Last night, I attended a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and Ohio State University philosopher Kevin Scharp on whether there is evidence for God. I had previously seen portions of several debates with Craig on YouTube, and in those he always appeared to do rather well. I was surprised, therefore, by how poorly he performed yesterday. Craig managed to misunderstand some pretty straightforward points made by Scharp and – what's worse – on at least two occasions, his misunderstandings appeared to be willful.
One of the things Scharp argued is that there is a difference between having a belief and merely having greater than 50% confidence that something is true. The example he used to illustrate this point made it very clear what he was talking about: although he thinks it's about 51% probable that Clinton will be our next president, it would be incorrect to describe that as having the belief that she is going to be the next president. Belief requires greater confidence than that.
Now, this point seems rather easy to understand, and yet Craig acted very confused about it – and not just once, but twice. In other words, even after Scharp explained what he meant, Craig still didn't seem to get it. This was bizarre. Nevertheless, it did appear that the confusion in this case was genuine. My guess is that Craig was having a hard time interpreting the point because he was trying to figure out how it applied to his claims and just couldn't make the connection. (I myself don't see that it necessarily does apply to his arguments – that is, I didn't understand Craig to be claiming merely that the existence of God is more likely than not.)
But as I've already said, in some cases Craig appeared to purposely misinterpret the point being made – and that's more troubling.
The clearest example of that occurred when Scharp claimed that the resurrection violates known laws of nature – and therefore that even outlandish explanations for what really happened that do not violate such laws are preferable. To make this point, he used the crazy example that perhaps aliens came down to earth after the crucifixion and stole Jesus's body. He actually used the word “crazy,” or something to that effect, in describing this example. But in spite of that, Craig immediately responded with something like “Is that really where you want to go? Is that what you are going to claim?”
It got a big laugh, as well as enthusiastic applause, from much of the audience. Many of those in attendance obviously thought Craig had just demonstrated how foolish atheists are – so foolish they think Jesus's body may actually have been stolen by aliens. But of course that's not what Scharp was claiming, and surely Craig knows that.
In an earlier post, I wrote of my suspicions that sometimes Craig is dishonest. I'm sorry to report that as of last night, those suspicions have been confirmed.
One of the things Scharp argued is that there is a difference between having a belief and merely having greater than 50% confidence that something is true. The example he used to illustrate this point made it very clear what he was talking about: although he thinks it's about 51% probable that Clinton will be our next president, it would be incorrect to describe that as having the belief that she is going to be the next president. Belief requires greater confidence than that.
Now, this point seems rather easy to understand, and yet Craig acted very confused about it – and not just once, but twice. In other words, even after Scharp explained what he meant, Craig still didn't seem to get it. This was bizarre. Nevertheless, it did appear that the confusion in this case was genuine. My guess is that Craig was having a hard time interpreting the point because he was trying to figure out how it applied to his claims and just couldn't make the connection. (I myself don't see that it necessarily does apply to his arguments – that is, I didn't understand Craig to be claiming merely that the existence of God is more likely than not.)
But as I've already said, in some cases Craig appeared to purposely misinterpret the point being made – and that's more troubling.
The clearest example of that occurred when Scharp claimed that the resurrection violates known laws of nature – and therefore that even outlandish explanations for what really happened that do not violate such laws are preferable. To make this point, he used the crazy example that perhaps aliens came down to earth after the crucifixion and stole Jesus's body. He actually used the word “crazy,” or something to that effect, in describing this example. But in spite of that, Craig immediately responded with something like “Is that really where you want to go? Is that what you are going to claim?”
It got a big laugh, as well as enthusiastic applause, from much of the audience. Many of those in attendance obviously thought Craig had just demonstrated how foolish atheists are – so foolish they think Jesus's body may actually have been stolen by aliens. But of course that's not what Scharp was claiming, and surely Craig knows that.
In an earlier post, I wrote of my suspicions that sometimes Craig is dishonest. I'm sorry to report that as of last night, those suspicions have been confirmed.
RSS Feed