Richard Dawkins

Soul Winner wrote: »

Craig's cosmological argument is based current accepted scientific theory.

No it REALLY isn't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Standard Model. Which states that all matter, energy space and time had their beginning at a finite time in the past called the Big Bang. So based on that current accepted scientific theory he proceeds.

That isn't the current accepted scientific theory.

Wow, that was easy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anyone reject premise 1? If so please give us your basis for rejecting it in terms that we can understand.

Yes.

Reason: We don't know that is true and thus can't say it is.

In fact "cause" is a concept that has no meaning in terms of the Big Bang because time doesn't exist (a cause is an event happening at a different point in time that triggers another event)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anyone reject premise number 2? If so you are in the minority on this point.

Yes.

Reason:"Began" is a concept that has no meaning with relation to the big bang. As put so well in this article, t=0 means that you cannot talk of the Big Bang as an "event". Such a concept doesn't hold.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/comments.html

It is very intersted to see how Craig completely misses the point of Grunbaum's article here, http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/beyond-the-big-bang.htm, twisting it into a claim that Grunbaum is making a unsupported claim about the universe when in fact all he is doing is pointing out that Craig's assumptions are unsupported.

This right there is why people don't want to debate with Craig, he doesn't offer counter argument, he simply twists your argument, repackages it in a straw man, and then argues you are wrong.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now if all matter space, energy and time came into existence at this time then the cause must timeless, space-less and immaterial. There are two types of things that fall into this category. Abstract numbers and Minds. Abstract numbers do not cause anything. They're just abstract numbers. Minds do cause things.

What?

"Minds" are timeless, space-less and immaterial? According to what exactly?

iUseVi

Soul Winner wrote: »

Premise 1
Everyhting that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2
The universe began to exist.

Premise 3
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Does anyone reject premise 1? If so please give us your basis for rejecting it in terms that we can understand. Does anyone reject premise number 2? If so you are in the minority on this point.

I know you are mostly debating with Wicknight but since you ask "does anyone" I'll give an opinion.

1) Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the Universe is the only thing that breaks this rule.
2) I can't accept this, you cannot possibly know either way. No one knows if its correct to go with a multiverse theory, or continual bang-crunch cycles, or whether this Universe is original and unique. But maybe the Universe is eternal, maybe it is not. No one, and that means not one person, can possibly know this.
3) Premise one and two are unknown so no this does not follow. Ok so for the sake of argument lets go with it. Maybe the Universe was created from nothing. This makes no sense to humans but I think we need to include it as an option. Maybe god did it, but this raises complications. Assuming your premises theres only way god can be eternal and that is if he did not have a beginning. But its simpler to say the universe did not have a beginning. If you can accept that a supreme being did not have to have a beginning I should think its easier to accept that a universe did not.

Personally I can't comprehend either of these two things: god existing forever, the multi/universe existing for ever. Either one of them is true or neither of them are. Both pretty mad ideas and hard to comprehend, but a god existing for ever is more complex, and therefore less likely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah sure. Check it from 1:20 seconds on:

When the opposite side resort to lying about the opponents it is a clear sign of fear of the others arguments even if you're convinced that those arguments are flawed. The whole point about debate is to show everyone that you oppnonents arguments are flawed by using your own arguments. Look, I don't agree with absolutely everything that Craig says but at least he makes his case very clearly and is very very open to correction, in fact he literally begs his opponents to pull down his arguments in all his debates and when they fail to do so he gives the most common response to them that are out there and tears them apart instead.

I'm a big fan of Dawkins. But I have to say that he's in the wrong here. Craig is a serious philosopher. I happen to disagree with his positions on theism, and I agree with most of Dawkins stuff, but there is no doubt that Craig would be a serious and worthy debating opponent on this issue.

Dawkins point about debating only bishops/cardinals/etc is very weak (pathetic even). Why should he expect clergy to be more knowledgeable than a professional philosopher on issues such as the cosmological or ontological arguments? Or indeed on materrs of morality? Or in fact anything? He is the very person who made the point about "undue respect" and now here he is giving undue credit to the religious hierarchy.

equivariant wrote: »

Craig is a serious philosopher.

He is? How are you defining "serious" in this context?

equivariant wrote: »

He is the very person who made the point about "undue respect" and now here he is giving undue credit to the religious hierarchy.

I think that should let you know how litte respect Dawkins has for someone like Craig. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, but I do expect someone who tells us that God is a Delusion and the only purpose we have in life when all is said and done is to perpetuate our DNA,

Is that what you think ? No wonder you have such a poor opinion of the non-religious.

I must point out yet again that Atheism/Non-belief or whatever you wish to call it is not a belief system and that the following is my own view. Maybe others share it, I don't know, I don't care.

The purpose I see in life is to live. I want to cause as little suffering as possible and to live as good a life as I can by my definition of what is good. I want to learn all I can about the things I want to learn about and when my time comes to leave this existence I want to look back and feel proud of my achievements and regret for my failings. And then I want to die.

If anything comes after death so be it, but I'm not going to spend my life working towards an afterlife which no one can know about.

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. - Socrates

I have no respect for people who claim to have answers to questions which are unknowable. The people who claim to 'know' these things are truly deluded, regardless of whether or not their claims are true.

I can no more say there is no god then you can say there is. I don't know there is no god or gods, I cannot know it.

Mr Craig is trying to convince us of something which is unknowable by misusing logic and misrepresenting scientific evidence, how can you argue with someone who claims to know the unknowable and lies about the known ?

As for passing on my DNA, sure that might come into it and I'd hope my children would live good lives and their children and their children's children.

...to at least give somebody like Craig, who contrary to Dawkins' narrow view of him is much more than a professional debater or a creationist, some time to debate his views.

To what end ? Craig's arguments are available everywhere. I've seen them and they are wrong. I'm not saying his belief in a god or gods is wrong, because as already stated, no one can know that. I'm saying his logic and his misrepresentation of science is wrong.

It's as wrong as YEC's are about the age of the Earth, it's as wrong as flat earthers are about the shape of the Earth. What is the point in debating someone who is so dishonest and who reuses old arguments which have not only being dis-proven but were knowingly dishonest when they were first made ?

Craig holds a PhD in Philosophy and Theology.

I have an acquaintance who holds a PhD in theology (Christianity+ some local beliefs) and is currently working as a missionary in China smuggling North Koreans to South Korea. He also 'knows' the Earth is 6000 years old and that theres a connection between ancient Korean legends and the Christian Bible.

For an example, ancient Korean legends say how koreans are all descended from a bear who turned into a woman after spending 30 days and nights in a cave eating nothing but garlic. He believes god changed the woman into a bear and she made children with one of gods sons to bring about the korean race.

You think my acquaintance is deserving of a debate with an archeologist or a biologist on the origins of humanity ?

Yes he does, please show me where you think the premises of any of Craig's arguments are flawed.

Certainly. He's an old-earth creationist. End.

Dennet says that the universe brought itself into being and that it is its own cause?

Did he ? Science says "we don't know".

Is there someone here who is willing to defend this? In order for the universe to bring itself into existence there must have been a universe, but how can there be a universe when there was no universe????

Well as I just pointed out, science says no such thing. Science says "we don't know".

But just for arguments sake your still wrong. Your talking in terms of time when time didn't exist. Asking for the 'cause' of the universe is like asking for the 3rd side to a two dimensional object.

We are three dimensional beings and we perceive physics in a certain way. We perceive this thing called time for example, as linear.

Can you visualise a four dimensional object soul winner ?

Please. come on, Craig is probably wrong on this point but that kind of argumentation against it is not what's going to convince any logical thinking person be they theist or atheist.

And that's his biggest problem. He doesn't use logic.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Premise 1
Everyhting that begins to exist has a cause.

We don't/can't know that.

And please if you take nothing else into account please understand that 'cause' is meaningless without time.

Premise 2
The universe began to exist.

We don't know that.

Premise 3
Therefore the universe has a cause.

We don't know that.

Does anyone reject premise 1? If so please give us your basis for rejecting it in terms that we can understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang wrote:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day.

The big bang does not explain how the universe 'began' (terrible word to use). It explains how the universe got from point B (14 million years ago) to point C (Now).

Even for us to try to visualise the 'expansion' of the Universe is extremely difficult.

I've talked to many people who think that an enormously dense ball of dense material exploded and spread into space.

They don't seem to understand that space and time were created by the big bang, space itself is expanding.

Wicknight wrote: »

He is? How are you defining "serious" in this context?

Well, I don't necessarily believe that "serious" has a cast iron definition in this context. However, certainly given Craig's educational history in philosophy (doctorates from Birmingham and Munich apparently) and the list of institutions (which include Leuven in Belgium) where he has worked which are properly accredited, he deserves to be treated in the same way as a typical academic philosopher. Sure he associates with some places like the Discovery Institute, but against that, you cannot suggest that he does not have solid academic credentials and his writing on the cosmological argument is certainly taken seriously in the philosophical world (I'm not saying that it is widely accepted, just that it is considered a serious academic work of philosophy). I happen to think that his arguments for theism are weak, but that is different from dismissing him as a commentator

I think that should let you know how litte respect Dawkins has for someone like Craig. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Given that Dawkins is quite willing to interview Creationist extremists for whom he quite clearly has zero respect, I think that this point has little force. The extremists are easy targets for someone like Dawkins - Craig less so. Dawkins' allegation about Craig being "a professional debater" seems a tad ironic coming from a scientist who for the last number of years has largely forsaken his scientific work to enagage in public debates. There is nothing wrong with his choice to do this, but he can hardly then criticise Craig for being a (professional) philosopher who spends much of his time enagaging in public debates.

I can't believe that I have had to defend Craig in this thread:mad:
As I have said, I believe that Dawkins position arguments against theism are much stronger than Craig's defences of theism. However, I do think that Dawkins is not justified in dismissing him as a worthy opponent. Its a very comfortable life to ridicule obvious extremists or to have cosy discussions with liberal clerics who basically agree with him. Why not take on someone who will really provide a challenge?

Dawkins professes to be extremely worried by the state of US public opinion on matters such as creationism. If that is the case, interviews with liberal Anglican clerics are hardly going to have much effect. On the other hand, a public debunking of Craig would have a far greater chance of changing some people's minds.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

Craig is a serious philosopher.

Craig is certainly not a philosopher, serious or otherwise -- though he can occasionally sound like one. Sophistry, and not philosophy, is what he practices and preaches. More specifically, Craig is a religious apologist who makes his living by selling material which helps new and existing religious believers to justify their religious beliefs to themselves and others.

To give an example of what he produces, here's an informative passage from his website in which he claims that soldiers who murder terrified women and children are -- in his strange world, at least -- victims.

William Lane Craig wrote:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

They're not the words of an honest philosopher.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

William Lane Craig honorary PHd from Ken Ham school of religious logic wrote:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Yeah....

So without telling these poor women and children they are about to be slaughtered and you know, explaining to them that their death will be nothing more than a transient process until they reach the pearly gates, Mr. Craig asks, with exemplary compartmentalization, as only the religious can, "won't someone please think of the children soldiers"?
As a qualified 'sophistist' he can then twist that, painfully, into an deep philosophical argument about the mechanics of Gods decisions and how complex they are, on the surface you'd think that being raped and murdered, the women and children had it rough; but no it's actually the soldiers who are on trial.

So Craig 'understands' God and is able to litrealize a biblical passage of obvious horror and turn it on its head so that the real victims are actually being rewarded and that the killers are just being 'tested'.

What a bizarre and frightening world creationists and biblical litrealists occupy.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig honorary PHd from Ken Ham school of religious logic

I sympathise with the point you are trying to make in the body of your post, but this kind of trollish muppetry does you no favours at all. Please refrain in future if you wish to enjoy access to this forum.

robindch wrote: »

Craig is certainly not a philosopher, serious or otherwise -- though he can occasionally sound like one.

Yes he is. Because he happens to holds views that you (and I, for that matter) find objectionable does not mena that you can dismiss his credentials as a philosopher. I think that anyone with a PhD in philosophy from a reputable university (University of Munich presumably qualifies) is entitled to claim the title of philosopher. I do not hold such a degree - do you? I ask because it will inform the discussion of who has the right to dismiss the philosophical credentials of another. You may well hold an equivalent qualification. In that case, I would be interested to know why you dismiss Craig's?

Sophistry, and not philosophy, is what he practices and preaches. More specifically, Craig is a religious apologist who makes his living by selling material which helps new and existing religious believers to justify their religious beliefs to themselves and others.

How he makes his living is irrelevant. One might equally well point out that Dawkins 'makes his living' by selling books to atheists that make them feel good about their own beliefs. Indeed Dawkins, I would say, is proud of this fact. So what if Craig supplements his incomes by writing books? That is his right, and has no bearing on the validity of his arguments

To give an example of what he produces, here's an informative passage from his website in which he claims that soldiers who murder terrified women and children are -- in his strange world, at least -- victims.They're not the words of an honest philosopher.

This is just quote mining to try to discredit someone. I imagine that one could go back through the writings of many of the most famous philosophers in history and find much more controversial statements than this. Whether or not either of us finds this quote objectionable has nothing to do with his academic credentials. Lets not fall into the trap of being 'offended' by something and therefore concluding that we can dismiss the source without further explanation.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your rebuttals are simply not strong enough to hold any water, that is why they are ignored. Craig's cosmological argument is based current accepted scientific theory. The Standard Model. Which states that all matter, energy space and time had their beginning at a finite time in the past called the Big Bang. So based on that current accepted scientific theory he proceeds.

Premise 1
Everyhting that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2
The universe began to exist.

Premise 3
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Does anyone reject premise 1? If so please give us your basis for rejecting it in terms that we can understand. Does anyone reject premise number 2? If so you are in the minority on this point.

Now if all matter space, energy and time came into existence at this time then the cause must timeless, space-less and immaterial. There are two types of things that fall into this category. Abstract numbers and Minds. Abstract numbers do not cause anything. They're just abstract numbers. Minds do cause things. My mind is causing me to write this post for example. Now what Craig argues is that either nothing caused the universe or a force which transcends space and time is caused it. Which of the two is more likely candidate? Nothing? Or what Max Planck said below in my sig, the founder of quantum theory himself.

Anyway getting back to Dawkins...

You have said that Craig's cosmological argument is based on currently accepted scientific theory and then, in the next sentence, said something completely contrary to current scientific theory. Even Craig himself does not claim such a thing The Standard Model does not say all matter energy space and time came into existence a finite time into the past. The standard model is a model of high energy particle interactions. We have no model of spacetime coming into existence because we have no quantum theory of spacetime. We have no standard model of "coming into exisrence."

It must be stressed that, despite pop-science literature, and some poor choice words used by early astronomers, the big bang is not a creation event. It is a 'moving outward' event. In otherwords, cosmology describes a spacteime manifold that increases in lengthscale as one follows a timelike path through it. These timelike paths all curve towards a singularity if we follow them backwards, but the physics of the singularity (i.e. the universe itself) is under no obligation to be temporal or dynamical itself (which is what Craig seems to assume). We simply do not have the formalism to describe the singularity. Craig does acknowledge this point, but dismisses the problem of quantum gravity by saying

"there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo"

which shows that he simply does not understand the problem. It is not about a spontaneous creation ex nihilo, it is about describing the state of the universe at the singularity. Without quantum gravity, we cannot even establish whether an ex nihilo event needs to be invoked. Time, instead of having a discrete t=0, might simply dissolve into a quantum regime where such notions are no longer appropriate, where "creation" might be little more than a degeneration. Spacetime might be finite, but unbounded and therefore completely self-contained.

That is why Craig's arguments do not hold water, and are ignored by scientists. He makes the common mistake of talking about something he does not really understand (Unfortunately a common mistake among philosophers.)

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

That is why Craig's argument do not hold water, and are ignored by scientists. He makes the common mistake of talking about something he does not really understand (Unfortunately a common mistake among philosophers.)

And, as evidenced by Dawkins, a mistake that is not just confined to philosophers.

Morbert wrote: »

That is why Craig's arguments do not hold water, and are ignored by scientists. He makes the common mistake of talking about something he does not really understand (Unfortunately a common mistake among philosophers.)

This I agree with. That is one reason why I would like to see Dawkins debate Craig. I think Craig, and many philosophers religious and otherwise, fall into this trap of trying to trying to prove strong statements about the universe (such as the God proposition) through pure logic (without basing their logic on empirical evidence). They end up misusing mathematics and/or physics in an attempt to prove propositions that are fundamentally empirical.

Sam Vimes

To be honest I think Dawkins is afraid to debate someone like Craig but not because he thinks Craig's arguments are sound and he's afraid to go up against them. I think he's afraid to do it because the person who wins a debate is not necessarily the one with the soundest arguments, the best points or the most solid evidence but the one who appears the wittiest, gives the best sound bytes and wins over the audience and often it's the guy who just keeps repeating the same arguments over and over regardless of correction, ie proof by assertion (a certain creationism thread springs to mind)

Craig can just keep giving his snappy one liners that are scientific nonsense but to give a proper rebuttal to each one could take half an hour and would be totally lost on a non-scientific audience, helped along I'm sure by more quips from Craig. When someone has no problem with making demonstrably false statements ad nauseum it's all but impossible to win an argument against them so the only thing that's likely to happen is Dawkins will give them some quotes to mine and something that is sure to happen is that, although every atheist listening will know that Craig is talking nonsense and Dawkins has demonstrated this, Craig will nonetheless declare victory over the "pope of atheism" and go on making the same arguments that have already been rebutted as he has been doing for years.

So yes, I think Dawkins is afraid to debate Craig but not for the reason Craig thinks

equivariant wrote: »

This I agree with. That is one reason why I would like to see Dawkins debate Craig.

Why? All this has been pointed out to Craig many many times, he continues to use the same arguments.

This highlights Robin's point, that Craig is not a serious philosopher. Having a PhD does not make you a serious philosopher, having a serious interest and devotion to philosophy makes you a serious philosopher.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When someone has no problem with making demonstrably false statements ad nauseum it's all but impossible to win an argument against them so the only thing that's likely to happen is Dawkins will give them some quotes to mine and something that is sure to happen is that, although every atheist listening will know that Craig is talking nonsense and Dawkins has demonstrated this, Craig will nonetheless declare victory over the "pope of atheism" and go on making the same arguments that have already been rebutted as he has been doing for years.

Nail on the head to be honest.

Morbert

equivariant wrote: »

This I agree with. That is one reason why I would like to see Dawkins debate Craig. I think Craig, and many philosophers religious and otherwise, fall into this trap of trying to trying to prove strong statements about the universe (such as the God proposition) through pure logic (without basing their logic on empirical evidence). They end up misusing mathematics and/or physics in an attempt to prove propositions that are fundamentally empirical.

I'd especially like to see Craig debate a cosmologist like Weinberg, considering Craig seems to have revolutionised his field.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

Because I think that Craig's argument do not stand up under proper scrutiny.

This highlights Robin's point, that Craig is not a serious philosopher.

Being wrong (in your and my opinion) does not prevent him from being a philosopher.

Having a PhD does not make you a serious philosopher, having a serious interest and devotion to philosophy makes you a serious philosopher.

Well I think that having a PhD from a reputable university goes a long way, No one gets a PhD in any subject (from a reputable institution) without having a serious interest an devotion to that subject. Anyway, it is quite clear that he is interested and devoted to philosophy (just not in ways that you or I agree with). I am frankly amazed at the arguments that people are putting forward on this thread against his philosophical credentials.

Sam's point is a valid one. I think that the real reason that Dawkins won't debate him is that Dawkins fears the consequences of am embarassing defeat. Of course, I don't believe that Craig's arguments are correct. To me this just illustrates the point that public debates are not the best way to educate people on scientific and philosophical matters. HOWEVER, that is not the excuse that Dawkins offered. Instead, he attempted to belittle Craig's credentials as a debate opponent. That I find disingenuous.

johno2

branie wrote: »

Anyone here read any of his books, and what's their opinion on them? apologies if there are threads on this already.

The Selfish Gene is a very good book in my opinion. It's his most original work, AFAIK he was the first person to look at the theory of evolution from a molecule-eye-view. Additionally, he also introduced the idea of a meme (and coined the word) in that book. I found that he revisited a lot of the material from The Selfish Gene in his later books. If you haven't read any of his stuff, this is the one I would recommend. However if you have read a few of his books, this one might seem like he is rehashing stuff you've already read about. In fact it's the other way around, chronologically speaking.

johno

equivariant wrote: »

Because I think that Craig's argument do not stand up under proper scrutiny.

But that has already been highlighted numerous times. Craig doesn't listen and neither do those who hang on his words.

What would Dawkins debating with him achieve? What do you think the end result will be?

equivariant wrote: »

Being wrong (in your and my opinion) does not prevent him from being a philosopher.

No, ignoring philosophy and retreating to the safe confines of conservative theology prevent him from being a philosopher.

equivariant wrote: »

Well I think that having a PhD from a reputable university goes a long way

Well you shouldn't. I know 3 people with PhDs, 2 in computers and one in physics, who no longer work in those areas who I would not consider to be experts in those areas at all.

I'm not saying they are worthless by any means, but the world is full of people with PhDs in things. Like all 3rd level qualification they are a stepping stone to bigger things, not an end point in of themselves. I'm far more interested in what Craig did after 1977.

Put it this way, would you expect Dawkins to go around debating every 27 year old who has just qualified with a PhD in philosophy and thinks he has a good argument on why God exists?

equivariant wrote: »

No one gets a PhD in any subject (from a reputable institution) without having a serious interest an devotion to that subject.

Agreed, but having a serious interest in a subject when you are 27 studying for a PhD and having a serious interest in a subject after that are two different things.

There is nothing in Craig's biography that would lead me to believe he maintained a serious interest in philosophy after he graduated, which is what really matters. And when you listen to his points this is highlighted.

BTW I'm perfectly happy if people want to criticize Dawkins' philosophical background.

equivariant wrote: »

Yes he is. Because he happens to holds views that you (and I, for that matter) find objectionable does not mena that you can dismiss his credentials as a philosopher.

No it doesn't, his use of known lies and refusal to change his arguments based on misrepresentation of science even when corrected multiple times, does.

wikipedia wrote:

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e. raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion.

wikipedia wrote:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Craig is not trying to study philosophy, he already believes he has the answers and is trying to make the philosophy fit them.

Philosophy is about studying to gain knowledge. Not trying to force knowledge and mis-knowledge to fit a premise.

How he makes his living is irrelevant.

Its not that he makes his living by selling books, its that he makes his living by telling lies.

Again, a Philosopher studies in order to gain knowledge. Craig has decided on an answer and is trying to use knowledge to fit it.

Robin called him a practitioner of Sophism, that is what he is.

PDN wrote: »

And, as evidenced by Dawkins, a mistake that is not just confined to philosophers.

Well the thread title is Richard Dawkins, how about telling us about one of these mistakes ?

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

I know 3 people with PhDs, 2 in computers and one in physics, who no longer work in those areas who I would not consider to be experts in those areas at all.

Seriously? You wouldn't consider someone with a doctorate to be an expert?

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? You wouldn't consider someone with a doctorate to be an expert?

No, of course not.

johno2

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? You wouldn't consider someone with a doctorate to be an expert?

I wouldn't, and I know a fair few PhDs who wouldn't either. Some of them will use it as a leverage tool to win an argument/debate with someone who doesn't have one. But if they're honest they'll tell you that getting a PhD means learning more and more about less and less. And going beyond that, getting a PhD means learning a lot about how to get a PhD. That's not exactly a valuable skill once you've already got it, unless you take a job in academia and tutor other PhD students. PhDs can be overwhelmed by the reality of needing a broad skillset once they get out of college into the real world. Would you consider a space shuttle engineer an expert on fixing lawnmowers?

johno

Zulu

johno2 wrote: »

Would you consider a space shuttle engineer an expert on fixing lawnmowers?

Clearly not, but I may consider them as experts in space shuttles.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

Yes he is. Because he happens to holds views that you (and I, for that matter) find objectionable does not mena that you can dismiss his credentials as a philosopher. [...] I would be interested to know why you dismiss Craig's?

I dismiss Craig's views -- or at least, all that I'm aware of -- not because I disagree with them, but because they are nuts, or dishonest, or both. Yes, he has academic qualifications which suggest that he's studied philosophy extensively, but that doesn't make him a honest philosopher any more than Sarah Palin's degree in journalism makes her an honest journalist.

As above, Craig is a sophist -- somebody who excels in the use and abuse of language and ideas and not somebody interested in an unbiased pursuit of knowledge and truth.

equivariant wrote: »

This is just quote mining to try to discredit someone.

It's not quote-mining since I provide an entire paragraph of text, together with the entire document from which it comes.

I quoted this piece of text to give a short and simple example of the kind of extreme mental and verbal gymnastics that Craig specializes in -- in this case, a bizarre, upside-down world in which murdered kids are receiving some reward, their dead parents are receiving justice and the murderers are to be sympathized.

That's not philosophy, that's just cr*p

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly not, but I may consider them as experts in space shuttles.

Would you put a 26 year old Irish engineering student who has just completed a PhD on space shuttle engines an expert on the space shuttle?

If you would what would you consider a NASA engineer who has spend 30 years working on space shuttles to be? Or would you consider them both experts?