The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50XrpoNElo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ[/youtube]

For the record, I disagree with the first video (made by a professor of philosophy who teaches a philosophy of religion class). William Lane Craig isn't a fool so much a grossly dishonest man.

From the secular outpost at infidels.org written by Jeffery Jay Lowder. http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011 ... craig.html

Objection: Craig is not a good philosopher.

Reply: I'm going to be blunt. This is a stupid objection. Not only does he have a Ph.D. in philosophy, but he is widely regarded as a leading expert on the philosophy of time (AG should note this). Before someone makes an objection like this, I would encourage them to look in the mirror. Do they have a Ph.D. in philosophy? If not, then why do think they are even competent to attack the philosophical competence of someone who does? In my experience, when I have talked to nontheistic professional philosophers of religion about Craig, they have always had respect for his philosophical abilities.


Objection: Craig is dishonest.

Reply: Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I take the charge of dishonesty extremely seriously. Anyone who levels the accusation of dishonesty has the burden of proof, and they had better make sure they attempt to get the other person's side of the story before publicly concluding that dishonesty is the best explanation.

If Craig has been dishonest, I have yet to see any evidence of that. For example, one person suggested Craig was dishonest in a debate because he used a probability calculation in a debate. According to this critic, the 'problem' was not that Craig was being dishonest in his calculations, but that he used a calculation in a debate, which was supposedly unfair to his opponent. Huh? I don't call that "dishonest." I call that making an argument.

A second allegation is that Craig is dishonest in his public debates because he uses arguments which he "knows" are false. Really? I do wonder how these people "know" what Craig thinks.

In summary, I don't agree with his arguments, but there is no need for unwarranted personal attacks. Let's focus on the arguments, please.

And from Lawrence Krauss: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... am_lan.php

"Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted. I was very disappointed because I had heard that Craig was more of a philosopher than a proselytizer, but that was not evident the other evening."

Honestly, I think secular web tends to be too charitable in being kind in disagreement.

That quote from Krauss came straight after he got his backside handed to him in a debate with Craig.

that particular belief is more probable to be shared by both sides the more fundemental they view the question.

And Craig is widely known as the sort of apologist who will do anything to win, so I can't regard this as particularly unfair. It was just an example I knew off-hand at the moment.

Stephen Law had this to say about Craig:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... 4986660446
"Also, there’s a widespread misperception that philosophers are pretty evenly divided on theism. They’re not. Only 15% are even theists of some sort. Almost all think Craig’s arguments are shot full of holes. Craig likes to appeal to authority, and quote big names, thereby creating the impression that the consensus is with him or at least evenly divided (See, even leading atheists endorse my moral argument!). I’m afraid that’s all BS. But it reassures the punters that what he’s saying has real credibility. Which is the real point of these tours."

"I would never give an argument I believed not to be good just to win a debate. Craig and I go into these debates with very different attitudes. I am interested in truth. He's interested in making believers of you, by any means necessary."

Now, the issue is that Law can't be argued as having his "backside handed to him by Craig", particularly given that many commenters, including Law himself, believe that Law probably won the argument. Craig had more polish as usual, but Law is considered to have done a very good job presenting his particular case.

I mean, one can continue to insist this isn't really true about Craig, but in all seriousness, a lot of people admit Craig is openly just trying to get people to convert.

Cry me a river. Are you telling me that Christopher Hitchens pulls his punches? Or that Krauss would?



Again and Harris and Dawkins are not attempting to make believers of you? Atheists will twist in the wind because he wins. The simple fact of the matter; what they cannot extract in open debate they make up for by sometimes having a cry on a blog after they get their ticket punched in public.

Sam Harris on Craig; "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

The claim that he is not a serious philosopher is nonsense as is the claim that he in intellectually deceitful.

Here is a good example of how atheists mischaracterize Dr. Craig.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UnEkydeDVQ&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]

Why is he "grossly" dishonest? All SisyphusRedeemed and DasAmericanAtheist have demonstrated is that Craig assumes that atomism is false. So what? The objection which Craig answered assumes that it is true. No independent argument is given on either side for the correct ontological status of 'things'. SisyphusRedeemed concedes as much at 3:52 of his video: Assuming that position [atomism] is true...then the objection does in fact work. The objector assumes atomism and so is no better on this score than Craig.

If "things" refer to the concrete objects of experience, then things do begin to exist and the objection has no force. The worst you can say is that Craig has made an unjustified philosophical assumption in his response, but so has the objector to the cosmological argument. If Craig is intellectually dishonest then so is the objector.

Philosophy and theology are group-wanks.
A degree in either only certifies the bearer as having
a huge tolerance for balderdash and intellectual playing card towers.
and a poor grasp on the difference between facts and stuff pulled out of ones ass.

The issue is that an "unjustified philosophical assumption" significantly impacts the validity of the response, and Craig is educated enough to know the framework well enough to not make that assumption unless it was for rhetorical gain. (As SisyphusRedeemed points out, atomism is pretty dang old and well-known)

The objector actually didn't do that. The objector is claiming that one of Craig's premises doesn't have justification in the metaphysical theory that this objector presumably holds is justified.

The issue is whether 'things' refers to the basic building blocks of matter, in which case we have no experience of them coming into existence, or whether the term refers to their macro-aggregates, the concrete objects of experience (e.g. mountains). Neither Craig nor his critic offered arguments for the ontological status of things. Craig assumes 'things' means one thing and his critic assumes it means something else. The critic does not advance an argument for atomism, he assumes it. It is not incumbent on Craig to make an argument against atomism when one has not been presented.



This is gibberish. It looks like you're saying that the critic holds that a metaphysical theory underlying a premise in Craig's argument is justified, but at the same time he thinks that it isn't justified ("doesn't have justification"). How does that make sense?

It is at minimum incumbent on Craig to properly present his opponent's position, particularly since Craig, not likely being a complete idiot, likely understands where that opponent is coming from. Failure to do this, and to also mock the position suggests intellectual dishonesty. It *could* be folly, but folly is hard to attribute in a situation like this.


No. It isn't gibberish. The objector is holding that Craig's argument's premise does not have justification in the metaphysical theory that this objective holds is justified. So, if I assume there is no Socrates, and someone says the following:
1) Socrates is a man
2) All men are mortal
3) Therefore Socrates is mortal

I can easily quickly rebut "I don't think Socrates existed!". The issue is that the persuader, which is the person who is putting forward the argument either has to address this correctly(if briefly) or let the disagreement stand.

"Things" are interchangeable with "particulars" in contemporary metaphysics. Mountains and electrons are both things. Craig assumed the truth of this view, maybe in the absence of an argument for atomism, when he should have challenged his critic to give one. Atomism is not fatal to the kalam argument anyway. The first premise of the kalam argument is based on the law of efficient causality which is metaphysically necessary. It is not an empirically derived concept. It would still be true even if the only things in the universe were sub-atomic particles.



That doesn't make sense. Whatever you're struggling to explain, I'm not interested in untangling it.

Craig took a ludicrously uncharitable interpretation of what was stated, and that's just that.

The problem is that trying to prove to someone that causation has to hold cannot be done with the statement "causation is metaphysically necessary". If one wishes to prove something, one actually has to provide an argument. Arguing that no "thing" ever comes into existence, thus we cannot make any inferences on causality and the Big Bang is not an impossible argument. It may be implausible, but the terms of it are clear enough.


Yes it does. Your failure to read it has nothing to do with me.

Krauss's claim is that he didn't go all out on the situation.

Even further, talking about Christopher Hitchens has nothing to do with Craig. Hitchens may also fail to play the game right, but that's not relevant to Craig not playing the game right. The issue isn't "pulling punches", it's whether Craig's tactics are dishonest, and misrepresenting a position is dishonest. Now, we can argue that the position Craig was rebutting is bad, but pretending that he's on target when he's making a foolish mockery of it and himself in doing so, doesn't aid things.


That depends on the context. Remember, the quote is from Law, not Dawkins, and whatever Dawkins does doesn't mean that Dawkins is doing the right thing. "They did it, therefore it's right for me to do it" is an utterly failed ethical principle.

Even further, "open debate" isn't a neutral topic area. Remember, Duane Gish was a debater. The creationists were known for trying to go into debates, and they WON. Now, the issue is that their merits were not there, however, the debate context favors talking points, and high school syllogisms over complicated discussion and real thinking. Craig is a talented and experienced debater, who often wins debates on that issue, it takes a very talented debater to do well against Craig. The issue is that very people have that intellectual background. So, while most theistic arguments are considered to be trashed outside of the open debate, in the open debate, this is harder to convey.


I never said he was unserious. The issue is that many people have expressed the notion that he is not honest. Now, it is correct that a person can be a dishonest atheist. Frankly, most of the 4 Horsemen are just outside of their range of competence enough where it is hard to criticize them based upon what they should know because they're really dilettantes.

91, do you ever get tired of relating any religion topic back to "the New Atheists" regardless of whether people have actually referenced them or whether it pertains to the topic at hand? Because spamming various religion threads with "THE NEW ATHEISTS ARE BADDDDDD" is quite unbecoming of a serious thinker.

It's clear that Craig is being dishonest, as the various youtube objecters made it clear that when they were talking about no "thing" being proved to come into existence, they were talking about PHYSICAL THINGS (you know, that type of "thing" the various physical cosmologists Craig frequently references speak of). Craig's reply even starts of acknowledging that they're speaking of fundamental material stuff first before he pulls that slight of hand where he talks of "dinosaurs beginning to exist" or "you beginning to exist" (i.e. he switches the meaning of "things" to referring to higher-level, emergent concepts). So even if Craig holds that God injected Souls and Vital Essences for animals (or whatever other dualist nonsense you want to add) into the Universe or that the "things" coming into existence are aggregate, emergent properties, it's still clear that Craig's being dishonest (by acknowledging that the objectors are talking about initial material coming into existence before "refuting" that point by pointing to your birth and crap like that).

Some philosophically inclined people with knowledge about Quantum Mechanics reject this intuition.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 28 Nov 2011, 11:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.