Oxford University Professor Charles Foster Supports a Craig-Lowder Debate

Oxford University Professor Charles Foster is the author of The Jesus Inquest, a very even discussion of the arguments for and against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Foster discusses the arguments in The Empty Tomb extensively in his book.

Foster has stated I would make a worthy debate opponent for WLC.  In his own words:

Richard: you mention that I cite Lowder and Price’s book in my book ‘The Jesus Inquest’, and you infer that I think that Lowder is a serious thinker and a worthy debating opponent for Craig. I’m very happy to confirm that that is indeed my position.

About Jeffery Jay Lowder

Jeffery Jay Lowder is President Emeritus of Internet Infidels, Inc., which he co-founded in 1995. He is also co-editor of the book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave.

  • Blue Devil Knight

    I’ve never liked it when busloads of apologists made a big deal out of who will debate whom (e.g., why won’t Stephen Gould debate Duane Gish, is he scared?), and I don’t like it here either. I’m not sure what the payoff is to elevating circus-acts in this way. What am I missing: what is the payoff for embracing the circus, and making a meta-circus by having endless discussions about who will be in the ring? I think I am perhaps bringing an academic mindset to this, which may be the wrong attitude (as it will all necessarily seem silly from that perspective).

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/hallq/ Chris Hallquist

      I’m sympathetic to this complaint, but I’d be more sympathetic if Craig hadn’t started playing things game first, e.g. his attacks on Dawkins, and encouraging his followers in the ridiculous notion that “winning” debates = having good arguments. Given how much of a big deal Craig makes out of Dawkins’ refusal to debate him, it’s worth pointing out his hypocrisy on that count.

      • nationofjoe

        Yeah, Craig really went overboard about Dawkins. I mean, there was even a parody of the “There is no god…” bus ads. It was “There’s probably no Dawkins…” which is kind of creepy, imo.

  • http://patheos.com/blogs/hallq/ Chris Hallquist

    Jeff, you might want to include the link to the original comment in your post.

  • Keith Parsons

    Craig wins debates for the same reason that lawyers win cases: He is smart, articulate, well-prepared, skilled at rebuttal, and presents a lucid, concise, and convincing case. This does not mean that he is right, any more than a corporate lawyer is necessarily right when he wins. Indeed, the whole exercise is about winning, not being right. If an opponent thinks it is about being right rather than about winning, Craig will clean his clock. When most philosophers or scientists debate Craig, they bring a knife to a gun fight. Jeff knows better.

  • EvolutionKills

    Richard Carrier seems to think it would be a good match, and I’m inclined to agree.