william l. craig

[Jackalope]

His arguments are quite convincing....

...to the already convinced.

[Angrboda]

I'm told that Craig lies and twists the truth like a two bit carney man. I haven't spent enough time watching him to see if that's true. What little I've seen of him he appears an able tactician, and the degree of charm and conviction he exudes is certainly effective. I think generally, Christian apologists break down into distinct groups. You've got the thinkers, like Planting, Swinburne, and Tillich. Then you've got the spinmeisters and bullshit artists like Craig (ostensibly). Ultimately, I can admire someone for being good at what they do, even if what they do is pure evil. (I love watching Kevin Trudeau on late night infomercials.) If Craig lives up to his reputation, I'm sure it will be a good show.

For what it's worth, he's already helped me see a basic truth which had escaped my notice prior to hearing him in one debate, though in the opposite way that he had intended. There's always something to be learned, even more so from people who, for better or worse, are simply good at advancing the cause of their own special interests. Given that Craig and Ray Comfort are similar apologists in style, there's probably not a whole lot that separates them in terms of technique and message. So it's tempting to dismiss them both in the same breath. However, the complexity and sophistication of a Craig holds greater fascination. At the end of the day, I love a good con as much as a clever bit of science or philosophy. Maybe I'll find myself liking Craig for all the wrong reasons.

[Cyberman]

Given that Craig and Ray Comfort are similar apologists in style, there's probably not a whole lot that separates them in terms of technique and message. So it's tempting to dismiss them both in the same breath. However, the complexity and sophistication of a Craig holds greater fascination.

I get what you're saying here, though Cumfart is a special brand of huckster all his own. I don't know if anyone's familiar with his "parachute" routine; it goes a little something like this:

Imagine you are on a plane, and suddenly it is going down. You fear for your life and want to be saved. Someone hands you the Mona Lisa, you push it away. Someone offers you keys to a Ferrari, you reject it. Someone offers you a million dollars, you reject it too. Suddenly someone offers you a parachute that can save you. This parachute provided to you from Ray Comfort is faith in Jesus Christ that will save you from a terrible fate.

(courtesy of IronChariots wiki.)

The best smackdown of this I ever read came from the Open Thread for the Atheist Experience episode on which he was a guest caller: “For the airplane analogy, it’s more like he is telling you he will cut the engines, and won’t give you the parachute if you don’t agree to kiss his feet forever. He’s creating the problem and then offering you the solution. Then you look around and realize, he can’t cut the engines, and there was never a ‘chute anyways.”

[Something completely different]

I think we can all agree that someone who repeatedly calls himself a "professional philosopher" can be alot of things, except a "professional philosopher".

What is a "professional philosopher" anyway?
Are there also "unprofessional philosophers"?
Maybe even "semi professional philosophers"?

Most books I read by philosophers were simply writen by people who were called "philosophers" and that by others and not by themselves.
Kant called himself a goegrapher, Hannah arent refused to be called a philosopher, I dont know what Karl Popper called himself, neighter what Adorno and Habermass called themselves.

Anyway, did some of you notice that he has recently published a book in which he claims to have "debunked" Einsteins theory of relativity?
And it costs 229 dollars!?!?!?!? Which is a "fair" price for a "scientific" "study" and sais alot about his "crudentials" as a "professional philosopher".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ugf9OxUC4s

I think he is also a disgrace for actual professional theologians.
Thing is, here in Germany a degree in thology is still wort something, whilest in other countries it seems that studying theology means to simply reread the bible or whatever scripture you chose endlessly and to find some weird excuses to how it is relevant today.

Here there is one well known theologian by the name of "Hans Küng".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%BCng

He wrote 3 books, really damn big books, containing 2 with 912 and one with 1060 pages, and both of them tell in great detail the history of all 3 abrahamic religions.
Not some weird excuse gibberish but it`s researched and detailed history and developments, both criticaly and honestly.
I have only read the book on Islam so far, but the insights it gave me were more detailed than any book I had ever read about that religion yet alone a film.
Every sect, every cultural impact, every part of history - everything is described.

And all three of these books together, which contain a enormous amount of enlighting knowlege, are well researched, praised by critics and certainly worth reading cost 65, 74 Euros!!!

That is half the price of a book by William the lame Craig, which basicaly contains worthless gibberish.


I might aswell plug the books here and recomend them, I guess there is no problem with that and the books are really worth reading, althoug slightly more expensive in the english translation:

http://www.amazon.de/Islam-Present-Futur...1851686126

description on amazon:

No other religion in the modern world has come under such close scrutiny or been viewed as a source of so much harm to our civilization as Islam. It is routinely portrayed in the media as a promoter of terrorism, supporter of authoritarian governments, oppressor of women, and an enemy of the West. In this sympathetic assessment of the religion, renowned Christian theologian Hans Kung, demonstrates that this simplistic perception could not be further from the truth. Providing a masterful overview of Islam's 1,400-year history, Kung's critically acclaimed bestseller examines its fundamental beliefs and practices, outlines the major schools of thought, and surveys the positions of Islam on the urgent questions of the day. Deft, assured, and comprehensive, this essential reference work is now available in paperback for the first time.

http://www.amazon.com/Judaism-Yesterday-...g+judaiism

from amazon:

On the topic of Judaism, this is the first book of any great substance that I have read, so I have nothing with which to compare it. However, Küng offers in this book a comprehensive look at Judaism's incredible past and its multi-dimensional present -- specifically addressing its relationship to Christianity, and the problems and opportunities for Judaism in the post-modern world. Critical yet sympathetic, Küng writes as a thoroughly Christian theologian, yet as one who is committed to partnership and dialogue. Highly recommended for any serious reader who wants a glimpse into the vast treasures of the Jewish faith.

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Essen...pd_sim_b_2

from amazon:

The second volume in the Religious Situation of Our Time series initiated with Küng's Judaism (1991) constitutes this massive "paradigm analysis" of Christianity. It is tempting to refer to both the volume and the series as "magisterial," though Küng's rocky relationship with the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church gives that adjective a decidedly ironic twist. The book is further evidence of Küng's already well established place in a tradition of German systematizers whose systems, though driven by laudably global motivations, have had ambiguous global consequences. This book continues Küng's application of Thomas Kuhn's paradigm analysis--developed as a way to think about the structure of scientific revolutions--to religion. It is not so much a "history" as an examination of five "constellations" of Christianity (the Jewish Christian apocalyptic, Hellenistic Byzantine, Roman Catholic, Reformation Protestant, and Enlightenment modern paradigms) that constitute a still-present past of Christianity. This is an important contribution to the understanding of Christianity's present fragmentation and also to ecumenical conversation to the extent that it resists the temptation to think of later paradigms as rendering earlier paradigms obsolete; that all five paradigms coexist in Küng's analysis is a reminder that ecumenical conversation has to reckon with translation and (sometimes) untranslatability. Steve Schroeder --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

[Angrboda]

I think we can all agree that someone who repeatedly calls himself a "professional philosopher" can be alot of things, except a "professional philosopher".

What is a "professional philosopher" anyway?
Are there also "unprofessional philosophers"?
Maybe even "semi professional philosophers"?

Most books I read by philosophers were simply writen by people who were called "philosophers" and that by others and not by themselves.
Kant called himself a goegrapher, Hannah arent refused to be called a philosopher, I dont know what Karl Popper called himself, neighter what Adorno and Habermass called themselves.

I don't know. I think the term "professional philosopher" and the related "professional philosophy" are perfectly legitimate terms, and that they indicate that, at a minimum, the person has substantial credentials in philosophy from an institute of higher learning, and preferably that they use the skills acquired in pursuit of their professional careers. I've met a few bona fide professional philosophers, including ones that called themselves professional philosophers, and I didn't see anything phony or hubristic in most such claims. Philosophy, like any other modern specialization, requires standards and means by which one can separate the qualified from those who simply hung out a shingle a mere two hours ago. (I'm just now noticing that Craig's credentials were granted in philosophy of religion from an Evangelical seminary. All the same, Graham Oppy, one of my favorites, also occupies himself primarily with philosophy of religion, and I'd be the last to deny him his props.) No, I don't have a problem with either William Lane Craig or William Dembski claiming the title of professional philosopher, as it appears evident that they have earned that right. (I'm much more disturbed when people refer to Craig as a scientist.) And the fact that in the past, many renowned philosophers weren't themselves professionals in this sense doesn't negate the fact that many of them were. (I think. Wittgenstein, Russell, Godel, Quine, Kant [Kant studied philosophy at the University of Konigsberg, where he later held the chair in logic and metaphysics for fifteen years; of all the examples you might choose, I fail to see why you feel Kant a commendable one], Moore, Dennett, Searle.... I'm not coming up with many contemporary names that don't fit the mold.)

That being said, there is the legitimate question of how much credibility that grants you. While I'm sure many professional philosophers could readily school me in practically any topic in philosophy I cared to address, it's also been my impression that philosophy is one of the most sorely unacknowledged refuges for the incompetent. I'm tempted to conclude that a key indicator for a guidance counselor to recommend a student to pursue a career in philosophy is that said student be "dumber than a sackful of hammers." As someone who describes herself as an amateur philosopher, I'm dumbfounded by the lackluster and dull intellects of many in the profession.

[jstrodel]

William Lane Craig has 2 PhD's. He definitely is a professional philosopher. I laugh to myself when I see the atheist movement pat each other on the back for being "free thinkers" as they engage in character assassination and indoctrination to advance their movement.


What are the specific claims that William Lane Craig has made that are false? I have read on atheist websites that William Lane Craig is an extremely good debater who has won most of the debates he has gotten in.

[Minimalist]

Oh, fuck you and Craig. Here are his "credentials."

Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]

From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[7]

He's a con man selling shit to gullible fools and you sound as if you have purchased more than your fair share.

[jstrodel]

Oh, fuck you and Craig. Here are his "credentials."

Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a Th.D. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]

From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[7]

He's a con man selling shit to gullible fools and you sound as if you have purchased more than your fair share.

Looks pretty good to me. My dad works at an ivy league university and he is full of crap. I have live around people all my life who think about nothing than getting into good universities. They are all shallow people with no courage, always following the party line. They are small people.

If you buy into all that crap you are a fool. I grew up with it. Higher education is filled with people on an ego trip.

I like it when Jello Biafra talks about how "my mission in life is to look good on paper". He is talking about the "terminal preppie", I think he could just as easily be talking about the "career obsessed and ego obsessed intellectuals in the ivy league".

The more you guys hate William Lane Craig, the more I think he is probably doing his job.

At least the Christian world isn't like that. More love than people obsessed with themselves and their careers.

[Justtristo]

Anyone else hate this guy to the point of no return. I mean has anyone told him that building off assumptions doesn't prove shit and he is the cause of so many red marks across people foreheads.

Starts a lecture with lets assume .....20 mins go by, and that is how we can prove god exist.
Fuck you Craig! you should have been a cumstain on your parents sheets or your mom should've just saved everyone a headace that is you and fucking swallowed

The man is a snake oil salesman pure and simple, however unlike a lot of that profession he actually believes that his product actually works.

However seriously William Lane Craig is arguing not for the god of the bible (Yahweh), rather for a deistic god when he is arguing for the existence of god. When it comes to defending the historicity of the Gospels, I am afraid he commits the same logical fallacies as every-other Christian apologist.

[Cyberman]

The more you guys hate William Lane Craig, the more I think he is probably doing his job.

I don't actually hate the bloke as a person, slimy though he may be. However I do often enjoy laughing at him doing his job. Clowns are funny.

At least the Christian world isn't like that. More love than people obsessed with themselves and their careers.

And a good thing too, because Craig isn't exactly rocking the academic world with his papers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZlovxLZUM

Just in case some of our number can't or won't watch the vid, here's TF00t's crotch-bar description:

William Lane Craig likes to think of himself as an academic, an intellectual and if you believe his fans, 'is regarded by many as one of the worlds leading in Christian Apologetics'. Well that's all fine and dandy until you actually check out William Lane Craigs track record in the peer review literature. See it turns out that William Lane Craig is a champion in academic circles only in the category of publishing 'uncitable junk'.
In academia 'the size of your balls' is largely determined how many papers you've written, and how many citations they pick up: basically how many interesting papers you've written. Turns out William Lane Craigs papers pull in on average about 2 citations, with his top citated work pulling something like a dozen citations. That's an absolutely farcical track record. Personally I find it difficult to see how the man can have such a high opinion of himself when his citations record is so poor. Indeed, by this metric, I've know people who have surpassed the entire contribution of WLCs academic career merely a couple of years after getting a PhD.

Normally I would let this sort of thing slide, apart from the man is such a professional slimeball in his dealings with the likes of Richard Dawkins that I figure his dirty little secret needs a little exposure. I mean with an ego like Craigs, you know the one thing that will cut his ego deeper than any insult is rubbing his nose in his utterly lack-luster citations record.

Personally I think he should hereafter be referred to as William Lane 'Two Citations' Craig, or he gets antsy about his credentials, Dr 'Two Citations' Craig.