C
concretecamper
Guest
Maybe he is good at resisting the Holy Spirit.
- Status
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
I’ll admit I’m a fan of Craig. He brings a level of rigor and technical ability to his apologetics that has been sorely missing for too long. I also appreciate the fact that he tends towards Classical Thomist arguments rather than the Pre-suppositionalist approach that, while I certainly appreciate it, has tended to suck all the air out of the room for a long time now.
The first Evangelical that I’d stand up next to him is John Lennox of Oxford. He can (and has) hammered Dawkins et al. repeatedly on the issues related to what science is and isn’t in a way that only he, as a bona fide, world class mathematician and philosopher of science can.
The second Evangelical would be Ravi Zacharias. He has a unique “existential” apologetic that puts an interesting twist on Pre-suppositionalism. He also has a way of really hitting people “where they live” without being mean or uncharitable. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who don’t believe in God do so, not because of the arguments, but because they don’t want there to be a God and Ravi has a way of cutting through that like nobody else alive today. I really do consider him a modern day Chesterton.
On the wider Christian front, I would include N.T. Wright. He’s no evangelical, and he’ll be the first to tell you that, but he’s no Spong either and I have no doubt that he’ll be the last man standing for the historical, creedal affirmations within Anglicanism, if it comes to that.
Finally, and you Catholics should bear no small amount of pride on this point: The last three Popes have all been utterly fantastic apologists for the Christian faith, not just for Catholics but for Christians of every stripe. I honestly think that, if our Lord tarries, future generations will remember John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis as the men whom God used to save Catholicism and indeed Christianity from completely failing in Europe and from completely disintegrating into irrelevance and functional unbelief. Specifically, John Paul II showed us that the Church, after Vatican II, must continue to draw clear doctrinal lines in the sand, Benedict XVI reminded us where some of those lines are, and Francis is showing us how the Church is called to love people on either side of those lines in appropriate ways.
I may not be Catholic, but I’m not kidding when I say that I appreciate the last three Popes deeply and I regularly thank God for them.
The first Evangelical that I’d stand up next to him is John Lennox of Oxford. He can (and has) hammered Dawkins et al. repeatedly on the issues related to what science is and isn’t in a way that only he, as a bona fide, world class mathematician and philosopher of science can.
The second Evangelical would be Ravi Zacharias. He has a unique “existential” apologetic that puts an interesting twist on Pre-suppositionalism. He also has a way of really hitting people “where they live” without being mean or uncharitable. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who don’t believe in God do so, not because of the arguments, but because they don’t want there to be a God and Ravi has a way of cutting through that like nobody else alive today. I really do consider him a modern day Chesterton.
On the wider Christian front, I would include N.T. Wright. He’s no evangelical, and he’ll be the first to tell you that, but he’s no Spong either and I have no doubt that he’ll be the last man standing for the historical, creedal affirmations within Anglicanism, if it comes to that.
Finally, and you Catholics should bear no small amount of pride on this point: The last three Popes have all been utterly fantastic apologists for the Christian faith, not just for Catholics but for Christians of every stripe. I honestly think that, if our Lord tarries, future generations will remember John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis as the men whom God used to save Catholicism and indeed Christianity from completely failing in Europe and from completely disintegrating into irrelevance and functional unbelief. Specifically, John Paul II showed us that the Church, after Vatican II, must continue to draw clear doctrinal lines in the sand, Benedict XVI reminded us where some of those lines are, and Francis is showing us how the Church is called to love people on either side of those lines in appropriate ways.
I may not be Catholic, but I’m not kidding when I say that I appreciate the last three Popes deeply and I regularly thank God for them.
C
Celtic_Maiden
Guest
Church of England, or Anglican, reformed. Not Catholic, this is a mis use , as you broke away from the Catholic Church with the King who thought he knew better, a lay person, who had no morals, but rather the morals of an alley cat, six wives, and loads of women on the side, even though he was married, but was playing away, one only has to look at his immoral lifestyle, but he thought he could dictate morals and strict ones on his subjects, a case of “Do as I say but not as I do” what an inspiring figure for a leader of a new religion , proven out that he died of syphillis.
:nope:The Lord have mercy on King Henry V111 soul on the havoc he brought to England.
Bringing in his style of religion because he could not get his own way. A great role model.!!!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Speaking of frustration. The fact that you mention “theoretical physicist” Lawrence Krauss in positive terms would indicate a rather twisted view, on your part, concerning what ought to be properly considered objects of frustration. The descriptor “theoretical” when used to describe Krauss ought to be taken at its loosest possible definition - as in “wild forays into imaginative physics.”
Krauss’ last three debates with Craig in Australia and, even more so, his “conversation” with John Lennox on the Unbelievable? radio program show an intellect woefully lacking in civility and respect for anyone with a different point of view from his.
This is the audio of his time with John Lennox:
youtu.be/yotpTOKLZ00
Be prepared to be truly frustrated.
Note: Begin about the 10:00 mark on the timecode to skip preamble and introductions.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This might help you to see why your view of Craig vs Dawkins and Krauss is being perturbed by Craig. It is a quote from an article by Edward Feser:
Source: firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Aside from your misconceptions, I can’t see how this has anything to do with my recommendation of Plantinga and Swinburne as the best philosophical theologians around.Church of England, or Anglican, reformed. Not Catholic, this is a mis use , as you broke away from the Catholic Church with the King who thought he knew better, a lay person, who had no morals, but rather the morals of an alley cat, six wives, and loads of women on the side, even though he was married, but was playing away, one only has to look at his immoral lifestyle, but he thought he could dictate morals and strict ones on his subjects, a case of “Do as I say but not as I do” what an inspiring figure for a leader of a new religion , proven out that he died of syphillis.
The Lord have mercy on King Henry V111 soul on the havoc he brought to England.
Bringing in his style of religion because he could not get his own way. A great role model.!!!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This article by Edward Feser explains in detail why Plantinga and J.P. Moreland are more properly to be considered “theistic personalists” in their philosophical approach than classical theists. According to Feser, their philosophical defenses of God, generally, are susceptible to a “God of the Gaps” critique.
See: edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2013/06/nagel-and-his-critics-part-x.html#more
Swinburne has also been depicted as a “theistic personalist” by Brian Davies in “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.”
For the difference between classical theism and theistic personalism, a brief distinction can be found here:
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2013/04/craig-on-theistic-personalism.html#more
As Feser points out in the latter part of the last article cited, Craig also shows elements of theistic personalism in his philosophical approach.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’m having a quick look at these now. I’m finding them interesting, but I do find it hard to attribute theistic personalism directly to Plantinga and Swinburne, rather than simply to say that some of their writing seems open to theistic personalist interpretation. I am not, however, an expert!
Edit: hmm, I do think that there may be a grain of truth in this with regard to Swinburne.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
By the way, I mean this in no way as a slight to any of these gentlemen. If anything, the way they develop their points with precision and scholarship helps all of us to have a clearer view on any of the issues being contended.
I recall, back in the late 70s being in a small audience where Mr. Plantinga presented his early views on Anselm’s Ontological argument. I recall being very impressed by his pleasant, congenial and thoughtful manner, and how thoroughly he had considered any possible counter arguments. In this respect, he is a lot like Aquinas in being a fair minded and complete thinker.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wow. Really. :bowdown:
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’ve never met Plantinga. The closest I’ve come to Professor Swinburne is being at dinner with him a few times. He also once fell asleep in chapel sitting opposite me, but he’s sufficiently distinguished (i.e. advanced in years) that that was completely fine!
Edit: on reflection, I can claim that he is the friend of a friend; said friend sent me this a while back! youtube.com/watch?v=4nDOxLh6AbQ
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
I was glad to listen to William Lane Craigs’ lamentations about the problematic nature of dialogue with Mr Krauss who he calls a “village atheist”
To hear Mr Craig talking incredulously about the bad manners and emotional (rather than intellectual) responses of internet infidel types, makes me smile because it shows that he can appreciate what it’s like at the “shallow end of the pool” as Tim McGrew calls it.
What he got from Lawrence Krauss was a schooling in how AvT dialogue is done in the atheosphere. Krauss and WLC both ‘‘won’’ the day because they weren’t competing for the same prize.
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
It’s also worth looking up Craig’s debates with Islamic apologists.
Honestly, he’s fair to middling with defending Theism against Atheism. I find Lennox to be much better in those arenas because nobody can question his scientific “street cred.”
But with defending Christianity against non-Christian Theists? He is able to rigorously articulate the Historical Resurrection and Lewis’ Trilemma arguments like nobody else.
The man’s greatest strength is, interestingly, also seen as his greatest weakness by those who disagree with them: He formulates an argument, demands a response, and if he doesn’t get it, he keeps hammering that argument. You either meet him head-on on his turf or you get bowled over. It’s not the most persuasive rhetorical style for most people (who still think debates are “won” or “lost” on the basis of votes and comment cards), but for those of us who still care about logic and the search for truth, it’s extremely effective.
I can say from personal experience that, in my times of uncertainty and doubt about the Faith, Craig is one of my guiding lights who is able to pare away all the extraneous secondary issues and really get to the heart of the matter like no one else. To wit: God either exists or He doesn’t and no amount of me wanting things to be different one way or the other will change the truth of that existence or non-existence and Christ is either Lord or He isn’t and if He is then He deserves nothing less than the full measure of my love and devotion.
Craig plays a high stakes game and I, for one, appreciate deeply the fact that he is willing to acknowledge that this stuff really matters in time and eternity and that there are, quite simply, no more important questions than these.
Honestly, he’s fair to middling with defending Theism against Atheism. I find Lennox to be much better in those arenas because nobody can question his scientific “street cred.”
But with defending Christianity against non-Christian Theists? He is able to rigorously articulate the Historical Resurrection and Lewis’ Trilemma arguments like nobody else.
The man’s greatest strength is, interestingly, also seen as his greatest weakness by those who disagree with them: He formulates an argument, demands a response, and if he doesn’t get it, he keeps hammering that argument. You either meet him head-on on his turf or you get bowled over. It’s not the most persuasive rhetorical style for most people (who still think debates are “won” or “lost” on the basis of votes and comment cards), but for those of us who still care about logic and the search for truth, it’s extremely effective.
I can say from personal experience that, in my times of uncertainty and doubt about the Faith, Craig is one of my guiding lights who is able to pare away all the extraneous secondary issues and really get to the heart of the matter like no one else. To wit: God either exists or He doesn’t and no amount of me wanting things to be different one way or the other will change the truth of that existence or non-existence and Christ is either Lord or He isn’t and if He is then He deserves nothing less than the full measure of my love and devotion.
Craig plays a high stakes game and I, for one, appreciate deeply the fact that he is willing to acknowledge that this stuff really matters in time and eternity and that there are, quite simply, no more important questions than these.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Interesting perspective. I have watched, listened to and read the transcripts of many of these debates (by Lane and others), and I am often frustrated when either side ventures off the main point of the debate subject. For this reason, I’m actually kind of impressed by how focused Lane is.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I agree that his ability to defend and focus on his argument and at the same time attack his opponent’s argument, or inability to address (or properly address) his own arguments , is impressive. He plays the logical debating chess game very well.
That said, when I compare these kinds of debating skills with the even handed logic and appreciation for an opponent’s position as displayed by Pope Benedict, I often cringe. I find the debating format does not allow for this kind of mutual learning from one another and often leads to a polarization that sacrifices the true statements that an opponent brings up in favour of debate victory. - although I will clarify that Craig avoids this situation better than most.
Just some thoughts anyway,
God bless,
Ut
S
seagal
Guest
This is what I like about Craig too because I tend to think that way myself. I’ve seen lots of his debates and haven’t seen one yet where his opponent actually addresses the points he makes.
R
rinnie
Guest
I have never heard of him until you mentioned him. I have no problem with the little I heard.
As long as someone is in line with what the Apostles taught and not in conflict with the RCC I have no problem.
Billy Graham was probally one of the most enlightened Protestant Preachers of my time, LIke our Pope Paul ll is hard to beat. But I did not agree with anything he said that went against the Church.
With that said, that is where the danger is for many of us here, myself included who do not completely know everything about our faith. We must be very careful. Many things can conflict with our faith, and at times are not real clear.
But anyone who cares to speak truth about our dear lord I am always willing to listen and learn.
My Dad dies at 83 and as he read the bible everyday had more to learn. God is like that. He never quits teaching us.
R
rinnie
Guest
Trust me give them time. If people can debate truth of God they can debate truth of anything.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
Peter Kreeft
T
The_Walrus_1
Guest
Thank you for your post. I too am a big WLC fan and I praise him for his defense of Christianity against attacks from new atheists and apostates. No one in the public sphere today has done such an effective job IMO of revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of the new atheist movement.
2: Peter Kreeft is the Catholic equivalent of WLC. He is wonderful speaker who has a very spritely and perceptive style. I recommend you listen to some of his speaking engagements that are up on youtube. He also wrote an apologetics handbook with Fr. Tacelli. He is a philosopher at Boston College.
3: My impression is that the Evangelical movement was the denomination he grew up with since his conversion in his teenage years. It was his community that shaped his allegiance to the Evangelicals. His theology is very orthodox. You can agree with him on what CS Lewis would call ‘mere Christianity’, i.e., the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, Christian moral law, etc.
- Status