Dr. Craig contradiction.

[Jehanne]

---

---

There's not one "theism", there are many.  Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god".  Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance?  But, I digress.  But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. [1] I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.

The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. [2] Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; [3]science is universal (or, nearly so),  religions are not; in [4] science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; [5] science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; [6] science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.

Ok.  Seems like your views are based on an idealized view of science and misunderstandings.  Now if you want to say that religion is not science, in the modern sense of the word (meaning the natural sciences) I would tend to agree.

1 - As I explained previously, you have a misconception about falsifiability which leads you to this conclusion.  The concept is not subjective, and Craig's or anyone else's confidence level, does not effect it.

2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.

3 - I have no idea what this even means.

4 - Who says who can or cannot agree?   You are really grasping at straws here!

5 - Depends on what you are talking about and at what level.   Every hear of the demarcation problem of science.  Philosophers of science have found that it is not that easy to define.   There are also areas and subjects in science which are vaguely defined.   Equivocation and varying the meaning of the term evolution is often an issue in discussion.  And in religion it is going to depend on what you are talking about as well.

6 - You previously contrasted Criag's theism to science, criticizing it for being absolute and science as always provisional and able to change.  Why is this not a contradiction now? 

You are sounding more and more like the common mischaracterizations and idealism of the scientism bunch.

Wow, this thread is getting a LOT of responses, but let me take your points 1 by 1:

#1:  I agree with the following definition from 21st Century Astronomy, 4th edition (page 53):

1.3 The scientific method consists of observation, followed by hypothesis, prediction, further observation or experiments to test the prediction, and ultimately a tested theory. The scientific method is a way of trying to falsify, not prove, ideas.  All scientific knowledge is provisional. Like art, literature, and music, science is a creative human activity; it is also a remarkably powerful, successful, and aesthetically beautiful way of viewing the world.

Religion does not do this; one cannot claim that knowledge is "not provisional" and still claim that such is "falsifiable".

#2:  Name one.  Jesus has yet to return.

#3:  Science is universal, in that scientists from Iran and the US agree widely on physics; they do not agree on religion!

#4:  Same point as in #3; Islamic and atheist physicists agree on physics; they do not agree on religion. (Even those who have never heard of each other!)

#5:  Religions are a "dime a dozen"; they do not agree on anything and contradict themselves over time.  Which religion should I, an atheist, embrace, if I was going to embrace one?  And, why?

#6:  WLC has changed his mind about some fundamental things.  Why should I embrace anything that he has to say?  I can show you clerics on Twitter who rank well above Donald Trump in their number of followers.  Why not listen to them?