Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Prominent Brit atheist Polly Toynbee pulls out of debate with apologist William Lane Craig

Categories
Atheism
Culture
Intelligent Design
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From bethinking.org, we learn:

The President of the British Humanist Association has pulled out of debating renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and prominent critic of religion, readily agreed in April to debate Craig on the Existence of God but withdrew her involvement last week saying “I hadn’t realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig’s debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum”.

– “British Humanists take to the Bunkers” (August 2, 2011)

The reader is asked to believe that she had no idea what debating Craig would be like, even though his debates are up on YouTube. In that case, just how she got where she is today is under wide speculation.

Also, prominent Brit atheist A. C. Grayling won’t debate morality with Craig:

Meanwhile, A.C. Grayling, who this year published a humanist ‘bible’ called The Good Book has refused to debate with Craig on the foundations of atheist morality. With secular Britain beset by moral difficulties, not least among politicians, police and the press, this seems to be a neglect of his moral and intellectual duty. Grayling stated that he would rather debate “the existence of fairies and water-nymphs”.

– “British Humanists take to the Bunkers” (August 2, 2011)After the world got a look at the flower of British yoof, raised on secularism, rampaging through the streets and wiping out small shopkeepers while the police look on, we can hardly be surprised he’d want to punt that one.

Curiously,

While Toynbee is President of the British Humanist Association, Dawkins and Grayling are both Vice-Presidents. The BHA describes one of its core values as “engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence”.

And it is the evidence that is betraying them, on all sides now.

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

Comments
You jest, I'm sure, but citing Aquinas will not help you in logically defeating the argument itself. You would have to deal directly with the argument. How would you do it? How would you deal directly with the Kalam cosmological argument without citing another? You'd have to use logic that is as sound as the argument itself; or you would have to demonstrate how the argument is not sound. Again, how would you do it?CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
I was commenting only on that YouTube clip, where he actually says (does he not? I didn't make a transcript) that is primary reason for his belief is the evidence of the Holy Spirit within himself, and that if other evidence ceased to support this believe, he's still have the conviction of the Holy Spirit and trust that eventually evidence supporting his position would come up. I'm paraphrasing him from memory though. I was a bit surprised. I get his emails circulars, and had never read that before.Elizabeth Liddle
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
I'd probably cite Aquinas :)Elizabeth Liddle
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Please do if they ask, Liz. How would you counter the Kalam?CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
"...all other ground is sinking sand." Christ the Solid Rock.CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Exactly! (I like this new reply feature. It makes things a whole lot easier.)CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
You know he's not saying that, Lizzie. He's saying that faith is above the shifting sands of what counts as evidence. For example; if one were to rely solely on the Turin shroud as evidence for the resurrection, and somehow the Turin shroud were to be shown to be a 15th Century artifact; this does not discount the resurrection; it discounts only discounts the artifact. On the other hand let's take something that might directly affect faith that is not dependent on an artifact. Let's say that scientists have come up with an actual scientific demonstration for how rm+ns can account for CSI. This does not affect faith that God is the ultimate and necessary first cause leading to the processes (whatever they may be) that can account for CSI. This is so because Craig's foremost argument is the Kalam Cosmological argument, which depends on first principles of reason. It's the first principles; which most strongly support theism, and not necessarily the physical "evidences," which can be interpreted differently at different times, and can actually be countered by new evidences. What he's actually saying then is that God transcends our shifting understanding of nature and the cosmos. Faith should be such that our understanding of God does not shift with new ideas about nature and the cosmos, because unlike our understanding, God does not change. God is not a scientific conclusion, but a conclusion on a higher order than science; that of the first principles of logic upon which scientific reasoning depends. Scientific reasoning can inform us about God, but it ultimately does not lead to a full understanding of who God is. Craig's contention is that God Himself in the form of the Holy Spirit is more dependable than our own reasoning; no matter how empirical. It would be question begging to suggest in light of this that any materialistic insight could provide us with answers regarding God, and this is why people like Dawkins are demonstrably wrong about theism. Materialism depends solely on empiricism, which is incomplete; even empiricists acknowledge that it is. And if God is who the theists believe He is, it would be expected that He transcends that which is only of a tentative nature such as empirical science. I think you would do well to understand Craig a little more clearly than to jump to such ridiculous and uninformed conclusions.CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
I'd volunteer, if they asked me.Elizabeth Liddle
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Not basing your faith on the "shifting sands of evidence" is what he is saying. This is not the same as ignoring evidence. Meaning theories come and go and will continue to do so, but a singular constant has remained that has surpassed them all in the Word of Christ, relevant for the past 2000 years and will remain so for the next 2000. The majority of scientists are not even relevant in their own generation. This model fits all the data. This is how science works.junkdnaforlife
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ Golly. So if evidence contradicts faith, the evidence must be wrong? Seriously?Elizabeth Liddle
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Perhaps Polly Toynbee saw this video of the last time Dawkins got anywhere near Dr. Craig, and wanted no part of that type of precise, methodical, deconstruction of the logic of her atheistic arguments against Theism: Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI ================ Oxford Atheist Calls Richard Dawkins "Coward" for Not Debating William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg ===================== Jim Croce - Bad Bad Leroy Brown (Midnight Special 1973) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjPCg5HtH1Ebornagain77
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
"Grayling stated that he would rather debate 'the existence of fairies and water-nymphs.'" Perhaps that's because fairies and water-nymphs don't offer anything to issues of morality; so the argument that belief in the God of the bible would be the same lacks a certain cohesion.CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2011
August
08
Aug
14
14
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
1 2