Why philosophers don't like W.L.Craig

I saw the video, good stuff.

At 4/23/2012 9:49:57 AM, Meatros wrote:

At 4/23/2012 9:34:05 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "doing things lately." He's actually currently on a speaking tour of Europe, and then he has some speaking engages here in the States. William Lane Craig is an active Christian philosopher.

I meant as far as publishing peer reviewed articles for various philosophy journals - doing the work of a philosopher, basically. I'm aware he's doing things as far as apologetics goes.

Thing is, I see a lot of hate for WLC coming from internet atheists, who post videos on-line or on website allegedly dispriving WLC, or calling him a hack, or some such. But the reality is that WLC's credentials are amazing and at least he speaks and teaches in real life, as well as debating and engaging atheists, which is really more than I can say for the most of the people putting him down. He is actually respected by the atheistic philosophers that he engages off-line.

I actually appreciate Craig and I think he wins a majority of his debates. I think his views on time are wrong, but very interesting to read. I do not think his credentials are 'amazing', but they are certainly better than mine. He's serving a function for Christians, which I suppose should be served, but this function takes away from his work in Philosophy, IMO.

Well, maybe "amazing" is too strong of a word. lol I meant, compared to someone like me who is familiar with the arguments and engages in philosophical discussions, but doesn't have the credentials behind me.

But I don't think a philosopher's sole purpose in life is to write peer-reviewed articles. Many philosophers do, of course, but I think that's too narrow a view of philosopher. After all, anyone who takes the time to educate themselves in philosophy and takes the time to engage in those discussions should be consider a philosopher, as far as I'm concerned. A good argument is a good argument, whether it comes from someone with a Ph.D. or someone who has no formal training, and a bad argument is a bad argument, whether it comes from someone with a Ph.D. or someone who has had no formal training.

But then you have the academic philosophers like Craig and others who make a living doing and teaching philosophy.

At 4/23/2012 10:03:18 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

Well, maybe "amazing" is too strong of a word. lol I meant, compared to someone like me who is familiar with the arguments and engages in philosophical discussions, but doesn't have the credentials behind me.

Okay, that's fair enough. I'd agree in so far as compared to myself, he'd be 'amazing' as well.

But I don't think a philosopher's sole purpose in life is to write peer-reviewed articles. Many philosophers do, of course, but I think that's too narrow a view of philosopher. After all, anyone who takes the time to educate themselves in philosophy and takes the time to engage in those discussions should be consider a philosopher, as far as I'm concerned. A good argument is a good argument, whether it comes from someone with a Ph.D. or someone who has no formal training, and a bad argument is a bad argument, whether it comes from someone with a Ph.D. or someone who has had no formal training.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "Philosopher", I'm considering a professional Philosopher as someone who does write peer reviewed articles, someone who is trying to expand the base of knowledge that we have. Under that understanding Craig fits the bill - even given my previous understanding of his accomplishments - what I was questioning was more on what has he done lately (which I concede could be something if I understood Popculturepolka correctly). I'm aware that he had a substantial impact a decade + ago with his KCA and views on Time. I was also questioning his citations as brought up by the Thunderf00t vid (a claim that turned out to be misleading).

But then you have the academic philosophers like Craig and others who make a living doing and teaching philosophy.

I don't think Craig does make his living teaching Philosophy. He certainly taught it in the past. I don't think he does so now (I could be mistaken). Further, I think he primarily makes his living through his apologetics work (debates, popular level books, his work with campus crusade for christ, etc).

May I point out that Singer has won all debates I've seen him do undoubtedly (to the point that many have conceded), but I don't agree with his views on animal rights. Same can be applied to Craig (except Singer is a worse rhetorician)

At 4/23/2012 11:10:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
May I point out that Singer has won all debates I've seen him do undoubtedly (to the point that many have conceded), but I don't agree with his views on animal rights. Same can be applied to Craig (except Singer is a worse rhetorician)

Yes, you may.

Winning a debate is not the same as being correct. :-)

At 4/23/2012 11:27:07 AM, Meatros wrote:
Winning a debate is not the same as being correct. :-)

Agreed, but was referring to Keytar

At 4/23/2012 6:54:33 AM, Meatros wrote:

At 4/21/2012 3:33:00 PM, Skyhook wrote:

Thunderfoot probably isn't good source for philosophy or philosophy of religion (or even assessing who's a good philosopher and who isn't).

Yes, I wasn't taking his philosophy views into account, only the H-Index.

Here's a good video (starts at 1:00) decimating Tfoot's tactic of using the H-index, an example of "measuring stag antlers". The video essentially points out the flaws of the H-index such as cross comparing academic fields or what counts as a citation (for instance, someone can repeatedly cite himself/herself to help out their H-index or be cited numerous times negatively).

That is suspicious and I did not realize that people could do that.

Craig is actually ranked pretty high in his field (philosophy of religion) at 14th based on a 2007 Top Philosophers Ranking (using the beloved H-index). This is also in the video along with other reputable philosophers actually lower than Craig but still by no means academic midgets.

I was wondering about the relative merit of the H-Index on philosophers versus scientists. If the average philosopher only gets 3 hits, then obviously Craig wouldn't have a problem.

Hope the video helps out with your research.

It will - I intend to view it later in the day.

I was wondering if anyone had a link to the H-Index (if there was one). I'd like to do some digging on some other philosophers and scientists.

Here's a neat link listing out philosophers H-index. I just found it so I'm not entirely sure how credible it is, but it does seem reliable.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com...

Unfortunately, I couldn't find WLC in the list, but I'm not sure why he's not in there because philosophers with H-indexes/indices? of at least two made it (and according to tf00t, Craig's was around two). Anyway, philosophers in comparison to say scientists, will probably have much lower h-indices. For instance, tf00t's h-index (which I can't find yet but he cites it's 18) might look like it eclipses Alvin Plantinga's 6 (big in phil. of religion), Jaegwon kim's 13 (big in phil of mind), or Peter van Inwagen's 6(big in metaphysics), but I think it's almost unquestionable that these philosophers are actually heavyweights in their respective fields. The h-index would be misleading in comparison to tf00t's.

The other thing, philosophers of religion are actually in the minority when it comes to philosophy. A career in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics for example will probably be more advantageous to your h-index than phil. of religion.

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...
(the best I could do for finding Bill Craig's rank)

Not a fan of the h-index for the reasons I outlined. It seems to oversimplify the academic impact philosophers have (especially in phil. of religion). Sorry I couldn't find Bill Craig's h-index in comparison to other philosophers of religion(with the exact h-indices).

At 4/23/2012 6:57:30 AM, Meatros wrote:

At 4/21/2012 4:25:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Lol? It's not at all like he almost singlehandedly resurrected the kca which is by far one of the most discussed arguments for God's existence in comtemporary phil of religion.....

True, but what has he done lately? ;-p

The reason I initially gave credence to Thunderf00t's claim is that I'm not aware of Craig doing anything recently (then again, I may not be in a position to really know). I think I saw another post of yours where he was engaged in a, uh, 'journal trading' dispute over morality - I'm not entirely sure what to call it nor if I have the facts straight - but if he was publishing journal articles on (supporting Copan) then that's enough for me to reconsider my position that he hasn't done anything lately.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

A lot of this work is within 5 years...

At 4/21/2012 11:24:17 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/8/2012 3:39:14 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
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".

Wow what a condescending, arrogant and stupid remark to make. While you don't have to agree with him you shouldn't call him stupid because you disagree. How unprofessional and childish.

He said Craig is smart, not stupid. When a smart person makes stupid arguments, sometimes it is charitable to assume he's lying.

At 4/23/2012 8:19:34 PM, wiploc wrote:

At 4/21/2012 11:24:17 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/8/2012 3:39:14 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
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".

Wow what a condescending, arrogant and stupid remark to make. While you don't have to agree with him you shouldn't call him stupid because you disagree. How unprofessional and childish.

He said Craig is smart, not stupid. When a smart person makes stupid arguments, sometimes it is charitable to assume he's lying.

Because Craig makes stupid arguments, right?

Christ...reading some of the comments on this thread is extremely nauseating.

At 4/23/2012 6:14:28 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Here's a neat link listing out philosophers H-index. I just found it so I'm not entirely sure how credible it is, but it does seem reliable.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com...

That's cool, I'll have to check it out. The other video seemed to respond to the Thunderf00t vid pretty well, but I'm not entirely sure I want to chuck the whole H-Index thing yet.

I have this idea that I could use it when picking out scholarly books... :-) In other words, say I want to read about morality or history, I pick a few books that look good. I run the H-Index. Might help with narrowing down my selection.

One of the tough things I've found is that if I don't know much about a specific field it's kind of hard to figure out the best people to read on it.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find WLC in the list, but I'm not sure why he's not in there because philosophers with H-indexes/indices? of at least two made it (and according to tf00t, Craig's was around two). Anyway, philosophers in comparison to say scientists, will probably have much lower h-indices.

That was one thing I was initially suspicious about.

For instance, tf00t's h-index (which I can't find yet but he cites it's 18) might look like it eclipses Alvin Plantinga's 6 (big in phil. of religion), Jaegwon kim's 13 (big in phil of mind), or Peter van Inwagen's 6(big in metaphysics), but I think it's almost unquestionable that these philosophers are actually heavyweights in their respective fields. The h-index would be misleading in comparison to tf00t's.

I would agree with you there.

The other thing, philosophers of religion are actually in the minority when it comes to philosophy. A career in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics for example will probably be more advantageous to your h-index than phil. of religion.

Yes, that was another suspicion. I wonder what Shook's H-Index is.

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...
(the best I could do for finding Bill Craig's rank)

Not a fan of the h-index for the reasons I outlined. It seems to oversimplify the academic impact philosophers have (especially in phil. of religion). Sorry I couldn't find Bill Craig's h-index in comparison to other philosophers of religion(with the exact h-indices).

Yes, I recognize that it's an oversimplification - but here's another thing I'm thinking - the H-Index will tell me whether or not the person is still publishing in their specialty. Now this, again, would just be a tool to see if the person is keeping current. I'm thinking of someone like Jonathan Sarfati, who, to my knowledge, has a PhD in something (ophthalmology?) but hasn't actually done anything relevant in his field in years.

At 4/23/2012 6:39:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

At 4/23/2012 6:57:30 AM, Meatros wrote:

At 4/21/2012 4:25:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Lol? It's not at all like he almost singlehandedly resurrected the kca which is by far one of the most discussed arguments for God's existence in comtemporary phil of religion.....

True, but what has he done lately? ;-p

The reason I initially gave credence to Thunderf00t's claim is that I'm not aware of Craig doing anything recently (then again, I may not be in a position to really know). I think I saw another post of yours where he was engaged in a, uh, 'journal trading' dispute over morality - I'm not entirely sure what to call it nor if I have the facts straight - but if he was publishing journal articles on (supporting Copan) then that's enough for me to reconsider my position that he hasn't done anything lately.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

A lot of this work is within 5 years...

Thanks!

At 4/24/2012 7:09:59 AM, Meatros wrote:

At 4/23/2012 6:14:28 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Here's a neat link listing out philosophers H-index. I just found it so I'm not entirely sure how credible it is, but it does seem reliable.

http://academic.research.microsoft.com...

That's cool, I'll have to check it out. The other video seemed to respond to the Thunderf00t vid pretty well, but I'm not entirely sure I want to chuck the whole H-Index thing yet.

I have this idea that I could use it when picking out scholarly books... :-) In other words, say I want to read about morality or history, I pick a few books that look good. I run the H-Index. Might help with narrowing down my selection.

One of the tough things I've found is that if I don't know much about a specific field it's kind of hard to figure out the best people to read on it.

Definitely agree with you there. It's unfortunate academics are recommended very obscurely. Although it might be because they're writing isn't geared toward the general public or people not in their field. If there's a field I want to know more about, I usually start with a very introductory but well-written book and move on from there, but even then it can still be difficult.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find WLC in the list, but I'm not sure why he's not in there because philosophers with H-indexes/indices? of at least two made it (and according to tf00t, Craig's was around two). Anyway, philosophers in comparison to say scientists, will probably have much lower h-indices.

That was one thing I was initially suspicious about.

For instance, tf00t's h-index (which I can't find yet but he cites it's 18) might look like it eclipses Alvin Plantinga's 6 (big in phil. of religion), Jaegwon kim's 13 (big in phil of mind), or Peter van Inwagen's 6(big in metaphysics), but I think it's almost unquestionable that these philosophers are actually heavyweights in their respective fields. The h-index would be misleading in comparison to tf00t's.

I would agree with you there.

The other thing, philosophers of religion are actually in the minority when it comes to philosophy. A career in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics for example will probably be more advantageous to your h-index than phil. of religion.

Yes, that was another suspicion. I wonder what Shook's H-Index is.

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com...
(the best I could do for finding Bill Craig's rank)

Not a fan of the h-index for the reasons I outlined. It seems to oversimplify the academic impact philosophers have (especially in phil. of religion). Sorry I couldn't find Bill Craig's h-index in comparison to other philosophers of religion(with the exact h-indices).

Yes, I recognize that it's an oversimplification - but here's another thing I'm thinking - the H-Index will tell me whether or not the person is still publishing in their specialty. Now this, again, would just be a tool to see if the person is keeping current. I'm thinking of someone like Jonathan Sarfati, who, to my knowledge, has a PhD in something (ophthalmology?) but hasn't actually done anything relevant in his field in years.

Oh, okay, I see where you're going. In that sense, the H-index could be useful. The only thing making it hard to navigate on the site I linked is that many academics share the same name so there might be like 10 people with the name like John R. Shook or Jonathan D. Sarfati and no pictures, only specific academic articles they've written on topics very similar to each other. If you do decide to keep exploring the H-index, I tip my hat off to you. I don't think I could do it without becoming a stat junkie like I did in sports.

I like how half the people are discussing H-Index, and S-D comes in and starts going on about Craig again...
lol
Can someone answer me a question: Isn't having two citations for any reason worse than having dozens and dozens, whether for good or bad reasons? Noonan is a very well cited philosopher because his argument is incredibly easy for even novices to criticise regarding abortion.

At 4/24/2012 8:25:31 AM, Skyhook wrote:
Definitely agree with you there. It's unfortunate academics are recommended very obscurely. Although it might be because they're writing isn't geared toward the general public or people not in their field. If there's a field I want to know more about, I usually start with a very introductory but well-written book and move on from there, but even then it can still be difficult.

The main problem is that popularity trumps quality. Look at Dawkin's "God Delusion" for example. It's easily the most recognizable atheist book out there. Is it the best? No, I can think of quite a few that are more useful and more elucidating than his book.

An introductory book is a good suggestion.

Oh, okay, I see where you're going. In that sense, the H-index could be useful. The only thing making it hard to navigate on the site I linked is that many academics share the same name so there might be like 10 people with the name like John R. Shook or Jonathan D. Sarfati and no pictures, only specific academic articles they've written on topics very similar to each other. If you do decide to keep exploring the H-index, I tip my hat off to you. I don't think I could do it without becoming a stat junkie like I did in sports.

True, the similarity in names could be misleading.

At 4/24/2012 5:13:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I like how half the people are discussing H-Index, and S-D comes in and starts going on about Craig again...
lol
Can someone answer me a question: Isn't having two citations for any reason worse than having dozens and dozens, whether for good or bad reasons? Noonan is a very well cited philosopher because his argument is incredibly easy for even novices to criticise regarding abortion.

It depends - if there are only a handful of people publishing on the topic you are writing about, then 2 might be very good. The philosophy of time, one of Craig's specialties, is rather obscure.

The citations are within academic peer reviewed journals, to my knowledge, not necessarily popular level work.