Ok, the debate is on! Bill Craig and Bill Cooke
16 June 2008
40 Comments
Click the flyer for an enlarged version.
Bill Craig Press Kit available here.
Full itinerary on this earlier post.
Bill Cooke is apparently a really nice guy, and is vice president of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists. Google for NZARH, but watch out you don’t get the New Zealand Association of Registered Hairdressers 
Check Bill Craig out at www.reasonablefaith.org.
Awesome! I hope this debate is recorded. This would be the second debate playing off of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” that Craig has done (the first was with Lewis Wolpert last year). Perhaps sooner or later, a debate with the man himself, Richard Dawkins, will come to pass.
I understand that Craig wanted to debate Dawkins but Dawkins said that “it may look good on his CV, but not on mine”.
Nah, Dawkins is a chicken and is scared of Craig imo. I mean, Craig has debated Peter Atkins who is a mate of Dawkins, same university etc…
Nowhere on those pictures can I find what city the debate is in.
Admin…Dawkins said that “it may look good on his CV, but not on mine”.
Well…it WOULD look good on Craig’s CV!
He can go around saying how he debated with the famous Richard Dawkins (and no doubt won, of course).
Is Dawkins going to go around saying “I debated Craig”?
Why would anybody care?
Least of all Dawkins.
Oh Admin, speaking of chickens….
When do you suppose you’ll have some free time to explain how Intelligent Design is a scientific theory?
“I understand that Craig wanted to debate Dawkins but Dawkins said that “it may look good on his CV, but not on mine” ”
Dawkins took that punchline from his Oxford colleague which was a way in saying no in reply to ‘creationists’ who challenged to debate him. The thing is, WLC is not a creationist, at least the YEC type for which the line was meant. Also when Dawkins said this he also added he had “never heard of WLC”. I found that hard to believe but being the charitable guy I am, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Well now that Dawkins has heard of him and now recognizes that he is a “widely respected apologist for the Christian religion” (quoting RD), he can’t use that excuse again when he’s challenged to debate him.
One other thing. Cedric you said “Well…it WOULD look good on Craig’s CV!”
Why would Craig even add this to his CV. He has debated far more reputable scholars and philosophers when it comes to the question of God’s existence. The only thing this debate would do for Craig is draw more attention to him from the general public (a good thing).
Did you not see this post Cedric:
http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/william-lane-craig-new-zealand-tour-2008/
Craig is basically #1 in the opinion of Moreland and Zacharias. These guys are also right up there, so there judgment is pretty good imo.
The fact is, Craig is one of the best and if Dawkins were to debate anyone, it probably should be Craig. His declining says something; you make up your mind what that is.
Cedric: Re ID and science. 2 things …
(i) My wife will tell you that pushing me has the opposite-to-desired effect.
(ii) If you are so eager, you are welcome to begin by defining what a scientific theory is. I could even add it as a separate post! Perhaps (but unlikely) we could agree on something foundational to this argument
Realize that as soon as define it to include natural-only explanations, the discussion ends, because you would be refusing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Over 2 u
Good idea admin. I’m happy to argue on your side, if you want. (It’s a good learning exercise)
Thanks!
You should go to one of the debates Simon and buy a couple of books from each perspective
Well it would help if someone would tell me where the heck they are! It doesn’t say!
I assume they’re in Auckland which is no use to me.
I propose using the definition of a scienctific theory as “A successful model of reality” where ‘success’ is in predicting things/falsification. Lol, even while writing this I can see we are doomed admin!
ChristianJR4 said…”The only thing this debate would do for Craig is draw more attention to him from the general public (a good thing).”
Well, yes. Exactly.
Admin said…”Craig is basically #1 in the opinion of Moreland and Zacharias.”
Who?
Admin said…”If you are so eager, you are welcome to begin by defining what a scientific theory is.”
Flashback to the turn of last century…
Albert Einstien:
Gentlemen, I wish to proudly announce that I have developed a new scientific theory that will change the way we understand physics forever.
(The members of the Nobel Committee shuffle in their seats with excitement…)
Nobel Chairman: Do go on Dr Einstien. A new scientific theory? Please tell us all about it.
Albert Einstien: (…says nothing…)
Nobel Chairman: Please Dr Einstien. Begin.
Tell us about your new scientific theory.
Albert Einstien: Um, what do YOU mean by “scientific theory”?
Why should I have to define it?
YOU’RE the one making the claim that ID is a scientific theory, remember?
Or do you mean that when you say the phrase “scientific theory” that it’s just meaningless babble to you: that you don’t have a solid understanding of what the phrase means in the English language?
You’re the one who boldly claims to have the “myriad” of supporting evidence.
Why are you keeping it all such a secret?
You make the claim, you provide the evidence to support your claim.
That’s the way it works.
Any standard scientific definition of what a scientific theory is would work just fine.
Ken provided one on his post.
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/intelligent-design-and-scientific-method/
It’s even got a nice little flow chart to help out the layman who fell asleep in science class.
How hard could it be?
“Realize that as soon as define it to include natural-only explanations…”
Are you saying “natural-only” when you really want to say “non-supernatural”?
If you have a way of accomodating supernatural data into a scientific theory…then share.
Please.
Or are you saying that talking about Intelligent Design is the same thing as talking about the supernatural?
How about this one I heard from Stephen Meyers:
1. Only intelligent beings are observed to be capable of writing abstract code.
2. DNA is abstract code.
3. DNA must have been written by intelligent beings.
The simplest explanation for DNA is intelligence, and therefore the default explanation. There might be some evidence for a non-intelligent origin, but occam’s razor dictates that intelligence is the best explanation.
By the way, Cedric, I finished that book (been sick the past few) It was more interesting than I thought it would be. I didn’t know that glosolalia has pre-christian pagan roots!
And i was interested in a psychologist that Randi quotes who was talking about healing meetings being a ‘drama’ involving both the healer and the healees. The healees want so much to believe that they will resist any reality being shown to them (and are they ever hostile to reality!!!)
The one downside of the book is that it will give people a somewhat biased view of faith healers. You see, I have met some faith healers who apart from deluding people, and themselves, into actually believing in the healing, they are otherwise harmless. Whereas the ones in the book are all the really ‘big’ ones, and they are big by virtue of the fact that they are also prepared to manipulate and lie to get money via MASS mailouts. Because, you see, the ones who are…less evil, are not going to manipulate via mail, and because they don’t have the money(via mail) to get on TV, they stay small.
So anyway, by far the ones in his book are the worst ones, and this misrepresents the set of faith healers out there somewhat. But anyway, it was a good read, thanks.
Simon, I’m very glad you liked the book.
Thank you again for taking me up on my offer.
I wanted to order your book today at my local bookstore but they were closed by the time I got there.
However, I will get it!
I know you you said that it would be ok to borrow it from the library but…a deal’s a deal.
About your comment on the less evil, small-time ‘healers’…
I would suggest that these people are part of the problem. They help promote the ‘faith healer’ mystique.
I discovered Randi and his work (via his web-site) by accident.
He made some passing reference to acupuncture as being quackery.
I was convinced (at that time) that acupuncture was legitimate.
Being the kind of guy that I am, I tried to dig up as much hard scientific evidence as I could that acupuncture was absolutely genuine.
This lead me down into a long and horribly fascinating journey into the world of nostrums, fraud and general medical quackery.
After quite a while, I had to admit defeat.
I had been wrong for many years about acupuncture. It was a total crock.
I felt very sheepish.
The more articles I read about Randi and his organisation, the better I understood his methodology and his motivation to do what he does.
Not only does the JREF expose all sorts of nonsense, they also try to explain WHY the nonsense started in the first palce.
They get into the history of it and try and figure out why otherwise normal people will believe wierd things.
If you have some free time, please check out the site on occasion. They’ve got extensive archives and an impressive video library.
(There are also plenty of videos of Randi on youtube.com)
Breathairians, dowsing, suicide cults, theraputic touch, homeopathy and astrologers are among my ‘favourite’ subjects.
As I once said before, I’m a big fan.
“I assume they’re in Auckland which is no use to me.”
Do not assume. See an earlier post for details. They are Auckland, Wellington, Palmerston North, Tauranga from memory.
Yes, I would agree that small time faith healers are also a detriment to society, just not as much so as the ones in the book.
Here’s a conjecture I think about from time to time from many perspectives, not just acupuncture:
Many people find benefit in acupuncture which, as you and I know must be entirely psychosomatic. Nevertheless it works!!! People actually find it useful! And at base, like it or not, we are all psychosomatic animals; the placebo effect works on everybody.
Here’s the kicker: For many people, that placebo is religion.
(Yes, yes I know all about it’s evils – don’t bother repeating them
) Jonathan Haidt’s The Happiness Hypothesis is the….4th next book I have in line to read. I suspect his book will deal with the purely pragmatic (placebo) effects of religion, so should be interesting (He was a speaker at Beyond Belief 2 – you might want to look him up i think he has some good stuff on the web)
“Here’s the kicker: For many people, that placebo is religion.”
Oh but I agree.
I seem to remember Dawkins (Dennet perhaps?) saying something about how religions do inspire people and encourage them to do positive things.
(Though he did stress that he was NOT saying that therefore there were gods.)
I’m not sure but perhaps it was a TED lecture. I’ll see if I can track it down.
Jonathan Haidt? Hmm, well there’s another book I’ll have to buy.
(sigh)
Don’t have to buy them. Just get ‘em out of the library.
That’s interesting Cedric. I Would have agreed with you about homeopathy and probably we would agree on many other things such as star signs and so on.
A friend read a book recently on the healing of a woman by the name of, um, can’t remember, but she was healed apparently thru Kathryn Kuhlman (?)
Well she wasn’t.
And you will never, ever find evidence that warrants the hypothesis that faith-healing or prayer works.
There was once a time where I would have even expected evidence to show that prayer works. But, [un?]fortunately, I am too introspectively honest. I actually looked at the world around me rather than play fool to my agendas.
There was that huge Templeton Foundation study into prayer, remember?
And you will never, ever find evidence that warrants the hypothesis that faith-healing or prayer works.
Does proving a universal negative ring any bells?
No. But I assume that its gist will allow me to calim all manner of absurd things despite an abhorrent lack of evidence….Russell’s teapot etc.
I just realized that Bill Cooke had an internet debate with the then Muslim philosophy student named Imran Aijaz (Aijaz has probably now received his doctorate).
The debate can be read here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_cooke/cooke-aijaz/
What’s interesting is that the Muslim student doesn’t pull any of the traditional ridiculous arguments we often see from many Muslim apologists today (like Naik). Rather this was much more “high level” type argumentation. In fact Aijaz used William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological argument and also argued from the Fine Tuning of the universe.
On the flip side, however, Dr. Bill Cooke largely ignored his opponent’s case and was surprisingly caustic, arrogant and insulting to his opponent. Even Richard Carrier in his review of the debate commented on his “insulting” approach. I won’t at all be surprised if Dr. Cooke has the same type of attitude or insulting style when he debates Craig. Hopefully Craig goes into this debate prepared ahead of time for such an approach.
Thanks 4 the info and links from your YouTube site, ChristianJR4.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Christianjr4
Really good to see Craig debating Muslims. This is undoubtedly going to become an important factor as more Muslims enter the West, and gain access to Western sources and thinking.
Full debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7297A28D87C53BE7
Another debater of great standing is James White: http://www.aomin.org. Most of his debates have been against the cults but more recently with Muslims.
Here if the woman apparently dramatically and miraculously healed:
http://deloreswinder.com/
I don’t understand your point, admin!
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=astrology+works&btnG=Search&meta=
I was hoping Cedric would tell me something about her from the skeptics pov.
Can I just ask: What does “Sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists” mean. Is ‘elusive’ a misspelling of ‘exclusive’, and do the exclusive brethren really sponsor a website? Surely the web is even worse than TV!!
Else what Christian org. would joke about being ‘right wing fundamentalists’? That would be like a Darwinist calling themself a Darwinist! Hah!
There is no such thing as a “darwinist”. Cedric said so, didn’t he?
Ah….yes, that’s the purpose to my comparison. So are you going to ignore my question? Is it a spelling mistake or who are the “Elusive Brethren”?
Funny how it bugs people soooo much
Bugs people? I’m just wondering what on earth it means. If it’s there to bug people, well…I don’t understand why you’d just want to bug people.
Dawkins is hardly going to debate somebody he has publically called a theologian who justifies genocide.
William Lane Craig will no doubt have more whispers from the Holy Spirit.
Do all Christians hear these voices in their head?
Steven, you are talking gibberish. I asked you to show me WHERE Craig said what you claimed — so where is it? From your worldview, what is wrong with genocide anyway?
Voices in heads? Are u being sarcastic???
I went to this debate.
Dr. Cooke didn’t really engage in the debate and he seemed to give up halfway through. He didn’t answer Dr. Craig’s points and even stopped his own rebuttal early. At one point he seemed to accuse Dr. Craig of being too rational, which is odd considering the society Dr, Cooke heads up.
I think any Christian there would have been encouraged in his or her faith, both by Dr. Craig’s arguments and by Dr. Cooke’s inability to counter them. Also I would assume that many atheists there would have had their faith shaken.
Overall I was impressed at the good natured mood of both the debaters and the crowd – it was actually fun being there, and entertaining too.
The debate should be up on YouTube soon, and is worth watching.
Ordering whole tribes of men, women, and children to be killed is wrong.
Craig says it is right, if his god allegedly ordered it.
Craig says the Holy Spirit whispers to his spirit.
A whisper is a voice, so Craig is saying he hears voices in is head.
What does Craig experience when the Holy Spirit whispers to him?
Craig says he has the ‘witness’ of the Holy Spirit.
What does a witness do except speak?
So how does Craig hear this ‘witness’?
Christians like JP Moreland claim that thoughts are planted in their head…..
Here is an interesting article describing how Christians hear voices in their head
http://christiannews.co.nz/2005/why-do-we-preach-a-foundation-for-preaching-part-three/
‘John Calvin described the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as absolutely necessary in order for the individual to receive the Word:’
How does the Holy Spirit testify except by using words? And how do you hear these words ‘internally’ except by listening to the voices in your head?
Steven Carr does this on every website about Craig. He won’t engage in debate and instead just post something about Craig that is designed to make him look bad to people reading it.
“Dawkins is hardly going to debate somebody he has publically called a theologian who justifies genocide.”
Dawkins already denied having a debate with Craig way before he ever wrote that article so it he clearly has other reasons.
“Do all Christians hear these voices in their head?”
Are all Atheists as arrogant and insulting as you are? No but you give Atheists a bad rep and add to their already poor rep that they have in the United States and elsewhere.
[...] http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/debate-bill-craig-and-bill-cooke/ [...]
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT