William Lane Craig vs. Frank Zindler Debate Christianity




This is a fairly good debate. I liked both of their opening statements. They express their positions quite well. It took place at the Willow Creek Church in 1994.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Atheism Sucks for noticing this debate, which was posted on You Tube yesterday. Atheism Sucks BTW is edging itself into the civilized community with some better contributors.

Unknown said...

Lol, this Christian agrees :)

They do waste a lot of time talking about atheists rather than atheism though. I can't care less what Richard Dawkins does or doesn't do with himself.

bob said...

Craig kept coming back, over and over again accusing Zindler of not offering any proof or evidence for the non existence of God. Over and over again. I would have a bit of respect for him if he at least admitted at the onset that no amount of evidence or proof could persuade him to stop BELIEVING!!!

Anonymous said...

Can anyone provide me any evidence against the belief that witches exist and fly through the sky in the night, or that fairies exist? How in hell can anyone who denies these things provide any evidence they don't exist? All they can do is examine the evidence provided by the claimant.

BTW over at Atheism Sucks this debate is strung together so no one has to find the next segment. Does anyone know how they did this?

exapologist said...

I have this debate on tape, from the old days. It's a pretty weird debate, I think. On the one hand, I think Zindler is right about taking a more primitive worldview in the Bible seriously -- I always had a hard time with Craig's familiar move of shrugging that stuff off with a few sentences about biblical writers using phenomenological language. So that point was a good one.

Also, Craig's trying to turn the argument from evil into an argument for God's existence was, frankly, ridiculous. You've covered this recently in your posts, but I'd like to rehash some points about it. First, there are lots and lots of objectivist accounts of morality that don't rely on theism (e.g., utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, etc.). Second, naturalism doesn't entail physicalism, so one could be both a naturalist *and* a platonist about abstract objects (like me), and hold that moral truths are necessary truths, on a par with mathematical truths (this, by the way, is Richard Swinburne's view, who is one of the greatest contemporary philosophers of religion. This is one of the reasons why he doesn't appeal to morality as evidence for God). Third, Craig may be right that theism can make some sense of the idea that "some things are *really* evil", as he puts it. But he *can't* make sense of the idea that some things are *intrinsically* evil, since on his account of morality -- and this really, really needs to pointed out -- *nothing* is intrinsically evil; he thinks God has to impose the rightness and wrongness of an action "from the outside", via his commands. So Zindler scores another point with the problem of evil.

Third, Zindler's point about evolution is a good one. I don't think Craig is right that the argument from evolution is relevant in a debate about theism -- I think one could generate an argument from evil against theism from evolution. His reply that evolution is actually evidence of God's existence wasn't very good. Zindler lost the point, though, since he didn't have an effective response. If *I* were in the debate, though, I would've pointed out that even if the evolution of life is improbable on a single-universe hypothesis, it's not so on a mutliverse hypothesis. Craig could respond by saying that the theistic hypothesis is simpler than a multiverse hypothesis, but this isn't clearly true. For as philosopher David Lewis pointed out, there are two kinds of parsimony: quantitative (posits fewer entities) and qualititative (posits fewer *kinds* of entities). But while theism is more quantitatively parsimonious, the multiverse hypothesis is more qualitatively parsimonious. The problem is that it's not clear which kind of parsimony is more important. So while Craig technically won the point in the debate, outside of that context I don't think the argument is a good one. Sometimes theists (like Robin Collins and William Lane Craig) say that the multiverse is an untestable hypothesis, and thus implausible and ad hoc. But what they conveniently fail to point out is that *so is theism*. Both hypotheses are incapable of direct testability, and thus both accrue probability to the degree that they embody various theoretical virtues (simplicity, explanatory power, explanatory scope, etc.) in an inference to the best explanation. It's funny how theists are quick to complain about the "posits no mechanisms" and "isn't directly testable" criteria as question-begging against theism in the intelligent design debate, but then vigorously defend them when the non-theist uses the multiverse hypothesis(!).

On the other hand, I think a couple of Zindler's points were pretty lame. First, he uses the logical positivist line about the meaninglessness of god-talk, which has shown to be false (like about 40 years ago). Craig clearly won that point.

Second, Zindler's reply to Craig's argument from religous experience was pretty shallow and lame. There are sophisticated arguments from religous experience from, e.g. William Alston, Jerome Gellman, and others, and he didn't give it it's due. However, it should be pointed out that the problem of religious diversity is taken as a powerful undercutting defeater for the veridicality of religious experience, as even William Alston is willing to admit. In fact, he seems to think that religous experience isn't sufficient, all by itself, to justify theism. At best, it's only one piece of evidence in an inference to the best explanation. So while Craig technically scored a point against Zindler here, I don't think he's right to say that religous experience is sufficient, all by itself, to justify theism. (He sometimes construes religous experience along Plantinga-style lines, but that account of religious experience doesn't cut it. I have some stuff on Plantinga's religious epistemology at my blog, if you're interested).

In any case, those are some of my thoughts on the debate.

exapologist said...

I forgot a couple more points:

1) I think Zindler's whole "Jesus never existed" argument is retarded. Suppose he's right that Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' day (although I don't know if he *is* right). It wouldn't follow that Jesus never existed. It could be that he existed, but that he lived somewhere else (e.g., Galilee). So that point made him come off as a buffoon. (BTW, Zindler has no degree in NT, right? If so, he should stop talking as though his arguments about Jesus are on a par with those of NT scholars ("STFU, Zindler!").

2) Also, I think his remarks on Josephus were pretty unsophisticated, and that Craig was clearly right: granted, the Josephus passages have been altered, but not in a wholesale way, as many NT scholars have pointed out).

Friar Zero said...

Hey exapologist, Jesus probbaly never existed. See:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
and Here

exapologist said...

Hi friar zero,

Thanks for those links. I'll be sure to give them a look.

Unknown said...

I find no end to the irony that urges me to shout 'JESUS CHRIST', every time someone like Bob makes a comment asking someone to prove the non-existence of someone or something.

That isn't how the world works. We don't begin by believing everything, then slowly whittling down those beliefs until we have ultimate truth - we look at evidence and draw conclusions. If there is no evidence, then it's obvious that we can assume, until proven otherwise that it does not exist.

John is dead on with the witches nd fairies analogy, and other prominent intellectuals have similar ideas - flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, etc. They sound silly, but in the light of reason and empiricism, so do your beliefs.

Imagine trying to solve a crime the way that you attempt to solve the question of god. The PD doesn't investigate crimes that have no evidence of occurring. They don't investigate random houses and then go back to the station to mark "no crime here" in the book. Just because you can't prove that a crime DIDN'T occur at every house doesn't mean that something did. It's faulty logic.

But let's take it a step further. What if we received a 'revelation'? A call comes in regarding a murder in a park. Even functionally-retarded police officers don't just make up a story in their heads and stick to it - they go out into said park, and see what the evidence shows. Scratches? Restraint marks? Looks like a struggle. Pockets turned inside-out? Maybe robbery as a motive. These bits and pieces are put together to find the answer.

Now imagine that the police officers arrive on the scene, and there's no body, no blood, nothing. Would there be any reason to assume a murder had occurred?

The answer, if you haven't taken a guess yet, is no. Perhaps the person calling in was mistaken. Maybe they were delusional, maybe they were a con-artist. Whatever the individuals motives for spreading the "bad news" doesn't mean the murder happened.

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

It is difficult to hit a moving target, extremely difficult to hit a target which moves faster than the projectile, and virtually impossible to hit a target which moves erratically *and* faster than the projectile. Add to that a target which is consciously avoiding the projectile, and you have Dr. William Lane Craig in this debate.

I'm certainly not suggesting he's that the issue is settled, but instead I'm suggesting that Dr. Craig seems determined to have his cake and to eat it, too. He refused to settle on any specific Christian doctrine(s), and instead sought to embrace them all, or, as he put it, to promote C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" -- those [unnamed] essential tenets of Christianity on which all denominations allegedly agree.

By simultaneously arguing that Christianity is true because of historical 'evidence' in support of Biblical scripture, while claiming that the scientifically refuted portions of the same are merely allegory, he renders his own position impotent. By doing this *and* by refusing to settle on a specific set of doctrine(s), he renders the debate meaningless -- he changes his position constantly, yet insists that he has done no such thing, making Zindler's attempts at engaging in actual debate impossible.

Add to all this the fact that the "audience" is clearly a "congregation" (the venue obviously played a role), and we recognize quickly that Craig's "arguments", while not strictly speaking ad hominem, are clearly appeals to emotion and/or popularity.

So Zindler's task is doubly daunting -- he cannot deny Craig's position without knowing precisely what that position is. He quite easily (and successfully, in my view) dismissed various positions which are widely held by [mere] Christians, but these are apparently of no consequence to the chameleon Craig. His only apparent fault throughout the debate was his failure to offer evidence of the absence of a "god", only mentioning Epicurus' dilemma in the waning moments.

Like exapologist, I would have to admit that Craig "won" the debate based on a point system, but this was not due to the strength of his argument(s) so much as the strength of his arguing. Zindler could have -- and should have -- had more and better ammunition at the ready, and I daresay a more cunning linguist (Hitchens?) could have fared much better in the same setting.

I must also admit that watching this debate was my first direct exposure to Craig, and though I knew him to be a key figure for apologists, I didn't know what to expect. As I said, a better orator could have handled his rhetoric much more successfully than Zindler did, and now that I've "met" Craig, I'll have to look for more of his debates...

--
Stan

P.S. - As to how "Atheism Sucks" strung together the clips, they created a playlist. I can't say whether their poster did this or if he instead found a link which was pre-playlisted, but that's what happened. This URL is a full-screen version of the same playlist. Beneath YouTube videos is a link labelled "Add to Playlists", which allows for the creation/editing of personalized playlists (if you have a YouTube account, which I have despite no recollection of ever having created one... Based on my username, I'd say it is affiliated with either Yahoo! or Hotmail).

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

I suppose I shall also add to my comment by also agreeing with Zindler's assertion that he need not provide evidence that "god" does not exist. I can only imagine the restraint on his part to keep from pulling out ludicrous-yet-poignant arguments which belittle Christianity, which he began to do despite his restraint. Craig's constant request for evidence that "god" does not exist is nothing more than pure folly, and begs a belittling response.

What I would really like to see is an Elijah-like test with barbeques: The atheist and Christian each with steaks and charcoal, but each awaiting divine fire. The atheist should mock the Christian by suggesting he pray louder, that "god" is sleeping, or out for a walk...

Back to the debate, Craig quickly dismissed Zindler's claim of divinity as whimsical nonsense, yet ignored the fact that his own beliefs are essentially based on exactly the same sort of whimsical nonsense -- his are just quasi-supported by primitive pseudo-historical unscientific mythological accounts which were oral in nature for most of their existence, then transcribed by hand for a half-dozen millennia, then translated hundreds of times from quite recent copies.

Hmph.

--
Stan

magicshoemonkey said...

I like the Warren-Flew debate more than this one. This debate appears to be set up to fail. The debate is that Craig has to provide evidence for Christianity and Zindler has to provide evidence for atheism. So when Zindler goes to do the natural thing, provide evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist, Craig can just accuse him of not defending his position. I much prefer it when the debate allows one person to take a negative and one a positive. If the debate were, say, "Is Christianity True," that would be something both sides could manage reasonably.

Frank Walton said...

BTW over at Atheism Sucks this debate is strung together so no one has to find the next segment. Does anyone know how they did this?

What are you talking about? All of the video is there. The debate and Q&A and the votes are all in the video link. Quit lying, Johnny.

bob said...

matt - "I find no end to the irony that urges me to shout 'JESUS CHRIST', every time someone like Bob makes a comment asking someone to prove the non-existence of someone or something."

Matt, I was actually criticizing Craig. Perhaps I did not make my point clear. My fault.

Shygetz said...

John was asking how AS set up a playlist, so you don't have to hunt down the individual clips because they play automatically.

We make enough of a fool out of you without your active assistance. Read. More. Slowly. Frank.

Unknown said...

Wank Dalton strikes again.

Frank Walton said...

John was asking how AS set up a playlist, so you don't have to hunt down the individual clips because they play automatically.

What? All you have to do is click on the video and you'll know where I got the videos from.

We make enough of a fool out of you without your active assistance. Read. More. Slowly. Frank.

Think more clearly, shygetz. I'm not the fool who likes to lie and get my friends to defend it.

Jim Thompson said...

In Dr. Craig's opening he made many
references to cosmology arguments.

If he had made those comments in
front of physicists they would
have just starting laughing.

Some of it was just flat wrong. Much
of it was twisted slightly so that
layman would not catch it.

Unknown said...

Bob,

I go into blind rages when I forget the context of things.

My apologies as well