Why Dawkins should not debate with Craig

Richard Dawkins was accused of cowardice when he repeatedly refused to debate the existence of God with the famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig. And while he tried to shrug off such invitations by saying he is too busy to “take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters,” I think Dawkins has a good reason to be afraid. Craig will eat Dawkins alive – that is, if the debate has more or less the same structure as the ones in which Craig had previously engaged with other atheists.

In a timed debate where each participant is awarded a point for every argument and counter-argument, Craig will surely win because he can state several arguments for the existence of God within a relatively short time. Now whether these arguments would crumble under critical scrutiny is beside the point; there is simply not enough time for Dawkins to effectively rebut each of these arguments especially with his slow British accent.

But if Dawkins will change his mind and decide to accept Craig’s challenge, I think the debate should be focused on only one of the arguments for God’s existence, say, the cosmological argument or the teleological argument, so that Dawkins could whittle it down and expose the fallacies. More importantly, Dawkins should insist that key terms like ‘evidence’ be clearly defined before agreeing to go into such debate. This was the mistake of Lawrence Krauss in the debate Is there evidence for God? In his opening statement (which was after Craig’s), Krauss said, “Dr. Craig came here to talk about evidence, which is, I take to be, empirical and scientific.” Too late. Craig had already defined ‘evidence’ in such a way that there is evidence for hypothesis H if:

Pr (H | E & B) > Pr (H | B)

Pr = probability; H = a hypothesis; E = some specific evidence; B = our background information

Craig explained:

“At one level it seems to me indisputable that there is evidence for God. To say that there is evidence for some hypothesis is just to say that that hypothesis is more probable given certain facts than would have been without them. It is to say there is evidence to some hypothesis H if the probability of H is greater on the evidence and background information than on the background information alone.”

And Craig argued that there is evidence for God if:

Pr (G | E & B) > Pr (G | B)

Pr = probability; G = God exists; E = some specific evidence; B = our background information

Craig continued:

“It seems to me indisputable that God’s existence is more probable given certain facts like the origin of the universe, the complex order of the universe, the existence of objective moral values and so forth, than it would have been without them.”

While it is clear that Craig’s definition of ‘evidence’ is that of circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence, the debate is simply titled “Is there evidence for God?” and therefore Craig’s victory is inevitable.

Craig is a seasoned debater, and his years of experience have taught him not only to identify the red herrings in his opponents’ arguments but also to get away with a few dishonest tricks of his own. A good example is his debate with Sam Harris, Is Good from God? In his opening speech, Craig flashed a slide with his own version of the title: “Is the Foundation of our Morality Natural or Supernatural?” While he stuck to the issue up to this point, what he did next was nothing short of sleight of hand. Craig said:

“The question before us this evening, then, is, ‘what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions objectively good or evil, right or wrong?’ In tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions:

1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.

2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist.”

Take note that Craig’s contentions have nothing to do with the debate’s title, Is Good from God? or even with his own subtitle, Is the Foundation of our Morality Natural or Supernatural? Both titles are questions answerable by yes or no, not with conditional claims.

Then after Harris mentioned the problem of evil and the problem of the unevangelized, Craig rebutted with:

“Both of these, as I explained in my opening, are irrelevant in tonight’s debate because I’m not arguing that God exists. Maybe he’s right; maybe these are insuperable objections to Christianity or to theism. It wouldn’t affect either of my contentions: that if God exists, then we have a sound foundation for moral values and duties; if God does not exist, then we have no foundation for objective moral values and duties. So these are red herrings.”

But while he may sound righteously indignant about Harris’ red herrings, the problem with Craig’s contentions is that they are red herrings themselves. The debate’s title question, Is Good from God? can only be answered in the affirmative if God’s existence has been proven in the first place, and yet Craig insists that God’s existence is irrelevant to the debate.

Unfortunately, Harris did not seem to notice this (or if he did he didn’t seem to care enough to point it out), and it’s only after carefully reviewing Craig’s arguments that we can see through his deception.

Now would Dawkins fare better? I doubt it. And when he said that such a debate would look good on Craig’s CV but not on his own, I don’t think it’s because Dawkins finds Craig unworthy of his attention. I think it’s because Dawkins knows he would lose.

 

15 comments

  1. I posted my befuddlement on Reddit (r/atheism) on that same issue with Sam Harris vs William L Crane, namely, was Harris evading Crane’s arguments (which on the whole included attacks on Harris’ book “The Moral Landscape”), or was he uninterested in engaging them and focused instead on getting his arguments across to the young audience present that evening. Actually, Crane was frustrated that Harris wouldn’t lock horns with him, and said he had hoped for more. And I really thought Harris would slam dunk on the guy, since he had the heavier resume (for me) what with his doctorate and number of acclaimed books. But as compelling Harris’ points were, I think Lane had the better presentation.

    Professional debater indeed.

  2. innerminds,

    Since I'm already here, I think I'd like to clear this up as well.

    you said

    "While it is clear that Craig’s definition of ‘evidence’ is that of circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence, the debate is simply titled “Is there evidence for God?” and therefore Craig’s victory is inevitable."

    And that's the problem with Krauss's definition of evidence. He want's "empirical and scientific"; or "direct evidence" as you paraphrased. Unfortunately, by definition, whatever lies outside the natural –the supernatural — can never be empirically or scientifically tested for. Hence, by definition, we can only have circumstantial evidence for such. As for the evidence Craig gives for the resurrection, again, this being an event that has happened thousands of years ago, we can only have evidence of the circumstantial variety. All the evidence we currently have for people who have lived so far back are indeed circumstantial.

    So, there's nothing wrong with Craig's definition; he certainly wasn't being gratuitous to himself in defining it that way. It's just that we need a certain type of evidence for certain types of things.

    • [Unfortunately, by definition, whatever lies outside the natural –the supernatural — can never be empirically or scientifically tested for. Hence, by definition, we can only have circumstantial evidence for such.]

      Actually it's theoretically possible to have empirical evidence of the supernatural, and that is through miracles. The Bible talks about a bush burning but without being consumed by the fire, people walking on water, a rod turning into a snake, and a snake and a donkey speaking the language of men. If someone can show these to the scientists and skeptics of today for proper observation and documentation, that would be empirical evidence of the supernatural.

      But anyway, you're right, as far as the title of the Craig-Krauss debate is concerned (Is there evidence for God?), Craig's circumstantial evidences were, in fact, evidences for God.

      • [Actually it's theoretically possible to have empirical evidence of the supernatural, and that is through miracles.]

        — Hmm. Interesting point. But only if you say "empirical" to mean observational. If a miracle of that sort was observed, then yes I guess that would be empirical evidence. But I still would contend that if it was done through supernatural means, we wouldn't be left with anything that was testable, in virtue of the supernatural lying beyond the natural. The problem is, since Krauss said "empirical and scientific", I'm tending to believe that he wants testable evidence, one that can be replicated over and over again in the lab. And this definition of evidence was rightly repudiated by Craig for purposes of the debate.

        • If miracles like a rod turning into a snake can be replicated over and over in the lab, then I guess they would be empirical AND scientific evidence for the supernatural.

          But as I've said earlier, Craig's victory was inevitable because the debate's title is simply "Is there evidence for God?" and it was not specified that such evidence should be empirical and scientific. And that's why I also said that if Dawkins ever decides to debate with Craig, he should insist on having key terms like 'evidence' defined properly before going into such debate because if 'evidence' is used in its broad sense to include circumstantial evidence then there is no point in going into a debate since Craig – or any other theist for that matter – will surely win.

          • ["if 'evidence' is used in its broad sense to include circumstantial evidence then there is no point in going into a debate since Craig – or any other theist for that matter – will surely win." ]

            — I don't know why you assume this, since Craig defined evidence as such: "To say that there is evidence for some hypothesis is just to say that that hypothesis is more probable given certain facts than would have been without them."

            Craig then gives his evidence for God, which Krauss was scarcely able to refute. So insofar as the debate is concerned, his evidence stands. Craig's definition of evidence would still, at least ostensibly, be susceptible to disproof or refutation.

            I may say the evidence for the moon being made out of cheese is this account of one astronaut who has gone there and has testified to this. This is evidence, yes, but one that can easily be refuted. Your point was that Craig's definition of evidence was too broad and would ultimately consider similar ridiculous things (like the example I just gave) as evidence. You're right, but that's why the evidence has to be refuted, and Krauss did a terrible job of attempting to do so.

            I think when you say "Craig – or any other theist for that matter – will surely win" you are essentially conceding that the evidence for the hypothesis 'God exists' is more probable than its negation –which is something I don't think you intend to do. Unless you really are conceding that, which seems to me a bona fide miracle =)

          • The following is from Wikipedia (unfortunately, this particular article lacks citations but you can compare it with other sources to check if it's correct):

            "Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

            On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN RULED OUT." [emphasis mine]

            When Craig said that there are evidences (let's exclude the resurrection for now) for God – with the capital G – he is referring to the Judeo-Christian deity. However, these 'evidences', assuming they cannot be refuted, do not rule out Allah, Zeus, or the deistic concept of a Creator. So at most they are circumstantial evidences for God.

            While I did not concede that the hypothesis 'God exists' is more probable than its negation [even Craig said that his intention is more modest than to show that Pr (G | E & B ) > .5], I do concede that the evidences presented by Craig are indeed evidences for the existence of God – their being circumstantial notwithstanding – and that Craig won the debate. But what I am trying to drive at is that if Dawkins were to debate with Craig about evidences for the existence of God, he should insist that 'evidence' be strictly defined and limited to 'direct' evidence' – that is, if he intends to win the debate.

  3. innerminds,

    On your 'Craig's sleight of hand' thing, this is essentially what your argument rests on:

    "The debate’s title question, Is Good from God? can only be answered in the affirmative if God’s existence has been proven in the first place, and yet Craig insists that God’s existence is irrelevant to the debate."

    I don't think so. The topic for debate wasn't whether God exists or not, but whether the foundation of morality is supernatural or natural. All Harris had to show was that moral values can be derived from nature (which is downright silly because nature is amoral); in other words: good is not from god. He didn't have to argue against the existence of God — because that wasn't what was on the table. By the same token, Craig doesn't have to prove that God exists. All he had to show was that "If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties."; in other words: good is from God.

    Therefore, the redherrings were all from Harris.

    And I don't see any sleight of hand.

    But nice post anyway. I'm glad you don't actually believe Dawkins when he implied that his reputation would be at stake should he decide to take on Craig.

    • Hi Miguel,

      Long time no hear! Well, the forum's still down and I hope it will be back up soon.

      You said, "The topic for debate wasn't whether God exists or not, but whether the foundation of morality is supernatural or natural. All Harris had to show was that moral values can be derived from nature."

      Actually, the topic of the debate is "Is Good from God?" It was Craig who made his own version of the title, which is "Is the Foundation of our Morality Natural or Supernatural?" So if someone claims that good is indeed from God, he should prove that God exists in the first place.

      • innerminds,

        'Is good from God' is exactly the same as 'is the foundation of morality (good) natural (not from God) or supernatural (from God)'

        I don't doubt they simplified it –or perhaps oversimplified it — to 'is Good from God' to make it sound more provocative and interesting. But those in the know (you and I) should be familiar with what that really means. The (new) atheist vs theist thing, when it comes to morality, is simply about whether morality were natural or supernatural.

        If Harris wanted to interpret the title of the debate rather too literally to give himself more leeway, I think we would be more than justified to call him disingenuous. He knows exactly what the contention is about.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here