some measure). And I still hear the same nonsensical rants spouted off that I used to, as if Christians have never heard the bumper-sticky slogans before. (It’s worth noting that in many of the debates mentioned, like the overwhelming majority of Christian critics, the Christianity that’s being argued against generally bears little or no resemblance to biblical Christianity. These guys put all this effort into rebutting beliefs no one holds. I believe Christendom as a whole warrants a large portion of the blame for failing to present a cogent description and defense of their faith to the population as a whole.)
Atheism is not a threat. It’s catchy, it looks cool on your facebook page, but true atheists are in the minority. (I think most people seem to be apatheists. They just don’t care to discuss things… believe whatever you want.) It’s great that guys like Craig do go through the process of rebutting such challengers. It’s helpful for presenting a case to honest seekers, and it’s enormously helpful for building up already believing Christians, too.
Yet, like the repetitive biblical warnings, the real danger in the church is in the church. Atheism isn’t really a plague inside the church, especially to genuine believers. It’s hard to convince someone that someone that they actually know doesn’t actually exist. The real danger comes from those that dress up like sheep and pass off ideas that appear to be biblical. I mentioned this in my blog post here regarding homosexuality and the Bible. Here you have people trying to make the case that the Bible really doesn’t say what it does. Unlike atheism which most (all?) decent pastors are comfortable saying is false, when it comes to other clear-cut issues like the Bible’s position on homosexuality, many a pastor just takes his hand’s off. When Christians in their own churches openly affirm universalism (I am not here referring to Rob Bell or any of the related controversy), they ignore it. We all agree on the big things, right? Unity in diversity. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Stay away from secondary issues. Hogwash.
When people publish articles like the one I responded to above, Christians listen much mores so than with guys like Dawkins. And, unfortunately, they are persuaded more often than by guys like Hitchens. And they are least likely to be responded to from the pulpit. Dialogue is more important than accurate doctrine. This isn’t to advocate for pigheadedness or meanness, but Christianity is something specific, and it’s a travesty when the church permits those within her own walls to chip away and chip away and chip away at what she believes, to what she’s been entrusted to protect and preach.
Edit: I removed D. Dennett from the list of names above. Strictly speaking, as a commenter pointed out, my inclusion of him in the group isn’t accurate. Thanks Amanda. __
- Dawkins eventually did in some fashion debate Craig here. Again, he would have been wise to follow his own advice. Have a look.
“Second, the real threat to Christianity is not found outside the church, but from within.” Amen!! And yet so many, even in the Reformed camp, refuse to see it. If you dare point out universalism sneaking in, they say “How do you know what God will do? You can’t put God in a box.” If you point out the panentheism that is so pervasive, their eyes glaze – or they misapply Romans 1, or just claim you’re being too critical. Fundamentals of the faith are treated as secondary issues etc, etc Thank you for contending for the Truth.
You should note that WLC will not debate anyone on just any topic. Before he will debate, you will have to agree to his terms, he has to go first and he has only a handfull of things he will debate, and he insists on opening the debate. He relies on audience ignorance of the bible (which most christians dont know the bible at all) most of the time. Here is one of his lame equations 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
And he will explain to you what he thinks objective morals are. He will assume you agree with number 2, if you explain to him how moral actually come about he will not know how to answer. he is a fraud. I had a chance to ask him a question once, that he refused to answer, that is how could god do something immoral, i went on talk about 2 Kings 2:23–24, where god commands a bear to kill 42 children for making fun Elisha.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for commenting. I’d take issue with a few things you said, but I’ll just state the one that sticks out to me the most — and you can respond if you so desire. You took the moral argument (calling it lame) and said that he is a fraud because, presumably, he doesn’t know /how/ number 2 came to be.
I think, Gary, you misunderstand how that logical argument works. It is not necessary to know how, in this case. Logically, the argument is at least sound (and me thinks valid, too). Take a parallel example.
Why would I need to know how 2. came to pass before knowing that 3. is true? Maybe I turned it on, maybe my wife did. Maybe someone broke in our house and wanted to waste electricity. It is utterly irrelevant.
You’re right Rob. To claim that objective moral values don’t exist on the basis of origin is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Great blog, Tim
To add to this response, usually the person in the affirmative goes first in a debate. If the person in the affirmative did not go first, then the person going second would have nothing to refute. The person with the burden of proof goes first so the person without the burden can poke holes in that person’s argument.
If the person with the burden does not go first, their views are not clarified, so the person arguing against them would waste their whole time disproving something the person with the burden doesn’t even believe. It’s not Craig’s contract, it’s the formula of an academic debate.
This is a particularly sloppy harangue.
Calling Daniel Dennet someone who “is not a philosopher” nor a sphisticated thinker is like claiming that Stephen Hawking is not a cosmologist nor a sophisticated thinker. That’s just mud-slinging invective and derogatory rhetoric.
Clearly you have not, but why don’t you take a good, long look at Dennett’s C.V. and his webpage first?
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
Looks very philosophical and sophisticated to me…
(Also, you should also look up the definitions of the terms ‘sound’ and ‘valid’ in a logic 101 text… it looks like you don’t know that you’ve used them very carelessly, since they have precise meanings.)
You’re right, Amanda. I updated the post with a HT to you.
And you caught me—I used sound and valid in reverse order. My mistake.
“Flew was, before his incredible transition to theism, one of the most notable and outspoken atheists in the world.”
Please provide a reference or citation in support of your assertion that Flew became a theist–that is, one who believes in a monotheistic supernatural agent that is personal, present, and active in the governance of the world.
Don’t waste your time looking–you’ll find no support for such an assertion. At best Flew assented to deism, a belief that still (by most Christian standards) relegated him to eternal conscious torment like the rest of the world’s atheists and non-Christians.
Louis, thanks for reading. You said, “Don’t waste your time looking–you’ll find no support for such an assertion.” Why would I search for that? I never made the assertion that Flew, “became a theist–that is, one who believes in a monotheistic supernatural agent that is personal, present, and active in the governance of the world.”
I said, as you quoted, Flew transitioned away from an untenable atheism to theism. Deism IS theism of a particular sort that says what God is like and how he operates in the world. a deist God, a Christian God, etc., all fall under the category of theism.
Did Flew become a Christian? Not to my knowledge. He did however recognize the falsity of atheism, hence the point of this post.
As to the terms deist/ deism and theist/ theism while you will get differing definitions depending on who you ask, typically speaking in learned discourse deist/ deism refers to a non-interacting god. Theism, on the other hand, typically refers to the god of most believers – one that answers prayers and whatnot. In other words, deism gets you the “prime mover” only while theism involves beliefs about active supernatural agency.
At least, this is how the terms has been presented in all the religious philosophy literature and psychology that I have read and the way I have used the terms in papers I have written.
Hi Adam,
Thanks for reading/posting. I don’t know if we’re in a disagreement on that. As far as I know of re: Flew. Unless I am missing something, that is. I mean, I’ve clarified my use of the terms, with theism being the broad category of a god, with deism being a specific description of what that god is like, whereas the Christian God would be a specific description of a different sort — both falling under a broad category of theism.
It would look like this:
-theism: the belief in a god, especially regarding a creator or prime mover or first cause. -deism: the belief in a god, especially regarding a creator or prime mover or first cause that is not active or involved in their creation.
I was on an atheist site recently where the general consensus was that William Lane Craig wins all the debates syntactically, but not semantically. In other words, they think his debating skills are better than those of the atheists and, therefore, the structure of his arguments is superior. However, they dismissed the content as simply wrong.
I was hoping you could comment on that, Robert, as my one and only course in logic was way back in my first year of university and I no longer have my notes.
Just discovered your blog today, by the way, as it was linked on the Apologetics315 site. I look forward to reading more from you.
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the kind words. I regularly read the Apologetics 315 site and was a bit surprised to see my article linked there when I was reading on Friday. Maybe it was just a slow week for apologetics and Brian was feeling particularly charitable. =)
By the way, I don’t know if your lack of a current logic class puts you at much of a disservice. It helps to get terms right, but it’s the points that really matter. (Hey, I mixed up my terms above and had a commenter wag their finger at me, because I’m sure none of us has ever mixed up words, heh.) In my case my formal logic class was a train-wreck. My Ph.D. from Notre Dame prof. was wholly confused about logic, and it took everything to had to not already lose what I had through the semester. He didn’t know what the difference was between subjective and objective.
As for the thing with WLC, I think part of the commentary is right. He is a superior debater, he’s not probe to follow rabbit trails and does a great job at pointing out opponents that either deviate from the issue, or in the case of some people (I’m looking at you, Sam Harris) that never actually debate the topic. Strictly speaking, he is a more skilled debater than basically all of his challengers.
The problem with dismissing him as merely a great debater does not answer his points, the content of his arguments. People often talk /about/ how “bad” his arguments are without really attempting to show them. They just assume he’s a buffoon, but when push comes to shove, most of the online rabble does exactly what his debate opponents do, flop. Take the cosmological argument, Craig’s most prominently featured argument (by the way, if he were sooooo bad, why has no one stopped him. He presents the same material every single time with very little variation, at least when arguing about the existence of God…). You still get, even in professional debates the same bone-headed objections. See Feser’s long but fruitful commentary here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
I mean, I don’t agree with Craig on everything. On some things i agree quite strongly, inasmuch as I am able—but when it comes to some of the basic presentations of theism and Christianity, he’s quite a force. In my mind, the reason he hasn’t been dethroned, despite his detractors comments on how dumb his arguments are, or even some of the worshipped anti-Christian writers’ mocking of even his voice, is because skill aside, he’s more right than anything else.
My impression of Craig is certainly not that he is stupid. I tend to think he’s actually very smart. I think however, that his arguments are often quite shoddy and that he relies on a superior debate presentation to “win”.
You said that this is claimed often but never really demonstrated. Here’s a much abbreviated argument from my thesis dealing with his formulation of the cosmological argument:
Craig assigns the properties of mind and transcendence to “cause” in the argument and tries to justify this by stating that the cause “must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material”. All minds may be immaterial in an epiphenomenal sense but they are always tied to a material substrate to possess causal potency.
His argument hinges on the coupling of mind and causal effectiveness but he has subtracted the quality (material) that allows for causal affect therefore invalidating the entire line of reasoning. This is what Dennett has criticized him for before and was a main idea in my thesis. Craig is turning naïve intuition into philosophical arguments. Humans unreflectively assume that minds have causal potency because it is taken for granted they have bodies.
Subtract the body in the equation and it is still intuitive that a mind has causal potency even though it is completely unwarranted on a rational level.
And that is what I mean by shoddy argument. If that is a premier argument by a premier philosopher…
That’s an interesting objection, and definitely not one that I’ve heard before. I wonder, though, if the (dependant?) connection between the mind and the body is enough to claim that it’s a shoddy argument. I tend to get a little uncomfortable when people on either side of a debate like this use experimental data to disqualify a syllogism. Though usually valid, it does feel a little like cheating to me. I’ll have to give it more thought.
And granted, the argument in itself doesn’t seem to indicate much more than a space-time transcendent, extraordinarily powerful First Cause of the universe. I think, though, that when Craig argues this point he uses it in conjunction with Big Bang cosmology. He usually makes the argument that, given that the the initial conditions of the Big Bang and the conditions immediately following it are arranged in such a way that, billions of years later, they produce a universe with all the conditions necessary for life, there seems at least to be INTENT behind it. From that, I think, he argues that there is a Divine Mind behind it. Bit of an apparent jump, there, but it may be a warranted one. However, I’d like to see a more detailed analysis of that jump, as I think you might. Again, the mixture of philosophical syllogisms and scientific theory makes me a little queasy, but it is usually valid. As your example may indeed be.
And not to be pedantic (and I don’t know all that much about the whole body/mind or dualism debate), but I think that the most you could say, given what you seem to represent as the data regarding minds and bodies, is that we have only ever observed the two to act in CONJUNCTION, and not separately. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the most one could say with absolute surety is that that is the only thing that we have observed, not the only possible thing. Also, we are of course talking about a cause that caused matter, so I’m not sure whether the objection that Craig is subtracting the causal entity (read: matter) is entirely valid. Though I may be misunderstanding your point. Feel free to disabuse me of any misunderstandings. I am, after all, only an interested amateur, and haven’t done any sort of thesis research, as you clearly have.
And yes, Craig does seem to have a supremely single-minded focus on the topic of any given debate. Though, for my part, I think that this is a good trait, as any other issues, though relevant to the Christian faith, are not usually relevant to the actual debates he is performing – specifically, the question of whether a Theistic (not specifically Christian, mind) God exists. Now he is a Christian apologist, granted, but I think that, even if his arguments are truly shoddy (and at the moment I’m not entirely sure whether or not they are), he does debate rather well, which seems to be his objective. Which is more than can usually be said for his opponents, by and large (with Austin Daley being a notable exception). I think that the thing that annoys most people is that the majority of the debaters he faces do not confine themselves to the issue at hand, and rather think that by attacking Craig’s religion, they can invalidate his point. That, it seems to me, is rather sloppy. Harris is, I think, an example of this.
There are my two cents. I anxiously await a response.
Thanks for your response, Robert. This statement in particular stood out to me: “The problem with dismissing him as merely a great debater does not answer his points, the content of his arguments.”
That’s just what crossed my mind as I read through the various comments by the atheists at their site. If the content of his arguments was so lacking as they suggested, why didn’t they talk about them and refute them instead of dismissing him as winning the debates on the basis of structure alone?
Currently, I am reading Peter Kreeft’s book entitled Socratic Logic. He explains things well and has exercises at the end of each chapter which challenge the reader. I don’t have any plans to do any formal debating — quite frankly, I don’t think I’d be any good at it — but I figure the book should help me articulate my ideas better and recognize flaws in other people’s arguments when I am on various forums and message boards.
Thanks for the link to the Feser commentary as well. I appreciate it. God bless you!