I'm refreshed from a summer of leisure that included two trips to Nova Scotia and two weeks cottaging on the Rideau Lakes. For those who are interested, I am going to try to post more frequently from this point forward. I have also taken a soujourn away from writing my Irreligiosity column for the Owen Sound Sun Times and plan to re-start those submissions as well.
My interest in the philosophy of religion compels me to spend a disproportionate amount of my time reading and listening to Christian apologetics. I am endlessly fascinated at the intellectual contortions that apologists will stretch to defend their beliefs. Of course, one of the biggest snake oil salesmen in this regard is William Lane Craig - he was in fine form this week as a guest of Dr. Frank Turek on Turek's Cross Examined podcast. Listening to Turek is one of those dirty little habits that I haven't been able to shake. I commend a listen to the August 25, 2012 episode (available for free on iTunes) and here is a snippet:
Craig: I'm convinced ... on the basis of extensive conversations and dealing with university students that the vast majority of popular level atheists today simply disbelieve for emotional reasons and not on the basis of well thought through reasoned grounds of unbelief. Most of them are very unsophisticated in their grasp of the issues, they're not widely read and for many of them they can't really get beyond just slogans and invective and insults.
What intrigues me most about Craig is how he moves from the Kalam cosmological argument (which, at best, might suggest that the universe had a cause outside of our space/time dimension) to insisting that his "Goddidit" in a single bound. He's a smart man who appears to make a decent living peddling, if this podcast is any indication, a philosophical bill of goods. In any event, don't take my word for it - give the show a listen and let me know what you think. Keep in mind that Turek and Craig are largely preaching to the choir which makes it all the more entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first sentence made me laugh, but I suspect in a way you didn't intend. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging
ReplyDeleteHa! No, not my intent.
ReplyDeleteHi TAM,
ReplyDeleteYour link to Wikipedia doesn't work, but I looked it up anyway.
I found a couple of refutations to Craig on YouTube: this one explains what is meant by 'nothing'.
This one by Dennett takes longer but is probably more pertinent in my view. Craig's cosmological argument is about a 'Deist' God not the Biblical God, which is Dennett's major point albeit it takes him a while to get there.
In the Wiki article on Craig's argument, he talks about 'actual infinity' which I think is a classic piece of Craig legerdemain. He coins a term that doesn't exist and then tells us it's impossible, as if he's denouncing a point that someone else has made. He uses the impossibility of this term to denounce an infinite regress, but an infinite regress can occur without an 'actual infinity'.
Regards, Paul.
Link now fixed. Thanks Paul.
DeleteCraig's comment that you quoted that most disbelieve for emotional reasons and not on the basis of well thought through reasoned grounds of unbelief is interesting. While he is talking about university students here, I wonder if he could name a person anywhere who has disbelieved due to well thought through reasoned grounds of unbelief. He would always say disbelief is based on some kind of emotion. Craig would (based on what I have read in his books and heard him say) say that people like Bart Ehrmann, who are just as academically qualified as Craig, and have reasoned through the issues and researched them, are also ultimately disbelieving for emotional issues - that is- pride, rebellion, anger at God, etc. This is the standard Christian reasoning going back to Paul's writings and even to the Old Testament.
ReplyDeleteCould Craig say that someone rejects Christianity based on well thought out, reasoned grounds of belief, and who wasn't in some state of rebellion? No way.
Last sentence should read UNbelief, sorry.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Epicurus's comment, this is what separates philosophy from mere opinion. I think everyone starts from a visceral feeling and then rationalises it with argument, including philosophers. It's only by having one's views challenged that one can develop a deeper understanding. This includes both 'believers' and 'non-believers'.
ReplyDeleteMy experience of Craig on his Q&A site is that he won't engage with "well thought through reasoned grounds". A few years back I challenged him on a number of occasions, but he only responded once when he thought he had a 'knock-down' argument.
Regards, Paul.