As usual, there’s lots of debate over who won the Law/Craig debate. Instead of joining that, I though I’d do something niftier: I’ve mapped the whole of the debate in argument form, to give a more intuitive way of seeing how all the arguments and objections interact. Click through the prezis (there are several, as using just one means it chugs to a stop) and let me know what you think!
Stephen Law vs. William Lane Craig Debate: Argument map
This entry was posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, pseudo-scholarly, Rationality, Religion and tagged Apologetics, Craig, debate, ePoE, evidential problem of evil, evil god, evil god objection, Kalam, Kalam Cosmological argument, Law, Law/Craig, Law/Craig debate, minimal facts, moral argument, philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Resurrection argument, Stephen Law, William Lane Craig, WLC. Bookmark the permalink.
Hello,
This is a well done argument map, thanks for making it. I think it really helps to see debates in this way because just listening to them one forgets important points that have been made. Also, you made a good effort at being objective. Doesn’t the fact that Law’s evil god hypothesis is also supported by skeptical theism mean that skeptical theism fails, which is why Law thought it obviously refuted? Because the skeptical theism defense offers no reason to pick a good god over an evil god, just like other defenses such as the free will defense, would seem to be why Law rejects it. If skeptical theism works for both then it cannot overcome Law’s evidential argument from evil, right? And with Craig’s moral and resurrection arguments answered by Law, it seems that there is no reason to pick a good god over an evil god and so the weight is against Craig’s god existing. It would seem that Craig cannot just keep saying he is skeptical because a good god might have good reasons when that works just as well for someone to say that he is skeptical because an evil god might have good reasons. I think this might be what Law was trying to get at by simply saying that he kept playing “the mystery card,” which to Law failed to overcome evil god. I might be remembering incorrectly though. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Hello Peter,
I think Craig’s sceptical reply can work even if it applies equally to an evil-God. Craig can just say (and does say, in Reb1 and Reb2) that he is simply sceptical that moral appearances can say anything about the moral character of the creator. So he thinks gratuitous evil is no evidence against God, but also that gratuitous good is no evidence against evil-god. So the ePoE is just as good an argument as the ePoG – that is, no good at all! Of course, he thinks there *are* reasons that militate for God over evil-God, so that’s why he is a Theist.
So long as Craig consistently plays the mystery card for both God and evil-God, then showing you can ‘flip’ skeptical theism doesn’t mean it doesn’t answer Law’s argument. Law needed to rebut Craig’s scepticism directly: that we should take appearances of grat good as evidence against evil-God, and we should also take appearances of grat evil as evidence against god.
Very impressive Thrasymachus. Must have taken you ages to do, but it really pays off. I think you’ve done a wonderful job mapping out the debate. You’ve inspired me to attempt something similar for a class I have on monday (although it will undoubtedly take me all weekend).
I didn’t read the whole thing btw (just the opening statements I’m afraid – it is a school night after all!). One thing that did strike me is that I don’t think I would present the arguments in the same sequence you do. I generally prefer to present the basic argument first and only then turn to the supports and rebuttals of the premises. I find that easier to follow. But that’s a minor niggle (and your sequence may map better to the actual debate, if I recall correctly).
Anyway, I’m going to link to this on my blog.
Wow, what a fantastic job you have done! Thank you for this presentation!
Thanks for writing this up! That was a lot of fun, going back through and seeing it like that. My only suggestion would be to keep the line length short, some of the longer ones end up being very small unless you zoom in and drag the image back and forth as you read.
Again, thank you!
Lee.
Very nice job on the Prezi presentation.
“debates” like this are pointless. If either person has something they think will advance the industry, they should submit a paper to a peer review journal. These “debates” are usually nothing more than book tours, or supernaturalists trying to be seen as credible. I recommend people don’t waste their time with them.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
“If either person has something they think will advance the industry, they should submit a paper to a peer review journal.”
At least Craig has also published his thougts, also in several peer reviewed journals in the area of philosophy of religion:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main
“These “debates” are usually nothing more than book tours”
Of course debates are also “book tours”. Many scientific conferences are also some kind of advertising tours. If you think, you have good points, of course you will that so many as possible will know about them, and therefore you try to promote your ideas in so many channels as possible: in journals, in seminars, in debates, in newspapers etc.
Law has published his thoughts in several peer-reviewed journals too. The “Evil God Challenge” was published in Religious Studies a couple of years ago. And he has a couple of papers on Plantinga’s EAAN as well. (Not as many as Craig, I believe, but since you said “at least…”)
Sorry. When one argues “Does God exist?” it seems that there is an assumption, that one knows what “exist” means. That’s pretty naive. This table exists. Water exists. Democracy exists. Mood exists. Colour exists. Emprisonment exists. Peter Pan exists. the Iliad exists, etc. A person exists till she dies. Then she doesn’t, but her body still does, till it rots, then it’s components still do. If I say “that is a horse” and point to a picture of a horse, what exists? etc. In other words, it’s not a question with a provable answer. If God exists, Her hems are not touched by this question.
Same goes for the words Cause. Good and Evil — as though Nietzsche raved in vain! Objectivity! These terms, each of them black holes of the intellect — oceanic, abyssal, contested, disciplinary. One continues to bandy them as if it were clear and distinct counters on the cartesian checkerboard, and Descartes himself needs be able to follow the argument, knitted together with implicit rhetorical questions and assumptions.
Remember scholasticism? It’s like the theists are saying “there’s angels dancing on the head of this pin.”
and the atheists are patiently (or not) arguing “No guys, there are no angels on the head of that pin.” And all strangely crowding around this little pin.
There, got that off my chest.
The prezis are weird but fun.
Pingback: Let’s See What’s In the News Today: 11/06/2011 | Shaun Miller's Ideas