Note to Readers:
Mr. Lowder did not in any way solicit this post.
I love watching debates. I enjoy debates on various topics, but it should come as no surprise that my favorite debates deal with topics related to Christian theism- the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus and the problem of evil, just to name a few.
Since becoming a Christian, I have benefited greatly from the debates of
Dr. William Lane Craig (WLC). These debates have introduced me to challenging arguments, demonstrated how to properly organize and defend an argument and, frankly, they are just plain fun! I get excited for a great debate in much the same way others get excited for an important sporting event.
And while WLC has had some outstanding debates in the past (see he clashes with
Sean Carroll,
Erik J. Wielenberg,
Paul Draper and
Bart Ehrman, just to name a few!), some have been real stinkers. Often, WLC's opponents either seem completely unfamiliar with theistic arguments or treat them with utter disdain. And admittedly, some of those debates have been painful to watch. In some cases, I actually felt sorry for the person debating WLC. I was embarrassed for them! Some examples that come to mind are
Frank Zindler,
Alex Rosenberg and
Louis Wolpert. These men either presented arguments with Philosophy 101-type errors in them, argued against propositions WLC was not defending or simply hand-waved his arguments as if ridiculous.
To be sure, the list of people that WLC has debated is impressive. He clearly doesn't avoid the tough opponents. However, I believe there is one person in particular that WLC should debate. Jeffery Jay Lowder is President Emeritus of Internet Infidels, Inc., which he co-founded in 1995. He is also the co-editor of the book,
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. His work can currently be found at
Patheos.
Below are 4 reasons I why I believe WLC should seriously consider debating Jeffrey Jay Lowder.
1. Lowder has written extensively on WLC's arguments.
As I mentioned above, sometimes those who debate WLC are completely unprepared to deal with his arguments. This would not be the case with Lowder. He has written extensively on WLC's arguments and demonstrates that he understands them better than most. One only needs to survey his work to testify to this fact. Examples can be found
here and
here.
2. Lowder is a gentlemen and takes theistic arguments seriously.
As evident in his work, Lowder seeks to read all arguments charitably and even admits that there is some evidence that is more probable on theism. Moreover, absent are the common character attacks and ridiculing that some in the atheist community part take in.
1 Lowder treats his opponent, and the arguments they offer, with respect and charity. For evidence of this fact, see
this post in which Lowder actually defends Craig.
3. Lowder is an accomplished debater.
Here, I would simply refer readers to
Lowder's past debate with Dr. Frank Turek. It should be evident to any sincere inquirer that Lowder's debating skills are formidable.
4. Both the skeptical community and the believing community would benefit.
This is perhaps the best reason of all. A debate between WLC and Lowder would result in a substantive exchange focused on arguments about (what I would argue) is the most important question of existence- "Does God exist?" In other words, every one wins!
A Possible Objection
I suppose some could object to the idea of WLC debating Lowder because Lowder is not a professional philosopher; however, I would simply respond by saying
Craig famously debated the late Christopher Hitchens in 2009 at Biola University and Hitchens was a journalist with a mere bachelor's degree. Sure, Lowder doesn't have a Ph.D., but as stated above, his work demonstrates an understanding of Craig's arguments that far surpasses that of Hitchens. I realize WLC has stated that he was persuaded to debate Hitchens (although he was reluctant) based upon his growing influence, but I believe I could argue that Lowder's influence in the online skeptical community is also significant. I am not trying to say it rivals that of "Hitch," but his reputation in the skeptical community is influential and should not be dismissed.
Conclusion
I am a Christian theist and have benefitted greatly from WLC's work. And, I think the arguments Craig offers are more plausible than not.
2 In other words, I think they are good arguments. However, I have also benefitted from reading the work of Jeffrey Jay Lowder and believe it would be profitable for everyone if they debated the question of God's existence.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:
1. This is not to say that Lowder is infallible or perfect. I'm sure someone could point to a comment he has made and try to make the case that he has been insulting. This is not my point. I am simply saying that generally, he is a gentlemen and strives to be fair-minded.
2. This is not to imply that I agree with every jot and tittle that the man argues. For example, I am still considering the strength of the moral argument as presented by Craig. I just think that his arguments, for the most part, are generally plausible.
Related Posts
Debate Video: Jeff Lowder vs. Frank Turek- What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism?
Debate Video: William Lane Craig vs. Daniel Came- Does God Exist?
Debate Video: Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age?- Jeff Hester vs. William Lane Craig
