The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig
29 Nov 2011, 3:04 am
William Lane Craig's argument for objective morality is dishonest because it is actually two arguments, only one of which he establishes. The first argument concludes that if there are no objective moral values, morality is conventional. Then he makes a second, separate argument for the existence of objective morality. The argument is invalid. He just assumes that there are objective moral values. He'll say something like Objective moral values exist and I think we all know it. The reasoning behind his position is "I think we all know it" which is a travesty of a philosophical argument.
29 Nov 2011, 3:31 am
Telekon wrote:
William Lane Craig's argument for objective morality is dishonest because it is actually two arguments, only one of which he establishes. The first argument concludes that if there are no objective moral values, morality is conventional. Then he makes a second, separate argument for the existence of objective morality. The argument is invalid. He just assumes that there are objective moral values. He'll say something like Objective moral values exist and I think we all know it. The reasoning behind his position is "I think we all know it" which is a travesty of a philosophical argument.
I agree that the argument only works if you accept that there are objective moral values and duties. Though his argument for the existence of objective moral values is usually elaborated in print. Someone can deny the first premise and move on if they want but the point Craig usually makes is that this comes with an extreme price. The argument certainly is vaild though if both premises are true the conclusion inevitably follows. We can disagree as whether it is sound or not, or whether or not Craig adequately defends the contentions but I don't think we can doubt the arguments validity.
In debates like the one he had with Sam Harris or Craig Taylor the debate topic itself assumes there are objective moral values and duties.
In general Craig's debating style is to set out his position then defend parts where he is challenged. I think he does this for the sake of brevity and not out of any desire to be dishonest. If an opponent wants to challenge his defense of the first premise of the moral argument then they are free to do so and then he tends to elucidate his position further. Further Craig usually does elucidate further, offering greater support for the first premise.
An interesting aside, he was challenged on the statement 'I think we all know it' and has started changing his line to be more detailed. He got a bit spanked by Dr. Ahmed at Cambridge for using it. Dr Ahmed said:
"Now that might pass for an argument at Talbot Theological Seminary, and it might pass for an argument in the White House, but this is Cambridge, and it will not pass for an argument here.”
It was a good zinger on Ahmed's part, but Craig made a good comeback in his next set of rebuttal. He now usually starts by saying something along the lines of 'we all apprehend objective moral values'; making it more of an argument from personal experience.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
29 Nov 2011, 5:12 am
91 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Well, except for an area where he is not widely cited. He's not the most cited philosopher of religion.
No that honor goes to Plantinga.
Quote:
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***ing MIND, 91: DO YOU DISLIKE APPEALS TO AUTHORITY OR DO YOU LOVE THEM????
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.
Hi 91,
I posted a response to you on the issue of conditional probabilities, commonly grouped with Bayesian Statistics, and I mentioned both the Monty Hall Problem and responded to your direct & entire citation of a William Lane Craig paragraph, which I also referenced to his books and commercially available courses. The postings are included included at the top of: http://www.wrongplanet.net/posts179586-start15.html
and, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html
You also mention that Craig "can also change his mind" with anything involving his "old mind set" labeled as "mud slinging". You usually then cite something as if you flipped open a flow-chart available for proselytizing materials associated with organizations and/or institutions associated with WLC.
As you take the branch of off references to duck issues that take a lesser utility value for a total sum of polemics, I'm going to start with a very famous example of an issue that either WLC is, or plays, near totally ignorant about, and as he cites the subject in many of his books and other writings, he continues his game, and when there's times he's caught at it, he makes a quick "correction" that has a very short time span (until his very next chance to game the issues).
I will use the example at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html
As the "World's Smartest Person" caught many famous experts off guard, the fallacy is now well known, except to WLC (who you cite as "very knowledgeable) during instances as if in decisions to exploit the fallacy, and repeatedly uses very large number as if for purposeful confusions (with his flash-flip-flop POV of the fallacy). With his large number version, WLC is slighting/directing, in a misleading manner, individuals to succumb to the fallacy of the "Monty Hall Problem". With his creditionals you flaunt for him, he knows the problem (and while exploiting with his audiences, and in general public, in his "debates", but citing it correctly often in some of his own materials and books, which he apparently may receive remunerative rewards, with included links in various postings).
Instead of "3 Doors", WLC uses 10-to-the-(10 to the 60th power) of "fundamental particles", and that is how he flip-flops his "no chance" to "perfect chance" with gullible religious, and off-guard secular, victims. He probably conducts finances in a very similar manner with creative accounting apologetics. There is a sucker born every minute, and a Slick Christian Capitalist won't miss the opportunity with saving souls for their own self-charity ego, though fortune and fame isn't what it's claimed, but Mephistopheles will gladly contract any opportunity.
I was associated with the former Old Worldwide Church of God when it was seized by the California State Attorney General under the laws against organized criminal activities involving remunerative rewards and deceptive proselytizing activities for financial gains.
Here, people with disabilities listed in the DSM-IV are included, and you post your location as Australia. Who is circle selling??? Which circle God(s) practice???
Tadzio
Mephistopheles just again googled "'Monty hall problem' 'William Lane Craig'" too!! !
Satan Says "'William Lane Craig' Bayesian" for the outhouse with the open door.
29 Nov 2011, 8:00 am
91 wrote:
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.
Yeah, I made a typo. Wow.... you can spot typoes! AMAZING!! !
Quote:
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.'
'Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.'
and
'justified in accepting a more standard view.'
Actually, I consider those two statements roughly equivalent.
Quote:
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.
No it isn't. A presumption that A is true suggests I can accept this on A.
Quote:
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.
91, if the point is so f*****g definitional, then be explicit on that. Don't throw about a CV when you've already defined Craig as clearly a philosopher by definition without that CV even existing, as that's just complete folly.
I'll learn the difference when you learn to think.
29 Nov 2011, 8:12 am
91 wrote:
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.
91, neither position is plausible, AND Tadzio's video proves that he's certainly been anti-evolution long-past the point of viability.
Quote:
No that honor goes to Plantinga.
I just mean that by the Hirsch, he's also not in a top ten.
Quote:
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.
91, I stated " if I had to choose between an inerrantist and a mythicist, I would consider the latter position more honest ANY day of the week"
You stated: "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."
The connection ONLY EXISTS if we assume that the authority of universities has some weight on the matter. Otherwise, you didn't poke a hole. Your statement was utterly irrelevant. So, pick one, either you contradicted yourself, or you just like saying random things. The fact that your statement is irrelevant without an appeal to authority is pretty obvious, and frankly, I really think any claim you didn't make one is going to be some post-hoc lie to avoid the appearance of outright idiocy.
29 Nov 2011, 8:34 pm
And your evidence that he is dishonest is...?
I don't know the OP but I can't say that I don't factor the message of his signature (i.e. that steps taken by a nation to stop violent crime are as bad as the violent crime itself) in when judging his position.
_________________
Sometimes the easiest way is no way at all.
29 Nov 2011, 8:41 pm
Telekon wrote:
William Lane Craig's argument for objective morality is dishonest because it is actually two arguments, only one of which he establishes. The first argument concludes that if there are no objective moral values, morality is conventional. Then he makes a second, separate argument for the existence of objective morality. The argument is invalid. He just assumes that there are objective moral values. He'll say something like Objective moral values exist and I think we all know it. The reasoning behind his position is "I think we all know it" which is a travesty of a philosophical argument.
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
_________________
Sometimes the easiest way is no way at all.
29 Nov 2011, 8:50 pm
socalaspie wrote:
Telekon wrote:
William Lane Craig's argument for objective morality is dishonest because it is actually two arguments, only one of which he establishes. The first argument concludes that if there are no objective moral values, morality is conventional. Then he makes a second, separate argument for the existence of objective morality. The argument is invalid. He just assumes that there are objective moral values. He'll say something like Objective moral values exist and I think we all know it. The reasoning behind his position is "I think we all know it" which is a travesty of a philosophical argument.
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
That doesn't work. The consequences of a doctrine are not evidence of the truth or falsity of it. A true belief can have very negative consequences, and many of them have had negative consequences.
30 Nov 2011, 12:59 am
socalaspie wrote:
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
By answering "No" to all of them, or even by answering "yes" to all of them, the answers would be subjective.
You fail to demonstrate objective morality with "Do you want..", "do you like...", "do you hate...", etc. examples.
30 Nov 2011, 4:53 pm
91 wrote:
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.
He is a fellow at The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, the major ID advocacy group in America (which is missing from that list you gave, although I am not sure how much a CV covers).
Craig also is at Talbot School of Theology, with a doctrinal statement which states:
Quote:
The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.
and
Quote:
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
I guess you should define what 'agnostic' really is. Does Craig not believe in Talbot's doctrinal statement?
30 Nov 2011, 7:56 pm
socalaspie wrote:
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
I don't want those things to happen to myself or anyone I know. If it were that simple to prove the existence of objective morality there wouldn't be more than one school of thought in ethics. Why do people disagree on the status of moral values then? Do moral relativists want to be raped?
30 Nov 2011, 8:18 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
I guess you should define what 'agnostic' really is. Does Craig not believe in Talbot's doctrinal statement?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lOg7NwzNP0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7WNzoiUAe8[/youtube]
HerrGrimm wrote:
He is a fellow at The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, the major ID advocacy group in America (which is missing from that list you gave, although I am not sure how much a CV covers).
He remains neutral on the individual claims of ID but supports the idea of a design inference being valid. I have said that multiple times now.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 8:33 pm
Telekon wrote:
socalaspie wrote:
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
I don't want those things to happen to myself or anyone I know. If it were that simple to prove the existence of objective morality there wouldn't be more than one school of thought in ethics. Why do people disagree on the status of moral values then? Do moral relativists want to be raped?
According to Theo Doctorate William Lane Craig:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
From William Lane Craig's postings at: sourced:::reasonablefaith-dot-org:::sourced
Tadzio
30 Nov 2011, 8:39 pm
Tadzio wrote:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
How is that relevant?
30 Nov 2011, 8:47 pm
91 wrote:
He remains neutral on the individual claims of ID but supports the idea of a design inference being valid. I have said that multiple times now.
Right, he just collaborates with them. And he works with a theology school whose doctrine is the creation myth.
The thing is, do you ACTUALLY believe that, or are just telling me because he said so?
30 Nov 2011, 8:53 pm
Telekon wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
How is that relevant?
Hi Telekon,
Please don't make the Craig quotes look like something I would say myself. The relevancy is , does the quote contain a declaration declaring something objective or relative, and either way, why???
Tadzio wrote:
Telekon wrote:
socalaspie wrote:
Do you want to be killed?
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
Do you want to be raped?
Do you want to be robbed?
Do you want to see any of those things happen to your family?
Answer yes to all of the above and then we'll talk about there being no objective morality.
I don't want those things to happen to myself or anyone I know. If it were that simple to prove the existence of objective morality there wouldn't be more than one school of thought in ethics. Why do people disagree on the status of moral values then? Do moral relativists want to be raped?
According to Theo Doctorate William Lane Craig:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
From William Lane Craig's postings at: sourced:::reasonablefaith-dot-org:::sourced
Tadzio
