The William Lane Craig Phenomenon

[MattMurdock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swx75k1GWEo

And atheist philosopher Peter Millican, who is admittedly very brilliant in his own right, gives a very revealing introduction of Dr. Craig at the Sheldonian Theater

Watch starting from 1:10. Peter Millican gives a wonderful introduction of William Lane Craig, who then goes on to dissect Dawkins' book The God Delusion after Dawkins did not show. Note how much respect Millican clearly has for Craig as a fellow scholar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3HCthi2i_o


To wrap up, why the hate for Dr. Craig? I imagine that even atheists, those of them who are intellectually honest, have to admit that the guy is really impressive. The kind of people in the blogosphere and on youtube who attack him with such disgust? Well, who are they? Honest question. Who do they think they are? Do they actually think the guy is intellectually feeble and not to be respected? What kind of mental gymnastics is involved when they try to convince themselves of this?

[psstein]

I like what Craig does, and think he's won the vast majority of his debates. That being said, I don't always like his arguments (I'm not sure the Kalam and the teleological arguments work the way he wants them to). I think he's often labeled as an apologist because that's what he's best known as. Most people don't know that he's done a lot of really good work in philosophy of religion.

I think he's hated for two reasons:

1. He shows that Christianity actually has rational defenses, and isn't all about subjective feelings. That flies in the face of the usual atheist canard that religious faith has no evidence at all.

2. He's incredibly intelligent and wins quite a bit. There's a cottage industry among atheists of trying to refute him, and 99% of internet atheists will say "I can beat WLC easily," but they don't realize that he knows the material inside and out. During his debate with Victor Stenger, he brought up Stenger's theory of time and showed that it was incorrect. Then, he explained that even on Stenger's theory of time, Stenger's arguments didn't work.

Craig's debate with James Crossley was one of the best debates I've ever seen on the Resurrection.

[MattMurdock]

I like what Craig does, and think he's won the vast majority of his debates. That being said, I don't always like his arguments (I'm not sure the Kalam and the teleological arguments work the way he wants them to). I think he's often labeled as an apologist because that's what he's best known as. Most people don't know that he's done a lot of really good work in philosophy of religion.

I think he's hated for two reasons:

1. He shows that Christianity actually has rational defenses, and isn't all about subjective feelings. That flies in the face of the usual atheist canard that religious faith has no evidence at all.

2. He's incredibly intelligent and wins quite a bit. There's a cottage industry among atheists of trying to refute him, and 99% of internet atheists will say "I can beat WLC easily," but they don't realize that he knows the material inside and out. During his debate with Victor Stenger, he brought up Stenger's theory of time and showed that it was incorrect. Then, he explained that even on Stenger's theory of time, Stenger's arguments didn't work.

Craig's debate with James Crossley was one of the best debates I've ever seen on the Resurrection.

That seems like a plausible account.

I do want to ask you one thing though. What do you think Dr. Craig is trying to get out of the Kalam and the Teleological Argument as he presents them, since you suggest they do not work the way he wants them to?

[JimL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swx75k1GWEo

And atheist philosopher Peter Millican, who is admittedly very brilliant in his own right, gives a very revealing introduction of Dr. Craig at the Sheldonian Theater

Watch starting from 1:10. Peter Millican gives a wonderful introduction of William Lane Craig, who then goes on to dissect Dawkins' book The God Delusion after Dawkins did not show. Note how much respect Millican clearly has for Craig as a fellow scholar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3HCthi2i_o


To wrap up, why the hate for Dr. Craig? I imagine that even atheists, those of them who are intellectually honest, have to admit that the guy is really impressive. The kind of people in the blogosphere and on youtube who attack him with such disgust? Well, who are they? Honest question. Who do they think they are? Do they actually think the guy is intellectually feeble and not to be respected? What kind of mental gymnastics is involved when they try to convince themselves of this?

I only see posted in the above where Craig is respected by his fellow philosophers as a tough scholar. Where are you getting the hatred from? Vehemently disagreeing with Craig doesn't mean they hate him.

[shunyadragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swx75k1GWEo

And atheist philosopher Peter Millican, who is admittedly very brilliant in his own right, gives a very revealing introduction of Dr. Craig at the Sheldonian Theater

Watch starting from 1:10. Peter Millican gives a wonderful introduction of William Lane Craig, who then goes on to dissect Dawkins' book The God Delusion after Dawkins did not show. Note how much respect Millican clearly has for Craig as a fellow scholar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3HCthi2i_o


To wrap up, why the hate for Dr. Craig? I imagine that even atheists, those of them who are intellectually honest, have to admit that the guy is really impressive. The kind of people in the blogosphere and on youtube who attack him with such disgust? Well, who are they? Honest question. Who do they think they are? Do they actually think the guy is intellectually feeble and not to be respected? What kind of mental gymnastics is involved when they try to convince themselves of this?

I do not have any difficulty with Craig and his credentials. Though I am not impressed with Craig, and do not believe he won most of his debates. Most debates are sort of draws with one side saying what they believed and the other side stating their beliefs. It is more common that the two sides talk past each other addressing their faithful, and of course their faithful claiming their hero won.

As far as the Kalam Cosmological argument, it frankly is the worst possible argument for the existence of God front loaded with far too many presuppositions. It would help to read the whole article in the Stanford Dictionary to understand the context of different views of Kalam. Number of citations does not necessarily equate to the quality of the argument.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I think WLC is a fantastic debater when he sticks to his script. Things change when he gets caught off guard as in the Shelly Kagan, Sean Carroll, and Ray Bradley debates. The Arif Ahmed debate was a good one too. The debate was mostly philosophical and Ahmed held his own.

[shunyadragon]

I think WLC is a fantastic debater when he sticks to his script. Things change when he gets caught off guard as in the Shelly Kagan, Sean Carroll, and Ray Bradley debates. The Arif Ahmed debate was a good one too. The debate was mostly philosophical and Ahmed held his own.

I would not consider WLC a 'fantastic debater' because most of his arguments are old and moldy resurrected from Aristotle and Thomas, and I give him a grade of -10 for his selective misuse of science. He is a very very skilled orator, with very impressive speaking skills.

[psstein]

That seems like a plausible account.

I do want to ask you one thing though. What do you think Dr. Craig is trying to get out of the Kalam and the Teleological Argument as he presents them, since you suggest they do not work the way he wants them to?

I think that Craig is attempting to show that theism in general works well with the findings of modern cosmology. I think there are two issues with that approach:

1. Theistic belief (and Christianity) are not wed to the progress of physical sciences. Craig's arguments could be attacked as "god of the gaps," which many atheists do. To the Christian, it doesn't matter one lick whether or not the universe is past-eternal or not. As Aquinas' Five Ways convincingly show (when understood correctly, a rarity), creation is equally compatible with both eternal and past-finite universes.

2. What if science advances and shows there's naturalistic explanation for questions like fine-tuning?

[DesertBerean]

I am going to have to read something of this man...he sounds interesting.

[Adam]

I heard Dr. Craig present himself well at a Mensa Convention. That said, I don't appreciate that he is such a Fundamentalist that he believes only Christians are saved, with the consequence that the great majority of humans go to Hell.
God is the God of all peoples, not just Christians. If He is God at all.

[37818]

I heard Dr. Craig present himself well at a Mensa Convention. That said, I don't appreciate that he is such a Fundamentalist that he believes only Christians are saved, with the consequence that the great majority of humans go to Hell.
God is the God of all peoples, not just Christians. If He is God at all.

Adam, it would seem that you do not understand - that the teaching is Christ died to save all men - ". . . that if one died for all, then were all dead: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 5:14.

Christ is the true vine - source of life. Everyone born is in Him. That everyone of age to understand must hear and remain in Him or perish. (John 15:6). [Mark 10:14-15. John 3:3-4. 1 John 5:1.]

[JimL]

Adam, it would seem that you do not understand - that the teaching is Christ died to save all men - ". . . that if one died for all, then were all dead: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 5:14.

Christ is the true vine - source of life. Everyone born is in Him. That everyone of age to understand must hear and remain in Him or perish. (John 15:6). [Mark 10:14-15. John 3:3-4. 1 John 5:1.]

But of course that is nonsense. If this god of yours did exist, then he would know that all men are fallible and susceptible to error in their beliefs. A great many people through the ages have never even heard of your god, so how could they believe in him. Any god that would punish his own fallible living creations due to what they have honestly come to believe is an evil god. Do you believe your god is that evil?

[shunyadragon]

I heard Dr. Craig present himself well at a Mensa Convention. That said, I don't appreciate that he is such a Fundamentalist that he believes only Christians are saved, with the consequence that the great majority of humans go to Hell.
God is the God of all peoples, not just Christians. If He is God at all.

Interesting, need's more explanation of a belief close to the Baha'i Faith, but this line of reasoning is a bit off topic.

[37818]

But of course that is nonsense. If this god of yours did exist, then he would know that all men are fallible and susceptible to error in their beliefs. A great many people through the ages have never even heard of your god, so how could they believe in him. Any god that would punish his own fallible living creations due to what they have honestly come to believe is an evil god. Do you believe your god is that evil?

JimL,

The Uncaused Existence does exist. He is the Infinite Good. He has provided total forgiveness for those who want it (Jeremiah 31:34). But how can one accept what one does not believe exists? One cannot. The children are safe in Christ (Mark 10:14). And God does the saving of all those who trust Him. But then you do not yet get it. Nor is it is possible to accept what things that do not make sense to one's self. I cannot make or help you to understand what you are not willing to accept (John 7:17).

The parents of the descendants knew at some point - they are the one's who are at fault for condemning their descendants BTW.

[JimL]

JimL,
The Uncaused Existence does exist.

That goes without saying.

He is the Infinite Good.

I guess, if you say so. But could you please define good ?

He has provided total forgiveness for those who want it (Jeremiah 31:34).

Forgiveness for what? According to the bible we were created by god with the desires of our hearts evil from the start. (Genesis 8:21)

But how can one accept what one does not believe exists? One cannot.

And one can not help what one truly believes. We could pretend to believe I suppose. Would god accept pretend belief, do you think?

The children are safe in Christ (Mark 10:14). And God does the saving of all those who trust Him. But then you do not yet get it. Nor is it is possible to accept what things that do not make sense to one's self. I cannot make or help you to understand what you are not willing to accept (John 7:17).

Again, i get it, just as do you, i just don't believe any of it, and beliefs have nothing to do with whether "one is willing" to accept them or not.

The parents of the descendants knew at some point - they are the one's who are at fault for condemning their descendants BTW.

Oh sure, a god who condemns the descendents for the faults of the parents. Such a sweet and loving god you have there 37818.