Thought on William Lane Craig?

RickeyHoltsclaw

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

I agree with what I think some of you are going to say: you wouldn't give him the time of day. However, there exists a wide audience that thinks of him as some kind of god. I myself was called out by a friend of mine here a long time ago (who is no longer active here) for giving him way too much credit. I said that Theoretical Physicist Sean Carroll beat him with ease in their debate, although according to Sean Carroll, this was not a debate. You can watch it here: 

I had only looked at a bit of what he had done back then, but recently, after looking at a lot of his work, I have a hard time finding him sincere, much like what Philosopher and Epistemologist Peter Boghossian finds about most Christian Apologetics. I find him an overrated, arrogant, pompous master of nonsense, in my opinion. I can understand why Dawkins doesn't have any time for him either, especially regarding his silly questions and some of the horrific things he has said based on literal interpretations of scripture that most educated theologians would never dream of saying.

He hasn't said anything different from what every other religious person has ever said in any debate except in the way he says it, which is like some amateur high school debate format.

Every single argument he has made, every single claim against atheism, is nothing new; nothing that hasn't already been said by any other religious person; all old, all failed, and substantially refuted time and time again! I am going to create a debate soon about all these failed theist arguments in another thread, but here, this is my take on WLC.

In summary, he seems to me to be more interested in just winning debates than being a true theist and/or actually finding truth. And he has a wide audience that finds him impressive, and which he has had some great success in reasoning them into unreasonable positions.

William Lane Craig has taken on a lot of big names in debates:  Sean Carroll, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Millican, Victor J. Stenger, Antony Flew - who stopped being an atheist after his debate, Peter Adkins, Lawrence Krauss, Frank Zindler, Shabir Ally, Sam Harris, and a long list of others.  

Got to admire that about him.  And the thing is when atheists are being pure A-holes to him, he doesn't reciprocate their a-holyness.  He is always the kindest and easy going debater I have seen.  And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.  

Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating. 

MayCaesar

I have only heard him at his debate with Sam Harris... Very underwhelming. I could not tell what his actual argument was: it was just voodoo, long-winded speeches that never led to any actual points. The only point that I could discern was that "atheists should be okay with murder", which is not worth commenting on.

For whatever reason this is where religion takes otherwise intelligent people. They develop this weird ability to say a lot without saying anything, and it becomes their standard speech pattern. Kind of like politicians do. It has been painful to watch the evolution of Jordan Peterson who used to be a very concrete and strong thinker, but recently have delved deep into Christianity and adopted the same habit of saying things that sound profound but have no substance.

Have you ever witnessed a student answering a question on the topic he had no clue about? Where the student was desperately trying to come up with something, anything, to fill the silence? This is how all these religious debaters come across to me. And I have no patience for that. I am a technical guy: either your stuff works, or it does not. If you want to present a programming project to me, give me the deliverable, run it and show the results. Talking for two hours about how your code is supposed to work and having no actual running code - please do it in front of the mirror if you have to.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

William Lane Craig has taken on a lot of big names in debates:  Sean Carroll, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Millican, Victor J. Stenger, Antony Flew - who stopped being an atheist after his debate, Peter Adkins, Lawrence Krauss, Frank Zindler, Shabir Ally, Sam Harris, and a long list of others.  

Got to admire that about him.  And the thing is when atheists are being pure A-holes to him, he doesn't reciprocate their a-holyness.  He is always the kindest and easy going debater I have seen.  And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating. 

And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

PS: Quntum Physics should not come into debates about something unfalsifiable. If you paid any attention you might find Sean Caroll here correcting WLC on outdated and/or irrelevent scientific stuff. AKA

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

I would recommend watching the video mentioned. It's rather amusing actually how you got one actual scientist discussing with what someone thinks science is. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

When I was a theist I did admire him, though I wasn't much into fact checking back then. I 'believed' he was as smart as atheists like Dawkins, Hichens and others who wrote, lectured and debated. With equal arrogance. But then I grew up. Applied critical thinking to the bible and what people like Craig was saying.  Forgot most of the details but during that time I factchecked some comments he had made concerning the cosmos. Several things he seemed to misrepresent what was actually being taught in academia and one thing in particular he flat lied about. The best of my recollection it was about what an astronomer said while pondering a question and Craig reported it as the guy became convinced of god. Read "a case for christ'  by Lee Strobel during this time as well. More god of the gaps with personal stories, conjecture... Bottom line it became apparent after many years of anguish everything these guys do is for the edification of the church, nothing more. Besides the obvious of course, dollars of the faithful.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

Alternatively if you wan't to have more fun and just goof off a bit this video where Dawkins is trolling Sam Harris during his debate WLC is rather amusing: 

PS: On another note, it was interesting to find out that Shermer used be strong theist. 

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

I also don't find him sincere. For him it's more about fame, fans, etc. I think this is one of the reasons why Dawkins refuses to debate or even just discus with him. And this is a guy that has debated actual scholars, bishops, etc. WLC is a try-hard IMO that has a flock of gullible sheep that fool for his nonsense. 

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

William Lane Craig has taken on a lot of big names in debates:  Sean Carroll, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Millican, Victor J. Stenger, Antony Flew - who stopped being an atheist after his debate, Peter Adkins, Lawrence Krauss, Frank Zindler, Shabir Ally, Sam Harris, and a long list of others.  

Got to admire that about him.  And the thing is when atheists are being pure A-holes to him, he doesn't reciprocate their a-holyness.  He is always the kindest and easy going debater I have seen.  And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating. 

And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

PS: Quntum Physics should not come into debates about something unfalsifiable. If you paid any attention you might find Sean Caroll here correcting WLC on outdated and/or irrelevent scientific stuff. AKA

Zeus, tell me then when they hold a poll at the end of his debates with these individuals at these various universities, which often happens, why is it that He wins those polls.

Here is someone commenting on WLC's debating abilities:  

William Lane Craig (or WLC as we call him in the business) is of course ia very well-known figure, largely for his many public debates, on theism/atheism as well as on various other specific theological issues. As far as debating goes: he’s very good at it! If his debates were being judged by a panel of experts as in an intercollegiate debate tournament, he would have a very good record indeed. This has led many people to conclude that atheists just shouldn't debate him at all, or at least not until they have devoted 10,000 hours to learning how to be a good debater. - Sean Carroll

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Thanks for the video.(s) I think I'll pass some time reexamining some of the old debates for fun. Sean Carrol systematically destroys Craig but he don't even realize it. No wonder Carrol said it was no debate. LOL

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating. 

Just can't back it up.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

William Lane Craig has taken on a lot of big names in debates:  Sean Carroll, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Millican, Victor J. Stenger, Antony Flew - who stopped being an atheist after his debate, Peter Adkins, Lawrence Krauss, Frank Zindler, Shabir Ally, Sam Harris, and a long list of others.  

Got to admire that about him.  And the thing is when atheists are being pure A-holes to him, he doesn't reciprocate their a-holyness.  He is always the kindest and easy going debater I have seen.  And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

Your right, he doesn't really say anything too revolutionary, but he very knowledgeable about a wide range of scientific disciplines and can talk cosmology, philosophy, or quantum physics with whomever he is debating. 

And the fact is he wins the debates, that's why atheists hate him.

PS: Quntum Physics should not come into debates about something unfalsifiable. If you paid any attention you might find Sean Caroll here correcting WLC on outdated and/or irrelevent scientific stuff. AKA

Zeus, tell me then when they hold a poll at the end of his debates with these individuals at these various universities, which often happens, why is it that He wins those polls.

Here is someone commenting on WLC's debating abilities:  

William Lane Craig (or WLC as we call him in the business) is of course ia very well-known figure, largely for his many public debates, on theism/atheism as well as on various other specific theological issues. As far as debating goes: he’s very good at it! If his debates were being judged by a panel of experts as in an intercollegiate debate tournament, he would have a very good record indeed. This has led many people to conclude that atheists just shouldn't debate him at all, or at least not until they have devoted 10,000 hours to learning how to be a good debater. - Sean Carroll

You just keep them coming don't ye. 

Zeus, tell me then when they hold a poll at the end of his debates with these individuals at these various universities, which often happens, why is it that He wins those polls.

Just because someone might be popular among a larrge array of people doesn't make what they say any less bullsh!t. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Thanks, watching the video in its entirety is going to be painful, but I will do so when I have a reason to celebrate something with some strong alcohol! From the few snippets I have looked at, things are worse than I thought. Here is an excerpt from Craig's opening speech:

"Professor Carroll's solution provides no convincing answer to the Boltzmann Brain problem. Since the mother Universe is a de-Sitter space in which thermal fluctuations occur, and since baby Universes grow into de-Sitter spaces themselves, there is no explanation in the model why there exists genuine low-entropy Universe around us, rather than the mere appearance of such a world, an illusion of isolated brains which fluctuated into existence out of the quantum vacuum."

Meaningless mishmash of scientific terms. Deepak Chopra would be proud!

The fact that a couple of other people tried to argue along these lines on this website in the past, also having no clue about the terms they were invoking, suggests that this is a very popular set of arguments in some community. I thought originally that these were just a couple of people who genuinely tried to understand the physics of it, but just did not have a sufficient background to grasp it... Turns out, even these are not their own ideas, but ideas they adopted from their religious authorities.

I do not know, I just have increasingly little patience for this kind of thing over time. I am interested in ideas with substance, and this is just a bunch of nonsense in silver coating.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

The fact that a couple of other people tried to argue along these lines on this website in the past, also having no clue about the terms they were invoking, suggests that this is a very popular set of arguments in some community. I thought originally that these were just a couple of people who genuinely tried to understand the physics of it, but just did not have a sufficient background to grasp it... Turns out, even these are not their own ideas, but ideas they adopted from their religious authorities.

That is what they do. Back when I attended services they would take trips and/or pass out videos. (dvd's) I wasn't too interested in those days prior to becoming an apostate though. Didn't care much what atheists had to say till I started questioning things. 

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42
Just because someone might be popular among a larrge array of people doesn't make what they say any less bullsh!t. 

He's popular because he wins debates with some of the most well know cosmologists and atheists around.  That's why Sean Carroll said he was a good debater and why Sam Harris said that William Lane Craig had put the fear of God in many of his atheists friends.  

Good debaters debate the issue before them.  They don't feel the need to trash people.  Lane has been publicly debating for 30 years . He wouldn't be asked to debate against the top scientific minds if he wasn't any good.  

MayCaesar

Speaking of the "de Sitter space", this term triggers a painful memory in me every time I encounter it. I was in the 5th year of my physics program back in Russia, pretty well-rounded already, but always somewhat weak on cosmology. My friends were attending a local conference on campus, and I decided to come to one of the talks. The talk was about some particularly interesting phenomenon suggested by recent developments in General Relativity Theory, so I was quite excited... The speaker, from Estonia, started the talk with the following: "As you all know, de Sitter spacetime is characterized by the following equation" - and wrote a huge equation on the whiteboard. I lost it right there, and the rest of the talk I could not understand a sentence.

Here is a very short and simple introduction to de Sitter space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space

I do not know about Dr Craig - maybe for him this is like elementary school math - but I need a strong drink to get through even a chunk of this article.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Speaking of the "de Sitter space", this term triggers a painful memory in me every time I encounter it. I was in the 5th year of my physics program back in Russia, pretty well-rounded already, but always somewhat weak on cosmology. My friends were attending a local conference on campus, and I decided to come to one of the talks. The talk was about some particularly interesting phenomenon suggested by recent developments in General Relativity Theory, so I was quite excited... The speaker, from Estonia, started the talk with the following: "As you all know, de Sitter spacetime is characterized by the following equation" - and wrote a huge equation on the whiteboard. I lost it right there, and the rest of the talk I could not understand a sentence.

Here is a very short and simple introduction to de Sitter space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space

I do not know about Dr Craig - maybe for him this is like elementary school math - but I need a strong drink to get through even a chunk of this article.

You get that Craig wrote 2 books on cosmology and deals with several cosmogenic models in his books and debates, right?  His book 'Creation Out of Nothing' talks about  steady state models, oscillating models, vacuum fluctuation models, chaotic inflationary models, quantum gravity models, and ekpyrotic models.  My favorite theory is the 'Return to the Planet of the Apes' theory (my name for it), by Princeton professors Gott and Li-Xin Li who theorize that an atom or particle from the future travels back in time and creates our universe.  Carroll's view, which Craig got him to admit in their debate is not the correct model, reminds me of the movie Tenet, it deals with a reverse time scenario for the universe in a feeble attempt to avoid a beginning - it doesn't.   

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Does not matter if he had written 1,000 books when what he is talking about makes no sense whatsoever. I could write 1,000 books on the construction of passenger planes in South Korea; if I was a persuasive enough speaker and had a large enough loyal audience, I am sure some of them would read these books and even find them profound - but anyone who knows anything about aerospace engineering would say that, from the engineering perspective, I am a complete nutcase. And he would be right.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@ZeusAres42
Just because someone might be popular among a larrge array of people doesn't make what they say any less bullsh!t. 

He's popular because he wins debates with some of the most well know cosmologists and atheists around.  That's why Sean Carroll said he was a good debater and why Sam Harris said that William Lane Craig had put the fear of God in many of his atheists friends.  

Good debaters debate the issue before them.  They don't feel the need to trash people.  Lane has been publicly debating for 30 years . He wouldn't be asked to debate against the top scientific minds if he wasn't any good.  

He wins debates the way drunken bull sh*ters in bars win debates. He who spews the most bull wins. 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Yup, we have just had two presidents in a row who won tens of millions of votes by acting like senile grandpas, one with schizophrenia, another with dementia.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
 I am a complete nutcase.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree then.  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I wish I could agree with you. I wish I could get my dream job by just telling my future employer, "Hey, look, I have N publications, so I know what I am talking about. Hire me!" Unfortunately, this kind of stuff only works in two areas of life: media space and politics. Everywhere else you have to walk the talk.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Faith and Reason

William Lane Craig claims faith and reason are compatible.

On the contrary, faith relies on personal conviction and belief in the absence of empirical evidence, while reason emphasizes gathering and analyzing evidence to support conclusions. This fundamental difference in obtaining knowledge is a show-stopper.

ZeusAres42

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

GiantMan

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I also don't find him sincere. For him it's more about fame, fans, etc. I think this is one of the reasons why Dawkins refuses to debate or even just discus with him. And this is a guy that has debated actual scholars, bishops, etc. WLC is a try-hard IMO that has a flock of gullible sheep that fool for his nonsense. 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

I find that these people often allow their mind to work in multiple incompatible ways, choosing one depending on the situation. When they want to point out practical issues with not believing in god, they will say that morality can only be grounded in faith. On the other hand, when they talk about objective reasons to believe in god, they invoke (pseudo-)logical reasoning. When their audience is dominated by religious people, they will let their artistic imagination loose and talk seriously about talking snakes and post-crucified resurrected zombies - but when it is dominated by secular skeptics, they will try to frame those as metaphors.

It is fine to adjust one's delivery based on the audience, but saying one thing in front of one audience and its negation in front of another is a manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

That observational reality tends to transcend to other theists debating styles, even here on these boards.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yes. Also worth noting, (it's been alluded to but I'm going to say it flat out) any debate Craig 'wins' is based on people polled who doesn't understand a thing he says. Otherwise they wouldn't give him the win. For instance where Craig said this debate isn't about natural vs theism so he won't elaborate on certain questions. Paraphrased of course but the whole purpose of all his debates are to elevate creation via a deity above natural scientific methods. So he flat out lies to avoid questions.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

One the claims he makes is that the atheism position is illusionary while also stating that the belief in god is a rational one. This is just one of numerous claims of the same kind. This should give you a clue as to how far his intellectual ability spans 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder @ZeusAres42

I mean, I think one should give the devil his due: Craig is a very good orator and definitely a highly intelligent and well-read thinker. The problem is, his arguments are incoherent: behind all this eloquence lies lack of substance. I do not think that he necessarily follows a well thought strategy when debating his opponents. It is just his style, to throw around sentences that sound profound to those who are already on his side, and give a pause to those who are not, but who cannot match his vocabulary and willingness to use it out of context. It does not help that the format of these debates is such that he can speak for 10-20 minutes uninterrupted, and he is able to cram in a lot of nonsensical arguments during that time, making it impossible for his opponents to refute him - for if they take time to refute everything he says, they will have no time left to make their own arguments.

This is one of the reasons I nowadays just prefer focusing on concrete disciplines with clear results. In things like debating, philosophy, arts one can get away with almost anything as long as it is properly presented: one can take a canvas, throw some dirt at it, come up with a beautiful story on how that dirt represents the struggles of starving children in Africa - and voila, we have an internationally recognized exhibition! I like disciplines in which the result is relatively binary. In chess, if you win, you win, and it does not matter who your opponent thinks should have won. If you build a bridge and it collapses, then it collapses: the nature does not care about how you think engineering should work.

Debating Craig, it is very hard to get anywhere. You may get the audience to accept supremacy of your arguments - and he will just go to another city, assembles another audience and keep talking. There is no objective metric that one can use and conclude that his arguments are full of contradictions.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

I find that these people often allow their mind to work in multiple incompatible ways, choosing one depending on the situation. When they want to point out practical issues with not believing in god, they will say that morality can only be grounded in faith. On the other hand, when they talk about objective reasons to believe in god, they invoke (pseudo-)logical reasoning. When their audience is dominated by religious people, they will let their artistic imagination loose and talk seriously about talking snakes and post-crucified resurrected zombies - but when it is dominated by secular skeptics, they will try to frame those as metaphors.

It is fine to adjust one's delivery based on the audience, but saying one thing in front of one audience and its negation in front of another is a manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.

@MayCaesar it's this inscinerity where I have a hard to being able to like anything about the guy. Interestingly Peter Boghossian has dedicated his entire career to speaking (not debating) with all kines of people, especially those of faith, and he noted that he always found/finds Apologists not be sincere. 

GiantMan

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

I find that these people often allow their mind to work in multiple incompatible ways, choosing one depending on the situation. When they want to point out practical issues with not believing in god, they will say that morality can only be grounded in faith. On the other hand, when they talk about objective reasons to believe in god, they invoke (pseudo-)logical reasoning. When their audience is dominated by religious people, they will let their artistic imagination loose and talk seriously about talking snakes and post-crucified resurrected zombies - but when it is dominated by secular skeptics, they will try to frame those as metaphors.

It is fine to adjust one's delivery based on the audience, but saying one thing in front of one audience and its negation in front of another is a manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.

@MayCaesar it's this inscinerity where I have a hard to being able to like anything about the guy. Interestingly Peter Boghossian has dedicated his entire career to speaking (not debating) with all kines of people, especially those of faith, and he noted that he always found/finds Apologists not be sincere. 

ZeusAres42

GiantMan said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@JulesKorngold

Yeah, he is often inconsistent. He has at other times admitted that faith is not based evidence, or rationality. I guess that's another cue to him being insincere. 

As for the claim faith and reason are compatible that translates to "pretending know stuff about which you don't know is reasonable." 

I find that these people often allow their mind to work in multiple incompatible ways, choosing one depending on the situation. When they want to point out practical issues with not believing in god, they will say that morality can only be grounded in faith. On the other hand, when they talk about objective reasons to believe in god, they invoke (pseudo-)logical reasoning. When their audience is dominated by religious people, they will let their artistic imagination loose and talk seriously about talking snakes and post-crucified resurrected zombies - but when it is dominated by secular skeptics, they will try to frame those as metaphors.

It is fine to adjust one's delivery based on the audience, but saying one thing in front of one audience and its negation in front of another is a manifestation of intellectual dishonesty.

@MayCaesar it's this inscinerity where I have a hard to being able to like anything about the guy. Interestingly Peter Boghossian has dedicated his entire career to speaking (not debating) with all kines of people, especially those of faith, and he noted that he always found/finds Apologists not be sincere. 

@GiantMan (AKA Argumentum Ad Logicam).

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar it's this inscinerity where I have a hard to being able to like anything about the guy. Interestingly Peter Boghossian has dedicated his entire career to speaking (not debating) with all kines of people, especially those of faith, and he noted that he always found/finds Apologists not be sincere. 

I understand. Such people are like snakes: you never know whether they truly mean what they say.

I would not say that people of faith are unique in this respect: all "ideologically possessed" (a.k.a. overly invested in their ideological group belonging) people tend to hold double standards and be insincere. But there is something about people of faith, in addition to that, pretending to know far more than they do. They will talk about scientific concepts that they do not understand, make big claims about what "atheists believe" based on a tiny sample of atheists they have talked to, assume things about their opponents that there is no evidence to support... It is like their epistemology is grounded in wishful thinking: "I want X to be true, and if I have enough faith, then X will become true".

They also really like dodging direct questions. You ask a person of faith whether they would murder someone if god ordered them to - and they will start dancing around, never giving "yes" or "no" or even "maybe" or "depends" answer. You ask them whether, if they learned that there was no god tomorrow, they would lose all of their morals and went on a killing spree - they will switch the subject. You ask them how they know that the [Holy Book 1] is the right book and not [Holy Book 2] - and they will make a circular argument for how [Holy Book 1] proves itself to be the right book, and refuse to explain how the same argument does not apply to [Holy Book 2].

I would summarize all of this by saying this: it is very hard to have an honest discussion with a person of faith. A good conversation is like a friendly sparring: you send a few jabs your partner's way, your partner blocks or counters them, then you receive a few jabs - and so on. A conversation with a person of faith is typically more like shadow boxing: you jump around and throw punches, and they just fly through the air, as your partner has already left the ring.

GiantMan

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar it's this inscinerity where I have a hard to being able to like anything about the guy. Interestingly Peter Boghossian has dedicated his entire career to speaking (not debating) with all kines of people, especially those of faith, and he noted that he always found/finds Apologists not be sincere. 

I understand. Such people are like snakes: you never know whether they truly mean what they say.

I would not say that people of faith are unique in this respect: all "ideologically possessed" (a.k.a. overly invested in their ideological group belonging) people tend to hold double standards and be insincere. But there is something about people of faith, in addition to that, pretending to know far more than they do. They will talk about scientific concepts that they do not understand, make big claims about what "atheists believe" based on a tiny sample of atheists they have talked to, assume things about their opponents that there is no evidence to support... It is like their epistemology is grounded in wishful thinking: "I want X to be true, and if I have enough faith, then X will become true".

They also really like dodging direct questions. You ask a person of faith whether they would murder someone if god ordered them to - and they will start dancing around, never giving "yes" or "no" or even "maybe" or "depends" answer. You ask them whether, if they learned that there was no god tomorrow, they would lose all of their morals and went on a killing spree - they will switch the subject. You ask them how they know that the [Holy Book 1] is the right book and not [Holy Book 2] - and they will make a circular argument for how [Holy Book 1] proves itself to be the right book, and refuse to explain how the same argument does not apply to [Holy Book 2].

I would summarize all of this by saying this: it is very hard to have an honest discussion with a person of faith. A good conversation is like a friendly sparring: you send a few jabs your partner's way, your partner blocks or counters them, then you receive a few jabs - and so on. A conversation with a person of faith is typically more like shadow boxing: you jump around and throw punches, and they just fly through the air, as your partner has already left the ring.

ZeusAres42

GiantMan said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I also don't find him sincere. For him it's more about fame, fans, etc. I think this is one of the reasons why Dawkins refuses to debate or even just discus with him. And this is a guy that has debated actual scholars, bishops, etc. WLC is a try-hard IMO that has a flock of gullible sheep that fool for his nonsense. 

@GianMan

I am sorry but what part of "Thoughts/opinions on a person?" confuses you? I would be happy to help. . 

MayCaesar

Just listened a little bit to his debate with Christopher Hitchens, and this snippet is quite revealing:



"As for the teleological argument, again, he didn't respond to what I said in my last speech with respect to the fine-tuning being well-established in science, and that the fact we're going towards nothingness, as he puts it, is an atheistic assumption, not a Christian assumption, and therefore doesn't do anything to disprove design".

That is how it works for these guys: if an argument is unpleasant to deal with, just say that it is an atheistic argument, so, as a theist, you do not have to agree with it!

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

LOL Very much like asking them which god is this imagined fine tuning pointing to? They're pounding their chest after speaking on how supposedly complexity leads to a designer but then nothing but crickets when asked by who, your god? Just-saying won't even answer it and claims his faith has nothing to do with it. Problem being his faith is the only reason he debates this stuff in the first place. If they can't be honest with themselves they're not going to honest with anyone else.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Their argument is self-defeating. If complexity indicates intelligent design, then something as complex as an omnipotent and omniscient creature (god) would itself indicate intelligent design - but then they will say that god does not require a designer because of some "he is eternal" kind of nonsense...

It is a perfect example of starting with the conclusion and then arriving at the reasoning that is supposed to lead to it.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

I sometimes do have a hard time understanding why anyone would think he is a highly intelligent person. To me, there is nothing intelligent about claims such as "The belief in God is a rational one," "Atheism is illusory," "That is an atheist argument," "Life has no meaning if you are an atheist," and so forth. That being said, I guess intelligent people can say dum things. But he does tend to do it a lot. But then again, as you said, it seems to depend on what audience he is appealing to and you can sometimes notice inconsistencies with what he says. Based on the latter that is intellectual dishonesty probaby could be more the case. I guess pretty much the same with the likes of Deepak Chopra, David Icke, cold readers, psychics, tarrort readers, paranormal investigators, and so on. 

FYI @justsayin, WLC may well do well in debates according to many audiences, but that doesn't really mean anything. As for Sean Carroll's comment, I wouldn't read too much into that. I agree with Sean Carroll on everything he said in the discussion and afterward. Now, if WLC is really good with arguments regarding the existence of God and where he tries to use science to prove this, then perhaps now he should start publishing in scientific, peer-reviewed journals for analysis, eh? Oh, and good luck to him with that!

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

It comes down to this. Science wants to deliver substantiated discoveries at the end of the day. That's their only concern. Theism on the other hand has something to prove. A. God exists. B. They're not foolish for believing. C. Scientific knowledge can be draped in the garments of religion. That's a pretty tall order for theist so naturally any imperfection found in the sciences will be claimed a victory for at least one of the hundreds of gods man created.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

It comes down to this. Science wants to deliver substantiated discoveries at the end of the day. That's their only concern. Theism on the other hand has something to prove. A. God exists. B. They're not foolish for believing. C. Scientific knowledge can be draped in the garments of religion. That's a pretty tall order for theist so naturally any imperfection found in the sciences will be claimed a victory for at least one of the hundreds of gods man created.

That just reminded me of something (sorry to bring his name up again lol) Peter Boghossian said in his book "A Manual for Creating Atheists," which was about one of the differences between science and theism. Theism often goes out of its way to find things that confirm its beliefs are true, whereas science attempts to disprove hypotheses and actually gets credited for it among peers. In contrast, if theists did the same, they would likely be excommunicated, shamed, etc.

PS: As for that book, I initially thought it might be seen by some as somewhat provocative. However, after reading, I don't see it that way at all. Peter is one of the most relaxed individuals I have ever read, and I have recently watched some of his material. After reading this book (almost at the end now), I would say "A Manual for Creating Atheists" can essentially be translated to mean exactly this: "A manual for helping people to stop pretending to know things about which they are ignorant, to be honest about the limits of their knowledge regarding truth, and how to reason more effectively." Because that is exactly what his aim in the book is! I highly recommend it! 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

I sometimes do have a hard time understanding why anyone would think he is a highly intelligent person. To me, there is nothing intelligent about claims such as "The belief in God is a rational one," "Atheism is illusory," "That is an atheist argument," "Life has no meaning if you are an atheist," and so forth. That being said, I guess intelligent people can say dum things. But he does tend to do it a lot. But then again, as you said, it seems to depend on what audience he is appealing to and you can sometimes notice inconsistencies with what he says. Based on the latter that is intellectual dishonesty probaby could be more the case. I guess pretty much the same with the likes of Deepak Chopra, David Icke, cold readers, psychics, tarrort readers, paranormal investigators, and so on. 

FYI @justsayin, WLC may well do well in debates according to many audiences, but that doesn't really mean anything. As for Sean Carroll's comment, I wouldn't read too much into that. I agree with Sean Carroll on everything he said in the discussion and afterward. Now, if WLC is really good with arguments regarding the existence of God and where he tries to use science to prove this, then perhaps now he should start publishing in scientific, peer-reviewed journals for analysis, eh? Oh, and good luck to him with that!

I would suggest that intelligence and wisdom are somewhat independent. Intelligence characterizes one's ability to process and formulate complex ideas, while wisdom characterizes one's ability to put that intelligence to good use. I have seen a lot of people in academia who have very high intelligence and, in their field of expertise, are proficient off the charts - and yet who make the most basic mistakes in other areas of life. They are extremely intelligent, but not wise at all, and conversing with them can be a royal pain. I think that people like Dr. Craig have highly developed brains, but decades of using it to further questionable philosophical endeavors coupled with intellectual dishonesty have led them down ways of thinking that from the outside appear obviously wrong. It is not like he has become "dumber" as a consequence - rather, he has lost touch with reality. "Ivory tower philosophers" we call such people.

I would definitely distinguish him from outright scammers/actors like Deepak Chopra, or David Icke, or Alex Jones. I think that he genuinely believes in the things he says most of the time; his critical thinking simply does not apply to the statements he wants to be true.

And I completely agree with your second paragraph (even though it was not addressed to me). One can win a debate by putting in a good show, but that does not win an argument. Sure, Alex Jones has enough experience in shutting down even the best debaters out there by going full berserk on them, so, in a certain sense, he "wins" such exchanges - but no one with a semblance of rationality would consider his arguments superior to those of his targets.

Lastly, I will add that, while it may appear that me, you and other critics of Dr. Craig are hard on him only because of his religiosity, it certainly is not the case. I have talked to some incredible Christian (and other religious) debaters, ones who offer very interesting insights into the relationship between humans and stories, ones who listen carefully to their opponents' points and concede theirs when they are clearly wrong. Dr. Craig simply is not such person.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

It comes down to this. Science wants to deliver substantiated discoveries at the end of the day. That's their only concern. Theism on the other hand has something to prove. A. God exists. B. They're not foolish for believing. C. Scientific knowledge can be draped in the garments of religion. That's a pretty tall order for theist so naturally any imperfection found in the sciences will be claimed a victory for at least one of the hundreds of gods man created.

That just reminded me of something (sorry to bring his name up again lol) Peter Boghossian said in his book "A Manual for Creating Atheists," which was about one of the differences between science and theism. Theism often goes out of its way to find things that confirm its beliefs are true, whereas science attempts to disprove hypotheses and actually gets credited for it among peers. In contrast, if theists did the same, they would likely be excommunicated, shamed, etc.

PS: As for that book, I initially thought it might be seen by some as somewhat provocative. However, after reading, I don't see it that way at all. Peter is one of the most relaxed individuals I have ever read, and I have recently watched some of his material. After reading this book (almost at the end now), I would say "A Manual for Creating Atheists" can essentially be translated to mean exactly this: "A manual for helping people to stop pretending to know things about which they are ignorant, to be honest about the limits of their knowledge regarding truth, and how to reason more effectively." Because that is exactly what his aim in the book is! I highly recommend it! 

@ZeusAres42

Thank you I appreciate that. Though it's been around 6 years since I fell from grace there are still lingering issues. Most of my family for instance are still believers and I was very active in the church myself. It's been difficult trying to explain. One of the most enlightening things on the other hand about coming to a rational epiphany is how much atheists are discriminated against. There is a definite air or superiority that believers have and that's why I believe, they see a non believers confidence in the sciences as an affront to their faith. Hence the 'arrogance' branding simply because of a persons confidence in their 'none' stance. 

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder @MayCaesar

This from a Chatbot was rather interesting: 

"Critical Examination of William Lane Craig's Apologetics:

1. Selective Use of Philosophical Arguments:

   • Craig is well-known for his sophisticated use of philosophical arguments to defend the existence of the Christian God, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument. However, these arguments, at their best, suggest a generic form of theism that does not necessarily point to the Christian God specifically. Craig attempts to bridge this gap by appealing to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection as a unique event validating Christian claims. Critics argue that this leap from general theism to specific Christian doctrine overlooks similar claims of divine intervention and miraculous events in other religions, which Craig dismisses without equivalent scrutiny.

2. Handling of Biblical Criticisms and Inconsistencies:

   • Craig defends the Bible's authority and reliability, often downplaying or rationalizing inconsistencies and contradictions within the Christian scriptures. Critics, including biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman, have highlighted these issues, such as discrepancies in the Gospels and the evolution of theological concepts over time, which challenge the notion of a singular, unchanging divine truth. Craig's responses sometimes rely on theological interpretations that critics argue are not supported by empirical evidence or historical scholarship, raising questions about the consistency of his approach to evidence across religious texts.

3. Comparative Religion and Exclusivity Claims:

   • In defending Christianity's exclusivity claims, Craig often argues that the truth of Christianity invalidates other religions. However, this stance is criticized for not adequately addressing the depth and richness of religious experiences and doctrines across the world's religions, which also claim unique access to divine truth. Critics point out that Craig's approach does not fully engage with the philosophical and theological implications of religious pluralism, nor does it confront the empirical challenge of verifying exclusive truth claims in a religiously diverse world.

4. Philosophical and Empirical Gaps:

   • While Craig's philosophical arguments for God's existence are compelling to some, critics argue they do not conclusively address the empirical gaps in Christianity's narrative, especially when compared to other religions. For instance, the problem of evil and suffering remains a significant challenge; Craig's free will defense is seen as insufficient by many critics who point out similar or more nuanced responses in other religious traditions that Craig does not equally explore.

5. Engagement with Scientific Critiques:

   • Craig's engagement with scientific critiques of religious claims, such as those presented by evolutionary biology and cosmology, sometimes involves invoking God to fill explanatory gaps. Critics argue that this "God of the gaps" approach is not only scientifically unsatisfactory but also does not stand up well when compared to the naturalistic explanations offered by other religious and philosophical systems.

Conclusion:

In summary, critics argue that William Lane Craig's defense of Christianity, while sophisticated and influential, does not adequately address the empirical and logical challenges posed by the diversity of religious claims and the internal inconsistencies within Christian doctrine. By focusing on philosophical arguments for generic theism and attempting to bridge the gap to Christianity through specific claims like the resurrection, Craig's apologetics may overlook or dismiss the comparable depth and complexity of other religions. This selective approach raises questions about the empirical robustness and logical consistency of exclusively endorsing Christianity in the face of a pluralistic religious landscape. Critics advocate for a more open and empirically grounded engagement with the challenges and inconsistencies across religious traditions, emphasizing the importance of consistency in the application of critical standards to all religious claims."

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

In reading that memories of debates I had some 15 years ago came flooding through my mind. Of course back then I was on the other side LOL. 

It was what began to open my eyes to the truth though. As time went on along with doubt, I began to realize I was being tempted, and then went on to manipulate what was being said in science to spin it in my direction. Not my proudest moment for sure. I had to confront the fact I was being deceitful in arguing on behalf of the supposed god of truth. Now this is the kicker, now that I do not believe in god, I'm no longer tempted that way. If I don't know I don't know. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Doesn't prove anything one way or another about gods existence. When I became atheist is when I stopped being afraid of being wrong and no longer was tempted to deceive.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

Just looking at some of what I had just posted I am reminded of what Christopher Hitchens said once which is "if you accept/assume the premises then everything else follows logically." This then reminded me of this fun quiz question I did a while back albeit the following is a modified version of it that I came up with:

"All people with brown hair are bad-tempered. My uncle has brown hair. Therefore, my uncle is bad-tempered." While this argument is logically valid, its strength is undermined by the truth value of its premises, particularly the initial one.

Similarly, within Christianity, as well as in numerous other religions, there are arguments that appear logically valid if their premises are accepted as true. However, this logical validity does not necessarily attest to the truth value of these arguments. Moreover, many religions present premises that, once accepted, lead to conclusions that logically follow within the context of that specific religion. Yet, these conclusions often stand in direct contradiction to those derived from the premises of other religions. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

This reminds me of a discussion I had with an Objectivist on reddit once. One point that we both agreed on was that any reasonable epistemology has to be grounded in very simple, self-evident assumptions. In mathematics, for instance, the axioms we accept to be true are as basic as the Axiom of Empty Set, which basically posits that "nothing" is a valid concept - many people will wonder why it even needs to be stated. In Objectivism, the basic premise is that our senses give us information about the world: in essence, that we are not 100% hallucinating all the time. Starting with this premise, it is possible to start studying patterns of those senses and building a model of the world that matches them.

In contrary, religious assumptions are highly complex and unobvious. "The Bible is the word of god, and god is a creature that created the Universe" - that is a bizarre premise to start with. Why not "The toilet paper roll in my bathroom is the child of Lolth, and Lolth is a giant spider that haunts our nightmares"? 

Seems like the fundamental assumptions in religion are tasked not with setting one on the quest towards the truth however inconvenient it can be, but with arriving at a specific desirable conclusion. That is a terrible epistemological approach.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Just looking at some of what I had just posted I am reminded of what Christopher Hitchens said once which is "if you accept/assume the premises then everything else follows logically." This then reminded me of this fun quiz question I did a while back albeit the following is a modified version of it that I came up with:

"All people with brown hair are bad-tempered. My uncle has brown hair. Therefore, my uncle is bad-tempered." While this argument is logically valid, its strength is undermined by the truth value of its premises, particularly the initial one.

Similarly, within Christianity, as well as in numerous other religions, there are arguments that appear logically valid if their premises are accepted as true. However, this logical validity does not necessarily attest to the truth value of these arguments. Moreover, many religions present premises that, once accepted, lead to conclusions that logically follow within the context of that specific religion. Yet, these conclusions often stand in direct contradiction to those derived from the premises of other religions. 

And that's core issue of the problem with false premises. In their acceptance without any skepticism multitudes will live out every aspect of their lives not even questioning any possible delusion. As long as it can be reconciled within the premise because that is the one single guiding force. Scary actually. The main reason nutcase leaders around the world do what they do.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ; William Craig is just a man...trust in Jesus, learn from the Holy Spirit, and LIVE.