While on the subject of PZ Myers, an atheist at my blog stated that William Lane Craig uses the Gish Gallup technique and, therefore, Myers is justified in refusing to debate Craig. A couple of atheist sources, such as a Discover Magazine blog post entitled, "Debating William Lane Craig",[1] propose that Craig uses this technique. In his post, "Standing up to William Lane Craig" Myers lauds Richard Dawkins for refusing to debate Craig for moral reasons.[2] In his post, "Why I will not Debate William Lane Crag" Myers states in the comments that he would refuse to debate Craig in any format, verbal or written.[3] I'd like to offer several reasons why the Gish excuse should be considered an extremely poor excuse for Myers to refuse to debate Craig. Gish galloping definition:
The Gish gallop debate technique refers to the debate style of Duane Gish and the results of the debates. Gish debated atheists at high schools and colleges that may not have had the best debate officiator. He debated on the side of creationism and presented a number of points in favor of his view while opponents claimed they did not have enough time to answer all of his points and, thus, they claim they lost debates because they simply didn't have enough time.
1. PZ's illogical post title. First of all, the title of PZ's defense of Dawkins is a sign that something is wrong. Preemptively finding excuses for not debating someone in any format is not "standing up to" someone. This is an example of Orwellian Newspeak. If a boxer claimed, "I'm standing up to Joe Boxer. I'm stating plainly that I'm refusing to fight him because he uses a flurry of punches and I don't." Or, "I'm standing up to Mr. Chess Expert. I'm stating plainly that I refuse to play him in chess because he plays aggressively, and I don't." Stating excuses for avoiding officiated contests is not and never will be "standing up to" someone.
2. PZ refuses to debate in written form. If PZ Myers believes that live debates don't allow enough time to answer, as Gish critics have claimed, then a text debate would allow for ample time. In preemptively refusing to debate Craig in any format, verbal or written, PZ has eliminated the Gish excuse as a viable one.
3. Professional debates offer predetermined parameters. In a formal live debate, contestants may predetermine the type of subject matter and the scope of the debate. If PZ finds five debate points too difficult to handle, he could request a debate on one or two points. Refusing to debate altogether based on "too much information" should therefore be considered a disingenuous claim.
4. Craig offers standard subject matter. Anyone remotely familiar with William Lane Craig knows that he has five logical arguments for God's existence which have been published in book form and have been used extensively in live debates. If a critic has any logical points to make with any or all of these arguments they may be immediately presented to refute the argument. The fact is, however, atheists tend to avoid logical rebuttals and offer "impressionistic" answers instead, as noted at the Discover blog. Thus, they tend to lose debates.
5. PZ Myers offers a stream of consciousness. As opposed to Crag, to my knowledge PZ Myers has published no books or articles outlining a logical defense of atheism. So, there is no way in which to anticipate and prepare for Myers' arguments. And so if anyone could be accused of debating "on the fly" in a Gish gallop stream of unpredictable information, it would be Myers.
Conclusion
The fact that atheists go to extremes to make up invalid excuses to avoid debate is in and of itself is evidence that atheism is illogical and helps to underscore the truth of God's existence. It can be difficult to tell when a person is simply not aware of true facts, is in a state of denial, or is intentionally deceiving others. People who would claim the Gish gallop technique is an excuse for refusing to debate Christian in any form probably fall into one of the above three categories. It's just not a valid excuse.
The Gish gallop question reminds me of the painting of the galloping horse George Bush was fond of describing to his guests. Bush told visitors it was a painting of a Methodist Minister on a mission to share truth and he named his book, A Chard to Keep after the painting. But, in reality, this painting was discovered to be a portrayal of a horse thief escaping for his life.[4] I would have to point out that any atheist professors who would make the Gish gallop excuse as a reason for not debating certain Christians in any format would not have a logical reason for doing so. It would more seem to be the case that they are attempting to escape for their academic lives. Whether or not Bush is a Christian, God only knows. But considering the amount of laws he's broken, and the fact he and his cabinet insulated themselves from any questioning, these are not signs of the kind of "good fruit" that testifies of sincerity and genuine salvation.[5] In a similar manner, if an atheist is shown to regularly break laws of logic and refuses to have his or her ideas cross examined in a debate with someone who understands logical laws, we probably should not assume the atheist in question is a sincere and genuine truth bearer. Because truth and logic are objective and not relative, we do have a means of discerning truth and those interested in such truth will be open to logical questions.
References
[1] Discover Magazine, Debating William Lane Craig, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/05/debating-william-lane-craig/
[2] Pharyngula, Standing up to William Lane Craig
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/20/standing-up-to-william-lane-craig/
[3] Pharyngula, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/ - "If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - No. Why? "appalled at his words" (8 November 2011 at 7:19 pm)
[4] The Guardian, painting fit for a president, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/01/usa.art
[5] Templestream, Christian Hugs and Handcuffs for George W. Bush, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/02/christian-hugs-and-handcuffs-for.html
Thumb image: It was originally commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post by artist W H D Koerner for a story "The Slipper Tongue" showing a horse thief escaping a lynch mob.
Tags: definition of Gish gallop, PZ Myers refuses to debate William Lane Craig, PZ Myers fears debate with Craig,William Lane Craig - Gish gallop, evidence atheism is illogical
Related
This is rubbish Rick.
ReplyDeleteIt is far easier to make a claim than to refute it. Even in written debates, there are usually word limits which would limit the capacity to respond.
For example, you mention Craig's 5 arguments for God (and his 4 historical "facts"). ALL of these have been undermined a number of times. None of them gets you to where Craig wants them to go.
Yet, he still uses them in live debates because they have emotional impact. A Christian like yourself hearing Craig claim to have shown the Christian God more likely than not (or making claims about 4 historical "facts" for the resurrection, which are nothing of the sort), is going to be comforted.
For an opponent of Craig to simply state (as they really should) that none of Craigs arguments succeeds, all of them have dubious premises, etc, would not do anything to sway the likes of you. You would want a detailed rebuttal, correct?
And yet that is exactly what debates, especially live debates, don't really allow (at least in written debates you can reference other material, but the person reading it would have to follow it up and be able to assess it, which most people are not willing or able to do).
By way of example, I present yourself and Craig's Kalam argument. You *still* appear to accept it, even though you've had the flaws pointed out to you (even by one of the Cosmologists who Craig cites as evidence in his favour).
Not debating Craig takes the wind out of his sails, and requires him to play on a more level playing field - that of the Academy. And there Craig does not fare well at all :-)
This is a Havok Spam Reply,
DeleteIn the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, I've created a standardized reply for certain people who seem incapable of carrying on civilized and respectful discourse.
For the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable and pointless to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics. There are 2 reasons why this is Dawkins' implied position, as noted in my article. First, the parenthetical context of Dawkins' view:(though [I'm still] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]).
Second, the meaning of the word "though" relates to its context in a sentence and not just as a word definition."It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."
Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, his need to resort to unsubstantiated slander and lies, instead of valid points and arguments, represents the frustration of many atheists. Second, his consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
Hovok's post raised reasonable questions about the level of rebuttal necessary to refute WLC's points.
DeleteA syllogism is a logic based comment on the world which does not require supporting physical evidence. That’s why WLC can get away with a loose, but fiendishly clever, framework of cherry picked references. Plus a simple syllogism requires a huge amount of discussion to dissect.
For instance does *anybody* really truly believe that biblical scholarship can be properly expressed in a one hour discussion. No, a debate demands simplifications, generalities and aphorisms. And for that WLC is superbly equipped
Rick, if you're so damn insistent on making atheists out to be cowards because some of them won't debate your hero, Craig, then why don't you knuckle up and appear on Alex's show?
ReplyDeleteReynold,
Delete1. I prefer written debates, as I've stated many times. This way there is a clear record of the points that can be easily referenced. Plus, there is time to contemplate questions and answers, as opposed to just making off the cuff remarks.
2. I prefer to debate people who know how to act in a civilized and respectful manner. Botten isn't even mature enough to keep from swearing in his comments when asked to:
As for your complaint that I swear....boo fucking hoo! Grow up, Rick.
1. I prefer written debates, as I've stated many times. This way there is a clear record of the points that can be easily referenced. Plus, there is time to contemplate questions and answers, as opposed to just making off the cuff remarks.
ReplyDeleteAren't the debates that you're harrassing Myers et al about with William Craig also verbal debates, which you don't like?
2. I prefer to debate people who know how to act in a civilized and respectful manner. Botten isn't even mature enough to keep from swearing in his comments when asked to:
So Alex cusses. So what? How is that a "logical reason" not to face him?
You demand of Myers et al who don't want to debate Craig because they don't like him some sort of "logical" reason, claiming that it's because their positions are indefensible or something if they don't debate Craig. Never mind that Myers has beaten other xians in debate...
The guy that PZ is debating at that link is an idiot!
DeleteHow can he feel justified in writing books about evolution when he is so damn ignorant about the topic. He parades around ridiculous and long refuted canards as if they were justified criticisms, and take umbrage at PZ correcting him.
Reynold: So Alex cusses. So what? How is that a "logical reason" not to face him?
ReplyDeleteI'd say that Craig's apologetics for genocide and infanticide are FAR worse than a couple of "cuss words", and a far better reason to avoid debate, but Rick appears more than happy to hang on Craig's every word :-)
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteAren't the debates that you're harrassing Myers et al about with William Craig also verbal debates, which you don't like?
- Myers refuses to debate Craig in any format. That's a cop out.
I never wrote I refuse to debate people like Alex Botten who are too immature to stop swearing at a person's blog when asked, I simply prefer to debate more mature individuals.
Botten is welcome to debate me here any time he feels up to it, though, as noted, it seems he disqualifies himself in that he is uninterested in simply abiding by the ground rules of my blog.
I generally won't honor a debate format with people who consistently lie, slander or swear. If someone decides he or she needs to swear in order to validate himself, as apparently is the case with Botten, then he disqualifies himself.
Is it possible for Alex to carry on a written debate without swearing? Probably. But somehow he will need to get over his ego in order to do it. This could very well be the most difficult obstacle.
As I pointed out, or maybe not: Why should Myers debate Craig?
ReplyDeleteCraig is a professional debater. Myers isn't. What does Craig know about biology?
I never wrote I refuse to debate people like Alex Botten who are too immature to stop swearing at a person's blog when asked, I simply prefer to debate more mature individuals.
Nice semantics there. It's one hair away from the same thing. Well, since you only "prefer" to debate "mature" people then, I say: Buck up and do it then, or shall we accuse you of "copping" out, just because you refuse to debate one particular atheist?
Just as Myers won't debate one particular xian, even though he's debated some others?
I generally won't honor a debate format with people who consistently lie, slander or swear. If someone decides he or she needs to swear in order to validate himself, as apparently is the case with Botten, then he disqualifies himself.
You talking about slander is funny, considering the bullshit you're throwing Myers way. Also, you are defending lies with that Samuel situation, simply because it's your god who authorized it.
Is it possible for Alex to carry on a written debate without swearing? Probably. But somehow he will need to get over his ego in order to do it. This could very well be the most difficult obstacle.
Uh, you're the one who's running all around the net challenging people, insinuating cowardice on their part if they don't have anything to do with you.
It looks to me like you have a bigger ego problem than you think Alex does.
The biggest problem I see with Craig's debates is his lack of honesty. He repeatedly uses phrases like,"Historians all agree..." or "there is no question..." These are set-ups for his lies. When someone catches him in his lies he falls back on the old tired line of,"when you know God in your heart" and other such unprovable ramblings. "Man exists therefore God exists" or "there is no way to prove theism so it is no in any way true" are statements Craig loves to trow around that are just silliness.
ReplyDeleteAnother one of Craig's techniques is to not respond to anything the other debater has said and then claim that the other debater has not proven his side. These are dishonest debate techniques that do nothing to prove the existence of a god or that there is an afterlife. In fact the only proof that exists is that there is no afterlife when consciousness ends and there is not one shred of evidence that a superior being exists. Why would anyone wish to engage in any type of debate with someone who is so dishonest? Craig takes his snake oil sideshow around in order to accomplish one thing and one thing only; to make money for himself. He stages these debates for money. He charges money to see him debate an empty chair ala Clint Eastwood because Dawkins wouldn't lower himself to help Craig make more money. Does anyone ever question Craig's moneymaking? Of course the Christian community does not because they think Craig's fancy words and quotes from obscure 19th century philosophers justifies their belief in a magical being. Have a debate on Craig's finances, now that would be worth paying to go see.