William Lane Craig vs Peter Slezak Debate
I'm starting with the video of Peter Slezak's opening statement (at 3:40) since we've heard Dr. Craig's arguments before. Dr. Slezak's opening statement is brilliant...
Be sure to turn up the volume.
You can click on the other parts one after another.
Be sure to turn up the volume.
You can click on the other parts one after another.
13 comments:
This is the first time I've heard about Peter Slezak, and I'm quite taken. What a great public speaker!
And those opening statements were awesome.
You can watch/listen most of William Lane Craig's debates here
As an atheist, i was disappointed with Slezak. He had a few good points to make, but wasted much of his time floundering. To me he seemed very unorganized, missed many golden opportunities to rebut Craig, and conceded far too much.
Craig was much more concise, articulate and presented his arguments in a much more persuasive manner.
Having been accustomed to watching the likes of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchins. This debate was rather sad.
WLC is a polished and skilled debater. He has to be, he has to make up for his weak arguments. He knows all the debate "tricks". He debates the same topic over and over with different adversaries. He is well practiced while his adversaries are not.
I agree that Slezak conceded too many points. Especially regarding the big bang. WLC's "something from nothing" argument is just his imagination. Nothing is known about the universe before one Planck time.
Well, in a word, Disappointing. I watched this entire debate hoping to see some great arguments from the other side (atheism). I am struggling through my "deconversion", and as such consider myself fairly sceptical and open. If I had to make my decision solely on this debate, I would definitely go with WLC and the concept that God exists. His debating skills, public manner, and points were much more persuasive. He continually challenged Slezak on concepts which slezak never answered in cogent terms. Slezak pulled out a terrible retutation against the claims of resurrection. I understand his point, but using that explanation was like painting a huge target on his chest. Terrible style. Slezak seemed often befuddled and not sure where he was going. Perhaps that is because the premise of the debate was not in his favor. Yet as someone who knows many of the arguments for believe in God and Jesus, I could think of many ways to refute WLC off the top of my head that would have been more convincing than slezak. I did appreciate his mannerism, and he seems like an intelligent person. He made some excellent points, but really needed to refute WLC's arguments more thoroughly. Perhaps he hasn't been in the Christian community enough to really understand those arguments and how to best refute them. Interesting debate, but I do see that most of it was just debate techniques, not so much a true "airing" of ideas. Which brings me back to the problem I keep struggling with. We (as humans) seem to be very capable of justifying whatever position we take. So does it all come down to faith on either side? Does it come down to believing simply what we want to believe, and what makes us feel good? I'll admit, the idea of a creator and order to the universe makes me feel a lot better than the idea that I'll be fertilizer shortly after I die....
Terrible style. Slezak seemed often befuddled and not sure where he was going. Perhaps that is because the premise of the debate was not in his favor. Yet as someone who knows many of the arguments for believe in God and Jesus, I could think of many ways to refute WLC off the top of my head that would have been more convincing than slezak.
I think WLC appears confident because he has "faith" that he is right. Regardless of what his opponent thinks, he thinks he has God on is side and the details are not as important.
This doesn't mean he is right, it just gives the impression of being "right", which can be a significant factor a debate.
Slezak looked like a bumbling stumbling FOOL. He said nothing and acted totally lost. Oh I forgot he is lost
I thought some of Slezak's opening comments were valid, but he seemed to make little effort refuting WLC's rebuttals.
That's what irritated me the most I think. I have no experience at all as a debater, yet i could easily think of many rebuttals that Slezak didn't pursue.
Watching this, I actually learned more from Craig.
The case for belief in God is a weak one. But wow, Craig is a fraking amazing debater. I've definitely learned something (about debating) from this exchange after all. :)
I think It is easier to debate from a point of strength . If you look at a group of poor uneducated fishermen willing to die for a cause way back then it is something to think about. WLC has a lot of valid points to ponder, investigate. Josh McDowell has a good book called a ready defense, that I am reading. He has done loads of research and this book is interesting. He set out as an atheist to disprove christianity. So far it is a good read.
To be clear, I thought WLC's arguments were utter crap. And easily refuted. My irritation with Slezak is that he didn't.
Apologetics is not rocket science.
If you look at a group of 20 Arabs who were willing to die for Allah as they hijacked airplanes, then i suppose that is something to "think about" as well.
Please. People have sacrificed themselves for all manner of ridiculous things throughout history. Christianity is no different.
Mark Smith's 'Contra Craig' website is a must read for anyone interested in discovering just how dishonest Bill Craig is when it comes to presenting the 'evidence' as he calls it.
No wonder Bill Craig can win debates. He's not interested in intillectual integrity, he's simply intent on winning souls for Jesus. His attitude seems to be, 'Damn The Truth - Full Speed Ahead'.
Here are a few of Bill Craig's thoughts on how to apply evidence and reason when it comes to examining the claims of the Christian faith.
These quotes are taken from Craig's mis-titled book 'Reasonable Faith'.
"…as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it."
"We've already said that it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of
Christianity's truth. Therefore, the ONLY role left for argument and evidence to play is a SUBSIDIARY role."
"I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not! ...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not."
"Some people... say that reason can at least be used... at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else could we determine which is true, the Bible, the Koran, or the Baghavad-Gita, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them? Now I've already answered that question: the Holy Spirit teaches us directly which teaching is really from God..."
"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of the faith."
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former [i.e. "Holy Spirit"] which must take precedence over the latter [i.e. "argument & evidence"], not vice versa."
"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason SUBMITS TO and SERVES the gospel. ONLY the ministerial use of reason can be allowed… Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith."
How's that for breathtaking hypocrisy? And he calls himself a scholar?
"An atheist named Mark Smith once talked with William Lane Craig and asked Craig that if he was to be put in a time machine and taken back to the first Easter morning at the tomb and they witnessed the whole morning with nothing happening, if that would be enough to show him that the resurrection didn't happen. According to Smith, Craig replied that he would still believe that the resurrection happened and that some trick had been played on him. When asked why..Craig replied that he had the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' in his life.
In other words..historical evidence doesn't matter to Craig. No amount of historical evidence contrary to Christianity- Bible contradictions, errors, anachronisms, myths, legends- none of that would convince Craig. Hell..if you showed him the actual body of Jesus...Craig would probably believe that the body was anatomically or genetically engineered to look like Jesus. I have come to the conclusion that it's simply impossible for an evangelical like Bill Craig to not have faith in Jesus Christ. No evidence to the contrary can convince him when he thinks he has the witness of the 'Holy Spirit'. How's that for a rational human being?" - Ex-Christian.net Forums
"The way Craig treats evidence exposes his "scholarship" to be NOT scholarship, but instead just mere propaganda. Craig stacks the deck in his favor before he plays his first card- he intellectually cheats; and he advises his fellow Christians to go and do likewise. Craig tells his sheep to only pay attention to evidence that favors their preconceived notions, and to discount any and all evidence that might have the chance of changing their minds. Craig has thus descended to the level of book burners; he has made evidence / books against his religion irrelevant, which accomplishes the same thing but with less air pollution." - Mark Smith
"Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to make his client win, regardless of the truth." - Mark Smith (Contra Craig)
http://www.jcnotme.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm
If Atheists truly believed that the concept of God was as ridiculous as leprechauns unicorns big foot etc... They would not be so concerned about disproving it. If one believes in God that has a profound effect on ones worldview as a consequence, and belief in God has shaped a great many things. All Atheists deep down know that the concept of God is (at least) not quite as ridiculous as all of those former things I spoke of.
As a person who holds Christian beliefs, I think Slezak is pretty good and makes some interesting insights but his agnosticism comment was a bit bold. Agnosticism is a more modest and honest position than Atheism, but I suppose that he felt compelled in saying that only because of his position that God's existence is silly. Many many people who are agnostics don't think that the concept of God is at all in anyway silly, they just desire more proof. Thus I think Slezak's comment was kind of stupid. I would have to watch the entire debate again to really address anything else. Peace.
Vanmeter, you say:
If Atheists truly believed that the concept of God was as ridiculous as leprechauns unicorns big foot etc... They would not be so concerned about disproving it.
I can't speak for all atheists, but although I love arguing about God, I don't have a dog in that fight. As long as people behave nicely, I don't really care what they believe.
If one believes in God that has a profound effect on ones worldview as a consequence, and belief in God has shaped a great many things.
That is indeed the problem: unfortunately, not all believers behave nicely, and because many more people believe in God than in Bigfoot, that makes religion potentially a big problem for me too.
All Atheists deep down know that the concept of God is (at least) not quite as ridiculous as all of those former things I spoke of.
Ah, another believer who knows what I know deep down. Pray tell- how do you know this?
Post a Comment