Doctor William Lane Craig

[OccamsAftershav]

I am greatly surprised by some of the comments regarding William Lane Craig.

He has a reputation for being a formidable debater and ‘proving’ the existence of God. However, most of his ‘evidence’ is based on assertions and questionable interpretation of science. He also employs some dubious debating tactics.
His methods include:
The Gish Gallop
Straw men
Misrepresentation of his opponent’s position
Misrepresentation of scientific evidence
Quote mining
Argument from authority
Ad hominem attacks
Not respecting debate protocols
Refusal to address opponent’s points

While the majority, if not all, of his opponents are intellectually honest in their approach to the debates, Craig sees them as opportunities for evangelism. His aim is not to arrive at the truth but to make new converts and bolster the faith of believers. He has admitted himself that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he would still believe in god because of the witness of the holy spirit. No one with an open mind and an understanding of science and logic could say Craig ‘wiped the floor’ with Hitchens, Harris, etc. Admittedly, Rosenberg didn’t do too well but the likes of Law, Krauss and Kagan showed his arguments up for what they are.

The truth is out there, you just have to look for it.

On top of all this, how anyone can respect a man who so explicitly condones genocide, and in particular the killing of children, is beyond me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. (In the statement in question, he has the gall to say that the people who really deserve pity were the traumatised Jewish soldiers who had to carry out the slaughter. With a straight face! I am not making this up. He is on video saying it)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am greatly surprised by some of the comments regarding William Lane Craig.

He has a reputation for being a formidable debater and ‘proving’ the existence of God. However, most of his ‘evidence’ is based on assertions and questionable interpretation of science. He also employs some dubious debating tactics.
His methods include:
The Gish Gallop
Straw men
Misrepresentation of his opponent’s position
Misrepresentation of scientific evidence
Quote mining
Argument from authority
Ad hominem attacks
Not respecting debate protocols
Refusal to address opponent’s points

Anyone can make a list of fallacies and assert, without citing examples, that this or that person uses such fallacies exclusively as substitutions for valid arguments.

Provide evidence, since the default case would be an intelligent individual with dual doctorates in philosophy and theology would likely, all things being equal, know the difference between valid and invalid arguments.

Without something more from an Internet poster claiming to be Occam’s aftershave, I would have to side with Craig given that all of your accusations are remarkably devoid of substance. I have seen most of his debates and read a number of articles from his site. He is quite a careful and formidable logician.

At minimum, pick an argument of his and show how he is guilty of illogic.

You, on the other hand, seem to rely solely on baseless assertions and exhibit, in your “case” below, many, if not all, of the “methods” that appear in your list above. So much for establishing credibility.

While the majority, if not all, of his opponents are intellectually honest in their approach to the debates, Craig sees them as opportunities for evangelism. His aim is not to arrive at the truth but to make new converts and bolster the faith of believers. He has admitted himself that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he would still believe in god because of the witness of the holy spirit. No one with an open mind and an understanding of science and logic could say Craig ‘wiped the floor’ with Hitchens, Harris, etc. Admittedly, Rosenberg didn’t do too well but the likes of Law, Krauss and Kagan showed his arguments up for what they are.

The truth is out there, you just have to look for it.

On top of all this, how anyone can respect a man who so explicitly condones genocide, and in particular the killing of children, is beyond me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. (In the statement in question, he has the gall to say that the people who really deserve pity were the traumatised Jewish soldiers who had to carry out the slaughter. With a straight face! I am not making this up. He is on video saying it)

 

[mab23]

There is so much in your answer!

Where do I start?

Misogyny. Try being a woman priest. Or pope?

you must have a misunderstood definition of Misogyny because this does not apply in a woman trying to be a priest or a pope - Jesus chose male priest when he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the last supper, if he had women we would have women today in the priest hood , I don’t see where you get Misogyny from it sounds like you are using this word as an opinion because you may not agree …??

Paedophilia. The church covered it up. Unforgivable.

the church did not cover it up but they handled it poorly yes, at the time Paedophilia was considered to be a curable disorder (like homosexuality) and advice from therapist and psychologists at the time was taken. the way the Bishops of the church handled it could have been much better, and the Church has come a long way since then and perpetually finds ways of avoiding these abuses

260 cases happen a year in other non- CatholicChristian churchs and at a much higher number in non-school institutions (which doesn’t make it ok). Those people who committed those Heinous acts will be hard for us to forgive.

Constantly insinuating heterosexuality or heterosexual acts are wrong or immoral

insinuating… I think its more clear than insinuating - having non-marital sex to fulfill ones sexual appetite (gay or not) has always been considered sinful - the sex obsessed society you live in today is pretty new , before the 60’s , birth control , abortions , sex was usually something that happened between married people but you can look at the statistics since this sexual revolution STD’s have been on a steady rise, so have abortions, so have divorces.

Continually attempting to validate ignorance because it has been handed down from a time when we did not know of dinosaurs, or the age of the earth, or that we go around the sun.

attempting to validate ignorance… check this Quote from a professor at Berkeley CA - Non Catholic J.L. Heilbron “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions”

what ignorance do you speak of…?? like when a Catholic discovered Genetics, and when a Catholic discovered the scientific method … oh it must be when a Catholic Priest proposed the big bang theory and proved Einstein wrong …

Blindly sticking to a position is counter productive in furthering our collective knowledge

oh its not blind, and you know the Catholics started this whole public education system and Universities and what not… also we got some of the Best schools around… so go on please what else do you have , I am enjoying the irrational pairing of words and subjects you are using

:compcoff:

 

[mab23]

I am greatly surprised by some of the comments regarding William Lane Craig.

He has a reputation for being a formidable debater and ‘proving’ the existence of God. However, most of his ‘evidence’ is based on assertions and questionable interpretation of science. He also employs some dubious debating tactics.
His methods include:
The Gish Gallop
Straw men
Misrepresentation of his opponent’s position
Misrepresentation of scientific evidence
Quote mining
Argument from authority
Ad hominem attacks
Not respecting debate protocols
Refusal to address opponent’s points

While the majority, if not all, of his opponents are intellectually honest in their approach to the debates, Craig sees them as opportunities for evangelism. His aim is not to arrive at the truth but to make new converts and bolster the faith of believers. He has admitted himself that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he would still believe in god because of the witness of the holy spirit. No one with an open mind and an understanding of science and logic could say Craig ‘wiped the floor’ with Hitchens, Harris, etc. Admittedly, Rosenberg didn’t do too well but the likes of Law, Krauss and Kagan showed his arguments up for what they are.

The truth is out there, you just have to look for it.

On top of all this, how anyone can respect a man who so explicitly condones genocide, and in particular the killing of children, is beyond me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. (In the statement in question, he has the gall to say that the people who really deserve pity were the traumatised Jewish soldiers who had to carry out the slaughter. With a straight face! I am not making this up. He is on video saying it)

:yawn:

can I see an example of these so called ad hominems and all these other accusations you place on Dr Craig.

your little Genocide bit is so over repeated and out of context :yawn:

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

OccamsAftershav, I echo the calls of other people. Please give examples so that we can find out if there’s any truth in what you are saying.

 

[OccamsAftershav]

OccamsAftershav, I echo the calls of other people. Please give examples so that we can find out if there’s any truth in what you are saying.

I apologise for the brevity of the list of examples, but being busy I only had 5 or 10 minutes to search the web. If you spend another half an hour, I’m sure you can come up with many more detailed instances.
old.richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig
patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/weekend-recap-my-series-on-william-lane-craig-is-finished/
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mLSwRcvX72M
stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/william-lane-craigs-latest-attack-on-me.html
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
choiceindying.com/2011/06/06/the-intellectual-irresponsibility-of-william-lane-craig/
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4IGlgYExLOo#!
uncrediblehallq.net/2011/05/25/more-on-lukes-endorsement-of-william-lane-craig/
skeptimusprime.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-being-dishonest-in.html
skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity/2013/01/23/peter-boghossians-challenge-to-william-lane-craig/
aigbusted.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-you-shouldnt-trust-william-lane.html
debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/is-william-lane-craig-dishonest-with.html
notungblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/my-rebuttal-to-william-lane-craig’s-opening-statement-part-ii-the-cosmological-argument/
religionvirus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/dishonest-christian-william-lane-craig.html

 

[OccamsAftershav]

:yawn:

your little Genocide bit is so over repeated and out of context :yawn:

How does repetition of an outrage reduce its impact? You find objection to Craig’s sentiments boring?
youtube.com/watch?v=FHRmdCZO2bE
The reasoning that the Israelites were morally justified in the slaughter because God had commanded it, sounds familiar. Wasn’t that defence used at Nuremburg? (Yes, I know, Godwin’s Law. I just couldn’t help myself!)
I’m assuming you haven’t read his thoughts on this or seen the videos or you would not try to play the old ‘context’ card.
The links below contain the complete pieces, so you can understand the context.

reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites
reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited
youtube.com/watch?v=bOgSxv37SbE

Notice that I used Craig’s own sites to avoid accusation of bias and taking out of context.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I apologise for the brevity of the list of examples, but being busy I only had 5 or 10 minutes to search the web. If you spend another half an hour, I’m sure you can come up with many more detailed instances.
old.richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig
…

Anyone can search the web using terms like "William Lane Craig is an idiot” and come up with a veritable gold mine of Gish Gallop and misrepresentations of his arguments. That is not what I asked for. I could have done precisely the same thing on the other side and given a much longer list of links. How is that helpful?

I asked for you to provide an argument where Craig does indeed commit one of the fallacies you accuse him of. Yes, I am aware that Krauss (first link) accuses Craig of several of the fallacies, but he, like you, is wrong about that and has given an arguably unfair portrayal of Craig’s five standard arguments.

If you wish to pick one of those and refine Krauss’ argument in logical terms showing Craig’s fault, have a go. Make a case, don’t hand off responsibility to some blogger with whom we cannot actually engage. You made the claim about Craig’s tactics. You build the case.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

I apologise for the brevity of the list of examples, but being busy I only had 5 or 10 minutes to search the web. If you spend another half an hour, I’m sure you can come up with many more detailed instances.
old.richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig
patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/weekend-recap-my-series-on-william-lane-craig-is-finished/
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mLSwRcvX72M
stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/william-lane-craigs-latest-attack-on-me.html
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
choiceindying.com/2011/06/06/the-intellectual-irresponsibility-of-william-lane-craig/
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4IGlgYExLOo#!
uncrediblehallq.net/2011/05/25/more-on-lukes-endorsement-of-william-lane-craig/
skeptimusprime.com/2013/01/william-lane-craig-being-dishonest-in.html
skepticink.com/debunkingchristianity/2013/01/23/peter-boghossians-challenge-to-william-lane-craig/
aigbusted.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-you-shouldnt-trust-william-lane.html
debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/is-william-lane-craig-dishonest-with.html
notungblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/my-rebuttal-to-william-lane-craig’s-opening-statement-part-ii-the-cosmological-argument/
religionvirus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/dishonest-christian-william-lane-craig.html

Okay, so in the first place we can immediately ignore your links with stuff like “religion virus” or “debunkingchristianity” written in them. And I reckon I’ll also cancel out the one that shows a picture of Doctor Craig with an obscene word written beneath.

My take is that I watch Craig in debates and I personally feel he does a good job. One of those links talked about his debate with Sam Harris. In the link the author tried to make out that Harris had stayed on topic and Craig had not. You simply need to watch the debate to realize the extremity of such garbage being written on the net. My view is that for the most part Criaig is unpopular in certain circles because atheists see him as being a threat. In my view he wins his debates. If his opponents think he did it unfairly, they should have explained why they thought that in the actual debate. These childish attitudes of attacking the man (after the debate) because he won are very irritating. Sure, Craig will make mistakes (he happens to be human). But you only need to read The God Delusion or watch Craig’s debates to see how the atheists who are so critical are a million times worse.

 

[aprilfloyd]

I hear what you are saying.

Can you explain, how you come to the conclusion, that science cannot study or examine this area. The video does not explain that. It simply states it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How does repetition of an outrage reduce its impact? You find objection to Craig’s sentiments boring?
youtube.com/watch?v=FHRmdCZO2bE
The reasoning that the Israelites were morally justified in the slaughter because God had commanded it, sounds familiar. Wasn’t that defence used at Nuremburg? (Yes, I know, Godwin’s Law. I just couldn’t help myself!)
I’m assuming you haven’t read his thoughts on this or seen the videos or you would not try to play the old ‘context’ card.
The links below contain the complete pieces, so you can understand the context.

reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites
reasonablefaith.org/the-slaughter-of-the-canaanites-re-visited
youtube.com/watch?v=bOgSxv37SbE

Notice that I used Craig’s own sites to avoid accusation of bias and taking out of context.

The problem with your rebuttal is that you assume God did not actually command the Israelites to carry out what effectively could have been a surgical removal of evil to stop a certain contagion from spreading. When a surgeon cuts out a cancerous tumor from a patient, we do not accuse the surgeon of being genocidal with regard to malignant cells. Relative to God, humanity is much like a living organism. It could be argued that he (and only he) has the right, given his knowledge and Creatorship, to superintend the development of humanity. When the future moral health and perhaps continued existence of humanity is at stake, it may very well be that God has the moral authority to intercede and the purview necessary to decide when intervention is necessary.

I would argue that, in principle, if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent it is not logically impossible for a determination to be made by God to cull a malignant part of humanity for the same reasons that a surgeon might find it necessary to do so. That argument can be made without committing me to the belief that every assertion about God commanding genocide should be accepted just because the instigator claims it to be so.

Merely to present what the Nazis did in WWII (obviously genocide) as a reason to condemn the Israelite actions as wrong overlooks an important distinction. Not every claim that God commanded an action is to be assumed to be an instance where God actually did so. Does it only take a claim by the guilty party to make the act a command of God? Doubtful.

If God justly commanded the Israelites to carry out his will regarding the Canaanites he would have had good moral reasons for doing so.

Krauss attempts to reduce divine command to mere capriciousness on the part of God in order to dismiss Craig. He needs to do better than that.

 

[OccamsAftershav]

Anyone can search the web using terms like "William Lane Craig is an idiot” and come up with a veritable gold mine of Gish Gallop and misrepresentations of his arguments. That is not what I asked for. I could have done precisely the same thing on the other side and given a much longer list of links. How is that helpful?

I asked for you to provide an argument where Craig does indeed commit one of the fallacies you accuse him of. Yes, I am aware that Krauss (first link) accuses Craig of several of the fallacies, but he, like you, is wrong about that and has given an arguably unfair portrayal of Craig’s five standard arguments.

If you wish to pick one of those and refine Krauss’ argument in logical terms showing Craig’s fault, have a go. Make a case, don’t hand off responsibility to some blogger with whom we cannot actually engage. You made the claim about Craig’s tactics. You build the case.

“Religionists refuse to accept evidence and logic” shock.

Remember that people like myself have nothing to lose in this debate, whereas people like yourselves stand to lose your faith (try it, it’s not as bad as you may think). That is why so many of you steadfastly refuse to approach any of this with an open or reasonable mind. (Before you accuse me of the same, I was a Catholic and changed my views on the basis of evidence and reason.) Craig himself said that no amount of incontrovertible evidence would change his mind about God, and he is held up as one of your more sophisticated apologists!

Every one of those links provide reasoned, in-depth analysis of Craig and his methods. I do not have the time or inclination to repeat what is contained therein. If you read and watched them all (including the linked references) without your rosary tinted spectacles, you might learn something. I’m not holding my breath.

 

[OccamsAftershav]

The problem with your rebuttal is that you assume God did not actually command the Israelites to carry out what effectively could have been a surgical removal of evil to stop a certain contagion from spreading. When a surgeon cuts out a cancerous tumor from a patient, we do not accuse the surgeon of being genocidal with regard to malignant cells. Relative to God, humanity is much like a living organism. It could be argued that he (and only he) has the right, given his knowledge and Creatorship, to superintend the development of humanity. When the future moral health and perhaps continued existence of humanity is at stake, it may very well be that God has the moral authority to intercede and the purview necessary to decide when intervention is necessary.

I would argue that, in principle, if God is omniscient and omnibenevolent it is not logically impossible for a determination to be made by God to cull a malignant part of humanity for the same reasons that a surgeon might find it necessary to do so. That argument can be made without committing me to the belief that every assertion about God commanding genocide should be accepted just because the instigator claims it to be so.

Merely to present what the Nazis did in WWII (obviously genocide) as a reason to condemn the Israelite actions as wrong overlooks an important distinction. Not every claim that God commanded an action is to be assumed to be an instance where God actually did so. Does it only take a claim by the guilty party to make the act a command of God? Doubtful.

If God justly commanded the Israelites to carry out his will regarding the Canaanites he would have had good moral reasons for doing so.

Krauss attempts to reduce divine command to mere capriciousness on the part of God in order to dismiss Craig. He needs to do better than that.

What you have just written is not just deluded, but very disturbing.
I suggest you take a long look at yourself and your ‘objective moral values’.
Shudders

 

[OccamsAftershav]

Okay, so in the first place we can immediately ignore your links with stuff like “religion virus” or “debunkingchristianity” written in them.

There goes that open-mindedness again.
If you took the time to read them all, and the linked references, you… oh why bother. Trying to argue with the religious is like playing chess with a pigeon.
Good day to you sir!

 

[Peter_Plato]

What you have just written is not just deluded, but very disturbing.
I suggest you take a long look at yourself and your ‘objective moral values’.
Shudders

As I thought. Not even an attempt at argument. Just a series of innuendos and personal attacks. You seem to have expertise in dishing out the gish, not so much with using logic.

If I am deluded, it should present no difficulty for you to use reason to show where and how what I wrote is deluded. As for disturbing, sometimes truth can be disturbing, but that doesn’t make it less true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Religionists refuse to accept evidence and logic” shock.

Remember that people like myself have nothing to lose in this debate, whereas people like yourselves stand to lose your faith (try it, it’s not as bad as you may think). That is why so many of you steadfastly refuse to approach any of this with an open or reasonable mind. (Before you accuse me of the same, I was a Catholic and changed my views on the basis of evidence and reason.) Craig himself said that no amount of incontrovertible evidence would change his mind about God, and he is held up as one of your more sophisticated apologists!

Every one of those links provide reasoned, in-depth analysis of Craig and his methods. I do not have the time or inclination to repeat what is contained therein. If you read and watched them all (including the linked references) without your rosary tinted spectacles, you might learn something. I’m not holding my breath.

More of what you claim Craig is guilty of.

Make an argument or stop wasting our time.

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

He’s a clever guy and he picks interesting clever guys to debate with. The debates I’ve seen with him are all educational and entertaining.

 

[Transformer]

Silly atheism aside, the thing that most interests me about Craig is that he is a Christological heretic; he even calls himself a neo-Apollinarian.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I hear what you are saying.

Can you explain, how you come to the conclusion, that science cannot study or examine this area. The video does not explain that. It simply states it.

I assume this relates to post #53.

Science is limited by its own method to conclusions that are verifiable by physical evidence. As such, it can only make conclusions about natural or physical phenomena based entirely upon what has happened previously in space-time. Science cannot presume to make statements about the existence or not of any realities outside of space-time. God for one.

It cannot claim to be the sole means by which truth or knowledge is attained, since that is relying on a scientifically unverifiable premise. It cannot even claim that scientific principles are absolutely true, since the evidence supporting them is conditional on past or present events. Science, in a sense, only describes what is.

Science, likewise, cannot make conclusions about qualities, about morality (what ought to be done or what course of action one ought to take), about aesthetics (the nature of beauty), about ethics (the nature of goodness), or about anything that does not manifest in quantifiable or physical reality.

That means immaterial reality cannot be addressed in any meaningful way by scientific methods. Science might or might not corroborate religious beliefs, but it cannot disprove them outright.

For example, if the Big Bang event initiated space-time, energy and mass, then the Big Bang marks the entry point for scientific pursuit. Whatever superceded the Big Bang event is a matter for metaphysics and philosophy because the evidential fact field for scientific inquiry does not exist outside of the space time continuum and science cannot draw any conclusions without factual, physical evidence in support.

Krauss, for example, attempts to argue against the self-evident metaphysical truth that “from nothing, nothing comes” with a sleight of hand exchange of the definition of nothing with something like “quantum vacuum.” He is attempting to use ambiguity and scientific mumbo-jumbo to argue against a metaphysical idea by making the simple seem complex in such a way that, he insinuates, only those with his scientific credentials have any authority to make, what have long been considered, metaphysical claims. Essentially, it is an argument from authority (fallacy) that relies on his claim that nothing is really not nothing but something (left ambiguous) that exists in the purview of science and that only science can now address. He is making what amounts to a semantic case for why science can involve itself beyond its traditional limitations.

Unfortunately, he does not provide scientific proof for doing so, because he can’t. He relies on a metaphysical assumption devoid of scientific evidence.

 

[dshix]

“Religionists refuse to accept evidence and logic” shock.

Remember that people like myself have nothing to lose in this debate, whereas people like yourselves stand to lose your faith (try it, it’s not as bad as you may think). That is why so many of you steadfastly refuse to approach any of this with an open or reasonable mind. (Before you accuse me of the same, I was a Catholic and changed my views on the basis of evidence and reason.)

This is interesting, that you think you have nothing to lose. But you do.

Your pride is your “god” so to speak.

Atheism and Agnosticism claim to have no god or deity which they follow. However, in different sense, they do. They “worship” the self, the pride of knowing better and being ‘above’ all of those inferior deists who are deluded and think God exists. The purpose which drives atheists is their pride in being superior, and this is their “god.”

Therefore, if they admit they are wrong, they are giving up all of their pride and purpose, which is very hard for them to do.

I mean this not as a personal attack or a declaration of what ALL atheists are, but simply a refutation of what you said, which I quoted in this post.