|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: William Lane Craig
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
The Chronicle of Higher Education has profiled philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig here, calling him "Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
How would you describe him?
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I don't know Craig personally at all, and am not familiar with his work. I'm glad that there are those around who are able and willing to make an intellectual case for the validity of Christian belief, and to follow in the footsteps of people like Pannenberg, Plantinga and Wolterstorff.
It is much easier to break a vase than to make one. There are many who are dismissive of Christian faith on the spurious basis that "science has disproved it", whose philosophical groundwork deserves to be challenged, and a thought-through alternative offered.
Obviously, from a Christian POV I am very disappointed if Craig is, as Susan Doris claims, a "conceited creep", but I am also interested in the case he makes and its merits which is independent of his personality.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you.
The only thing I know about William Lane Craig is this post by Dawkins. He's pretty scathing about him. On the one hand anyone who can get Dawkins' knickers in a twist so effortlessly is all right in my book. On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I don't agree with Craig 100%, but I think he does a good job of exposing how flimsy a lot of the atheists' arguments are. I think the whole "apologist for genocide" thing was something Dawkins thought up as an excuse for refusing to debate him.
Again, I don't know Craig personally, so can't comment on his off-stage personality.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
This seems like a misapprehension.
What people like Dawkins fear is not argument, but being ignored. For what it's worth, I attended a lecture by Dawkins many years ago, before his drive to be the Pope of Atheism, and as it was mainly about science, it was hugely interesting and suggested to me that he is clearly a very intelligent chap when he sticks to his subject. That said, I find his persistent arguments for atheism immensely wearying and, for that reason, ignore him. I don't need someone to argue against him for me, as I already decided that I don't want to buy what he's selling.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you. ...
Yes, I was wondering about that. Susan Doris are you speaking from personal experience or specific knowledge? Or are you just expressing your general opinion of anyone who is a theist of any sort?
DouglasTheOtter, I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A conceited creep, I'm afraid!
Would you like to elaborate? From the OP link he seems like a decent chap. And it gives reasons far more eloquently than you. ...
Yes, I was wondering about that. Susan Doris are you speaking from personal experience or specific knowledge? Or are you just expressing your general opinion of anyone who is a theist of any sort?
DouglasTheOtter, I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I know that he's aroused particular ire amongst atheists with his defence of some of the 'genocides' in the Jewish Bible (OT).
Opinion seems to vary with regard to his philosophical arguments, for example, kalam. Some people rate him highly as a philosopher, others seem to say that he's full of sophistry.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I think he's a sophist who is more a performer than a philosopher, and who isn't beyond peddling the Noble Lie.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit. Why do some think he is not genuine? He comes across in the article as if he is, to me, and I'll be taking a look at what he's been saying.
When does confidence in one's own point of view become conceit?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit…
…as does "peddling the Noble Lie"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit. Why do some think he is not genuine? He comes across in the article as if he is, to me, and I'll be taking a look at what he's been saying.
Because I think he knows some of the flaws in his arguments, but papers over them in a highly glib manner in order to make them sound much more convincing than they really are. He states his presuppositions as obvious, and dismisses opposing views as unlikely rather than seriously grappling with them.
It's a performance that is intended to persuade in the manner of a politician rather than being truly rational dialogue.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
He is certainly feared as a debater, as he is very practised at it, he knows his arguments like the back of his hand, and can roll them out one after the other. There is a hint of the Gish Gallop.
Many opponents in debate just can't deal with his polished performance, but I think in written form, he is more vulnerable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Sophistry implies deliberate deceit.
Not necessarily. It can also include indifference to the truth. (e.g. I don't know what the truth is, but I'll make an assumption that's convenient to my argument.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
If only I was good at remembering the anti-WLC arguments that I have read; and could persuade the most articulate poster to come on over here! I did not watch the link in the OP because I have in fact listened to enough of him to know that in 'debating' (ignoring his opponent's points), I have to fast forward him or cringe!
No, I've never met him personally;yes, he's a clever, glib speaker, but can anyone show a link where the debate is conducted with mutual interest, respect etc? I'd support RD against WLC any day, unsurprisingly!
custard - could you give an example of where 'he exposes a flimsy atheist argument?
chris stiles - Hear, hear!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
"Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
If he really was that then I would think I might have heard of him. But I haven't.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am pretty sure that Dawkins would get slaughtered by Craig in debate, simply because Craig has been doing it since he was in short pants.
He just sweeps you outside with his rapid accumulation of arguments, and a sort of Hollywood grin.
I suspect Dawkins know this, and avoids him, but I don't really hold that against him (Dawkins).
I must say, if I ever have to read another long debate over kalam, I may give up on life's meaning.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fact does not win debate, style wins debate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
"Christian philosophy's boldest apostle."
If he really was that then I would think I might have heard of him. But I haven't.
He was in the news in the UK about 18months ago over whether Richard Dawkins would debate with him or not. Craig challenged, Dawkins declined.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It's metaphor then, yeah?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular. There were afew bits of complicated mathsy space stuff that I didn't understand, but I put that down to my little brain, rather than sophistry on his part.
In his introduction he makes the point that children are only ever taught Bible stories and the basics of the Christian faith are based around "because the Bible says so" underpinnings. Many yong people abandon faith the first time they meet a strident atheist because the church has failed to prepare them for any counter arguments, nor given them the skills to enter into meaningful debate. His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Enoch said quote:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I'm intrigued. Wouldn't that mean materialists couldn't believe in ideas, either? Or thoughts or theories?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Enoch said quote:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I'm intrigued. Wouldn't that mean materialists couldn't believe in ideas, either? Or thoughts or theories?
That is a can of worms. The eliminative materialists argue like that, and are of course, rather vulnerable to the view that then we can't take their ideas seriously.
However, many materialists argue that eliminativism is not an inevitable position.
But if you accept that ideas exist, then it looks as if some kind of dualism is looming, doesn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... I have problems taking seriously any person who simultaneously advocates both militant atheism and the existence of memes, without apparently being able to see any inconsistency in his position.
You'll have to explain the inconsistency to me as well, because I don't see it.
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
I don't think there has to be a "realm", merely two or more people sharing ideas. Really, all the talk of the replication and evolution of memes (and in fact genes) boils down to is a very convoluted and scientific-sounding way of saying "what will be will be" which doesn't seem to be a very promising basis for an academic career, although Dawkins seems to have managed it very well.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular.
Could you quote one or more of his 'rational basis' statements?
quote:
His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
Could you also give an example of the 'knowledge' he gives? I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I read WLC's "Reasonable Faith" recently. I thought he did a good job of setting out the rational basis for theism and Christianity in particular.
Could you quote one or more of his 'rational basis' statements?
quote:
His mission is to equip young Christians with knowledge and tools to tackle people who try to persuade them away from faith, and I like him for that.
Could you also give an example of the 'knowledge' he gives? I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.
Sorry, Susan Doris, I don't have the book any more, it was only lent to me, so I can't quote directly from it.
As for the knowledge he gives, I was referring to knowledge of what people like you, and the even more aggressive variety of atheist believe about Christianity, along with considered responses that hold water. The point is that a young person faced for the first time with a clever sounding statement like "of course there is no proof that Jesus even existed" is easily thrown off balance and persuaded to give up her faith. But if she expects to meet that argument, and is prepared with knowledge of how historical data is collected and assessed, she might be able to enter into a meaningful discussion on the topic.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) How is an idea "spreading" different than a meme "self-replicating"? Those seem to be describing the same thing.
Also, I'm not sure the fact that ideas can change over time or eventually be rejected means that they have to be physical objects (i.e. "have an objective existence").
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
Craig is a bit cocky and sometimes it feels unwarranted—I think he puts much more faith in Kalaam than he should. He probably thinks his faith in it is justified though, and the cockiness represents his view of the weakness of the opposing arguments.
At other points I find his attitude can be encouraging—I think that a culture of intense skepticism often prevents us from really feeling confident in anything, and it's nice to have a counterweight which says 'that's not how it has to be'.
It might be nice if he didn't always come across as quite so polemical and was more open to genuine dialogue with others, but then I guess he's a man on a mission.
I doubt whether he'd be able to shake SusanDoris' disbelief in God but then, she's already dug her heels in.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's all post-hoc. Finding reasons to justify your disposition. Which has nothing to do with reason. My disposition is to love Dawkins. I have every sympathy with him. More. WLC can be as slick as he likes, it's on a false premiss if it's more than a flip of a coin.
Dawkins has nothing to defend. Furthermore I find his morality far more Christian than all but mere Christianity.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If a meme were just a convenient shorthand term for an idea that spreads, there wouldn't be a problem. However, as soon as one speaks of a meme's self-replicating, evolving, or even being subject to natural selection, that attributes to it an objective existence. But for a materialist, it is impossible for there to be a realm in which a meme can have an objective existence.
How is an idea "spreading" different than a meme "self-replicating"? Those seem to be describing the same thing.
They are describing the same thing. So why invent the words 'meme' and say that they're 'self-replicating' when all Dawkins is saying is that ideas spread? Apparently it's a way of applying Darwinian theory to culture. Positing the existence of self-replicating memes will provide the basis for a breakthrough in sociology and cultural studies; that is to say, we'll get a breakthrough in sociology and cultural studies if we posit that ideas spread.
Either 'memes self-replicate' means something different from 'ideas spread', in which case it's open to criticism, or it's describing the same thing as 'ideas spread' in which case it's a truism masquerading as an insight in parascientific dress.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all post-hoc. Finding reasons to justify your disposition. Which has nothing to do with reason.
I'm not sure that something being post-hoc has to isolate it from reason.
Why do I believe in relativity? Because someone passed the knowledge down to me and I adopted it. If someone challenges me on that belief I might then read about the experimental or theoretical evidence behind it to justify holding it and I would find that a perfectly reasonable activity to engage in.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Apples and chalk.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either 'memes self-replicate' means something different from 'ideas spread', in which case it's open to criticism, or it's describing the same thing as 'ideas spread' in which case it's a truism masquerading as an insight in parascientific dress.
Choosing to say that memes 'self-replicate' is a bit of a giveaway. Something can't 'self-replicate' unless it has an independent existence of its own, capable of doing the replication. But if it does, there has to be a medium within which it exists objectively. Human beings, animals etc self-replicate in the material world. But even ideas, yet alone memes, don't have that sort of an existence in the material world.
If they do not objectively exist, that destroys everything Dawkins claims for them. If they do, then there has to be some non-material reality within which they have an objective existence. That, though, is incompatible with the Dawkins world view.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I know that he's aroused particular ire amongst atheists with his defence of some of the 'genocides' in the Jewish Bible (OT).
Opinion seems to vary with regard to his philosophical arguments, for example, kalam. Some people rate him highly as a philosopher, others seem to say that he's full of sophistry.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
May I suggest you follow
this link
I’d like you to listen to the entire 12 minutes but if you start at around 9:10 and listen for one minute you’ll get the essence if not the context.
Warning – the clip features William Lane Craig explaining that it was the Israelites’ moral duty to slaughter children and is accompanied by additional material that some will find distressing.
A simple extrapolation of his words suggest that he would be morally obligated to watch his mother/sister/son/dog (I know not if he has any of these but you get my drift) slowly and painfully starve to death over a period of weeks if his god told him to do so.
I offer no opinion – I hope none is required.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Or to put it another way, "memes" are an example of the fallacy of hypostasization - a regular accusation of atheists towards theists. Perhaps Dr. Occam could be called upon to adjudicate, as ever.
I'm not sure that memes would enable Darwinian thought to culture - if anything they would be Lamarckian in type.
(I have never heard of this guy either, and that sort of discussion is not normally of much interest to me so my lack of knowledge is hardly surprising.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions.
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. You seem to be suggesting that WLC’s debate style and “short-form apologetics” are not truly reflective of his underlying thoughts because he seeks popular approval. Assuming that his debates are financially rewarded (directly or indirectly) such a suggestion is, is it not, tantamount to accusing him of manipulating/misrepresenting his beliefs for financial gain and/or public recognition.
The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions. From what I’ve seen WLC’s conclusions are simple – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect. The rest appears to be convoluted obfuscation intended to obscure his opening position – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect (a structure into which his persistent use of the kalam cosmological argument fits effortlessly).
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government. But like QT debates give an opportunity to state sincerely held beliefs. Modifying one’s beliefs for public consumption may be a necessary evil for politicians but it’s still an evil, and doing so when claiming to define/defend morality would not be just an evil – it would also be sanctimoniously hypocritical, wouldn't it?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I offer no opinion – I hope none is required.
Be honest: of course you offer an opinion. Your silence presents an opinion, as does the rhetoric in the rest of your post. And you're known on this message board as an atheist but also as someone who disapproves of the very idea of God or gods.
Anyway, this is a very instructive thread, as I don't know anything about this fellow William Lane Craig. He sounds like an evangelical who's a bit too clever and cocky for mainstream tastes. Perhaps what America needs is a more moderate Christian who can debate clever atheists yet still come across as humble and friendly. Is there anyone in the wings? I hear that Rowan Williams (ex-ABofC) debated Craig a while back. Maybe he could do more of that sort of thing now he has a less stressful job.
[ 04. July 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
People should take care not to confuse Craig's debate style and short-form apologetics created for popular consumption with the analytical philosophy on which it is based. You seem to be suggesting that WLC’s debate style and “short-form apologetics” are not truly reflective of his underlying thoughts because he seeks popular approval. Assuming that his debates are financially rewarded (directly or indirectly) such a suggestion is, is it not, tantamount to accusing him of manipulating/misrepresenting his beliefs for financial gain and/or public recognition.
The latter is highly regarded by those who can approach it, even those who disagree with the conclusions. From what I’ve seen WLC’s conclusions are simple – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect. The rest appears to be convoluted obfuscation intended to obscure his opening position – that there is a god and he (god) is perfect (a structure into which his persistent use of the kalam cosmological argument fits effortlessly).
Debates mean nothing, they're as important to the whole discussion as question time is to the job of government. But like QT debates give an opportunity to state sincerely held beliefs. Modifying one’s beliefs for public consumption may be a necessary evil for politicians but it’s still an evil, and doing so when claiming to define/defend morality would not be just an evil – it would also be sanctimoniously hypocritical, wouldn't it?
You could learn to quote properly, that's just a mess to try to respond to.
I'm not suggesting anything in particular about his beliefs, just that they have a technically philosophical basis. Who said anything about "modifying beliefs for public consumption"? Certainly wasn't me, nor did I imply it.
And FWIW, "simple" is what conclusions usually are, compared to the argument behind them. I don't know what you're protesting.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
On the other hand, if Dawkins' quotes of Craig's arguments are accurate then Craig may have some odd ideas about OT genocide.
May I suggest you follow
this link
I’d like you to listen to the entire 12 minutes but if you start at around 9:10 and listen for one minute you’ll get the essence if not the context.
I get the essence that the video editor is cutting and pasting from many different sources to create a certain impression. The few seconds of Craig at 9:10 is brief, and stripped of all context. My questions would be: where was Craig making these comments, and for what purpose, and how did it fit into his overall argument? It's impossible to tell from the link - even less so than from Dawkins' selective quote-mining in the article I linked to. A useless video to link to I'm afraid, and not worth my time to watch it all the way through.
But of course, it is entirely possible that Craig feels he is forced by his faith in a literal Bible and his belief in a morally perfect God to attempt a justification of the Biblical record of God's command of genocide. If so, he may be making a worthy attempt to square this moral circle, despite anything he says, however rigorously defended, being utter anathema to those who don't share his beliefs in the first place.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
How does a debate between an atheist and a theist indicate that faith is fickle? Perhaps the opposite is true - the theist feels that their faith is strong enough to deal with formal attacks from an atheist opponent. It depends on who 'wins' the debate, doesn't it?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
As for the knowledge he gives, I was referring to knowledge of what people like you, and the even more aggressive variety of atheist believe about Christianity, ..
Thank you for your reply and I do appreciate that this thread is about WLC in particular
However, . that's a really interesting comment and I wonder could you please expand on this? What do you think atheists like me believe about Christianity? quote:
...along with considered responses that hold water. The point is that a young person faced for the first time with a **clever sounding statement like "of course there is no proof that Jesus even existed" is easily thrown off balance and persuaded to give up her faith.
I think it would depend how the information was presented. Do you agree that young people should learn, from an early age, to think critically, and to investigate the pros and cons of the statement so that they can choose for themselves,
**why 'clever-sounding'? quote:
But if she expects to meet that argument, and is prepared with knowledge of how historical data is collected and assessed, she might be able to enter into a meaningful discussion on the topic.
I agree they should learn how history is recorded and the errors that can creep in.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Apollogies in advance for a bit of selective quoting! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by markporter: Craig is a bit cocky ... ... the cockiness represents his view of the weakness of the opposing arguments ... .... polemical ... ...
Weakness? Huh!! quote:
I doubt whether he'd be able to shake SusanDoris' disbelief in God but then, she's already dug her heels in.
I dispute the 'dug her heels in' bit because if that were so, I wouldn't spend time reading with interest the many religious views expressed here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I find strange, debates between atheists and theists. Is faith so fickle?
How does a debate between an atheist and a theist indicate that faith is fickle? Perhaps the opposite is true - the theist feels that their faith is strong enough to deal with formal attacks from an atheist opponent. It depends on who 'wins' the debate, doesn't it?
Watching a debate is akin to watching a football match*, you come away with a winner, but it does not change who you follow. Yet there are atheists and theist who crow victory as if it is important.
If your faith position is affected by a debate, you did not have a strong stand in the first.
*Actually, it is more akin to people attempting to decide which is better, football or rugby. So they get a representative from each sport and play tennis.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Weakness? Huh!!
Sure—I'm not saying that opposing arguments are all weak but that Craig, from his position may well regard quite a few of them that way.
quote:
I dispute the 'dug her heels in' bit because if that were so, I wouldn't spend time reading with interest the many religious views expressed here.
It was a slightly provocative comment. When you said 'I doubt there will be anything that would change an atheist's lack of belief in any god.' and went in search of some anti-WLC arguments it rather gave me the impression that you'd made up your mind and didn't want it to be changed.
That's not to say that I'm any more open-minded, although I suppose I would have to admit that I have a fair number of doubts and that whilst I hold onto a particular faith position I'm aware that it sometimes feels fairly fragile.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But of course, it is entirely possible that Craig feels he is forced by his faith in a literal Bible and his belief in a morally perfect God to attempt a justification of the Biblical record of God's command of genocide. If so, he may be making a worthy attempt to square this moral circle, despite anything he says, however rigorously defended, being utter anathema to those who don't share his beliefs in the first place.
That seems to be essentially where he comes down in this essay. His pro-genocide position (or at least pro-certain-genocides position) seems to be based in part on a Christian version of the Führerprinzip, that everything is okay if you're just following orders, and in part on the idea that certain groups of people are so evil they can justly be collectively obliterated. He also has a bit about how it's a positive good to stab a young child through the face with a sword because then she'll go to heaven, whereas if you let her grow up as a heathen she'll likely suffer damnation after she hits some (unspecified by WLC) Age of Reason. Interestingly, despite arguing that killing someone while they're young is doing them a huge favor, he opposes legalized abortion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's when he says that 'the death of these children was actually their salvation', that I have a tendency to retch.
Then he expresses compassion on those soldiers who killed the children, as it brutalized them. What?
This all seems very sick to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
