Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why philosophers don't like W.L.Craig

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 2:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am just reading over some old essays on the Cosmological Argument and Kalam Argument by some philosophers, and W.L.Craig keeps coming up (because of the youtube sensationalist he is). So I am looking through a load of his works. Then I start to think back to how the philosophers I met said that they don't like W.L.Craig, such as Peter Vardy, Stephen Laws, and a couple dozen more minor philosophers... and I think I have worked out why a lot of philosophers don't like him.

It seems to be the way he responds to any form of criticism in his essays and work. In The Origin and Creation of the Universe: A Reply to Adolf Grunbaum , I notice he says things repeatedly, and this is one of the "nicer" conclusions of Grunbaum, are usually quite venomous:

"Unfortunately, the dutifully attentive natural theologian will no doubt be disappointed (and somewhat amazed) at the superficiality of Grunbaum's critique"

For a formal essay, his writing seems oddly filled with rhetoric, and excessively spiteful. Is this something common? From my readings of essays by other philosophers, they usually tend to construct their own argument again to reclarify a point, but maybe that's just my experience.

http://commonsenseatheism.com...
^the essay response
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think a lot of philosophers (both religous and nonreligious) have problems with him because he's seen as being a shill for dishonest apologetics under the guise of philosophy. Whether that is true or not is a seperate question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:39:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason I don't like WLC is because I think he is intelligent. (perfect quote-mining opportunity, right there!)

I sincerely believe that WLC doesn't believe the things he says, because some of the things he says are so obviously wrong, he cannot possibly actually believe then (if he is truly learned and intelligent, which I think he is). Same reason I dislike the TV personality "Bill O'Reilly".
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 3:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

Lol. To call someone "petty" for disliking Bill Craig is a little rich. Like the OP, I do find him kind of arrogant, but this is bearable because, for the most part, he's a good philosopher, and some of the people he takes down (Atkins, Dawkins, etc) are arrogant and ignorant. I'm not at all bothered by someone who uses pointed, or even combative language, if they it is merited (as in the case with his response to Grunbaum)

The reason I have major problems with Craig is because of some the stuff he has said in the past borders on, well, insanity. His defence of the Canaanite genocide, his likening of homosexual lifestyle to that of a heroin addict, his (to put it mildly) mischaracterisation of evolution, or his belief in eternal torture for thought-crime and so on. I'd suggest anyone, even those in Camp Craig, can see how these are going to seem outrageous to most people and far away from minor, petty, partisan complaints.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:08:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

"Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?"

Craig just makes himself look bad, by obviously being a smart individual spewing out arguments that are so obviously flawed. I'm impressed by the conviction, presentation, and how his arguments fit together, but it's the arguments themselves that don't work.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:19:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

I agree that some people don't like him for the fact that he's a good orator. However, his writing technique comes across as arrogant and full of hubris, which is very difficult in a formal philosophical essay.

I see no-one challenged me on saying his essay style comes across like this, however.

An unite, I agree he is a very good orator. I am not challenging him on his technique when standing in front of other people, though. I am challenging him on the hubris of his essays, however. It comes across as very narcissistic.

He'd have more weight in the philosophical community, I imagine, if he did not come across as such in his essay writing. When discussing this with some of my philosophy group, they agree (I didn't mention it was Craig, and around the same, maybe one or two more, theists thought it came across arrogant. Furthermore, so did my philosophy lecturer).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:24:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Can I just question the reason this was added? I did mention my philosophy lecturers said this, not average internet posters. It seems to be put to make your claim sound more reasonable, but I would claim that he possesses not as much integrity as many other philosophers do - probably due to his role in the community as a "face" for apologetics.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:19:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

I agree that some people don't like him for the fact that he's a good orator. However, his writing technique comes across as arrogant and full of hubris, which is very difficult in a formal philosophical essay.

I see no-one challenged me on saying his essay style comes across like this, however.

An unite, I agree he is a very good orator. I am not challenging him on his technique when standing in front of other people, though. I am challenging him on the hubris of his essays, however. It comes across as very narcissistic.

He'd have more weight in the philosophical community, I imagine, if he did not come across as such in his essay writing. When discussing this with some of my philosophy group, they agree (I didn't mention it was Craig, and around the same, maybe one or two more, theists thought it came across arrogant. Furthermore, so did my philosophy lecturer).

So, allow us to recap:

1. You sense arrogance and hubris in some of his written works
2. Your group of friends and maybe some theist you met at a "group" thought a likely out of context quote by Craig came off as arrogant.

so

3. Craig is a terrible philosopher and is a douche

Is that about right? Regardless, Craig is likely the most diplomatic philosopher I've seen. He never loses his temper nor insults anyone nor flings ad hominems around like pancakes like his New Atheist counterparts. His diplomacy and patience is even evidenced by his debates; 90 percent of the atheists he debates don't even understand his arguments (particularly his moral argument) and so resort to petty and unrelated, emotional diatribes against religion (which obviously don't amount to arguments). Craig, instead of doing the equivalent of "Audience, look! My opponent is so silly he cannot even understand my simple arguments which are the same I've been using for the past 15 years! He's clearly an idiot!" humbly advices his opponent that he has misunderstood x argument and clarifies it patiently and diplomatically. So maybe he has written some polemical stuff here and there. Does that make him a bad philosopher? If so, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to cross of thousands of names off your "Good Philosophers" list for exhibiting polemical writing, not just Craig.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:36:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:19:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

I agree that some people don't like him for the fact that he's a good orator. However, his writing technique comes across as arrogant and full of hubris, which is very difficult in a formal philosophical essay.

I see no-one challenged me on saying his essay style comes across like this, however.

An unite, I agree he is a very good orator. I am not challenging him on his technique when standing in front of other people, though. I am challenging him on the hubris of his essays, however. It comes across as very narcissistic.

He'd have more weight in the philosophical community, I imagine, if he did not come across as such in his essay writing. When discussing this with some of my philosophy group, they agree (I didn't mention it was Craig, and around the same, maybe one or two more, theists thought it came across arrogant. Furthermore, so did my philosophy lecturer).

So, allow us to recap:

1. You sense arrogance and hubris in some of his written works
2. Your group of friends and maybe some theist you met at a "group" thought a likely out of context quote by Craig came off as arrogant.

so

3. Craig is a terrible philosopher and is a douche

No, and I have no idea how you possibly conceived that from what I wrote.

Is that about right? Regardless, Craig is likely the most diplomatic philosopher I've seen. He never loses his temper nor insults anyone nor flings ad hominems around like pancakes like his New Atheist counterparts.

Errrm... did you read the essay? Or even the quotation? Regardless, this video shows it best. And please, say it comes from a shallow, inept and childish source. He basically concedes he has consistently assaulted and insulted character. Which was the point of this thread to begin with: does he not consistently do this?

His diplomacy and patience is even evidenced by his debates; 90 percent of the atheists he debates don't even understand his arguments (particularly his moral argument) and so resort to petty and unrelated, emotional diatribes against religion (which obviously don't amount to arguments).

Except he seems to ignore many of the responses, I would contend, and diplomatically insult the responses consistently, whether they are good, bad, or inexistent. This is evident in any of his rebuttals: he starts his arguments usually with some derogatory remark: see Craig v Laws rebuttal for evidence.

Craig, instead of doing the equivalent of "Audience, look! My opponent is so silly he cannot even understand my simple arguments which are the same I've been using for the past 15 years! He's clearly an idiot!" humbly advices his opponent that he has misunderstood x argument and clarifies it patiently and diplomatically.

See Craig v Parsons, Craig v Laws, Craig v Carrier, etc.

So maybe he has written some polemical stuff here and there.

Polemical is divisive. Hitchens is a polemicist. It's evident in politics: he attacks other positions repeatedly before backing his own, in a style similar to Plato. Craig seems to specifically attack the source.

Does that make him a bad philosopher? If so, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to cross of thousands of names off your "Good Philosophers" list for exhibiting polemical writing, not just Craig.

I'd not have to cross any off, because none of my good philosophers write in this manner.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:02:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:36:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
1. You sense arrogance and hubris in some of his written works
2. Your group of friends and maybe some theist you met at a "group" thought a likely out of context quote by Craig came off as arrogant.
3. Craig is a terrible philosopher and is a douche

I just want to address this in some depth. The first premise of that is true, but I am wondering if others do as well. Try reading it, and tell me if you see it as well (although seeing as you've defended him without reading the essay, I wonder if you will answer honestly...). It comes clear in the entire essay, though, I think.

The second premise is not what I mentioned, but I'll restate it to be clear. In my philosophy group (me and about twelve other philosophy students and three philosophy lecturers), when I presented this (we were discussing contemporary philosophical discourse and argumentation), myself, Vardy and Rappert, and six or seven other students said it came off as arrogant in the first couple of sections. We concluded this was a weakness of modern philosophy, and it comes across as too confrontational and hostile, as opposed to the quietist school of thought.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:13:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 4:49:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:36:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2012 4:19:57 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 3:26:39 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I sincerely hope you are kidding. WLC is a major analytic philosopher of unequaled integrity, diplomacy and reasonableness. Have you ever considered that "some philosophers" -- and by that I mean very few or your typical internet village atheist -- don't like WLC because he simply makes atheists look bad?

Really, the only reason why petty people dislike Craig is for emotional reasons (or for the occasional ad hominem jab).

I agree that some people don't like him for the fact that he's a good orator. However, his writing technique comes across as arrogant and full of hubris, which is very difficult in a formal philosophical essay.

I see no-one challenged me on saying his essay style comes across like this, however.

An unite, I agree he is a very good orator. I am not challenging him on his technique when standing in front of other people, though. I am challenging him on the hubris of his essays, however. It comes across as very narcissistic.

He'd have more weight in the philosophical community, I imagine, if he did not come across as such in his essay writing. When discussing this with some of my philosophy group, they agree (I didn't mention it was Craig, and around the same, maybe one or two more, theists thought it came across arrogant. Furthermore, so did my philosophy lecturer).

So, allow us to recap:

1. You sense arrogance and hubris in some of his written works
2. Your group of friends and maybe some theist you met at a "group" thought a likely out of context quote by Craig came off as arrogant.

so

3. Craig is a terrible philosopher and is a douche

No, and I have no idea how you possibly conceived that from what I wrote.

Is that about right? Regardless, Craig is likely the most diplomatic philosopher I've seen. He never loses his temper nor insults anyone nor flings ad hominems around like pancakes like his New Atheist counterparts.

Errrm... did you read the essay? Or even the quotation? Regardless, this video shows it best. And please, say it comes from a shallow, inept and childish source. He basically concedes he has consistently assaulted and insulted character. Which was the point of this thread to begin with: does he not consistently do this?



Yes, not surprisingly, I'm subscribed to this channel and I've seen this video before. But have you watched the Hitchens v Craig debate? Have you ever seen comments on YouTube made by Dawkins fanboys? Not only are these not examples of ad hominems by WLC -- he's completely in his own right to critique Hitchens (for his constant question evading and for not even acknowledging -- much less addressing -- WLC's arguments during their debate) or Dawkins for their sophistry. Let's not even acknowledge that the quotes the mentally unhinged speaker stated were obviously out of context. As even the video description says: "If an atheist wrote an intellectually shallow book would it be an ad hominem to say that his book is completely sophomoric and unsophisticated?" If a Christian wrote a book about how you can prove God's existence by draining the oceans in the world (or something silly like that), wouldn't an atheist philosopher be in a position to call such a person "weaselly, oily, and lacking in intellectual substance"? I don't think you are sure what an ad hominem is...

An ad hominem is rejecting an argument not because of the merit of the argument but rather because of the individual presenting it. WLC is never guilty of that. Maybe he has called some obviously looney atheists some not-so-nice things in the past. Are these examples of ad hominems? No. These are mere examples of being impolite, which everyone on this world has been guilty of at least once.

His diplomacy and patience is even evidenced by his debates; 90 percent of the atheists he debates don't even understand his arguments (particularly his moral argument) and so resort to petty and unrelated, emotional diatribes against religion (which obviously don't amount to arguments).

Except he seems to ignore many of the responses, I would contend, and diplomatically insult the responses consistently, whether they are good, bad, or inexistent. This is evident in any of his rebuttals: he starts his arguments usually with some derogatory remark: see Craig v Laws rebuttal for evidence.


Have you ever paid a visit to his Q&A? He addresses any topic you can think of. If you think he has ignored any points worth addressing, why don't you write him a letter and ask him to clarify on whatever it is you think he needs to, lest he not be able to sleep at night?

Craig, instead of doing the equivalent of "Audience, look! My opponent is so silly he cannot even understand my simple arguments which are the same I've been using for the past 15 years! He's clearly an idiot!" humbly advices his opponent that he has misunderstood x argument and clarifies it patiently and diplomatically.

See Craig v Parsons, Craig v Laws, Craig v Carrier, etc.

So maybe he has written some polemical stuff here and there.

Craig seems to specifically attack the source.

Never have seen that.


Does that make him a bad philosopher? If so, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to cross of thousands of names off your "Good Philosophers" list for exhibiting polemical writing, not just Craig.

I'd not have to cross any off, because none of my good philosophers write in this manner.

I'm sorry for your list.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:37:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, not surprisingly, I'm subscribed to this channel and I've seen this video before. But have you watched the Hitchens v Craig debate? Have you ever seen comments on YouTube made by Dawkins fanboys? Not only are these not examples of ad hominems by WLC -- he's completely in his own right to critique Hitchens (for his constant question evading and for not even acknowledging -- much less addressing -- WLC's arguments during their debate) or Dawkins for their sophistry. Let's not even acknowledge that the quotes the mentally unhinged speaker stated were obviously out of context. As even the video description says: "If an atheist wrote an intellectually shallow book would it be an ad hominem to say that his book is completely sophomoric and unsophisticated?" If a Christian wrote a book about how you can prove God's existence by draining the oceans in the world (or something silly like that), wouldn't an atheist philosopher be in a position to call such a person "weaselly, oily, and lacking in intellectual substance"? I don't think you are sure what an ad hominem is...

The first two thirds is Tu Quoque, so I'll just ignore it. Also, regarding calling someone "weaselly, oily, and lacking in intellectual substance", there is no justification for it. The reason why we do not call people these things is because there is a good chance that you may misunderstand a case (which you have done so now), and even if you haven't it's poor form and makes you sound childish. And you misunderstood my point in the beginning: W.L.Craig's arguments are laced with personal attacks.

An ad hominem is rejecting an argument not because of the merit of the argument but rather because of the individual presenting it. WLC is never guilty of that. Maybe he has called some obviously looney atheists some not-so-nice things in the past. Are these examples of ad hominems? No. These are mere examples of being impolite, which everyone on this world has been guilty of at least once.

Except W.L.Craig is seemingly guilty of repeatedly, in formal essay writing. Making personal attacks in writing, with an editor, with repeated draftings, is nigh on impossible to do by accident, but Craig does it systematically.

His diplomacy and patience is even evidenced by his debates; 90 percent of the atheists he debates don't even understand his arguments (particularly his moral argument) and so resort to petty and unrelated, emotional diatribes against religion (which obviously don't amount to arguments).

Except he seems to ignore many of the responses, I would contend, and diplomatically insult the responses consistently, whether they are good, bad, or inexistent. This is evident in any of his rebuttals: he starts his arguments usually with some derogatory remark: see Craig v Laws rebuttal for evidence.


Have you ever paid a visit to his Q&A? He addresses any topic you can think of. If you think he has ignored any points worth addressing, why don't you write him a letter and ask him to clarify on whatever it is you think he needs to, lest he not be able to sleep at night?

Yes, I will take inordinate amount of my time to write to him about his debate from years ago where he started his argument in a pesonal attack, which will result in me not being responded to, due to the triviality of the issue compared to actual philosophy, or simply a rejection of the disagreement to begin with, and receive a personal attack myself. Oh wait, I wasn't talking or care about this anyway.

Craig, instead of doing the equivalent of "Audience, look! My opponent is so silly he cannot even understand my simple arguments which are the same I've been using for the past 15 years! He's clearly an idiot!" humbly advices his opponent that he has misunderstood x argument and clarifies it patiently and diplomatically.

See Craig v Parsons, Craig v Laws, Craig v Carrier, etc.

So maybe he has written some polemical stuff here and there.

Craig seems to specifically attack the source.

Never have seen that.


Does that make him a bad philosopher? If so, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to cross of thousands of names off your "Good Philosophers" list for exhibiting polemical writing, not just Craig.

I'd not have to cross any off, because none of my good philosophers write in this manner.

I'm sorry for your list.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 5:54:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 5:41:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
This is clearly hopeless. The only ad hominems I'm seeing here are the ones directed at WLC.

Again, I am not using any ad homs. I am saying his essays comes off as a personal attack on the writer as much as an argument. Please, address what I wrote in the first post.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:22:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"William Lane Craig is one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time. In this book, he combines his expertise in these areas to produce an original, erudite, and accessible theory of time and God..."

--Quentin Smith, on the back cover of Craig's book, "Time and Eternity"

‎"I'm genuinely honoured to be sharing the stage with Professor Craig this evening"
--Stephen Law, their Oct 17 2011 debate.

"The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

--Sam Harris talking about Bill Craig

‎"William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists…and see clearly what …is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!"

—Mark Smith, Contra Craig Website (www.jcnot4me.com/Items/​contra_craig/​contra_craig.htm)

Not all philosophers hate William Lane Craig.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:03:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:42:14 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
That quote by Sam Harris was clearly a joke. I don't think he likes WLC much...

Not after the spanking Craig gave him at their debate. I remember just laughing at how, at a certain point in the debate when Craig offered a knock-down argument against Harris, Harris simply took the stand, ignored literally all of what Craig had just said and launched an emergency emotional attack against the supposed evils of religion just to say anything rather than address Craig's knock-down argument.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:03:14 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Not after the spanking Craig gave him at their debate. I remember just laughing at how, at a certain point in the debate when Craig offered a knock-down argument against Harris, Harris simply took the stand, ignored literally all of what Craig had just said and launched an emergency emotional attack against the supposed evils of religion just to say anything rather than address Craig's knock-down argument.

Well, he said that before the debate, but yeah... I didn't really like that debate much. It seemed like both of them were speaking over each other a lot, though WLC did address Sam a lot more than vise versa.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:16:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Stephen,

I see what you're saying, and at times perhaps Craig does use hostile language inappropriately at times, but I wouldn't criticise him for it, because I don't really think it's that big of a deal, and there are genuine reasons (far more damaging, I would suggest) to dislike Craig, like I pointed out, which makes swipes at fellow thinkers pretty minuscule in comparison to defending genocide or some of the other craaaaaaaaaazy things he's said.

Also, there are indeed times where I think Craig has been right to characterise the work of certain people in particularly derogatory terms. When he calls Dawkins "merely a layman" when it comes to philosophy, or criticises the God delusion as "shallow", "terrible", "appalling", and so forth, I'd suggest this is pretty accurate, especially given the rhetoric of Dawkins. Criticising Dawkins or Atkins in bland, PC language probably wouldn't capture how ignorant they can be, and so using this kind of language to express this is pretty fair IMO.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:37:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:22:52 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
"William Lane Craig is one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time. In this book, he combines his expertise in these areas to produce an original, erudite, and accessible theory of time and God..."

--Quentin Smith, on the back cover of Craig's book, "Time and Eternity"

If we count how many films that said "one of the best this year" in 2011 and added them together, we'd have hundreds. If we did the same with backs of books, we'd have even more than that.

‎"I'm genuinely honoured to be sharing the stage with Professor Craig this evening"
--Stephen Law, their Oct 17 2011 debate.

Common debate courtesy: think nothing of it.

"The one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

--Sam Harris talking about Bill Craig

Someone else has already put down context.

‎"William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists…and see clearly what …is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!"

—Mark Smith, Contra Craig Website (www.jcnot4me.com/Items/​contra_craig/​contra_craig.htm)

Not all philosophers hate William Lane Craig.

Why does no-one address what I put in the original post? -_-
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:38:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:16:02 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Stephen,

I see what you're saying, and at times perhaps Craig does use hostile language inappropriately at times, but I wouldn't criticise him for it, because I don't really think it's that big of a deal, and there are genuine reasons (far more damaging, I would suggest) to dislike Craig, like I pointed out, which makes swipes at fellow thinkers pretty minuscule in comparison to defending genocide or some of the other craaaaaaaaaazy things he's said.

Also, there are indeed times where I think Craig has been right to characterise the work of certain people in particularly derogatory terms. When he calls Dawkins "merely a layman" when it comes to philosophy, or criticises the God delusion as "shallow", "terrible", "appalling", and so forth, I'd suggest this is pretty accurate, especially given the rhetoric of Dawkins. Criticising Dawkins or Atkins in bland, PC language probably wouldn't capture how ignorant they can be, and so using this kind of language to express this is pretty fair IMO.

WHAT IS GOING ON

"For a formal essay, his writing seems oddly filled with rhetoric, and excessively spiteful. Is this something common?"

I ask a simple question, and it gets hijacked by discussions on the genocide of the Canaanites, and Craig's debates. I'm going to try and start forcing this back on topic now...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 7:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:38:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 7:16:02 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Stephen,

I see what you're saying, and at times perhaps Craig does use hostile language inappropriately at times, but I wouldn't criticise him for it, because I don't really think it's that big of a deal, and there are genuine reasons (far more damaging, I would suggest) to dislike Craig, like I pointed out, which makes swipes at fellow thinkers pretty minuscule in comparison to defending genocide or some of the other craaaaaaaaaazy things he's said.

Also, there are indeed times where I think Craig has been right to characterise the work of certain people in particularly derogatory terms. When he calls Dawkins "merely a layman" when it comes to philosophy, or criticises the God delusion as "shallow", "terrible", "appalling", and so forth, I'd suggest this is pretty accurate, especially given the rhetoric of Dawkins. Criticising Dawkins or Atkins in bland, PC language probably wouldn't capture how ignorant they can be, and so using this kind of language to express this is pretty fair IMO.

WHAT IS GOING ON

"For a formal essay, his writing seems oddly filled with rhetoric, and excessively spiteful. Is this something common?"

I ask a simple question, and it gets hijacked by discussions on the genocide of the Canaanites, and Craig's debates. I'm going to try and start forcing this back on topic now...

I was pointing out that if you're going to complain about "excessive spite" regarding Craig, then surely these things are not only relevant but far more so than some pretty benign criticisms he gave in an essay.

As for it being common, I think the level of offence you're setting up would pretty much any criticism seem excessive. Stephen Law, for example, in a debate with Craig, said that Craig's case for God in their debate was "weedy", "spectacularly weak", and "absurd". So, if that's the level you're setting, then such "excessive" rhetoric would be extremely common.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 3:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
William Lane Craig is awesome. Haters gonna hate.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 5:02:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 7:48:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 4/8/2012 7:38:27 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/8/2012 7:16:02 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Stephen,

I see what you're saying, and at times perhaps Craig does use hostile language inappropriately at times, but I wouldn't criticise him for it, because I don't really think it's that big of a deal, and there are genuine reasons (far more damaging, I would suggest) to dislike Craig, like I pointed out, which makes swipes at fellow thinkers pretty minuscule in comparison to defending genocide or some of the other craaaaaaaaaazy things he's said.

Also, there are indeed times where I think Craig has been right to characterise the work of certain people in particularly derogatory terms. When he calls Dawkins "merely a layman" when it comes to philosophy, or criticises the God delusion as "shallow", "terrible", "appalling", and so forth, I'd suggest this is pretty accurate, especially given the rhetoric of Dawkins. Criticising Dawkins or Atkins in bland, PC language probably wouldn't capture how ignorant they can be, and so using this kind of language to express this is pretty fair IMO.

WHAT IS GOING ON

"For a formal essay, his writing seems oddly filled with rhetoric, and excessively spiteful. Is this something common?"

I ask a simple question, and it gets hijacked by discussions on the genocide of the Canaanites, and Craig's debates. I'm going to try and start forcing this back on topic now...

I was pointing out that if you're going to complain about "excessive spite" regarding Craig, then surely these things are not only relevant but far more so than some pretty benign criticisms he gave in an essay.

As for it being common, I think the level of offence you're setting up would pretty much any criticism seem excessive. Stephen Law, for example, in a debate with Craig, said that Craig's case for God in their debate was "weedy", "spectacularly weak", and "absurd". So, if that's the level you're setting, then such "excessive" rhetoric would be extremely common.

Sorry, I realise my last post coming across as quite rude. What I mean is the actual debates he does are irrelevant to what I am talking about: I am mentioning the essays he writes. In the debate technique, it's something I've seen before by many different people, but it's the first time I've seen an essay written with that level of rhetoric.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 6:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 3:03:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
William Lane Craig is awesome. Haters gonna hate.

Truth.

Unfortunately it seems there is only two camps regarding William Lane Craig, you either love him or hate him. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 3:26:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 6:09:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/9/2012 3:03:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
William Lane Craig is awesome. Haters gonna hate.

Truth.

Unfortunately it seems there is only two camps regarding William Lane Craig, you either love him or hate him. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

I don't hate him nor love him. He's okay.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 4:23:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am going to put my foot down a bit and refer people to my OP.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:00:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 6:09:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/9/2012 3:03:22 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
William Lane Craig is awesome. Haters gonna hate.

Truth.

Unfortunately it seems there is only two camps regarding William Lane Craig, you either love him or hate him. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

I don't hate him, I respect his superior debating skills over most of the people he debates. However just because a good debater presents an argument for the sun revolving around the earth for example, that doesn't mean that the sun revolves around the Earth because the presenter did a good job of presenting his case.

Basically, his presentation, conviction, and debating skills are top notch but his ideas are hooey.

I think that describes Craig the best.