Randal Rauser wrote:There can be no doubt that William Lane Craig is an outstanding apologist. He is, first of all, an academic who has made a significant contribution to scholarship. (Craig’s scholarly output speaks for itself, including two earned doctorates from leading universities, dozens of journal articles in the top journals in philosophy, and several academic books.)

Perhaps even more importantly, Craig has a great demeanor for the rough-and-tumble of apologetic exchange. I have been impressed on many occasions by Craig’s unflagging ability to engage politely with people who can occasionally be rude, condescending, and downright hostile.

Finally, Craig is an excellent communicator. Sure, he sometimes comes off as a bit machine-like, but who else can succinctly present five arguments for God’s existence inside of twenty minutes, and do so with not a word wasted?

Calilasseia wrote:Except that apologetics is horseshit from start to finish. It's the fine art of pretending that made up shit equals evidence.

Thommo wrote:I think his oration skills are excellent ... but I'm not convinced that he's actually communicating well.

Spinozasgalt wrote:I don't know if Rauser's positive words there are essential to his point. Taking a dim view of Craig's work would only seem to make the circumstances more dire for apologists who repeat his mistakes and the need for creativity and invention more deeply felt, if you follow Rauser on the rest of it.

Then again, looking at some of the atheists that seem to be Craig's counterparts doesn't really inspire me either.

Nicko wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think his oration skills are excellent ... but I'm not convinced that he's actually communicating well.

This is, of course, the crux of the matter.

Craig is an excellent orator. The skill of oratory can indeed be used to effectively communicate; it can also be used to effectively obfuscate.

John Platko wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Thommo wrote:I think his oration skills are excellent ... but I'm not convinced that he's actually communicating well.

This is, of course, the crux of the matter.

Craig is an excellent orator. The skill of oratory can indeed be used to effectively communicate; it can also be used to effectively obfuscate.

Craig effectively communicated to me why some wanted Socrates to drink the cool-aid.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Randal Rauser wrote:There can be no doubt that William Lane Craig is an outstanding apologist.

Randal Rauser wrote:He is, first of all, an academic

Randal Rauser wrote: who has made a significant contribution to scholarship.

Randal Rauser wrote: (Craig’s scholarly output speaks for itself

Randal Rauser wrote:including two earned doctorates from leading universities,

Randal Rauser wrote: dozens of journal articles in the top journals in philosophy, and several academic books.)

Randal Rauser wrote:Perhaps even more importantly, Craig has a great demeanor for the rough-and-tumble of apologetic exchange.

Randal Rauser wrote:I have been impressed on many occasions by Craig’s unflagging ability to engage politely with people who can occasionally be rude, condescending, and downright hostile.

Randal Rauser wrote:Finally, Craig is an excellent communicator

Randal Rauser wrote:Sure, he sometimes comes off as a bit machine-like, but who else can succinctly present five arguments for God’s existence inside of twenty minutes, and do so with not a word wasted?

I here this line a lot and think it's wishful thinking. The problem is that Craig has contributed substantially to the literature in philosophy of religion at the highest levels. On some topics such as the kalam cosmological argument his work places him as one of the leading experts in the world. Given debating techniques dont apply in this context your thesis seems unlikely. On issues such as God and time and the kalam few professional philosophers would match him on content alone.

The Kagan debate was different because the topic was God and Morality. Craig actually has published nothing on this issue and has no background in ethics outside of popular lectures its an area on which Craig is particularly weak. Kagan by contrast is one of the most prominent value theorists in the world. If the debate had been a written debate between Kagan and say Robert Adams or John Hare or Tom Carson it would have been different and if the topic had been the Kalam Craig would have beaten Kagan hands down.

Many of Craigs opponents suffer from a delusional arrogance. They assume thesim is so obviously stupid that they can take on a world class philosopher who has been studying these issues for decades and the first objection that comes into there head will be a decisive one Craig has never heard of and wont be able to deal with. Thats just delusional. Its like me going into a debate with grahan oppy thinking that I can defend the ontological argument of the top of my head. Given Oppy is a world class athesit philosopher who has written one of the definitive books on that topic that would be stupid.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Randal Rauser wrote:He is, first of all, an academic

Unprotected and therefore meaningless term.

hackenslash wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Randal Rauser wrote:He is, first of all, an academic

Unprotected and therefore meaningless term.

I should point out that, under one of the vernacular definitions of 'academic', the term describes Kalamity Fuckwit perfectly.

Thommo wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I don't know if Rauser's positive words there are essential to his point. Taking a dim view of Craig's work would only seem to make the circumstances more dire for apologists who repeat his mistakes and the need for creativity and invention more deeply felt, if you follow Rauser on the rest of it.

Then again, looking at some of the atheists that seem to be Craig's counterparts doesn't really inspire me either.

I mostly agree, my only objection is to the word "need". We need better apologists like we need better global climate change deniers. Yeah, their arguments are mostly shit. Yeah, they mostly regurgitate talking points picked up and recycled endlessly. No, it wouldn't be a whole lot better if they were more original and creative.

hackenslash wrote:Platko knows this. His tenure here has essentially been practising doing that in text form.

hackenslash wrote:,,,Were I given to violence, he'd already be dead, such is the depth of my loathing of the lying sack of shit....this twat's on a par with Pol Pot, Hitler and the other genocides. Worse, in some ways, he apologises for such cunts.