Many of WLC’s arguments have this rough structure:
Here’s a philosophical brain teaser. Doesn’t it make your head spin?
Look, with God we can shove the problem under the carpet
Therefore, God.
That’s why I think that in order to debate him you have to explicitly challenge the idea that God could ever be a good answer to anything; otherwise, you disappear down the rabbit hole of trying to straighten out the philosophical confusions of your audience.
Well, you could start with something like that, but you’re going to have to set out why it doesn’t solve anything. Which I think means you’re going to have to make the “lady down the street is a witch; she did it” argument. Making that simple enough to fit into a debate slot is a real challenge, but it is the universal rebuke to everything WLC argues.
Many of WLC’s arguments have this rough structure:
Here’s a philosophical brain teaser. Doesn’t it make your head spin?
Look, with God we can shove the problem under the carpet
Therefore, God.
That’s why I think that in order to debate him you have to explicitly challenge the idea that God could ever be a good answer to anything; otherwise, you disappear down the rabbit hole of trying to straighten out the philosophical confusions of your audience.
“saying ‘God’ is an epistemic placebo—it gives you the feeling of a solution without actually solving anything”
something like that?
I like to put it this way: Religion is junk food. It sates the hunger of curiosity without providing the sustenance of knowledge.
Well, you could start with something like that, but you’re going to have to set out why it doesn’t solve anything. Which I think means you’re going to have to make the “lady down the street is a witch; she did it” argument. Making that simple enough to fit into a debate slot is a real challenge, but it is the universal rebuke to everything WLC argues.