Update on the Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig debate mentioned earlier: Sean Carroll outlines his goal:
Just so we’re clear: my goal here is not to win the debate. It is to say things that are true and understandable, and establish a reasonable case for naturalism, especially focusing on issues related to cosmology. I will prepare, of course, but I’m not going to watch hours of previous debates, nor buy a small library of books so that I may anticipate all of WLC’s possible responses to my arguments. I have a day job, and frankly I’d rather spend my time thinking about quantum cosmology than about the cosmological argument for God’s existence. If this event were the Final Contest to Establish the One True Worldview, I might drop everything to focus on it. But it’s not; it’s an opportunity to make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me.
Sean’s goal to “make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me” is certainly achievable. Whether it is a good one to strive for (by whatever metric of goodness) is less clear. Certainly there is little chance of him changing the views of WLC or anyone else in that camp. Likely the debate itself is its own intrinsic reward. It would be interesting to compare the stated motivation of the previous debaters and whether they think that the exercise was worthwhile in retrospect.
Sean’s goal to “make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me” is certainly achievable. Whether it is a good one to strive for (by whatever metric of goodness) is less clear.
Good catch, thanks—Craig is not in fact a creationist.
Going back to the original question, though, I think such viewpoint-cracking is what Carroll is going for. I wouldn’t like to guess his chances of success—Craig is really good in public debating—but I do think that’s his intended effect, and that he thinks it’s worth it.
Update on the Sean Carroll vs William Lane Craig debate mentioned earlier: Sean Carroll outlines his goal:
Sean’s goal to “make my point of view a little clearer to a group of people who don’t already agree with me” is certainly achievable. Whether it is a good one to strive for (by whatever metric of goodness) is less clear. Certainly there is little chance of him changing the views of WLC or anyone else in that camp. Likely the debate itself is its own intrinsic reward. It would be interesting to compare the stated motivation of the previous debaters and whether they think that the exercise was worthwhile in retrospect.
While it’s about Nye-Ham rather than Carroll-Craig, anti-creationist activist Zack Copplin thinks the Nye-Ham debate is worth it for this. David McMillan, who was raised in fundamentalism and later learned science, considers that “In a debate like this one, demonstrating even the most elementary facts about evolution and the age of the universe would be a great success” in order to put cracks in the hermetic world view of the faithful.
Edit: As Jayson notes below, this comparison isn’t quite fair—though an ardent apologist, Craig is not in fact a creationist.
Does Craig actually deny “elementary facts about evolution” or disagree with mainstream cosmologists about the “age of the universe”?
Good catch, thanks—Craig is not in fact a creationist.
Going back to the original question, though, I think such viewpoint-cracking is what Carroll is going for. I wouldn’t like to guess his chances of success—Craig is really good in public debating—but I do think that’s his intended effect, and that he thinks it’s worth it.