Price vs. Boyd in Los Angeles, CA

This debate centered around the discoverability and nature of the historical Jesus.  I’ll not summarize here, since Peter Kirby took copious and detailed notes which he made available online.  I will note, though, that this was one of the better debates I’ve heard on this particular topic, since both debaters were well-versed in the subject and managed to dig deep during the rebuttal periods, coming up with all manner of obscure facts and counterexamples which one does not usually hear in these sorts of events. 

Kudos to both debaters for remaining civil and focusing on the arguments at hand.  Definitely worth a listen or two.

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

[April 23, 2003]

 

 

 

Price vs. Craig in Columbus, OH

It is striking how much Craig’s modus operandi has gone unchanged for at least a decade or so. In this debate he makes his usual arguments (alleged facts established by scholarly consensus) while Price makes a few unusual ones.  Price mostly goes after Craig’s methodology, pointing out that it is impossible to do anything like objective scholarship if you start with one’s emotional commitment to Jesus as Christ and then work backwards to prove up the death, burial, empty tomb, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Towards the end, Price has a go at the hypothesis that the Markan narrative is cut from whole cloth, woven together from the threads of Pagan and Hebrew mythology.

Overall, Craig definitely comes off stronger, if only because he puts forth about two or three times as many historically substantive arguments (as opposed to methodological criticism bordering on circumstantial ad hominem). However, Craig also poisons the well a bit against Price, preemptively discrediting him as an unscholarly crank (as Craig also did against Carrier). Against this attack, Price makes a memorable comeback which I’ll not relate here.

I’ve no doubt that Price could have made a much stronger case against the historical reliability of the gospels, but he did not focus on making that case here. Also, he got slammed pretty hard during Q & A and had relatively little time to respond, although “Hey, it’s Jesus, take a whiff!” was memorably zingy. Overall, I found this event mildly disappointing, mostly because I expected Price to make a much stronger affirmative case in favor of historical skepticism.

• Unbeliever rating: 2.5 stars
  
  
• Believer rating: 3.5 stars
  
  
• Overall rating: 3.0 stars

Tabash vs. Craig

This debate is surely among the best I’ve heard, inasmuch as both debaters bring their strongest arguments and give very little ground.  Moreover, it may be the only debate in which William Lane Craig is evidently struggling to keep up.

Eddie Tabash’s opening argument can be summed up in a question from philosopher James Teller, “ Why should God expect us today to seriously consider something that God did not expect contemporaries of the event to seriously consider without a miracle?”  Tabash goes on to point out that it would be relatively easy for an all-powerful deity to reaccomplish the resurrection to a live television audience of billions, along with providing all manner of scientifically verifiable evidence.  This argument somewhat resembles arguments put forth by Hitchens and Ehrman, who contend that it makes no sense for a cosmic deity to reveal itself in only one time and place to a very small group of devout and uneducated followers.

Tabash then tears into Biblical morality, particularly the injunctions to commit genocide and rape, and then goes on to recapitulate and illustrate variations on the arguments from evil and unbelief.  He then attacks the idea of the afterlife, the soul, mind/body dualism, and a few other theistic mainstays to boot.  To a significant extent, Tabash borrows heavily from Craig’s own style here, throwing out so many assertions and questions that it is more or less impossible for one’s opponent to address them all during the relatively brief rebuttal period.  This tactic has the virtue of switch-footing one’s opponent, but it may confuse and lose the audience at the same time.  I had to rewind the audio a few times myself, and I was raised up north where speaking rapidly is none too taboo.

Craig makes his usual arguments, but without quite the force and polish that I’m used to hearing from him.  Possibly, this is because he is ten years younger than at present, or else it could be because he was a bit flustered at meeting another professional debater as practiced and well-prepared as himself.  He makes some downright kalamitous assertions in support of his cosmological argument, and manages to sound a bit silly in doing so, at least to those of us who studied physics above the 101 level.  Craig also tries to sneak in Scripture at various points in his arguments and rebuttals, while at the same time averring that he is not required to defend Biblical inerrancy.  Ultimately, though, Craig does make a few strong arguments against the universality of Humanist ethics.  

Unbeliever rating: 4.75 stars
Believer rating: 4.25 stars
Overall rating: 4.5 stars

 

Provine vs. Johnson in Palo Alto, CA

The debate between Will Provine and Philip Johnson features an unfortunate excess of the circumstantial ad hominem.  Indeed, both speakers lead with this fallacy in their respective opening statements, but whereas Provine moves on to start bringing in evidence, Johnson relies primarily on this fallacy to make his persuasive arguments.  Johnson goes on to make the case that if something looks complex and functional, it must therefore be designed, harking all the way back to Paley.

Mostly, Johnson and Provine hash over the usual arguments for and against evolution, but there were a few fascinating moments.  Provine briefly but forcefully attacks the idea free will as an excuse for retributive thinking, resulting in untold suffering, and launches a couple other flanking attacks on supernaturalism which seem fairly far afield from the subject matter.  Johnson makes a few arguments which make it sound as if he was seriously considering launching the intelligent design movement posthaste, if only he can find a math geek and maybe a lab geek to get things rolling.

What makes this debate stand out from others is that the speakers were good-naturedly ribbing each other throughout. This was explained early on when they indicated that they are personal friends and intend to go out for a beer afterwards.  Overall, I’d give it a 4.0 or so.

Flew vs. Warren in Houston, TX

I’ve finally made it through the Flew / Warren debate, and yes, it really is nearly eight hours in length.  I’m here to tell you that you can safely skip this one.  It was as if philosopher and a theologian went into a crowded bar and engaged in a drinking game, the rules of which required pounding down a pint of bitter every time either one equivocated or fell back upon statements of faith.  As you can imagine, the skeptical philosopher becomes more abstruse over time, even as the theologian gets ever more preachy, abusive, and hysterical.  All told, it is safe to skip this one and move on to a debate in which the theists put up a more convincing argument than those explored herein. 

Overall: 2.5 stars

 

 

 

Retro-blogging debates on theism / atheism / agnosticism and related matters

This blog exists solely to address debates and arguments about belief and unbelief about theism and related matters. My other blog will henceforth pursue other matters entirely.

I'll be going through the debates listed here at a fairly steady clip, or until I weary of the excercise. Each post will be magically back-dated and retro-posted to the day of the debate itself.