Posted: Oct 30, 2011 3:35 am
Another interesting feature of the debate was that Dr Craig only presented three arguments for God rather than his usual five. He presented the kalam cosmological argument, the moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus, omitting his other two regulars: the arguments from design and from personal experience.
Dropping the design argument is understandable. The only thing it delivers that the kalam doesn't is a personal god, whereas the kalam doesn't get you past deism (Craig's addendum to the kalam argument, that asserts a personal god, is the weakest part of it, and always seems to me a very rushed and obvious last-minute bolt-on). If I were to choose one of the two I'd probably go with design for that reason, but Craig is so strongly associated with the kalam and knows it, and all the related issues, so well, that he probably preferred to choose that. He gets the personal-god bit from his moral argument anyway.
Dropping the argument from personal experience is more intriguing. Craig doubtless knows it's not going to carry any weight with anybody that's not already a believer, but that's not the point. I think the argument is a defensive measure to shore up believers, in case the opponent makes any telling points against the other arguments. Effectively he's saying to believers: “even if the other guy makes some good points, that shouldn't affect your faith, because you know Jesus personally, so the rest is really just academic”. I think that's a wise strategic move on his part, and I'm very curious to know the reason why he didn't include it on this occasion. Does it say something about what he thinks will resonate with a British audience compared to an American one, or is it an evolution in his thinking about the optimal debating tactics?
I don't think recordings of the “empty chair” debate with Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson are available yet but, when they are, that may cast further light on this issue.
Dropping the design argument is understandable. The only thing it delivers that the kalam doesn't is a personal god, whereas the kalam doesn't get you past deism (Craig's addendum to the kalam argument, that asserts a personal god, is the weakest part of it, and always seems to me a very rushed and obvious last-minute bolt-on). If I were to choose one of the two I'd probably go with design for that reason, but Craig is so strongly associated with the kalam and knows it, and all the related issues, so well, that he probably preferred to choose that. He gets the personal-god bit from his moral argument anyway.
Dropping the argument from personal experience is more intriguing. Craig doubtless knows it's not going to carry any weight with anybody that's not already a believer, but that's not the point. I think the argument is a defensive measure to shore up believers, in case the opponent makes any telling points against the other arguments. Effectively he's saying to believers: “even if the other guy makes some good points, that shouldn't affect your faith, because you know Jesus personally, so the rest is really just academic”. I think that's a wise strategic move on his part, and I'm very curious to know the reason why he didn't include it on this occasion. Does it say something about what he thinks will resonate with a British audience compared to an American one, or is it an evolution in his thinking about the optimal debating tactics?
I don't think recordings of the “empty chair” debate with Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson are available yet but, when they are, that may cast further light on this issue.