Last week I participated in a dialogue with Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson, sponsored by the Veritas Forum here at Caltech. We were talking about “physics and philosophy,” but the primary issue was theism and naturalism — Hans’s research specialty is philosophy of physics, especially quantum field theory, but he’s also a theist and often writes about science and religion. It was a fruitful discussion (I like to think), as we ended up agreeing about many points, even though we started from very different premises. He agreed with me, for example, that purported fine-tuning of cosmological parameters isn’t a very good argument in favor of the existence of an intelligent designer.
Next month I’ll be doing something related, although under quite different circumstances. On February 21 I’ll be debating William Lane Craig at the Greer-Heard Forum, an event sponsored by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. It will actually be a two-day event; a debate between Craig and me on Friday night, and follow-ups on Saturday from other speakers — Tim Maudlin and Alex Rosenberg for Team Naturalism, Robin Collins and James Sinclair for Team Theism. Registration is open! I believe the whole thing will be streamed live online, and it will certainly be recorded for posterity. [Update: Here is the video.]
William Lane Craig (or WLC as we call him in the business) is of course a very well-known figure, largely for his many public debates, on theism/atheism as well as on various other specific theological issues. As far as debating goes: he’s very good at it! If his debates were being judged by a panel of experts as in an intercollegiate debate tournament, he would have a very good record indeed. This has led many people to conclude that atheists just shouldn’t debate him at all, or at least not until they have devoted 10,000 hours to learning how to be a good debater.
Daniel Dennett warned me that, as soon as word got out that I would be debating WLC, I would be deluged with opinions and unsolicited advice. Which is great! Always happy to hear other perspectives, although I don’t promise to actually follow any of the advice. I won’t reproduce the various emails I’ve received, but here are a few very different perspectives online: Jerry Coyne, Luke Barnes (and another), and Wintery Knight. (WK is relatively restrained, but others predict “pummelings,” presumably for me.)
Just so we’re clear: my goal here is not to win the debate. It is to say things that are true and understandable, and establish a reasonable case for naturalism, especially focusing on issues related to cosmology. I will prepare, of course, but I’m not going to watch hours of previous debates, nor buy a small library of books so that I may anticipate all of WLC’s possible responses to my arguments. I have a day job, and frankly I’d rather spend my time thinking about quantum cosmology than about the cosmological argument for God’s existence. If this event were the Final Contest to Establish the One True Worldview, I might drop everything to focus on it. But it’s not; it’s an opportunity to make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me.
The guy is a very polished public speaker, and he is certainly an expert in this format. But I have the overwhelming advantage of being right. If I thought WLC were right, I would just change my views. Since I don’t, my goal is to explain why not, as clearly as possible.
The general consensus in some corners seems to be that I will be crushed. I guess we shall see.
As they say it’s best to stick with the subject you know best and want to educate people about.
If there is a great “unknown” you can always point out it may neither be God or physics but the human mind itself. You may want to ask him why there are so many ontological similarities in human brain “supernatural” religious experience and ask him what he “THINKS”
Maybe you need to bring MIT Asst Prof Jeremy England to the debate:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
Far too much emphasis is placed on winning, this should be a dialog with each stating his beliefs and why. These are not enemies, just two people with opposite points of view. Hopefully each will be civil and remain friendly to the end and I trust that’s the way it will be and it will be. Even Christians disagree on many beliefs, some believe the Pope is the Anti Christ, yet somehow still manage to get along, at least now that the middle ages are over. Northern Ireland being one exception, however that is mostly political in nature though still stupid. So it’s not just Christians versus Atheist. Ah yes, the human family and we should be family, but as it is in many families, there is always disagreement.
If the Wikipedia entry is accurate, this will not be a debate, strictly speaking, although it may end up just that in practical terms. I would not dream of debating someone who believes in god about the existence of god (no appetite for headaches from brick walls), but I would be willing to state the accepted understanding of the nature of the universe. As the bible says, “he who has ears, let him hear.”
I’m sure you are aware that any organization that is in good stead with the Southern Baptist Convention does not usually harbor people with open minds about cosmology. I say this as a matter of fact, not as a criticism. I attended a respected college that was associated with the SBC for one year and found it a pleasant environment. Then the new SBC took over and turned a conservative educational institution into a bible school that requires a statement of fundamentalist faith for biology teachers. The primary purpose of NOBTS is evangelism, not rational discourse or even education. My advice (worth ever penny you pay for it) is to just say your piece. You can convince someone with an open mind, and you can never convince someone without an open mind.
Wow! I’m excited. I live about a half hour from there. I’m about 99% sure I’m going to attend this debate. I will attempt to bring my wife who’s a believer.
I would like to throw my support behind the commenters who request you smack down WLC’s assertion that the universe (possibly he even means multiverse) must have a beginning, or more strongly a “first cause”. He often claims some “Borde-Vilenkin-Guth singularity theorem” as proof of this, which seems like bollocks to me, and it would be nice if you publicly set him straight on the nature of this theorem, if possible.
You are also well-positioned to destroy his logic-based arguments that a ‘first cause’ must exist, given your keenness on the nature of time, so I look forward to what you have to say about this too! My counter has always been that our current ideas and intuitions about cause and effect may very well be totally totally wrong at a fundamental level, and I am interested to see if you agree.
Of course maybe there is a first cause, but his assertions that the only logically possible first cause is a “transcendent mind” that he identifies as God is where his argument gets really ridiculous, and I don’t know what you can possibly say to this, except that it is a non-sequitur.
On top of that, if you can discredit his use of fine-tuning arguments as evidence for God that would also make me happy :). But your post suggests you have this covered already :).
Finally, to paul kramarchyk: WLC believes literally in the resurrection of Christ, so it is safe to say his God is quite capable of dramatic supernatural intervention. He often goes on for quite a long time about the historical evidence for this event, but hopefully this debate won’t go there since a historian is needed to deal with those arguments, not a cosmologist. Also those arguments are amazingly boring…
My humble advice:
Please, please do not agree to the typical academic-debate format that Craig favors (20, 10 and 5 minute presentations). It inevitably leads to the two interlocutors mostly just talking past one another, and it plays to Craig’s strengths as a rhetorician. Worse, it’s damn near impossible for an audience to keep track of all the threads that pop up in 20 minutes of uninterrupted stumping.
Far better to stick with a more conversational format. It takes away Craig’s greatest advantage (his experience as a debater) and in my estimation would keep the audience from being inundated with arguments. Plus, it minimizes the adversarial nature of debates, which just reinforces the “us vs. them” mentality.
My advice to Sean for what it’s worth…
Ask WLK to explain in detail what a superstition is. Why have there been thousands of gods in history believed by almost all humans all over the planet? How come these populations have transmitted their beliefs from one generation to the next with a very high success rate, like 98%, even though it is obvious most of these beliefs were obviously wrong. Is the brain really good at detecting brainwashing?
Then you will get to the fact that indoctrination in christianity is very similar to endoctrination by any superstition, that is childhood endoctrination, various rituals during the day/week/year/life which continue the brainwashing, gurus whose purpose is to endoctrinate, etc…
Finaly, it gets on my nerves when WLC claims that philosophers have settled the debate that god exists. According to a recent poll more than 85% of philosophers don’t believe in god. I even remember you writing an article about that. So if he comes up with that ridiculous argument, don’t miss him lol.
Anyways I have watched several debates with him. He seems stiff at first but he is actually quite a sympathetic guy. He’s just completely brainwashed and want to desperately believe his nonsense. Also, having been a major defender of religion for so long he will never admit he was wrong.
I say kudos to you Sean. It is an intellectual honest endeavor to let the conversation be open and transparent, and let all sides decide for themselves.
It is certainly a sharp contrast to the likes of a Jerry Coyne, who positively trembles at the mere mention of having to defend his beliefs publicly. One truly must wonder about the foundations of his utter paranoia. Even questioning him on his own website sets off panic alarms and immediate damage control in the form of instant deletions. If he is so sure he is right, why is he always so darn scared. I respect that you don’t harbor his same phobias.
I will look forward to hearing both sides of a lively discussion. I appreciate that your desire is not to win, but to simply present your side.
I wouldn’t be too worried about the debate. It is not like either one of you would actually know for a 100% fact what the correct answer is anyways. You will most likely go away from it feeling that their beliefs where biased from the start and that is why you won or lost.
They say that particle accelerators mimic the Big Bang. Then the only thing they actually see in them is light. God is the light, and the only way you could convince me otherwise is to prove that light had nothing to do with the Big Bang. Until we can prove what caused the Big Bang, I think we all would just be completely out of luck trying to prove anything one way or the other. I could accept this much as being true about the Big Bang, there was darkness and then there was light. There is no reason why we should deny that “theory”.
Hi Sean, you and your readers might be interested in my free book at my site http://thehumandesign.net or direct from the cloud at http://sdrv.ms/1a4HBbk
The design is pure geometry reconciling particle forces and biological formations rather than using math equations. You will find geometry is sufficient for an explanation linked to all known fundamental ‘facts’ (the most basic). Factually I am not adventurous, but my logic extending from basic facts using Universality – application of universal principles – is entirely new.
It’s not theistic at all. Beliefs are hypotheses based on secure knowledge to extend it. One cannot even define God based on knowledge to test that definition as a hypothesis. He’s in a logical limbo pending miracles and otherwise ignored.
My book has nothing to do with spirituality, but it soundly answers anything WLC would have to say in justification of spirituality by closing the gaps that cause spiritualists to go beyond science.
One potential problem with Aoflex’s advice is that Craig can make positive arguments, too, and many of them are related to historical texts that require some familiarity to be debated effectively. So, simply trying to shift the burden of proof to him is tricky unless one can comfortably address the history. You can always fall back on the implausibility of miracles out of the historical context in which those miracles were claimed, but this is not nearly as effective as it would be given some familiarity with the historical scholarship.
The following is an example of such a debate centered on historical scholarship, and then there’s an intriguing (although misleading and ultimately fallacious, in my opinion) discussion of probability theory as applied to those historical texts. It’s fun reading, and even though Sean has made his point that he’s not going to devote large amounts of time reviewing previous debates, this is highly relevant and also interesting in its own right.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman
I really liked the discussion with Hans Halvorson. His attitude and approach to the questions led me to believe that even though our premises are orthogonal, this is a man from whom I could learn something other than mere rhetoric or arguments. Without such a respect it is hard to see how a discussion can be of any use. Although his very last comment that modern scientists are the new priests was silly (I would like to think it was in jest, but I couldn’t tell). What was however very interesting is his thorough debunking of the theistic fine tuning “argument” something that I had independently thought of. It is unfortunate that naturalists do not make it. The slight disappointment of this discussion was that although Sean’s answers were clear and agreeable, he seemed a little disengaged in comparison.
I am disappointed by Sean’s comment that he is not going to the debate with William Craig with the intent of winning. I completely agree that debates are useless, but then why go to a debate anyway? If the goal is to lecture the christian audience, surely he could get invited to give a lecture. In that sense I echo the sentiment of Vroom above, with Lawrence Kraus being the perfect example.
I believe Sean’s assumptions about the christian audience to be unjustified, they are not going to the debates to learn about Sean’s worldview, they are going to this event for validation of their own. Everyone needs it, but the success of science is validation enough for the naturalists. The educated young christians are marginalized in the intellectual community and do not find intellectual communion with Sarah Palin’s “real Americans”. They are expecting to see a “pummeling” to validate their team choice. Going with the intent of not winning is handing them a false sense of vindication, which does nothing to actually help them to take off their blinders but only entrench them in their worldview.
The solution I think is to address each argument of William Craig but present it to the christian audience in the context of what kind of conversations they can expect with their atheist frenemies (after all that’s what all this is about). Lacking William Craig’s debating skills they’ll have to think for themselves. That’s the best that can be expected.
So this part is my humble contribution for Sean to chew on since he is inviting other perspectives:
All arguments from science are god of the gaps arguments: that is sensible only if there’s reason to believe that the gap can not and will not close, ever! Given history of science, naturalists are optimistic about the future and do not see any reason to assume that the gaps are unfillable.
Premise one of the cosmological argument: anything the begins to exist must have a cause that is necessarily naturalistic . Don’t agree? Please provide an example of a supernaturalistic cause. If the universe beginning to exist is logically different from the omelette or tiger (examples provided by WC) beginning to exist, then these examples can’t be used to inspire WC’s version of the premise. On the other hand, the above version of the premise is perfectly justifiable (at least for WC’s audience).
Also creatio ex nihilo assumes there is no material cause, but only efficient cause. Even if Kraus’s vacuum isn’t nothing, it would be the material cause which is not in contest in the premise. The virtual particle creation in QFT lacks any efficient cause. The laws of physics don’t cause the universe to act in some way, the laws are a map that we use to navigate the territory (this idea is from quine’s website, think the idea sounds very persuasive).
fine tuning is already debunked even by theists like Halvorson. Basically, fine tuner is inconsistent with omnipotence. What can be added is that since the WC crowd thinks disembodied minds are obviously possible, then no matter what the conditions of the universe it couldn’t be said to be inhospitable to disembodied minds.
Moral argument: Euthyphro. WC pretends that christians have escaped Euthyphro. The argument boils down to good = god’s nature = not arbitrary! But why not ? Absolutely nothing illogical in god’s nature being mix of good and bad. What kind of a world would such a god create? exactly like the one we see.
I see my invitation to read my new book (above) has been voted behind a screen. Nevertheless I invite you to consider it as a reasonable explanation of ‘First Cause” which is the entire point of the book. I appears you can open the screen to read my offending post so I won’t repeat the download address here.
Clearly (I think) something from nothing is a stretch, and multiverses seem to avoid the point of why anything at all, although it might answer why this arrangement rather than another to our laws. But laws would be the starting place, and tracking their universalities – to the extent you use the most universal laws – is the means to arrive at an ‘overview’.
I think an overview is possible, even in when Relativity prevents an actual view of a universe except by using a curved two-dimensional and temporal surface experienced by us as our three-dimensional and temporal universe. I have my doubts about pure Isotropic expansion and that consequence of it, extending from and approved by Einstein in the FLRW Metric, but assuming a totality that expands to whatever regime, there is an arrow of time AND causation.
I write about the Arrow in my book using a metaphysical scheme in which nothing is create or destroyed, and expansion simply proceeds from original compression existing infinitely with a potential to expand by conversion of rest mass to energy. It expands linearly in direct opposition to the linear distribution of its gravitational fields across it. It would not be “frozen” but it would be an original intact state relying on something as vague as pure symmetry to expand by a neutralizing wave from its centre. You will see in my book how causation follow inevitably sequentially from that event in a neutralized universe for aggregation of decaying neutrons eventually into every compound in nature – including humans.
Interestingly, I rely on the randomness of Pi in geometry, in locating centre from which to emanate a wave as the mans of keeping it intact but allowing it to neutralize. Angles to photons and gravitons in direct contact by shearing around a centre coordinate might approximate a centre using Pi within their angles. The analogy is with finding a sequence within Pi that somehow “stands for” a centre without Pi ever having an end or obvious sequence. A “satisfactory” sequence is found, with all the vagary and randomness that implies . How’s that for logic and invention?
WLC always asserts that since the universe must have been created by God, God is therefore good. I have never quite followed the leap from “created by God” to “God is good”. Even if the universe were fine-tuned for humanity, how would that imply the goodness of its creator? The Roman Colosseum was fine-tuned as well, but does that prove that the Romans were good to the poor creatures who struggled and died in its arena?
Also, WLC typically asserts something along the lines of “God gives us objective morality; without God, all morality is subjective.” But surely he, an educated man, recognizes that there is no single religion whose moral values are consistent, either across its sects or throughout its history. Surely he’s noticed that some Christian sects vilify homosexuality and other sects sanctify same-sex marriages. Surely he admits that, while slavery is taken for granted in the Bible, modern Christians find the practice abhorrent. Does he perceive these facts? And how does he square them with his assertion of absolute morality?
Since I myself have not yet been invited to debate WLC, perhaps you, Prof Carroll, could please ask him about some of these things for me. (And if WLC launches his “atheist[s] can’t know whether rape is moral or not” offensive, perhaps you could push back on that, too.)
Hello Sean,
WLC has wheeled out his 5 reasons for the existence of God for decades now, no opponent has ever said anything to change his view one bit, no matter how often they point out his selective logic, cherry picked science ( like AGW deniers ) and selective reading of the Bible.
Here are a few rebuttals:
1. Ontological argument- origin of the universe
A word game that does’nt support the existence of a God or that it was the cause. Also could be used to ‘prove’ existence of anything.
2. Fine tuning arguement
Another parlour game, its like a sales technique called incremental commitment,were step by step you are convinced that you must buy into that time-share apartment !.
Natural selection explains it, a chicken and egg argument, a God not proven to be involved.
3. Objective Moral Values
Maybe there are no OMVs
Or, if there are, nothing to do with a God
Why do theists think they have a monopoly on morals ?
4. Historical facts for the resurrection
No eyewitnesses, earliest accounts written after min 60 years of oral retellings , ie Chinese whispers .
Its hard enough proving what happened yesterday ( hence our legal industry )let alone 2000 years ago given all the vested interests and rewritings of the good book.
5. Immediate experience of God
So what ? , even WLC sometimes leaves this one out.
I agree with Mick D who recommends avoiding that traditional alternating format which WLC is so good at and instead break the pattern with direct conversation .
I find WLC to be most contemptable on the question of suffering, he seems to know God’s mind on so many matters yet on this issue we would be arrogant to presuppose the mind of God who obviously allows sensless suffering because of some benefit down the line, and anyway , they get to be with God which is the main aim.
WLC is best summed up by a quote from his book, Reasonable Faith:
‘ emotional faith is the way to God, not intellect or reason ‘ —you cannot win against such a person , you may as well debate a young earth creationist.
Good Luck
Surprised at the level of unwarranted vitriol against Craig. I wonder if it’s because religion isn’t “supposed to” employ reason in the eyes of many of its critics.
Best of luck to Sean Carroll. I hope he makes the debate compelling and thoughtful.
WLC like to argue for the existance of the Deist God, which isn’t the God he believes in. If you can turn the debate into a discussion of the existance of his God it might make for an interesting discussion. After all noone can prove/disprove the existance of the Deists God, but WLC’s God is another matter. Have fun!!
Hi Sean,
You said on twitter that WLC accepts evolution, well not really.
He always says he accept evolution, but he has a personal definition of evolution, that comes down to: a impossibly slow process that God “potentiated” every now and again to get the results we see all around us today. And that’s before we get to humans, we are seen to be far-far too impossible to have evolved “so quickly” and thus definitive evidence of God. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c
There’s a story about Sydney Smith, the Whig MP:
Passing through a bye-street behind St. Paul’s, Sydney Smith heard two women abusing each other from opposite houses. “They will never agree,” said he, “for they argue from different premises.”
Sean, I am on your side as always, and I know you are right and you certainly have that advantage and therefore you will win the debate. My bet is on you.
Great that Sean’s objective in this debate is to make a reasonable, positive case for naturalism, which (agreeing with aoflex above) is the best but defeasible evidence-based hypothesis about reality going. Were evidence to come in that reality is divided into the natural vs. supernatural, which I think is conceivable, we committed empiricists would change our minds about naturalism. Humility before the facts as best as we can ascertain them, http://www.naturalism.org/Close_encounters.htm
I doubt Dr. Carroll will be “crushed” though I suppose for some that will depend on how you make use of the debate format. For example, as much as I like Dr. Lawrence Krauss, his debate performance was not very good – mostly because he wasted too much time trying to lecture to the audience rather than addressing Dr. Craig’s points.
Yeah, I would recommend not doing that. If Dr. Craig misrepresents some theory in cosmology then call him out on it!!!
Additionally, I would avoid the use of the word “nothing” (again, much like Krauss does) because I would say it strikes me as highly misleading statement at best.
I also have to second the comment above- get Dr. Craig on the defensive about his cosmology. His tactics are usually always: Display facts x,y, and z- demand the atheist provide an alternative, and then debunk or raises doubts about the alternatives- therefore victory for God!
Don’t fall for this trap! Remember that Dr. Craig strategically makes use of his time to make response difficult for the skeptic.