Talk:William Lane Craig

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Contents

[edit] William Lane Craig

I have heard some excellent lectures from Craig. Say what you like about his "worldview" (hate that word - damn you creationists!) he knows his stuff. Ace of Spades 00:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Caca

The tactics section lacks citations and therefore reads like contentless drivel. The 2 citations section repeats Thunderf00t's boasting on a subject that has nothing to do with the merit or lack thereof of the work of this extremely popular and well-regarded apologist. I would like to delete the 2 citations section and comment out the tactics section until someone bothers to substantiate those very serious claims. Discuss. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia's policy draft proposal on using videos as citations -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Videos_as_references#YouTube_videos_as_references

W.L.C's tactics are obvious to anyone willing to critically analyze enough of his debates available on youtube. The example of the Bart Ehrman debate has been mentioned repeatedly to substantiate these claims.

The 2 citations section serves to demonstrate that while W.L.C may be publicly famous as a christian apologist, he is not as "extremely popular and well-regarded" among his academic peers as most people think. That is a perfectly valid assertion. Madscientistjaidev (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He's respected enough to be cited plenty of times on bethinking.org, often under their "advanced" section. However, I should point out that considering some of the crap I've read on there, it only really underscores their appallingly low standard for what constitutes "advanced" theology. Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he is respected enough in public, and is a staple of online christian forums like bethinking.org. I simply argue that his standing among his academic peers is more relevant while judging the quality of his work. The 2 citations section shows that he is not as popular among educators and academics as his public reputation might indicate. Madscientistjaidev (talk)

ADK, all that says to me is that you're inclined to be harshly critical of this guy as an apologist and theologian, which is fine. However, he's a big deal and very widely read across the spectrum of approaches to xtian apologetics, from atheists interested in counter-apologetics to fundies picking and choosing whatever suits them, as they're wont to do. Does anyone think this article is very good? And why is there a medal on it again? I understand that the standard approach from a few here is to fight whatever they feel goes against their "right" to template whatever they feel like and then shift the burden to those opposing it. I also sincerely doubt any of them considered whether we want to put a shitty article like this forward as part of our public face. Fucking proceduralists and their templates. Some of these medals are embarrassing. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that it's possible to compare contributions to very different fields by comparing the average number of citations, is silly; h-index is even sillier, and by the way, it is impossible to infer the average number of citations from the h-index.89.249.165.5 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Some troll came along and edited this article in a way that I think was partly very helpful.
Thunderf00t's "two citations" argument looks pretty stupid and petty to me. Articles with the highest h-index tend to be in fields that rely on heavy use of citations: the sciences. The London School of Economics recommends HPoP be used to query social science and humanities impact. I imagine it returns substantially different and more reliable results for humanities publications or they wouldn't recommend it.
I'm admittedly not adept at doing h-index queries. Nonetheless, here's a sampling of what I found for a few of my professors and people around my community. I hope I got it more or less correct. Depending on the query, William Lane Craig gets 15-24. That's not what Mason reports, but I'm sure he's better at this than I am. However, if his h-index is 18, as he claims, that's not all that remarkable one way or the other. PhD students can have a higher h-index than Thunderf00t appears to falsely claim Craig gets. Renowned Shakespeare scholar David Bevington gets a 24. Former head of the philosophy department at the University of Chicago, Ted Cohen, gets 12. William Wimsatt, another philosophy professor at U of C, now emeritus: 25. Frank Easterbrook, U of C professor and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge: 56. Antonin Scalia: 22. Howard Nusbaum, professor of neuroscience at U of C: 34. Like I said, I'm not sure I'm necessarily Doing it Right, but these results don't, at least to me, recommend Thunderf00t's analysis, particularly since I think he's an erratic scumbag and even some of his good Why People Laugh at Creationist videos occasionally get theological arguments and creationist positions wrong. Maybe someone else cares to defend it.
I'm removing this section in a few days unless there's consensus to keep it.
Articles about prominent apologists and creationists need to be particularly well cited and politic or RW looks like a bigger joke than it is in places. At least this one doesn't call him an asshat or bullshit artist or whatever it was. FFS it previously called him names in the section claiming he lards his debates with ad hominem attacks. "Muy snarky." Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to know what would be an expected and typical level of citations in his field before you remove it, and how he compares in measures used in said field - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Ask Thunderf00t. He's the one claiming to know all about what h-index a theologian should have on a scale used primarily by scientists. I'm not aware of a single academic in the humanities talking about an h-index or even comparing her volume of papers against another's. But again, Thunderf00t's the pro. Anyhow, it's beyond dispute that Craig is a renowned apologist and theologian and widely read author. He's huge compared to a science grad student who makes YouTube videos under a fake name. What else matters? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I added sources to several previously unsourced quotes and took {{Sources needed}} out. If there is yet more unsourced material please put the template back. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, RW is supposed to be original research, right? Whats with the sudden obsession with sources? Madscientistjaidev (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Erm... the same reason that a published paper of "original research" will have about 30 footnotes and references? Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 18:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


The article says that Craig said the following:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost is the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."

Can someone give a source for this saying of Craig?

Got it. TyJFBAA 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it's what he says in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ
ScepticWombat (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Canaanite free will

"If every single Canaanite adult was bad people born into the Canaanite community could not exercise free will and choose to be good." I'm not sure why this was taken out, it looks logical to me and it's relevant to Craig's beliefs. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't even english.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
Reason One: The sentence looks like a four-year-old wrote it. And that's after you "improved" it. Reason 2: Your logic is all messed up. How does it follow that people are predetermined to be "bad."? Is that what Craig says? Why couldn't a Canaanite choose to be good just because all of his neighbours hadn't? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation at beginning

The quotation at the beginning of this article is completely out of context. I understand that that is kind of the point, but it's not really that funny to quote someone while they are stating the views of their opposition.

[edit] Two Citations Craig

Actually, i understood the video differently, Thunderf00t is saying that 2-Cite Craig uses only two citations of only two people to prove his point. Instead of giving actual facts. — Unsigned, by: 112.208.113.140 / talk / contribs 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete the whole section. Acei9 03:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I deleted this section and it should have really been titled "Shit thunderf00t sez". Acei9 03:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I support the deletion as it stood, but is the criticism valid? Perhaps the point could be made without referring to Thunderfoot's "Nya nya nya I'm a genius" histrionics. --DamoHi 03:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "On Morality", denying the antecedent

In the section "On Morality" it is claimed that the syllogism "~P -> ~Q; Q; ∴P" is an instance of the formal logical fallacy "denying the antecedent" and invalid. This form is *not* an instance of the fallacy, and is a valid inference more closely related to modus tollens.

I've deleted the offending text, sorry if that goes against policy here. — Unsigned, by: 175.137.215.97 / talk / contribs

1) Please sign your posts using four tildes.
2) You're absolutely right that the argument form described in the text is modus tollens, not denying the antecedent. For Spud, who reverted your edit: denying the antecedent looks like this: "If P then Q, ~P, therefore ~Q."TallMan (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a modus ponens. Premise 1 is easier to see by contraposition: If objective morals exist, god exists. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The text that concerns me currently reads:
"This is a common argument among Christian apologists. However, this argument contains the formal logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, characterized by the form:
  1. If P then Q.
  2. Not Q
  3. Therefore, Not P
This argument is not logically valid."
This pattern is (quite literally) a textbook modus tollens. It is not denying the antecedent. If the schematic rendering in the article is correct, then Craig's argument commits no formal fallacy - whether you choose to treat it as modus tollens or contraposition + modus ponens is completely inconsequential. That is, you could prove the validity of Craig's argument either way, and both proofs would be correct (the modus tollens proof, if you were a stickler, would probably require an explicit double negation step). It may be that Craig's argument is not properly represented here, and he really is committing a formal fallacy - in which case the presentation of Craig's argument needs to change. But if it's being summarized adequately than there's no formal fallacy. TallMan (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that's his argument since he's not an idiot. It's logically consistent and tugs at the heart strings. The article isn't very good. You don't need permission to fix things that are obviously wrong and, after seeing his discussion, people aren't going to be reverting you when you remove that section. The article is still filled with petty nonsense. Go to town. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A suggestion here. A lot of the longer proofs in this article probably belong under articles for their specific arguments, and we should just link to articles for the arguments and give brief summaries here. Unless some of his arguments so greatly differ from the standard forms of the arguments, I don't see a reason to have such large sections of the WLC page devoted to counter-apologetics. --ShadowofLords (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments and Tallman. We have a nascent counter-apologetics category, but I disagree with removing fuller descriptions of his arguments. I don't accept, like others might, that massively wikilinking material is an effective way to keep a reader engaged an on a single page. Maybe I'm wrong about SEO and my own preference for user experience. I frankly think wikis are terrible at addressing users' core needs. People aren't coming to a William Lane Craig article to learn that he went to Wheaton College and has a PhD in theology. Seems to me that we can offer something different than WP. Just my thoughts. I've got no pride of ownership - I just think it ought to be a priority to have extremely good articles on prominent apologists since we're coming up relatively high on Google and I'd like to see us getting cited more frequently. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Kalam Cosmological Argument

The conclusion (C2) is a strawman. This is never part of his argument. Reference — Unsigned, by: 14.203.10.183 / talk / contribs

[edit] Problem with the "circular reasoning" counter-argument to the KCA

Sure, the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is the same as saying "Everything, except God, has a cause", if you define God as the only possible uncaused cause. So the argument becomes:

  • P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  • P2. The only thing that did not begin to exist is God. [NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD EXISTS]
  • P3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
  • C1. There must be an uncased cause that did not begin to exist (from P3).
  • C2. God exists (from P2 and C1).

The article, as is, claims that this is circular reasoning. I do not think it is, because none of the premises require the conclusions to be proven. One could conceivably prove the premises without this argument: an argument is circular if you can only prove its premises using the conclusions of the argument itself. P2 could be proven without using C1 or C2. So I think this objection is invalid, because the conclusion is not inside the premises. Nowhere does it state that God exist, only that, if there is an uncaused cause, it must be God. And that is where the real problem lies - P2 has not been proven (neither have P1 or P3, but P2 is the fishy one). What do you guys think? P.S. I am an atheist - I am not trying to bullshit you guys. Epistemos (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The way you have it written is still begging the question. P2, essentially "God has the property X" (in this case, "did not begin to exist"), presumes that God exists and has that property. Now, if you had written it as "If god exists, he is the only thing that did not begin to exist", then you wouldn't have begged the question (though the argument could and would still fail for other reasons). Your note is just incorrect. But this isn't what the argument says. The argument presumes there is one thing that did not begin to exist and presumes that that one thing is god. So, it's still begging the question. Shadow of Lords talk 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You make the mistake of assuming that saying "X did not being to exist" means "X exists" (that is, that P2 includes C2). How can that be? What P2 says is that, IF a First Cause exists, it must be God (i.e. he could not exist and P2 would still be true). It does not say that it exists (C2). It is only through the combination of P2 and C1 that we managed to arrive at C2. The conclusions are NOT in the premises, thus it is not circular. The problem is that the premises have not been proven, that's all. The argument I wrote up there is valid, but probably not sound, because P2 seems bogus and P3 is audacious. Epistemos (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The conclusion is still in the premise, it's just hidden. I'll repeat it again: "God did not begin to exist" does still imply god exists, just as "god is not angry" presumes that god exists within the framework. It's just hidden in begging the question. I think it'll be made more clear with an example: "The table is not red." This statement presumes the existence of a table. So, not only is the statement not necessarily supported (as you would argue), but it also presumes the existence of a table (as I am arguing). Now, if it were formulated as "If the table exists, it is not red" then we have avoided begging the question (though it still is not necessarily evident that the table is red if it exists). A circular argument can still be valid (but unsound). "The table is red. Red things exist. The table exists." A valid argument, but the first premise still begs the question. Shadow of Lords talk 22:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess you are correct. What you is say is similar do Russell's and Kant's objections to the ontological argument: saying "God is existing" is a statement that already assumes God to be existing, because things that do not exist cannot have any properties. So, in the way that the KCA is formulated, I guess it really is circular. Craig should formulate it was "The only possible First Cause is a personal deity" and then prove that there must be a First Cause. :P - Thanks for the debate, Shadow! Epistemos (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not valid.

I have just seen an amazing refutation of the KCA right here. The KCA is:

  • P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
  • P2. The universe began to exist.
  • C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.

The problem is: those two bolded sections do not mean the same thing. The universe began to exist in the sense that is has not existed for an infinite amount of time, but not in the sense that there was a time where it did not exist (because time is part of the universe). So when we say that a galaxy began existing, we mean something different than when we say that the universe began existing. Let's differentiate those two concepts of "beginning to exist":

  • X = "a thing that began existing a finite time ago, after a point in time where it did not exist" (e.g. a star, virtual particles, you)
  • Y = "a thing that has existed for a finite amount of time, but which exists at every point in time"

You can define X and Y as "things that began to exist", but they do not mean the same thing. So the argument becomes:

  • P1. Everything that is X has a cause for its existence.
  • P2. The universe is Y.
  • C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.

Which is, clearly, not a valid argument. Epistemos (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this argument runs a bit too close to straw manning when you have to reformulate it like that. "You see, if we just change premise A to some other similar premise and change premise B to some other similar premise, the argument doesn't work anymore!" Rather than reformulating the argument, it's better to just point out that there is a categorical difference between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of things inside the universe, which is clear because it is ridiculous to talk about a time before time really existed. If somebody rejects that argument, you can even ask if there was a time before whatever god they believe in existed, or if such a concept is just nonsense in their mind. In the same way, talking about "before the universe" may be nonsense. Shadow of Lords talk 22:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Drawing an important distinction between the meaning of "beginning to exist" in P1 and P2 is exactly what I did. To make it clearer, I wrote the argument down with the differences in meaning pointed out. If it draws close to being a straw-man, too bad, because IMO it is perfectly valid. Don't you think? Epistemos (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you did draw the distinction, and that's fine. I think the problem, however, is when you, taking your more distinct (and I believe better) definitions of "began to exist", post the same argument with your new definitions in place. That's where you enter the realm of straw manning. The issue here isn't the argument, it's the presentation of it.
Clarifying the two definitions by pointing out that he equivocated two meanings of "began to exist" where it is not the same thing? Perfectly fine and valid. Presenting this argument by repeating his argument but replacing the terms/phrases "A" and "A" with "B" and "C"? You've taken a valid (but completely unsound) argument and reformed it into an invalid (still unsound) argument. It's not the argument itself I have a problem with, it's more of a style critique. It leaves you open to "Well that's not my argument you disproved, it's your version of my argument!" Shadow of Lords talk 01:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Intuition is not a good source of knowledge

Dr. Craig constantly appeals to intuition to prove the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He also appeals to our common experiences when stating that everything that comes into being has a cause - however, the beginning of EVERYTHING THERE IS, including time itself, is a much more... delicate thing than a Star coming into being. It's like arguing that, from common experience, we know that "objects that are pushed go faster", and that "a can of Spam is an object", therefore a can of Spam going at the speed of light, when pushed, will go faster than the speed of light (this line of argumentation was developed by thunderf00t on his 37th edition of "Why do people laugh at creationists?"). The universe is MUCH more counter-intuitive than we can even imagine (quantum mechanics and general relativity proves that), so can we use intuition to find out why something exists rather than nothing? Something coming into being ex nihilo, without there being any time before its creation, is a VERY different case than a star coming into being. You can't use intuition philosophy to answer such a huge question. As philosopher Daniel Dennett once said (roughly): no matter the answer [to why and how something exists], it's going to be counter-intuitive, and it's going to blow our minds. Epistemos (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] On the Moral Argument being Circular

The main page says: "And finally, the moral argument, another favorite of Craig. Craig says if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Craig argues that objective moral values do exist. Basically that our personal experiences of morality makes it true, which is another argument for God. Craig says (in his own words) [...] This makes it seem that all of Craig's arguments for God are tied to personal experience that are dependent on the existence of God, which he uses to support the moral argument to prove the existence of God. Again, circular."

How is this circular? The argument, as he formulates it, is as follows:

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3) Therefore, God exists.

An argument's only circular if the only reason to accept one of the premises, is that you already believe the conclusion.

But that's not what Craig is doing. He's basing premise 2 off of our 'moral experience', as he calls it--not God's existence. And God's existence isn't entailed by premise 2, in and of itself, so it's not a hidden assumption of premise 2 either. God's existence only is entailed if we accept both premise 1 and 2--which is just to say the argument is valid.

Atheists can, and have, accepted premise 2 without accepting that God exists.

The argument, appealing to moral experience, is not circular. — Unsigned, by: Venryx / talk / contribs

The problem is not that the formulation of the argument itself is circular, it's that his evidence for premise two is circular (or non-existent). If he knows that moral values exist because god has revealed to him that moral values exist, and that's why god exists... it's circular!
Don't forget to sign your posts with "~~~~" at the end (no quotes needed) so we can see who posted! Shadow of Lords talk 19:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Gish Gallop

Craig doesn't use that as a serious attempt to stop people objecting to his arguments. See this debate, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTHLecSXaHU, where he only presents two arguments. This was an important debate (Austin Dacy is part of Craig's field of study, and so was capable of rebutting his arguments better than other people Craig debates. I think we should get rid of the gish gallop part in the debating tactics section.--92.236.209.177 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm split on removing it. Unlike Gish, Craig doesn't spend his opening time just giving twenty weak critiques of his opponent's position at the start of every debate, which is nice enough of him. However, he does seem to start almost every debate with the same six or so "proofs", which take quite a long time to address. Shadow of Lords talk 16:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This web site is so darn bias towards atheism, I wonder if atheists will accept "any" level of evidence to change their mind. Probably not. After all, they are naturalistic, believing "Nothing can be known apart from science" - which is funny, because that is self refuting. That statement in and of itself, cannot be proven using science ;) haha! 129.180.139.17 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
As with Craig's other tricks, he is basically doing the same as the less impressively sounding apologists, but wrapped in more fancy-sounding rhetoric. Unlike the late Gish's transparent hail of questions and BS, Craig instead present 5 very different arguments for God's existence, which contain numerous other (sub)claims and then Craig, like Gish, demands that opponents disentangle and dismantle every bit, or the opponent will have conceded the argument. (Note that Craig's resurrection debates are different and he tends to do far worse in those exactly because he can't use the Gish-gallop as effectively).
This is the common core to Gish and Craig: Launch a massive series of topics and claim victory if your opponent doesn't address and refute every one. Quite apart from the absurdity of this logic (essentially "I win by default"), even attempting to refute Craig's argument is complicated by Craig's constant straw manning and sophistry in, for instance, using blatantly misleading terms such as using the term "fact" about such things as the empty tomb of Jesus, or inventing the meaningless notion of "independently attested" vis-a-vis the gospels (it sound deceptively like "independent sources" but is essentially pointless to the question of historical reliability, since Craig's term just mean something "written by different people"). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "...Law's objection relies on a presumption that Christians conclude God's perfect goodness from evidence in the world when Law's argument...

...only relies on the the theist accepting that God is good, not necessarily perfectly good, and that theists conclude God's goodness from facts about the world, not that they conclude his perfect goodness from those facts." I have no idea what this sentence is trying to do. Can somebody familiar with the controversey break that run-un sentence into component parts and write it more clearly? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Unfliching towards reason" quote

This quote "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic" is out of context. Read the context here. He was saying the exact opposite.

"Before we can answer that question, we need to have some grasp of the challenge confronting us... Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not... a science. Reason and religion are at odds with each other... The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic."

Based upon the quotation, you could even say that he said "Reason and religion are at odds with each other". So that's interesting, given his web site is called "Reasonable Faith". Clearly, he was painting an antithetical picture (if that word isn't too difficult for atheists to understand :P haha). 129.180.139.17 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear that context changes the meaning at all - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
First, sorry for the long post :-)
Secondly,I completely agree with David Gerard that the context doesn't change the meaning at all. Indeed, Craig later in the piece (again) comes perilously close to admitting that it's only possible to instil his kind of literalist fundamentalist Christianity in people who are already steeped in a Christian social and intellectual setting, and that this is due to accidents of birth and culture:
" A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the Gospel which a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Or, to give a more realistic illustration, it is like a devotee of the Hare Krishna movement approaching you on the street and inviting you to believe in Krishna. Such an invitation strikes us as bizarre, freakish, even amusing. But to a person on the streets of Bombay, such an invitation would, I assume, appear quite reasonable and cause for reflection. I fear that evangelicals appear almost as weird to persons on the streets of Bonn, Stockholm, or Paris as do the devotees of Krishna."
Here Craig pretty much admits outright that his religion is in essence no different from Krishna (or leprechauns...), and that only by indoctrinating people to think otherwise can his style of literalist fundamentalist evangelicalism maintain (or re-establish) its grip on the population.
Craig's attitude towards academia is also abundantly clear: If universities don't "stay on (his) message" and affirm Craig-style fundamentalism, then universities most be opposed (so much for free enquiry...):
"I mention academic life because the single most important institution shaping Western culture is the university. It is at the university that our future political leaders, our journalists, our lawyers, our teachers, our business executives, our artists, will be trained. It is at the university that they will formulate or, more likely, simply absorb the worldview that will shape their lives. And since these are the opinion-makers and leaders who shape our culture, the worldview that they imbibe at the university will be the one that shapes our culture. If we change the university, we change our culture through those who shape culture. If the Christian worldview can be restored to a place of prominence and respect at the university, it will have a leavening effect throughout society."
Craig prefers the conclusion that there must be something wrong with academia, not his fundamentalist faith, and that this means that:
"The root of the obstacle is to be found in the university, and it is there that it must be attacked."
Ironically, when Craig describes European evangelical scholars, he may have been describing himself:
"What evangelical scholars there are tend to be big fish in a very small pond. Their influence extends very little beyond the evangelical subculture. They teach for the most part at evangelical Bible schools and seminaries instead of the universities;"
(Craig has published with reputable academic printing houses, but that is the only bit of this description that doesn't fit himself)
What Craig describes as
"For example, over the last 40 years there has been an on-going revolution in the Anglo-American world in the field of philosophy. Since the late 1960's Christian philosophers have been coming out of the closet and defending the truth of the Christian world view with philosophically sophisticated arguments in the finest secular journals and societies. And the face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Fifty years ago philosophers widely regarded talk about God as literally meaningless, as mere gibberish, but today no informed philosopher could take such a viewpoint. In fact, many of America's finest philosophers today are outspoken Christians."
is simply untrue. As Craig's own "career" well illustrates, this so-called "revolution" consists mainly of creating a parallel echo chamber of fundamentalist "universities" where he and his fundamentalist fellow believers can agree with and congratulate each other on their intellectual "merits" and give the public an impression that they're academics, rather than apologists. Contrary to Craig's claims (and he frequently repeats this in debates) mainstream philosophy at real universities has *not* seen a general shift towards theism, let alone a Craig-style literalist fundamentalist evangelicalism. Craig is a marginal figure in philosophy, and his only claim to fame is his travelling debate circus where he has essentially been repeating the same 5 "arguments" for his deity for the last 20-30 years - despite having each and every one of them refuted time after time. Craig has *never* incorporated such criticism, which indicates to me that he's either being deliberately disingenuous in continuing to peddle these arguments, or that he is simply incapable of accepting any criticism as valid. The main purpose of these debates seems to be to give Craig an opportunity to preach to the choir of already convinced believers, as well as giving the impression that his "philosophy" (read: apologetics) are at a par with serious scholarship, and to present himself as a "worldclass philosopher" who's the equal of academics who're employed at real universities and conduct actual research. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] As to point 7 in the section on "Craig's debating tactics and criticism of opponents "

I think that point 7 misses the point. The problem isn't that Craig doesn't have to "simultaneously prove the existence of a god, and the assertion that the god is in fact the Abrahamic god", but that Craig uses his favourite tactic of equivocation. Because these debates are oral, the audience can't hear whether Craig is referring to "God" or "god"* , and Craig will even claim that his arguments form a cumulative case for "God", or to be completely clear, "Yahweh". Now it's quite obvious that Craig's arguments aren't cumulative at all. It's only by presupposing that the deity in all of his arguments, bar the one about Jesus' resurrection, is Yahweh, that this assertion becomes tenable. However, because Craig is always talking about "god/God" and not "Yahweh", it may sound to the audience as if he is indeed presenting a single cumulative case.

The one instant when Craig's argument is directly addressing Yahweh is in the resurrection of Jesus. However, here he ends up with at circular argument, because his objection when his opponents point out the implausibility of the resurrection is to say "Well, natural resurrection is of course implausible, but I claim that Jesus was raised supernaturally by Yahweh". So, the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of Yahweh, and is plausible because Yahweh did it... Once this argument fails, the case for the cumulative link between all of the other arguments fail as well.

If Craig can't demonstrate the existence of Yahweh, there's no reason why we should just accept, even if we grant Craig his conclusions, that the deity or deities that gave us our morals are the same that "lit the fuse" for the Big Bang, or the one(s) who set the various constants Craig refers to in his argument from design, or even the "maximally great being" of the ontological argument. There's simply no reason why the deity or deities in these conclusions are necessarily all one and the same.

Another thing that the God/god equivocation does for Craig is that it provides flexibility. If challenged, he can always claim that he's not arguing for Yahweh but for some generic deity. If he isn't challenged, then Craig can give the audience the impression that when he said "god" he was actually referring to "Yahweh"

* (contrast this with how Robert M. Price in his podcast series, "The Human Bible", tends to be scrupulous about using "Yahweh")
ScepticWombat (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Subjectivism

Is it common practice to permit subjective language on a purported philosophical wiki? Why write subjectively what can be written objectively? Laziness? — Unsigned, by: GallinBejal / talk / contribs

God! are we a "purported philosophical wiki"? If so I'm gone! See here. Scream!! (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Dunno, this isn't really a purported philosophical wiki. See RationalWiki and the links on your user talk page for guidance on our focus & style. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "The New Theist: How William Lane Craig became Christian Philosophy's Boldest Apostle," Chronicle of Higher Education,'

The author of the Craig hagiography in the Chronicle of Higher Ed., Nathan Schneider, shockingly unsurprisingly turns out to be a fellow, albeit Catholic, apologist who throws in an eclectic mix of leftist ideas:

One has to wonder whether Schneider realises who it is that he's promoting, or if he's just unaware that, in addition to his sleazy debating tactics, Craig also excuses biblical genocide, has defended Todd legitimate-rape Aikin and thinks that same-sex marriage is an attempt by promiscuous gays "to deconstruct marriage itself". ScepticWombat (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] What makes Wheaton College a "theologically-moderate evangelical-protestant" institution?

I removed the reference to Wheaton College being "theologically-moderate", because looking at its statement of faith it doesn't sound particularly moderate. It includes a pretty standard Evangelical creed on inerrancy:

"WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say."

And it also suggests that staff has to adhere to this creed (which de facto limits academic freedom when it comes to critical analysis of the bible and other issues incompatible with the statement of faith) by declaring:

"The doctrinal statement of Wheaton College, reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff, provides a summary of biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity. The statement accordingly reaffirms salient features of the historic Christian creeds, thereby identifying the College not only with the Scriptures but also with the reformers and the evangelical movement of recent years. The statement also defines the biblical perspective which informs a Wheaton education. These doctrines of the church cast light on the study of nature and man, as well as on man's culture. "

Yes, it does contain some possible qualifiers compared with the openly wacky doctrinal statements of Craig's current employers (Biola and Houston Baptist), but at best, Wheaton is "moderate" within the extremist inerrantist literalism usually served up by Evangelicals. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Statements of Faith among evangelical institutions tend to be similar, but their interpretations are not. Wheaton is most certainly moderate in very important regards: it is a member of the American Science Affiliation , and therefor teaches the theory of evolution through the lens of theistic evolution. Its party line is also not to deny anthropogenic climate change, which I think is a continuing touchstone of more "conservative" fundamentalists who seem to exult in spurring on the end-times. What makes you think the Statement of Faith alone makes Wheaton "conservative"? Similar language is widely used, even among Catholic institutions (although their approach is substantially different but just as inconsistent throughout the history of the RCC). Inerrancy is always going to be the rule, regardless of the denomination — the only questions are the hermeneutics employed to reach it and the conclusions drawn. Even claiming that their god specially created Adam and Eve as human beings doesn't necessarily rule out theistic evolution among animals. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'm just wary of cutting WLC much slack and I can see your argument pretty much follows the sort of "moderate compared to the really nutty Evangelicals"-line I noted at the end of my former post. If we go with that interpretation I think that a bit of snark might be appropriate for listing not being climate change denialists or YECs and adhering to theistic evolution as indications of being a "moderate" educational institution (it says a lot about what passes for "normalcy" among Evangelicals...) ScepticWombat (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well. You may not personally accept these positions, but if you're going to characterize them as "moderate", "nutty", or whatever, it must be vis-à-vis evangelicals actual' positions, not your own beliefs about them. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to call Wheaton "moderate" for its departure from familiar evangelical positions, although it dumbs things down because Wheaton is extremely "conservative" in other ways. I guess characterizing it depends on how far it does depart from key positions held by other "conservative" institutions. There's a lot more to suss out if you want to say anything more than that it's "moderate". 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I made a somewhat similar edit in this article when I added stuff which put Craig's "YECs are an embarrassment"-quote in context (by highlighting his support for ID and evolution denial). Could a similar "yes, but"-construction be used to put into perspective what exactly "theologically-moderate" means in an Evangelical Protestant context? I'm thinking of possibly ref'ing a couple of excerpts from Wheaton's statement of faith (with the actual excerpts being located in the footnotes) accompanied by a note to contrast with the excerpts from the statements of faith from Craig's current employers. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It's easier to omit "moderate" and simply describe their position — after all, it's only relevant because they're a fundie college that's expressed positions consonant with Craig's. BTW, one of their theology or Hebrew professors commented that Conservapedia's "conservative bible project" was silly. See, Conservapedia:Letter_to_Douglas_Moo. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, probably that's because, while being fundamentalists to a greater or lesser degree, Evangelical theologians still don't approve of rank amateurs such as Assfly Andy Schlafly and his merry band of incompetents messing with scripture. Messing with scripture (in terms of providing ad hoc Rube Goldberg'ish scenarios or translations to make them fit what we now know of our world and history) should of course be the prerogative of suitably skilled theologians. Not to mention that Evangelical theologians have probably already deduced that Andy Schlafly and his demented posse's enterprise promises to be a rich source of embarrassment; it's kind of like how Ken Ham warns against Carl Baugh and Ron Wyatt. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support