The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0][/youtube]


There's a Facebook Full: http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532

Why does it take WLC's God a few decades to catch up when humans discover something previously unrecognized? Like "Terrell Rotation"???

Tadzio

I didn't fail to read it, I failed to comprehend it. Your sentences are awkward and hard to follow. To wit:



What does this mean? AFAICT, the person objecting to William Lane Craig's cosmological argument, who you apparently refer to as "this objective," thinks that one of his premises implies an unjustified metaphysical theory. And yet, "this objective" believes that it is justified. Sorry friend, but this is psychobabble.



No one put forth an argument for the ontological status of things.

Krauss is a bad sport. I watched the debate and it certainly looked like he was trying pretty hard. If he was not giving Craig his best then he is doing a disservice to the audience.

Most of the charges that get leveled at Craig come from either people who lost to him or people who want to get out of a debate with him.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... ane-craig/

You can launch ad homeniem at people who disagree with you all you like but I think I will leave it to Dr Came, an atheist and professor of philosophy at Oxford University.

‘The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.’

Here is his CV, it is one of an accomplished philosopher... throw mud on this;

Curriculum Vitae

Educational Background

Wheaton College — B. A. Communications, high honors 1971
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laude 1975
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Church History, summa cum laude 1 975
University of Birmingham, England — Ph.D. Philosophy 1977
Universität München, Germany — D. Theol. Theology 1984


Honors and Lectureships

Scholastic Honor Society Wheaton College 1971
Academic Achievement Award Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1975
Research Grant Andersen Foundation 1975-77
Research Fellowship Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung 1978-80
Best Articles of 1988 Philosopher's Annual II 1988
McManis Lectureship Wheaton College 1994
Geneva Lecture Series University of Iowa 1994
Exemplary Papers Award Templeton Foundation 1995
Paley Lectures University of Western Ontario 1995
Easterwood Lecture Southern Methodist University 1996
Carver-Barnes Lectures Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1996
Strauss Lectures Lincoln Christian College and Seminary 1996
Easterwood Lecture Southern Methodist University 1996
Carver-Barnes Lectures Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1996
Strauss Lectures Lincoln Christian College and Seminary 1996
Exemplary Papers Award Templeton Foundation 1996
Exemplary Papers Award Templeton Foundation 1997
Ryan Lectures Asbury College and Seminary 1999
Templeton Lecture Montana State University 1999
Templeton Lecture Malone College 2000
Staley Lectures Crown College 2000
Saucy Lectures Talbot School of Theology 2001
Nelson Lectures Samford University 2001
Bonchek Series Franklin and Marshall College 2001
Physics and the God of Abraham Gonzaga University 2003
Lee Lectures Louisiana State University 2003
Weyerhauser Debate Series University of Hawaii 2003
Templeton Lecture University of Colorado 2004
Templeton Lecture University of California, Santa Barbara 2004
Stobb Lectures Calvin College and Seminary 2004
D. Litt. Bethel College 2005
Joseph M. Carr Lectures Mt. Union College 2006
Templeton Lecture Methodist College 2006
UNESCO Lecture University of Tunis 2007

Professional Societies
American Philosophical Association 1977-
American Academy of Religion 1978-
Society of Biblical Literature 1978-
Society of Christian Philosophers 1979-
Executive Committee 1997-2000
Evangelical Theological Society 1983-
Evangelical Philosophical Society 1983-
Vice President 1995-96
President 1996-2005
Science and Religion Forum 1990-
Philosophy of Time Society 1992-
President 1999-2006


Career Experience
Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1980-1986
Associate Professor of Religious Studies Westmont College 1986-1987
Visiting Researcher Université Catholique de Louvain 1987-1994
Research Professor of Philosophy Talbot School of Theology 1996-
Visiting Professor of Philosophy Wheaton College 2003-

If Master Pendant or AG want us to think he is not a philosopher... lets see their credentials.

You changed the video in that quote, very dishonest... FYI Craig is not a Young Earth Creationist.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSc92EDm5gU&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]

Hi DC,

Here's the "Terrel Rotation" paper again. It's "difficult" to understand compared to popular myths like "Santa Clause". So, here also is (5) "The Man on the Street and Presentism", since "keeping it 'worm-in-the-brain' simple" is might ruin WLC's shell-game:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf

http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf

http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html

Tadzio

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[/youtube]


http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532

Wow.

91, I think you're way too impressionable, as it seems that William Lane Craig's behaviour is rolling off onto you way too much.

This thread doesn't claim that William Lane Craig isn't a philosopher, it claims that he's dishonest (particularly in his apologetic and popular works). So, enough with the strawmen.

Frankly, it's laughable how someone who regards issuing textbook definitions of the laws of logic as an (invalid) appeal to authority yet DEMANDS to see credentials before we DARE QUESTION SAINT CRAIG. I pretty much made it clear (for those who care to read or are honest enough to acknowledge what they read) that I disagreed with SisyphusRedeemed's characterization of Craig as a fool.

Of course, maybe I shouldn't have, as it's good (right now according to you - I'm sure in another thread you'll flip flop on this principle of debate depending on what it means for your side) to defer to authority and SisyphusRedeemed has more authority than me:

I just don't know how to paste videos without out cut-and-paste. You always call difficulties with web-tools being "dishonest", and then you defend Craig!! !!

Even then, how can "Here is a good example of how atheists mischaracterize Dr. Craig " be "wronged" unless it is changed to something that you agree IS NOT A MIS-CHARACTERIZATION!! !!????

Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0[/youtube]

I think I have figured out exactly where you are going wrong here. You seem to be accusing Craig of committing some sort of a fallacy of equivocation or maybe one of composition. Where most of these sorts of accusations come from are people who cannot see the basic points that both thinkers are working from in their debates with one another. This leads to people making misrepresentations of the view of both participants; though on youtube it tends to be atheists. Where I think you are going wrong here and Telekon pointed it out, is the common definition of what constitutes a 'thing'.

One really bad way that youtube atheists get their interpreations of the arguments wrong is with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) and I will use it as a basic example. When Craig argues that everything that begins to exist has a cause therefor the universe has a cause. Just Google 'Kalam Fallacy Composition' and you will see a plethora of atheists claiming to have debunked the KCA.

A fallacy of composition would read like 'every piece of an elephant is light, therefor the elephant it light' or 'human being has a mother therefor the human race has a mother'. When reading the KCA atheists often misinterpret it to be committing this fallacy. The problem is that the complaint assumes that Dr Craig is attempting to put forward his case for the KCA by arguing compositionally. The problem is that this is just not the case; Craig nowhere argues from composition, he does not treat the universe as a parent body that must possess the properties of the underlying set. The point is subtle and it is amazing how many youtube atheists miss it.

The reason I raise this is because you are accusing him of committing a fallacy of equivocation between on the definition of 'things', suggesting that he is not in fact talking about the same subject when he uses the same word. The problem is, as Telekon pointed out, he is working from a common definition, the opponent in the debate could have asked for clarification and no doubt Craig would have given it but since most of these debates take place between trained professionals with a common set of language beneath them, there really would have been no point; other than to state the obvious.

The charge that Craig is being dishonest is laughable, is he also meant to challenge each opponents definition of 'time', 'space' or 'energy before he debates the KCA with them? No of course not; not unless there is something substantial to be gained from the effort; like when Craig challenged Sam Harris on his fallacy of equivocation in his naturalistic ethics The danger of these sorts of debates is that often times, you will have two equal opponents who take the gloves off and leave the audience behind and often unable to follow.. or you get others where one side crushes the other. For me, I perfer to be able to pause the debates I am watching, so I can find out where people are coming from.



The argument was from an article I posted. On of your friendly atheist websites recommended that if you want to claim Craig is dishonest, you ought to show your credentials first. I was just taking the page's advice.

Most of this thread's aims seem to be located around a simple attack to get people to dismiss Craig before they listen to him. If you are in doubt pick up a copy of his book or watch some of his debates. I have seen far worse come out of the mouths of his opponents than I ever will from him.



Peer-review is a bit of a contact sport. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of Craig's attacks, he offered some pretty good criticism of my own work on abstract objects. Some areas of it, he was right, others I think he was wrong on but overall, he appraised my position very well, given the arguments I put forward in their defense. Nothing he argued gave me the impression he was not open to counterargument.

Just to circle back, this has nothing to do with our conflict. Craig being a prominent philosopher of time doesn't mean that his ideas in the philosophy of time are considered good, nor does it have ANYTHING TO DO with whether we should accept the Neo-Lorentzian view, which we have to in order to take the KCA seriously.(And note: This view isn't a prominent view in physics, meaning that a non-physicist is generally going to be more justified in accepting a more standard view)

I don't know what thought processes are going on, but there is a certain degree of obtuseness involved here.

Massive appeal to authority. When I defend Dr. Craig on the grounds that he is a qualified philosopher and an accomplished debater, I am not affirming the truth or falsity of his arguments on these grounds. You just affirmed a particular theory on the grounds that it was more popular... fail.

91, this isn't even remotely in the realms of academic/intellectually respectable positions just the same. I mean, let's be honest here, we're talking about a scholar who promotes Intelligent Design, the inerrancy of scripture, who believes that a perfectly loving being will torture certain people eternally and can urge genocides at a whim, and who has some questionable debate maneuvers alongside the rest of it.

I mean, sure, Craig is actually a published philosopher. That's not proof that he's sane. That's not proof that he has good ideas. That's not proof that he should be taken seriously. Jacques Derrida is a philosopher who is taken seriously in some circles, but in all the rest, his name is a joke and a cause for laughter. Is this a statement that I am smarter and more educated than Derrida? No. The issue is the absurdity. Is Craig willing to suspend his reasoning to get his objectives? Honestly.... that really appears to be the best explanation, the other good explanation is that Craig is under a delusion in a number of areas, and in either case, then yes, not taking this goof seriously is reasonable. This isn't to say "the KCA is wrong because Craig has logical flaws", but honestly, as already pointed out, the KCA requires the A-theory of time, which requires a non-standard view of physics that isn't widely accepted and still being chewed over as some regard it as problematic and a step backwards for physics. This is kind of a problem for the major argument, one that makes it more useless once one actually understands the issues, as many atheists, and the brand of atheism promoted by "new atheism" are going to side with the current standard science answer as their starting point, making the KCA utterly irrelevant in persuading them.

Now, this can go further, but seriously, if I had to choose between an inerrantist and a mythicist, I would consider the latter position more honest ANY day of the week. So, for whatever terrible things I get for not censuring Richard Carrier for his absurd position, Craig is worse!

91, your statement seems to fail to appreciate how logic works. The appeal to authority is an informal fallacy that only exists in deductive argumentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

This:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

As wikipedia points out, is a valid framework to work from. We all use this. We all have to use this.

We only get a fallacious appeal to authority when we make this a deductive claim. Otherwise, if you disregard "appeals to authority" as inductive arguments, you deny ALL ability to use a division of cognitive labor and thus deny ALL intellectual claims, because we all exist in a division of cognitive labor.

The additional problem is that you JUST MADE A f*****g APPEAL TO AUTHORITY just a little bit earlier in the thread. Not even on a new page. We literally can see you appeal to authority in an illegitimate manner, RIGHT ON THE SAME PAGE where you criticize a legitimate recognition of authority as providing a presumption on the truth of a claim.

This is a f*****g joke. This is f*****g insane. This is downright laughable as M_P basically called this out, on the EXACT SAME f*****g PAGE! ................................

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 29 Nov 2011, 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

That is just a dreadful mischaracterization from you; albeit, unsurprising. It is something that we could expect from Richard Dawkins. Craig is not s 'promoter' of intelligent design, he is agnostic towards it; but open to their claim that a design inference is a valid philosophical conclusion. You just named emotional topics in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on his position.



Theistic philosophy ought to be taken seriously and it is. The fact that thousands of young post-grads follow his work and have been inspired by people like him and Plantinga to take up the discipline is proof that his ideas have gain traction. The fact that no major atheist speaker in the world can afford to ignore him in either their published work, or in academic debate is a sign that even his opponents take him very seriously.



No mythicist holds any major academic posting anywhere in the world. Inerrantists occupy many senior academic positions you will find them in Oxford, Caimbridge, Notre Dame and just about any major university in the world. Its just apples and oranges.

No he isn't. You're misconstruing what he said, as he never actually made any claim towards ID in the video you presented. He ALSO FREAKING ARGUED IT IN 2009 against Francisco Ayala. That's not agnosticism. Also, if we just look at the video posted by tadzio, he's still explicit on the matter in that he's not really a person who upholds mainstream evolution.

Right, because hell and genocide from a loving being should independently be regarded as plausible.


Well, except for an area where he is not widely cited. He's not the most cited philosopher of religion.

That being said, theistic philosophy really ought not be taken seriously.


Ok?

You're trying to prove that inerrancy is more plausible by inerrantists holding more positions, even though there are massive confounding sociological factors involved, and clear reasons why to reject inerrancy. You're not really being reasonable here, and frankly, once again, for a person who apparently dislikes appeals to authority, this is only an appeal to an authority. MAKE UP YOUR f*****g MIND, 91: DO YOU DISLIKE APPEALS TO AUTHORITY OR DO YOU LOVE THEM????

Can you spot the fail here? Before you set off to lecture someone on logic please learn the difference between induction and deduction. Actually, the fallacy can apply to both.

By the way, your argument is still invalid because there is a difference between what you are saying in the syllogism and what you originally said. Lets compare the two conclusions.

'Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.'
and
'justified in accepting a more standard view.'

Saying there is a consensus is not the same thing as saying you can accept it on those grounds. Saying 'there is' a presumption refers to the consensus, not the truth or falsity of the consensus. Hence what you said is still a fallacy.




What makes a person a contemporary philosopher is their qualifications and academic position, at least in my view, you are welcome to dispute this however. I said that Dr. Craig was a philosopher, I did not say that because of this, that he was right. Please learn the difference.

I have watched that debate, have you? If you did you would have noted in Craig's opening that he did not intend to debate the individual claims of ID. Rather, he supported the idea that science was open to the divine and challenged the presumption of naturalism... this would only be construed as support for ID by someone intending to use it for mud slinging. What is interesting about Craig is that he can also change his mind, he actually used to be more open to ID (as did Plantinga) but he was convinced that their specific ideas were wrong.



No that honor goes to Plantinga.




I am not drawing any conclusions from the authority... merely mentioning that there are more of something than or others. It is only a fallacy if I conclude truth or falsity from the reference (hence an appeal to authority is a genetic fallacy). If you want to compare inerrantists to mythicists in terms of academic credibility then be prepared for me to point out the flaws in that position.