Bill Cooke vs William Lane Craig
Last night Dale and I went to see a debate between Bill Cooke and William Lane Craig. The moot was “Is God A Delusion?”.
Craig (arguing the negative) was given the first 20 minutes in which to make his case. Cooke followed but didn’t engage any of the points that Craig raised and, while entertaining at times, didn’t really do a very good job of it from a debating sense. I’m no expert mind you. But without challenging Craig’s assertions he allowed them to stand and I felt that Craig’s performance as a debater far exceeded that of Bill Cooke’s.
Over the last few years I’ve become reasonably familiar with the arguments Craig used in his opening and have decided to give them the respect they deserve by going over them one by one in the next few entries. Below is a summary of Craig’s arguments:
- The Cosmological Argument
This is the argument that everything that begins must have a cause. The universe began so it must have a cause and that cause is God. - The Teleological Argument
This is the argument that God must exist because the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. A slight change in some of the constants in nature would mean that the universe wouldn’t sustain life. - The Argument from Moral Objectivity
Here it is argued that objective morals are impossible without the existence of a God. If a moral can be shown to be objective rather than subjective then the best explanation is that of a moral law-giver outside of nature. We all agree that raping children is objectively wrong => God exists. - The teachings and miracles of Jesus Christ The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
- God can be immediately known and experienced
These last two are the weaker of his arguments but they go towards strengthening the first three arguments which, if proven, would suggest that the God of Christianity is in fact the God of the universe.
I hope I’ve done justice to Craig’s five main points by way of overview. I’ll go into each one in more detail in future entries and introduce Craig’s propositions and conclusions at the same time. In the meantime you can see a good overview of these and some of the other arguments for the existence of God over on that fount of all infallible knowledge; Wikipedia.
(Also, I’m only going by memory here and waiting for the videos to become available on YouTube so I can properly represent William Lane Craig’s arguments before going into them further. If I’ve remembered incorrectly please feel free to chime in.)
Tags: Bill Cooke, Debate, Delusion, God, William Lane Craig
I think (I’m also going from memory here) maybe 4 & 5 (above) were actually just one point (point 4), and he also had the ‘personal experience’ point (which was either point 5 or 6???)…
I thought about taking notes, but decided not to (couldn’t be bothered!), so I’m not sure either…
Ah, yes, that rings a bell. I’ll wait until they post the videos and do a quick review and correct any errors here. It’s really the first three arguments I’m interested in as the final two seemed to me to be tacked on to them to give credence to his particular version of god rather than the core argument of whether “God is a delusion” (i.e. the question of the reality of God’s existence).
Have I represented the gist of his first three arguments fairly?
cool stuff.
Yeah, I reckon you’ve got the basic ideas of 1-3.
[...] proceedings (I particularly recommend Matt’s excellent summary). The consensus of their thoughts (and even of those without theistic sympathies) accords with the reaction of most that I talked to on the night: Craig clearly emerged as the [...]
The video of the Auckland debate is now available online on our blog. Click on my name to get to the video.
Full MP3 Audio of the William Lane Craig vs Bill Cooke debate can be found here.
I have now watched the video of the Auckland debate. To me the central problem is that it was a debate at the ‘philosophical’/'logic’ level whereas it should have been at the scientific level. All of Craig’s 5 points are scientific questions and that’s how they should have been dealt with. Science is the way to discover the correct answers her – ‘philosophy’/'logic’ can, and usually is, be a tool to submerge the correct answer.
Craig’s style was a good example of how such ‘philosophical’/'logical’ arguments can be dishonest.
It’s a pity that Cooke didn’t try to bring out the science – then, as he said, he has no expertise in the area (at least he was honest about that). He could have, at least pointed out that the specialists working in the areas Craig referred to don’t come to Craig’s conclusions.
Cooke obviously had no choice about the debate topic (why not? and why participate without an input?). However, I think Cook made a far more important political point (more important than a frivolous debate on the existence/non-existence of a god). This was that we do have different beliefs about this, that is not going to change quickly and we must, therefore, learn to live together. That, in fact, we have a lot that unites us despite small details of religious belief.
I think that was the more important message in todays world.
Ken Said:
“To me the central problem is that it was a debate at the ‘philosophical’/’logic’ level whereas it should have been at the scientific level. All of Craig’s 5 points are scientific questions and that’s how they should have been dealt with.”
The question of God’s existence is properly speaking a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Craig just used science to back up his premises. But his conclusion that God is the best explanation is not a scientific statement.
“Science is the way to discover the correct answers her – ‘philosophy’/’logic’ can, and usually is, be a tool to submerge the correct answer.”
That’s pure nonsense. You don’t know anything about philosophy if you think that. I would love to see how science deals with the ontology of moral values/ethics. There is no scenario in which the scientific method could be used to justify which actions are in and of themselves, right or wrong. Same with other ontological or metaphysical claims about reality. Science as we know it cannot answer many of these important questions whereas philosophy can. In fact science itself (the entire discipline) is based on unprovable assumptions.
Well said, Jay.
Ken wants to protect ’science’ from ‘philosophy’ (or his caricature of it).
(We’ve been discussing things to do with science/philosophy for a while at his blog.)
Ken’s suggestion that “Craig’s 5 points are scientific questions” reveals his take on the relationship between science and philosophy.
Your last sentence does, however sound a bit ‘anti-science’, however (though I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you could/would nuance that statement a bit if needed)…
Science is based on a particular philosophical (metaphysical) understanding from beginning to end. It has to determine first what, where, when, and how before it can even start to describe ‘cold, hard facts’? And science does it at the other end of the process in it’s conclusions. And that interpretation of the ‘cold, hard facts’ is called scientific knowledge. Even that knowledge is limited to a particular methodology. None of it is detached from philosophy.
If god is only a philosophical question why bring science into it? In this case – only as a crutch. By ‘using’ science Craig opened the question up as a scientific one. That is the problem of apologetics – by claiming support from science one faces the dangers that science may not actually support the argument (as it doesn’t in the case of Craig’s use of the big bang theory). This is the reason why the scientist who proposed the big bang theory (Georges Lemaître who was also a Catholic priest) went out of his way to restrain Pope Pius XII when he tried to use the theory as a proof of Catholic beliefs. Lemaître certainly didn’t see it, or use it, as a proof. And most of todays cosmologists would agree with Lemaître.
Similarly Craig’s arguments using fine tuning to prove god, while based on a caricature of the scientific evidence, were not actually supported by the real evidence.
This is really using science/knowledge like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination. It is a matter of selecting evidence to support a pre-conceived belief, rather than deriving a belief from the evidence.
Jay, I obviously made some typo’s in my comment. But I do think science can, and does, investigate questions relating to morals/ethics – and is coming up with interesting results. Certainly science cannot (and doesn’t claim to) define specific actions as uniquely right or wrong. But then no other discipline can either. Certainly theology can’t prove a specific act uniquely right or wrong – despite claiming an objective morality. They do no better than the rest of us humans in that regard. I think we are ‘on our own’ in this area – there is no rule book or manual.
Jay, you may believe that science is based on unprovable assumptions but I bet you still accept, use and rely on the resulting knowledge every day of your life. We find that knowledge more reliable than that based on theological claims. Isn’t that, in the end, why Craig resorted to that knowledge as supporting evidence for his theological claims?
Hi everyone. Sorry I forgot about this thread.
Dale Campbell said:
“Your last sentence does, however sound a bit ‘anti-science’, however (though I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you could/would nuance that statement a bit if needed)…”
Let me be as clear as possible on this that I’m by no means anti-science. I certainly do accept the principles of science and the results they bring. Whether it’s Big Bang cosmology, a 4.5 billion year old planet or even evolution, I accept it all. However, science, like it or not, cannot explain everything. The discipline is not qualified to deal with ontological or metaphysical claims about reality in any strict form. It can help shed light on some answers but it’s ultimately incapable of forming a properly scientific conclusion on such matters.
Ken said:
“If god is only a philosophical question why bring science into it?”
The conclusion “God exists” will ultimately be a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. But that’s not to say everything about the nature of such a question is not scientific. The premises in some of Dr. Craig’s arguments for example are scientific, but the conclusion drawn from that (ie. God) is not a scientific statement. It’s important to understand the difference.
Ken said:
“Jay, I obviously made some typo’s in my comment. But I do think science can, and does, investigate questions relating to morals/ethics – and is coming up with interesting results.”
I honestly anticipated such a response which is why I said “in and of themselves, right or wrong” (emphasis on RIGHT AND WRONG) with respect to moral values. Science can tell us how we come to believe the values we do, but it does not even begin to tell us why something is in actually WRONG OR RIGHT. That is strictly ontological, not scientific.
Ken said:
“Certainly theology can’t prove a specific act uniquely right or wrong – despite claiming an objective morality.”
No, theology can’t do that. Philosophy on the other hand can.
Ken said:
“Jay, you may believe that science is based on unprovable assumptions but I bet you still accept, use and rely on the resulting knowledge every day of your life.”
It’s simply an indisputable fact that science is based on unprovable assumptions. Science for example has to presuppose the validity of logic in order to proceed with it. If it tried to prove logic it would argue in a circle (presupposing logic and reason in order to prove reason and logic). It must presuppose the objective reality of the physical world in order to proceed. It must presuppose naturalism in order to proceed and make firm conclusions etc. This is precisely what has led professional philosophers to come with such terms as “properly basic beliefs” or “basic beliefs”. This is by no means undermining science or objecting to it as a sound method for determining what is and is not true about the world. It’s just recognizing the boundaries and limits of science and the foundations to which it must proceed from.
So this isn’t a debate of philosophy vs science. This is just recognizing the difference between them and what they can and cannot do.
Of course science cannot explain everything – whoever said it could? In fact scientists have often in the past imposed inappropriate limits on scientific investigation (e.g. origins of the universe and life, consciousness and mind). And scientists do not claim special expertise in areas of judgement – morality, values and ethics.
So why the talk about the limits of science?
In my experiences when such claims are made they are usually followed by claiming these areas for religion. The tactic being to deny an area to science (even though science is not claiming it) and then assume these areas are rightfully those of religion – by default!
This tactic avoids the real task of justifying an exclusive role for religion in these areas.
So, Jay – your claims that questions relating to the existence or otherwise of gods and whether specific acts are right or wrong can be answered by philosophy. Well, let’s see your justification for these claims – not just the argument by default after ruling out science. And if philosophy, and only philosophy, has developed a list of acts which are uniquely right or wrong – please let us know where we can access the list – it would be very useful.
I am somewhat cynical about such claims because my recent reading indicates that philosophers have difficulty agreeing on the existence of objective reality – let alone objective morals.
I suspect the logic which underlies our approach to science and to morals is accessible to us all – scientists, philosophers and car mechanics alike. Perhaps that’s why we can all make our own moral/ethical and value judgements without recourse to science, philosophy or religion.
That’s one of the best things I’ve heard you say, Ken…
…and that’s one of the worst.
(why not ‘do morality’ with science, philosophy and religion – in other words, everything we’ve got???)
Yes, of course Dale. But in practice we don’t. Very often arguments from these disciplines are justifications for a preconceived position, rather than used to derive the position.
(And let’s face it – the argument here has been for denying a role for one of these disciplines).
Don’t we? (knowingly or not?)
Well, that’s not what I’m arguing for… (though in the past, you yourself have seemed rather happy with ‘religion’ [again, not a word I particularly like] being denied a role – or at least severely downplaying its role?)
Dale – you misrepresent me.
My point has always been that religion has no special role in deciding what is right and wrong. (It has, in fact, in the past been a repository for moral views but I think there are wider avenues for that now. And I think many people feel religion has discredited itself in this area).
However, when a discipline argues for a special role in this, or any other, area it should do so on its own merits – not by knocking down a straw man (“science has no role”) and then claiming the role for itself as the only other alternative. This is just like Dembski’s ‘design filter’ (which I notice Craig also using in his ‘fine tuning’ argument).
Thanks Ken,
I’m not sure how I’ve misrepresented you, but sorry if I have.
I don’t think I’ve ever said “science has no role” in morality (who are you quoting?). I think science informs the moral discussion along with various other disciplines, and, of course, should always have a voice.
Having said that, the way that science contributes to the conversation is different than the other disciplines. Science makes no value judgments, so in terms of rights, worth, meaning, and moral determinations, its contribution is somewhat like a scope on a rifle – it helps you see what you’re aiming at with greater detail; which is immensely and crucially helpful at times.
Still avoids the issue. Forget about science – its not claiming any special role here. But religion is. If religion makes a claim to make value judgements – then it should justify that claim. To justify it by default (Dembski’s design filter) is a cop out.
I sense (and suspect you would agree here) that the whole thing (the conversation about morality, in particular) is more complex than anyone’s claim (or denial) of a ’special role’ for any discipline…
Yes, I do agree. And very often these simplistic claims are used to justify a preconceived belief, rather than derive knowledge about the real world, anyway.
(not trying to get the last word)
…but we all have a preconceived belief about what the ‘real world’ is (or most definitely cannot be, absolutely most positively and certainly isn’t)…
(sigh… This whole science and (as opposed to ‘or’ or ‘versus’) philosophy thing really needs to be grasped, me thinks.)
The amazing thing about science, though, is how those preconceived beliefs are always up for question, and very often proved wrong. So knowledge undergoes continual renewal. (I am urged to say this because my current reading is proposing that special relativity may well be proved wrong!)
It’s perfectly natural to prefer simplistic claims and cherry pick evidence to support them – but history suggests that in the long run humanity seems to prefer a more objective knowledge.
yeah, lots of different kinds of ‘evidence’ and ‘knowledge’ within ‘reality’ too…