William Lane Craig's empty chair thread.

[GakuseiDon]

Dawkins has debated plenty of Christians in the past, not all kooks, WLC is a kook and a creationist FFS.

Actually, Craig isn't a Creationist. He accepts the universe is around 14 billion years old. Also, from here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6711

Once you divest yourself of the idea that the account means to narrate six consecutive, 24 hour days—and there are good reasons in the text for thinking that its author did not so intend it—, then it’s striking that the narrative says absolutely nothing about how God made the plants and animals. Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not claiming that Genesis 1 teaches evolution—that would be anachronistic—but merely that there is no inconsistency between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary theory. Augustine understood this point already 1500 years before Darwin.

[youtube link]
Creationist.

Where does Craig support Creationism?

[Shrunk]

Craig has said he has no problem with evolution as a fact, though he has doubts about "gradualism". He says he is somewhere between "progressive creationism" and theistic evolution.

Creationist.

Only if "Creationist" can be applied to someone who thinks that the universe is about 14 billion years old, that Genesis is not a literal account and has no problem with evolution.

It can be for the first two. And he has a problem with evolution as demonstrated in that video I posted just above. Check out the names he cites in that clip: Dembski, Behe, Denton. The whole debate he just parrots standard Discovery Institute tallking points. What more do you need to know?

You're making the mistake of thinking all creationists are Young Earth creationists. They're not.

[Mick]

There's a lot of pressure on Dawkins to debate Craig. The motivating sentiment behind this pressure is this: People want to see Dawkins put his money where his mouth is by debating one of Christianity's most skilled debaters, Craig. If Dawkins avoids engagement with Christianity's finest(1), and instead blithely parades the "delusion" of Christians on an international basis, then I would call that intellectual cowardice. If Christianity is so intellectually bankrupt(2), then he needs to tackle our best to show it.

If (1) is the case, then Craig's very existence demonstrates (2). Craig has publicly stated that no evidence or argument could convince him that Christianity is wrong. This makes his position fundamentally non-rational and therefore renders pointless any discussion one might attempt to have with him.

As if this were not bad enough, Craig routinely uses dishonest tactics in his oratory (note that I haven't used the term "debate" to describe what he does). Chief among these is the tactic of making multiple simple assertions that can only be addressed at length. It takes only a second for Craig to assert the existence of Christ's empty tomb. It takes a significant amount of his opponents' time to refute this claim. As the "debate" progresses, Craig's opponent simply runs out of time to address the growing mountain of unproven assertions that Craig glibly throws out as if they were accepted fact. At the end of the appointed time, there are inevitably points raised by Craig that have not been refuted. Craig at this point claims victory.

Now consider your scenario: You are calling on Craig. Yet, Craig rountinely debates far better atheologicans than any common poster here. Indeed, he publicly debates intellectual atheism on an international basis. He also debates them within the scholarly journals. Understanding this, where's the shame of him not debating the likes of this forum? Where's the cowardice? It's hilarious to think that he's being cowardly despite the fact that he rountinely faces bigger challenges.

And Dawkins regularly discusses this topic with people who at least pretend to abide by the rules of honest and rational discussion. If your objection as to why Craig should not discuss things here is valid, then surely Dawkins is allowed to use the same excuse to not debate a complete waste of oxygen like Craig?

Comedy.

Indeed. Just not in the way you think.

But Craig isn't a waste of oxygen. Again, he's debated scores of top atheologicans. He's always doing this, in fact. He's also a frequent contributer within scholarly journals. This is not the sort of activity you'd find with someone who truly is a waste of oxygen. Think about it. Ask yourself if we'd expect scores of philosophy's best atheists debating Craig if we here a waste of oxygen.

[Shrunk]

If that earlier video was too inconclusive for you, GakuseiDon, try this one:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUsMHSeWvaA[/youtube]

[Ihavenofingerprints]

Dawkins has debated plenty of Christians in the past, not all kooks, WLC is a kook and a creationist FFS.

Actually, Craig isn't a Creationist. He accepts the universe is around 14 billion years old. Also, from here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6711

Once you divest yourself of the idea that the account means to narrate six consecutive, 24 hour days—and there are good reasons in the text for thinking that its author did not so intend it—, then it’s striking that the narrative says absolutely nothing about how God made the plants and animals. Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not claiming that Genesis 1 teaches evolution—that would be anachronistic—but merely that there is no inconsistency between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary theory. Augustine understood this point already 1500 years before Darwin.

I'm reading the link you gave. While he doesn't believe the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. All I see is a pathetic rant trying to tie biology to some sort of philosophical 'naturalism vs non-naturalism' debate, simply so he is qualified to talk on the issue. When in reality, he clearly isn't and doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

The first paragraph is interesting:

As I explained in my exposition of the Doctrine of Creation, when it comes to questions of the origin of life and biological complexity, biblical Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads. Since I think, for the reasons explained in the podcast, that an evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis 1, the question of biological origins is for me a straightforward scientific question: what does the evidence indicate about the means by which God brought about life and biological complexity? My honest, layman’s assessment of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory.

"A" theory of evolution is compatible with genesis. So he asks himself, "by which means did God bring about life and complexity?". Weird...

He wont come out and tell us that he thinks "God-did-it", probably because even he knows he can't defend that BS in a debate. But if he simply says "I'm not sure" then he is free to attack hard working biologists and promote intelligent design without being tied to it.

He wont tell us what he actually believes. But at the end of the day the BS he spouts about biology and evolution is either demonstrable of his incredible ignorance, or incredible dishonesty. I think it was Shrunk who said in another thread - that theologians like WLC only know enough about the science in order to misrepresent it for their own agenda. I can't disagree.

Maybe the reason he thinks scientists have some sort of "naturalistic" bias that drives them to their conclusion, is simply because he is so warped up in his own philosophical/ideological thinking that he can't imagine anyone else coming to a rational conclusion without letting their own personal bias influence their decision?

[Shrunk]

We also have not mentioned that the school that employs Craig has a "doctrinal statement" that requires all faculty to deny evolution:

http://www.talbot.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

[Ihavenofingerprints]

Thats an actual university? Thats pretty fucked.

[Shrunk]

Thats an actual university? Thats pretty fucked.

Afraid so, though I don't think the doctrinal statement applies anywhere other than the theology school. Wikipedia does offer this interesting bit of information, however:

All undergraduate students are required to take 30 units of Bible classes, regardless of their major, resulting in a minor in theological and biblical studies. The mission of Biola University is "biblically centered education, scholarship, and service — equipping men and women in mind and character to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ."

[GakuseiDon]

Creationist.

Only if "Creationist" can be applied to someone who thinks that the universe is about 14 billion years old, that Genesis is not a literal account and has no problem with evolution.

It can be for the first two. And he has a problem with evolution as demonstrated in that video I posted just above. Check out the names he cites in that clip: Dembski, Behe, Denton. The whole debate he just parrots standard Discovery Institute tallking points. What more do you need to know?

Whether he has ever argued that evolution did not occur.

There is evolution as a fact and the THEORY of evolution. Craig does not deny that evolution occurred. He is questioning the prevailing theory of evolution ("Darwinism" or "gradualism"), something even evolutionists (like the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example) do.

You're making the mistake of thinking all creationists are Young Earth creationists. They're not.

If a Creationist can believe that the universe is 14 billion years old, that Genesis is not a literal account and that evolution has occurred (even if they think there is a problem with the current theory of evolution), then how do you define Creationism?

[Ihavenofingerprints]

That is a good question. I'd say; someone who believes life on earth was put there supernaturally by a God? I'm not 100% sure, what does everyone else think?

The problem is that there are creationists from every religion and it's hard to define them all with one definition. Saying a creationist believes the world is less than 10000 years old doesn't do justice to other religions with a creation myth.

[virphen]

However, it seems that by Craig's own example that was not the correct response on my part. Rather, Craig seems to see such a refusal as an act of cowardice, and that[b] anyone [/b]who refuses an invitation to a debate should be publicly hounded and shamed, even for years, until they relent and agree to the debate.

Emp mine. Anyone?

This is a keystone idea in your post, though Craig does not say this at all. Nowhere will you find this, or anything like it, within his writings or statements.

There's a lot of pressure on Dawkins to debate Craig. The motivating sentiment behind this pressure is this: People want to see Dawkins put his money where his mouth is by debating one of Christianity's most skilled debaters, Craig. If Dawkins avoids engagement with Christianity's finest, and instead blithely parades the "delusion" of Christians on an international basis, then I would call that intellectual cowardice. If Christianity is so intellectually bankrupt, then he needs to tackle our best to show it.

Now consider your scenario: You are calling on Craig. Yet, Craig rountinely debates far better atheologicans than any common poster here. Indeed, he publicly debates intellectual atheism on an international basis. He also debates them within the scholarly journals. Understanding this, where's the shame of him not debating the likes of this forum? Where's the cowardice? It's hilarious to think that he's being cowardly despite the fact that he rountinely faces bigger challenges.

Comedy.

If you regard a lying genocide-justifying dishonest shithead like Craig as your "best" you have big problems.

[GakuseiDon]

I'm reading the link you gave. While he doesn't believe the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. All I see is a pathetic rant trying to tie biology to some sort of philosophical 'naturalism vs non-naturalism' debate, simply so he is qualified to talk on the issue.

That is exactly what he is doing. I don't think he is doing it so he is qualified to talk on the issue, he is doing it because that is precisely the issue for him, a philosopher.

When in reality, he clearly isn't and doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

As a philosopher, Craig has moved outside his comfort zone in questioning the theory of evolution. No doubt about it.

The first paragraph is interesting:

As I explained in my exposition of the Doctrine of Creation, when it comes to questions of the origin of life and biological complexity, biblical Christians enjoy the advantage over the naturalist of being truly open to follow the evidence where it leads. Since I think, for the reasons explained in the podcast, that an evolutionary theory is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis 1, the question of biological origins is for me a straightforward scientific question: what does the evidence indicate about the means by which God brought about life and biological complexity? My honest, layman’s assessment of the evidence makes me sceptical of the neo-Darwinian account and leaves me with a probing agnosticism about the theory.

"A" theory of evolution is compatible with genesis. So he asks himself, "by which means did God bring about life and complexity?". Weird...

He wont come out and tell us that he thinks "God-did-it", probably because even he knows he can't defend that BS in a debate. But if he simply says "I'm not sure" then he is free to attack hard working biologists and promote intelligent design without being tied to it.

What is wrong with saying "I'm not sure"?

He wont tell us what he actually believes. But at the end of the day the BS he spouts about biology and evolution is either demonstrable of his incredible ignorance, or incredible dishonesty. I think it was Shrunk who said in another thread - that theologians like WLC only know enough about the science in order to misrepresent it for their own agenda. I can't disagree.

Where is Craig wrong, then? Can you quote where he is wrong?

Maybe the reason he thinks scientists have some sort of "naturalistic" bias that drives them to their conclusion, is simply because he is so warped up in his own philosophical/ideological thinking that he can't imagine anyone else coming to a rational conclusion without letting their own personal bias influence their decision?

If you think his philosophical/ideological thinking is wrong, can you show where it is wrong, please?

[GakuseiDon]

That is a good question. I'd say; someone who believes life on earth was put there supernaturally by a God? I'm not 100% sure, what does everyone else think?

The problem is that there are creationists from every religion and it's hard to define them all with one definition. Saying a creationist believes the world is less than 10000 years old doesn't do justice to other religions with a creation myth.

That's true. Hindu creationists look at the idea that earth is about 4 billion years old and say that that is much too small a figure!

Still, if "Creationist" means someone who is okay with evolution, let's spell that out now, so we can inform those involved with the "Creation/Evolution" threads of their error.

[Mr.Samsa]

That is a good question. I'd say; someone who believes life on earth was put there supernaturally by a God? I'm not 100% sure, what does everyone else think?

The problem is that there are creationists from every religion and it's hard to define them all with one definition. Saying a creationist believes the world is less than 10000 years old doesn't do justice to other religions with a creation myth.

That's true. Hindu creationists look at the idea that earth is about 4 billion years old and say that that is much too small a figure!

Still, if "Creationist" means someone who is okay with evolution, let's spell that out now, so we can inform those involved with the "Creation/Evolution" threads of their error.

'Creationism' is just a broad term that refers to the belief that life was created by god. You can be a young earth creationist, who believes god created the world as it is a few thousand years ago, or an old earth creationist who believes that god created the world billions of years ago. The latter includes those who think that life was created "fully formed" (i.e. as it is now), those who believe in "kinds" that allow for some adaptation but not speciation, and those who believe that god set up the foundation for evolution to occur.

The last one there is theistic evolution, which is also known as evolutionary creationism. It was termed by Eugnie Scott, and used by other groups like TalkOrigins etc, so I don't think we need to inform the people involved in the evolution-creationism debate as it's already well-known there.

With that said, whilst I can understand terming such a person a 'creationist', I do find it a little unfair as theistic evolution is a reasonable enough position for someone with a belief in god as it doesn't require them to reject scientific facts or dishonestly engage in debates over the term 'theory' etc. The TalkOrigins page on creationism is quite interesting though:

Despite many people's tendency to think of all creationists in one group and all evolutionists in another, "creationism" refers to a wide range of beliefs. This article gives a brief introduction to creationist positions. It tries to cover the breadth of creationist beliefs (and a little of the variety of evolutionist belief), but it gives little depth. In addition to the positions, it lists some influential people, organizations, books, and periodicals which espouse the positions. Interested readers may look up these references. Also, a section near the end gives suggestions for further reading.

The differences between types of creationism are not minor. Most of the creationist beliefs described below are mutually exclusive, and often their differences are as great as their differences with evolution. Many creationists disagree as much with other creationists as they do with evolutionists. Morris, for example, devotes the last 20% of his book Scientific Creationism to attacks on other forms of creationism (Morris 1985).

...

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.

[Nicko]

But Craig isn't a waste of oxygen.

Well, that was just hyperbole on my part. He, and the respect unjustly accorded him, just annoys me a lot. I'm not advocating asphyxiating the twerp or anything. But let's see what you think refutes my claim.

Again, he's debated scores of top atheologicans.

First, what the fuck is an "atheologican"? That is not a word. It is hard enough to nail you theists down to the definitions of actual words without you making up new ones.

Second, so? I once bowled a ball at an international-grade cricketer, I'm still shit at cricket.

He's always doing this, in fact.

So? As I just said, it proves nothing. Repeating the process is just multiplying by zero.

He's also a frequent contributer within scholarly journals.

So? Have you seen some of the shit that gets published in "scholarly journals"?

This is not the sort of activity you'd find with someone who truly is a waste of oxygen.

Why not?

Think about it.

I have. Oh, what you mean is that it is obvious. So obvious you can't seem to articulate it. Right.

Ask yourself if we'd expect scores of philosophy's best atheists debating Craig if we here a waste of oxygen.

Has it occurred to you that the "scores of philosophy's best atheists" (whatever you mean by that) are attempting to debate Craig because they disagree with him? Does it not tell you anything that they have read these "scholarly articles" and have not been convinced of the validity of his position? That the only people who apparently agree with his "arguments" are people who accepted his conclusions before they read his articles?

The fact that you think a straight-up assertion followed by a string of non sequiturs is a refutation of my piece of hyperbole speaks volumes about your understanding of what constitutes an argument. The fact that you addressed the piece of hyperbole and ignored the actual criticism of Craig's deceitful tactics speaks volumes about your understanding of what constitutes honest discourse.

In short, you fail to recognise that Craig is doing it wrong because you have no idea of what doing it right looks like.

[GakuseiDon]

Still, if "Creationist" means someone who is okay with evolution, let's spell that out now, so we can inform those involved with the "Creation/Evolution" threads of their error.

'Creationism' is just a broad term that refers to the belief that life was created by god. You can be a young earth creationist, who believes god created the world as it is a few thousand years ago, or an old earth creationist who believes that god created the world billions of years ago. The latter includes those who think that life was created "fully formed" (i.e. as it is now), those who believe in "kinds" that allow for some adaptation but not speciation, and those who believe that god set up the foundation for evolution to occur.

I have never ever seen any old earth Creationist claim that life was created "fully formed" as it is now, 14 billion years ago. Which group do you have in mind?

The last one there is theistic evolution, which is also known as evolutionary creationism. It was termed by Eugnie Scott, and used by other groups like TalkOrigins etc, so I don't think we need to inform the people involved in the evolution-creationism debate as it's already well-known there.

We should, since they seem to be doing it wrong if "Creationism" can accommodate evolution.

With that said, whilst I can understand terming such a person a 'creationist', I do find it a little unfair as theistic evolution is a reasonable enough position for someone with a belief in god as it doesn't require them to reject scientific facts or dishonestly engage in debates over the term 'theory' etc.

That's right, but I think people here want to define "Creationism" as "Whatever William Lane Craig believes".

[Onyx8]

.

[andrewk]

If Dawkins avoids engagement with Christianity's finest, and instead blithely parades the "delusion" of Christians on an international basis, then I would call that intellectual cowardice. If Christianity is so intellectually bankrupt, then he needs to tackle our best to show it.

Mick do you seriously regard Craig as one of Christianity's finest? If so then it appears you have a much more negative view of Christianity than I do, as an atheist.
I can think of many Christians that I admire for their moral and their intellectual qualities, whose bootstraps Craig is not fit to unlatch.
Craig is extremely good at one particular form of public discourse - debate - to which very few people in real life pay any attention. He is also clearly a clever and cunning fellow, with an unshakeable self-confidence and the ability to talk under wet cement. But he is not widely respected as a philosopher, an intellectual or an author.

Methinks you sell your religion very short indeed if you regard Craig as one of its shining exemplars.

[andrewk]

I'm not too fussed about whether Craig's a creationist. I'm more concerned that the 'Doctrinal Statement' to which he has assented contains the following:

"All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish."

Sounds like something out of a Saw movie. 'Sick' doesn't begin to describe it.

[redwhine]

This would be more 'comfortable' for W Lame C...