NOTE: This essay was written for Atheism is Dead—True Freethinker’s predecessor—by IrishFarmer.
Recently, my old pal John Loftus has made known his desire to challenge William Lane Craig in a formal debate.
With Dr. Craig recently running through the gambit of popular atheists, including Hitchens and Carrier, I thought this would be quite a pretty interesting debate.
Actually, I’m surprised that John Loftus would issue this challenge. Him and I have interacted quite a bit in the past, and as far as I know (or remember) he’s never said anything like this before. I’m not sure if this is because other popular and popularizing atheists like Hitchens have all gone through the “gauntlet” before, or what his reasoning is, but let’s see what he has to say in his post. After that, I’d love to know what our readers think of this potential debate.
My request is a simple one. I would like skeptics and Christians alike to call for a debate between myself and Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic, Is Christianity more probable than atheism? Use your Blogs and websites to issue this call if you would.
I’ll second that. I think this would be a great debate, and if we can get a groundswell of support in favor of it then we should.
On a recent poll many people think I would win such a debate, even if most think I will lose it. About that poll I wonder if some of the Christians who voted I would lose probably just think that since the skeptics are wrong then there is no way any skeptic can win a debate against any Christian apologist. And I wonder if many of the naysaying voters have read my book or seen me debate against David Wood on the problem of suffering, seen here, which most people think I won.
I haven’t seen that debate in a while, but is it really beyond John that many people (atheist and Christian alike), think that Dr. Craig will win the debate because he’s got sound arguments/is a superior debator?
There are different perspectives on what exactly a “victory” in a debate is. If it’s a matter of convincing the audience that you were right, then John might do very well. If he’s good at one thing, it’s coming up with arguments that are persuasive, it not necessarily sound.
Keep in mind that in the debate I had with Wood I did not know in advance how he would argue. But when it comes to Bill Craig I have been a student of his works and debates and I pretty much know his arguments inside and out. He would have to come up with something completely new to surprise me. But I think I could surprise him with a debate strategy I won’t reveal until the time comes to debate him, if it comes.
This bothers me for two reasons. Firstly, because these statements seem to be lacking in chivalry. If you’re so confident, why keep your strategy secret despite Craig’s debate strategy being widely disseminated on the internet? For the record, however, I’m not saying John is required to reveal his hand just because Craig already has – I just think that it would be the polite thing to do.
Secondly, does John really think he can keep Craig in the dark if Craig really wants to find some pre-debate intel? What I mean is, John has a frequently updated website, two editions of a published book, and at least one video online which shows his debate style. It doesn’t take a saavy investigator to get enough information to be decently prepared for a debate.
I have watched Craig’s debates enough to know what to say and I want to surprise him with something so different he’ll be taken aback. I am sort of an expert on Craig. I’ve followed him for years, first as a student, and now as a skeptic. I probably know Craig and his work better than most other skeptics.
That last statement is probably true. It never ceases to amaze me how unprepared atheists are when they debate Craig, despite his entire debate outline being available in numerous, easy-to-access forms on one single website.
When it comes to debate experience I think I’ve had more of it than most of the skeptics who debate Craig. Most all of the skeptics that Craig has debated probably never debated before, and some of them win, like most recently Shelly Kagan. The only skeptics who have had a great deal of experience in formal debates are probably Eddie Tabash, Dan Barker and Hitchens.
Precisely why I hope this debate happens. John certainly can’t be much worse at debate than Hitchens.
Personally, I don’t think that John will win a potential debate on the soundness of his arguments alone. I think he might win in the sense that his words will sound very convincing at least to atheists, and probably to many people still sitting on the fence, but if nothing else it will be an entertaining debate. I personally like both John and Craig, and so this debate would be well worth it for me. Specifically, I think that the topic is an interesting one as Craig typically deals in “proofs”, but the topic (“Is Christianity more probable than atheism”) is probabalistic.
What do the readers think about this potential debate?