Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

1…7891113

Comments

  • #302
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    PDN wrote: »
    If the Pope takes the time to write an article in a national newspaper explaining why he refuses to have dinner with you on Sunday, then I will gladly concede that he certainly must have something to hide.

    Really? How naive of you.

    By writing in a national paper he's conceded that he is actually worth responding to. If he wasn't he wouldn't write.

    It's dishonest to deny Craig's clear academic credentials. It stops me from respecting Dawkins as intellectually honest and serious about defending his position from his most rigorous critics.

    Therefore the chair should be left there. Richard Dawkins should be there too.


  • #303
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    When RD opens his article by calling into questions the man's standing amongst the public and his standing amongst his peers these opinions are proffered as reasons not to debate him. If they aren't reasons for not debating him then we should just dismiss the first paragraph of his article as uncharitable verbiage.

    You appreciate that standing is not the same thing as popularity, correct?

    Glen Beck is popular. His standing among serious economists is pretty much zero.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You do realise what a hissy-fit entails? Craig may have been doggedly persistent but I haven't heard any anger from him. (If you want to hear Craig's version of their brief private meeting before the boxing ring debate then you can listen here - 8:25 to 9:45.) Now unless you want to redefine the meaning of words then you should either present evidence that Craig has been ill-tempered and thrown tantrums, or you can withdraw your claim.

    You appreciate that passive aggression is still a form of aggression, right?

    Or do you think nothing Craig does with regard to this topic is an example of passive aggressive behaviour?


  • #304
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    By writing in a national paper he's conceded that he is actually worth responding to. If he wasn't he wouldn't write.

    No he has conceded (if that is the right word) this his stunts are worth responding to.

    I think Craig's quite unprofessional behaviour would be even more evidence (if any where needed) to Dawkins that Craig is not a serious person and that he was right all along to not
    philologos wrote: »
    It's dishonest to deny Craig's clear academic credentials. It stops me from respecting Dawkins as intellectually honest and serious about defending his position from his most rigorous critics.

    Sorry, what a Craig's "clear academic credentials"?

    He is a professor at an obscure religious college that has written a few books on theology, all of which were pretty much laughed by serious philosophers.

    Just because you some of you guys like him because he doggidly holds on to populist notion of the cosmological argument with zero attempt to address the flaws in such an argument doesn't mean he is a serious person on a serious stage.


  • #305
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You appreciate that standing is not the same thing as popularity, correct?

    In an article entitled "Why I refuse to with debate WLC" I understand that RD open his first paragraph by making two separate challenges.

    1) He assumes that the readers don't know who Craig is (please note the irony of this when compared against the 29 pages of reader comments (now closed) in the space of 3 days at the bottom of an article about Craig).

    2) He calls into question academic standing with respect to Craig's peers.

    Unless we are to assume that Dawkins is just writing the article exclusively to philosophers then I would have thought these distinctions would have been obvious.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You appreciate that passive aggression is still a form of aggression, right?

    Ah, I see! So we have gone from a charge of hissy fits to the accusation of passive-aggressive behaviour. Those aren't the same thing.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Or do you think nothing Craig does with regard to this topic is an example of passive aggressive behaviour?

    I have no extensive knowledge of how Criag conducts himself when it comes to RD. I've provided an example of what I see as Craig's good humour in the face of RD rudeness. If Craig has shown himself to be passive aggressive -- and please show me examples of such -- I doubt that you could convince many that RD isn't a catalyst in all this.


  • #306
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    In an article entitled "Why I refuse to with debate WLC" I understand that RD open his first paragraph by making two separate challenges.

    1) He assumes that the readers don't know who Craig is (please note the irony of this when compared against the 29 pages of reader comments (now closed) in the space of 3 days at the bottom of an article about Craig).

    That seems like a safe assumption, doesn't it?

    Craig is popular in certain circles but he is hardly a house hold name, nor a serious player in the world of philosophy.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    2) He calls into question academic standing with respect to Craig's peers.

    Another safe assumption. I've no doubt Dawkins was telling the truth when he said that most of his philosopher friends had no idea who Craig was.

    The Talbot School of Theology is hardly Oxford now, is it.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Unless we are to assume that Dawkins is just writing the article exclusively to philosophers then I would have thought these distinctions would have been obvious.

    What distinctions?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Ah, I see! So we have gone from a charge of hissy fits to the accusation of passive-aggressive behaviour. Those aren't the same thing.

    Groan. Of course they are. Have you never seen a child having a hissy fit. It normally involves a lot of sulking followed by "I'm not sulking your sulking" type of behaviour. Something Craig seems to reveil in.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I have no extensive knowledge of how Criag conducts himself when it comes to RD. I've provided an example of what I see as Craig's good humour in the face of RD rudeness. If Craig has shown himself to be passive aggressive -- and please show me examples of such -- I doubt that you could convince many that RD isn't a catalyst in all this.

    I doubt I could convince many on this forum of that either :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »

    Groan.

    If it is such a tedious strain to engage in discussion with me I would suggest that you spare me the expressions of your frustration and your liberal use of :rolleyes: and simply stop responding to me. I'm actually interested in having a debate. I'm not interested in all the histrionics.


  • #308
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm actually interested in having a debate

    I responded to all your points.

    I also expressed frustration at your inability to listen to my points and your need to straw man my position (such as suggesting I've back tracked from hissy fit to passive aggressive when in fact the two are perfectly inline)

    So save the persecution act please Fanny. The only thing getting in the way of a proper debate here Fanny is your inability to have one.


  • #309
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I responded to all your points.

    I also expressed frustration at your inability to listen to my points and your need to straw man my position (such as suggesting I've back tracked from hissy fit to passive aggressive when in fact the two are perfectly inline)

    So save the persecution act please Fanny. The only thing getting in the way of a proper debate here Fanny is your inability to have one.

    We aren't going to agree so let's leave it there. I'm sure we have had quite enough of each other for a bit.


  • #310
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    We aren't going to agree so let's leave it there. I'm sure we have had quite enough of each other for a bit.

    Agreed. :)

    These discussions tend to focus too much on the person rather than their ideas (something I'm as guilty of as anyone).

    In reality it doesn't really matter if Dawkins is right or Craig is right, what matters is how worthy their ideas are.


  • #311
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    philologos wrote: »
    By writing in a national paper he's conceded that he is actually worth responding to. If he wasn't he wouldn't write.

    It's dishonest to deny Craig's clear academic credentials. It stops me from respecting Dawkins as intellectually honest and serious about defending his position from his most rigorous critics.

    Therefore the chair should be left there. Richard Dawkins should be there too.

    Craig could be the best philosopher in the world, with a million peer-reviewed papers on propositional calculus and the resurrection. He has no academic expertise when it comes to physics, but makes arguments involving physics. This leaves the average audience member impressed with Craig's poor understanding of physics. That is a bad thing. As I have learned from the Craig vs. Krauss debate, Dawkins would only be giving Craig's arguments the "oxygen of credibility".


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ Even if true, this has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins declining to debate him. Instead of giving Craig air in a debate that will be seen by at most a thousand or so people, Dawkins has given him ink which will be read by hundreds of thousands.


  • #313
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    ^^ Even if true, this has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins declining to debate him.

    What Morbet said is the central reason Dawkins has given for refusing to debate him time and time again.
    philologos wrote: »
    Instead of giving Craig air in a debate that will be seen by at most a thousand or so people, Dawkins has given him ink which will be read by hundreds of thousands.

    Which doesn't validate Craig as a serious person worthy of debate. In fact quite the opposite, it stress again why Craig isn't a serious person worthy of debate.

    Again Dawkin's objection is not that no one knows who he is. It is that he is a buffoon only interested in self promotion, not a serious philosopher. And before you say that he is a prominent Christian apologist, that speaks more to the sorry state of modern Christian apologist movement than Craig's seriousness.

    And now look at it, I've broken my word to Fanny. Seriously, Craig is a buffoon, Dawkins isn't going to debate him, can we all move on.


  • #314
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Your position on Craig not being notable is demonstrably wrong. He's widely published and widely taught at philosophy departments all over the world. It seems that Dawkins is in denial for even entertaining that. He's debated with people less notable than Craig in the past. This is simply cowardice to any objective observer including many non-believers.


  • #315
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Your position on Craig not being notable is demonstrably wrong. He's widely published and widely taught at philosophy departments all over the world.

    Unless his Wikipedia page is lying that isn't the case. He has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinous (1980 to 1986) and the Talbot School of Theology, California (1996 present), with a one year position at Westmont College, California (1987). He took 1987 to 1994 to earn a Ph.d in German.


  • #316
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Unless his Wikipedia page is lying that isn't the case. He has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinous (1980 to 1986) and the Talbot School of Theology, California (1996 present), with a one year position at Westmont College, California (1987). He took 1987 to 1994 to earn a Ph.d in German.

    His work is taught at philosophy departments all over the world. This is what I meant.

    His doctorate in Munich was in 1984 and it was in theology.

    Courtesy of Wikipedia:
    He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy

    If you have a desire to find out more just take a look on Google Scholar for his work.

    I've not seen as clear an example of confirmation bias in a long time.


  • #317
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    His work is taught at philosophy departments all over the world.

    What are you basing this on?


  • #318
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: The academic works, and the commonly accepted texts used in Philosophy of Religion courses such as Brian Davies, and Linda Trinkhaus Zagzebski. Likewise the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology was edited by William Lane Craig and J.P Moreland.

    To claim that Craig hasn't made a significant contribution to the philosophy of religion is to be ignorant of the field.


  • #319
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: The academic works, and the commonly accepted texts used in Philosophy of Religion courses such as Brian Davies, and Linda Trinkhaus Zagzebski. Likewise the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology was edited by William Lane Craig and J.P Moreland.

    To claim that Craig hasn't made a significant contribution to the philosophy of religion is to be ignorant of the field.

    Ah yes, I was wondering when the "of religion" bit would make an appearance.

    Some statistics on how insignificant philosophy of religion treated in modern philosophical circles.

    http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6482

    Is it any word none of Dawkins peers had heard of Craig, a guy who edited a book in an areas of philosophy no one takes.


  • #320
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Philosophy of Religion is a field of philosophy. Atheists and skeptics such as Bertrand Russell, J.L Mackie and William Rowe have also made considerable contributions.

    You can deride it as much as you'd like but it is a serious academic field.

    Also quoting from commonsenseatheism.com is about as impartial and as moderate in respect to atheism as quoting from jesus-is-savior.com is in respect to Christianity.


  • #321
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Philosophy of Religion as a field of academia.
    I don't like Craig (mostly to do with his bastardisation of physics and biology), but then there are other academics I don't like but I would never ever stoop so low as to claim something isn't a subject. I would however like to point out that both Dawkins and Craig seem to be lacking in the philosophy of science and this is something that they both touch upon frequently.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I respect your honesty Malty T.


  • #323
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Philosophy of Religion is a field of philosophy. Atheists and skeptics such as Bertrand Russell, J.L Mackie and William Rowe have also made considerable contributions.

    You can deride it as much as you'd like but it is a serious academic field.

    Also quoting from commonsenseatheism.com is about as impartial and as moderate in respect to atheism as quoting from jesus-is-savior.com is in respect to Christianity.

    Actually Common Sense Atheism said it was a serious academic field. Clearly they know nothing.

    Again my point is not that that philosophy of religion is not serious it is that it is small and thus the idea that someone who has made contributions (you say significant but frankly you seem the president of Craig's fan club) to this field does not equate to making significant contributions to philosophy in general or popping up on the radar of other philosophers. Dawkins stated that none of his colleagues at Oxford had heard of Craig and of that I've little doubt.

    Your whole argument is that Craig is a serious philosopher and should command Dawkin's respect. From watching far to many of his ridiculous arguments in YouTube debates I saw zero evidence of that before this discussion and I see zero evidence of that now.


  • #324
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Philosophy of Religion as a field of academia.
    I don't like Craig (mostly to do with his bastardisation of physics and biology), but then there are other academics I don't like but I would never ever stoop so low as to claim something isn't a subject. I would however like to point out that both Dawkins and Craig seem to be lacking in the philosophy of science and this is something that they both touch upon frequently.

    And Dawkins is regularly criticized by religious people, including those on this forum, for his lack of expertise in the areas he chooses to comment on.

    It seems Craig gets a pass with this regard because people here like him and dislike Dawkins.


  • #325
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Your argument is essentially a demonstration of your confirmation bias. Not a decent argument as to why Dawkins shouldn't debate Craig.

    Quoting commonsenseatheism.org as an impartial source isn't a great idea as far as I would see it.

    Craig is precisely experienced in the subject of the philosophy of religion and the arguments for Christianity because he has worked for over 25 years on the subject. Claiming inexperience is just not the truth and you should know better.


  • #326
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And Dawkins is regularly criticized by religious people, including those on this forum, for his lack of expertise in the areas he chooses to comment on.

    It seems Craig gets a pass with this regard because people here like him and dislike Dawkins.

    Who is giving him the free pass? I'm sure a portion of the Christians here accept that Craig isn't the real deal when it comes to his scientific interpretations and explanations.


  • #327
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Your argument is essentially a demonstration of your confirmation bias. Not a decent argument as to why Dawkins shouldn't debate Craig.

    Quoting commonsenseatheism.org as an impartial source isn't a great idea as far as I would see it.

    Craig is precisely experienced in the subject of the philosophy of religion and the arguments for Christianity because he has worked for over 25 years on the subject. Claiming inexperience is just not the truth and you should know better.

    Groan

    For the last time Dawkins is not refusing to debate Craig because he thinks he is not experienced in Christian apologetics.

    Dawkins is refusing to debate Craig because Craig is not serious about this subject and only wants to say he debated Dawkins. Dawkins debating him would simply look good on the CV.

    As people love to point out Dawkins has debated lots of people some more obscure than Craig. Craig is the issue, not debating Christian apologists or philosophers of religion.


  • #328
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Who is giving him the free pass? I'm sure a portion of the Christians here accept that Craig isn't the real deal when it comes to his scientific interpretations and explanations.

    Do you? I missed that. All I see is people calling Dawkins a chicken for not debating him.


  • #329
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The subject is the existence of God. Such a question is based on the philosophy of religion. Richard Dawkins' book makes poor argument at the arguments for God's existence such as the teleological, cosmological, axiological (from morality) and the ontological argument. Craig went through each and every one of Dawkins' counter arguments and showed them to be inadequate. He also criticised the Boeing 747 gambit heavily and indeed showed Dawkins to be hypocritical in this respect later on when he considers alternatives to divine creation.


  • #330
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    The subject is the existence of God. Such a question is based on the philosophy of religion. Richard Dawkins' book makes poor argument at the arguments for God's existence such as the teleological, cosmological, axiological (from morality) and the ontological argument. Craig went through each and every one of Dawkins' counter arguments and showed them to be inadequate. He also criticised the Boeing 747 gambit heavily and indeed showed Dawkins to be hypocritical in this respect later on when he considers alternatives to divine creation.

    Look Philologo every single one of Craig's ideas was ripped apart on this thread (as they have been on internet sites across the web). You guys just sat there smiled politely and then ignored everything said. You are still making an appeal to common sense for the existence of God the creator over on the Atheism forum despite repeated explanations of the illogical nature of such a claim.

    This is exactly what Craig does.

    So again what purpose would there be debating him? He is not serious, he is not interested in the arguments he presents he is merely interested in presenting them.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    That's nonsense Zombrex. I could defend the cosmological argument to you on this thread right now as much as it was argued by Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonides or anyone else in the medieval period.

    As far as I can see it though, these arguments are merely the doorway to which to begin seeking after God in the Scriptural sense.

    The claim that the existence of God is illogical simply has no traction.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement