Can Apologists Like William Lane Craig Really Not Be Charlatans?

[SerenelyBlue]

Do you think some of the famous Christian apologists really know that they are pitching bullshit?

[sdelsolray]

I do not know for sure.  I would not be surprised if some Christians actually believe the apologetics they promote and that other Christians do not believe in them. 

[Geezer]

An apologist job is to defend the beliefs & traditions of some specific group or denomination. In other words to interpret the Bible in a way that validates their particular groups beliefs. That really isn't all that difficult to do considering there are some 40,000 versions of Xianity.

 

It is not an apologist job to prove the Bible is true. Historians are the fact checkers. Those are two very different disciplines & require very different training.

 

Apologist are like politicians in that they tell people what they want to hear.

[SerenelyBlue]

As a Christian I took these guys seriously. But now that I am not a believer I cannot help but see them as charlatans.

[sdelsolray]

As a Christian I took these guys seriously. But now that I am not a believer I cannot help but see them as charlatans.

 

Craig is clever and crafty and often presents his arguments in a Gish Gallop style, using uber-verbosity and run on sentences.  The fundamental flaws in his reasoning are buried in a wall of text or speech, making them harder to isolate.  Still, the fundamental flaws are still there.  Once identified they are easy to address.  All that, and he lies.

[bornagainathiest]

This might be of interest to you, SB.

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/william-lane-craig-s-hypocrisy-and-science-denial-t38622.html

 

Specifically, post # 4 by Rumraket.

 

n my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb. 

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity- he'd rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings- yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective reality of the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy feelings. In short, in order to close his rational mind off entirely from the objective outside world, he would rather practice self-inflicted insanity- i.e. deliberately putting himself out of touch with reality. Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking- Craig is taking a vow of not thinking. I would expect such subjective drivel, and have experienced such, from Mormon missionaries with their "burning in the bosom" crap (see section "Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet?"). Hearing it come from Dr. William Lane Craig saddened me more than anything, proving that "Christianity Causes Brain Death" is more than just a slogan. Having been a Christian for twenty years, I can't help but feel for Craig that somewhere deep down in his heart he knows it's all horseshit and he's just looking for a way to transition out of it (like so many other Christians have already done) without destroying his income and social life.

.

.

.

By going with the 'witness of the holy spirit within him' WLC was violating the terms of the scenario he was presented with..

 

If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead and was still in his tomb, then NO holy spirit would be living or witnessing within any Christian.

 

So, by asserting that holy spirit was witnessing to him, WLC wasn't answering the question put to him - he was dodging it.

 

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

I have serious difficulty believing that all of the professional, educated apologists actually believe the tripe they spew. The more one studies the religion and its background, the more hoops one has to jump through in order to still believe it. Any well-educated person in that situation would (or at least should) be able to see through it.

[searchinwithnoagenda]

This might be of interest to you, SB.

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/william-lane-craig-s-hypocrisy-and-science-denial-t38622.html

 

Specifically, post # 4 by Rumraket.

 

n my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

 

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

 

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

 

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

 

Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity- he'd rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings- yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective reality of the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy feelings. In short, in order to close his rational mind off entirely from the objective outside world, he would rather practice self-inflicted insanity- i.e. deliberately putting himself out of touch with reality. Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking- Craig is taking a vow of not thinking. I would expect such subjective drivel, and have experienced such, from Mormon missionaries with their "burning in the bosom" crap (see section "Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet?"). Hearing it come from Dr. William Lane Craig saddened me more than anything, proving that "Christianity Causes Brain Death" is more than just a slogan. Having been a Christian for twenty years, I can't help but feel for Craig that somewhere deep down in his heart he knows it's all horseshit and he's just looking for a way to transition out of it (like so many other Christians have already done) without destroying his income and social life.

.

.

.

By going with the 'witness of the holy spirit within him' WLC was violating the terms of the scenario he was presented with..

 

If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead and was still in his tomb, then NO holy spirit would be living or witnessing within any Christian.

 

So, by asserting that holy spirit was witnessing to him, WLC wasn't answering the question put to him - he was dodging it.

"I can't help but feel for Craig that somewhere deep down in his heart he knows it's all horseshit and he's just looking for a way to transition out of it (like so many other Christians have already done) without destroying his income and social life."

 

Bingo! Bango! Bongo!

[bornagainathiest]

To Citsonga and searchinwithnoagenda...

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys.

I don't think WLC's looking for a way out of Christianity and I don't think it's a given that the better educated a person is, the better able they should be able to see the bs for what it is.  The Redneck Prof recently commented that he knows many fellow scientists who neatly separarte their scientific work from their religious beliefs - never bringing their professional scientific skepticism to bear on what is emotionally important to them.  And, as far as I can see, this is also what's happening with WLC.

 

He's an extremely well-educated person, with no lack of smarts.

He's also well-equipped with the mental tools to skeptically appraise Christianity for what it is.  But he won't do that.  Deep down, his emotions prevent him from doing the intellectually honest thing.  His emotional attachment to Jesus overrides his intellectual rigor and his personal integrity, so that he goes with his heart tells him and not with what his mind tells him.  We see that in his dodge over the 'Tomb & Time Machine' scenario.  He intellectually knows that if Jesus lies there dead and rotting, then he should renounce his faith.  But his heart won't let him do that.  

 

We can see evidence of this, here... http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/william-lane-craig-s-hypocrisy-and-science-denial-t38622.html

...post # 2, by Shrunk.  In the second paragraph WLC writes... The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.   And this is exactly what he doesn't do.  He refuses to pursue reason unflinchingly towards the end of his faith and to become an atheist or an agnostic.  Instead he opts for a sneaky dodge that preserves his faith and which gives him the emotional comfort he needs.  His heart rules his head, making him a dishonest, intellectual coward.  

 

If you aren't persuaded by now, guys... check out the last sentences of that quote.

It is the broader task of Christian apologetics, including natural theology, to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. It thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved.   See that?  Not when a logical argument is made, nor when the evidence demands it... but when their hearts are moved.  And just who would it be that's doing the moving of people's hearts?  Yep!  The holy spook.  So, we're right back outside the tomb again and WLC's heart has just been moved by the holy spook, telling him not NOT to believe what he is seeing.  NOT to accept the evidence.  NOT to agree with what reality is telling him.  NOT to accept that Jesus is dead and staying dead forever.

 

Emotionally-driven denial.  Pure and simple.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[dangitbobby83]

BAA nailed it. 

 

Christianity isn't about reason, it's purely about emotion. People frequently speak about their religious experiences via their emotional response to it.

 

"I felt the spirit." "I felt peace." "I felt the hand of god moving." 

 

Felt. Felt. Felt. 

 

Emotions - we humans are ultimately driven by it. This is why a hard atheist can still convert to Christianity - you hit them when they are down and out emotionally and offer a solution that soothes the "soul" and makes them feel part of a tribe that supports them - reason can go right out the door. 

 

This is why I try to integrate with other atheists and agnostics/freethinkers and seek support from them. I have no issue being friends with Christians, but I'm skittish to seek support from them, knowing they might try and use whatever problems I'm dealing with as a tool to convert me back to God. I know many of them will want to "help me" with their Jesus/Holy Spook. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

BAA, just for clarification, I never said that WLC can't really believe what he says. I have no way of getting into his head and knowing what he really thinks. I was speaking in generalities about professional, educated apologists. I would say that the percentage of them who don't really believe is probably higher than the percentage of Christians in general. Again, I have no way of knowing a specific individual's thoughts; it's simply my impression of the field in general.

[R. S. Martin]

Point of interest: It's roughly ten years since I first read the quote in BAA's Post 6 and back then it seemed to be old news. So no, WLC is not in the process of deconverting. 

[R. S. Martin]

BAA, just for clarification, I never said that WLC can't really believe what he says. I have no way of getting into his head and knowing what he really thinks. I was speaking in generalities about professional, educated apologists. I would say that the percentage of them who don't really believe is probably higher than the percentage of Christians in general. Again, I have no way of knowing a specific individual's thoughts; it's simply my impression of the field in general.

 

Re a specific individual's thoughts. I'm thinking of my OT prof when I was still a Christian, but seeking desperately for answers. This prof taught us in class to recognize things like the mistranslation of "young woman" to "virgin" when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), prompting Christianity to claim that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin shall give birth. She pointed out quite a number of traditional Christian "proofs" from Isaiah, etc. that were twisted for purposes of the NT. 

 

In private I asked her if she is a Christian. She very fervently told me she is, so I wanted to know how she reconciles these inconsistencies. She explained it all, but with terms and concepts so foreign it just washed over my head. It seemed to me like she was contradicting herself--that if she believed what she was teaching in class, then she could not also believe what she was telling me in private. Or that it was some kind of self-delusion or weirdness on a level I simply had no learning or understanding of. Like I said, it washed over me. I had too much respect for her because of all the intriguing things I was learning in her class; I could not disrepect her for some irrelevant inconsistency in her personal beliefs.

[Castiel233]

I'd say most  believers are more likely to be hypocrites and ignorant than charlatans.

 

Although some very rich preachers are , I am quite sure, charlatans 

[buffettphan]

 

Christianity isn't about reason, it's purely about emotion. People frequently speak about their religious experiences via their emotional response to it.

 

 

 

For most in-the-pew christians, I totally agree.  For many (not all) ministers, preachers and most (if not all) televangelists, apologists, writers, and other leaders, money is also a big factor.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, just for clarification, I never said that WLC can't really believe what he says. I have no way of getting into his head and knowing what he really thinks. I was speaking in generalities about professional, educated apologists. I would say that the percentage of them who don't really believe is probably higher than the percentage of Christians in general. Again, I have no way of knowing a specific individual's thoughts; it's simply my impression of the field in general.

 

Ah...ok, Cits.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  

 

BAA.

[searchinwithnoagenda]

To Citsonga and searchinwithnoagenda...

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys.

I don't think WLC's looking for a way out of Christianity and I don't think it's a given that the better educated a person is, the better able they should be able to see the bs for what it is. The Redneck Prof recently commented that he knows many fellow scientists who neatly separarte their scientific work from their religious beliefs - never bringing their professional scientific skepticism to bear on what is emotionally important to them. And, as far as I can see, this is also what's happening with WLC.

 

He's an extremely well-educated person, with no lack of smarts.

He's also well-equipped with the mental tools to skeptically appraise Christianity for what it is. But he won't do that. Deep down, his emotions prevent him from doing the intellectually honest thing. His emotional attachment to Jesus overrides his intellectual rigor and his personal integrity, so that he goes with his heart tells him and not with what his mind tells him. We see that in his dodge over the 'Tomb & Time Machine' scenario. He intellectually knows that if Jesus lies there dead and rotting, then he should renounce his faith. But his heart won't let him do that.

 

We can see evidence of this, here... http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/william-lane-craig-s-hypocrisy-and-science-denial-t38622.html

...post # 2, by Shrunk. In the second paragraph WLC writes... The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic. And this is exactly what he doesn't do. He refuses to pursue reason unflinchingly towards the end of his faith and to become an atheist or an agnostic. Instead he opts for a sneaky dodge that preserves his faith and which gives him the emotional comfort he needs. His heart rules his head, making him a dishonest, intellectual coward.

 

If you aren't persuaded by now, guys... check out the last sentences of that quote.

It is the broader task of Christian apologetics, including natural theology, to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women. It thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved. See that? Not when a logical argument is made, nor when the evidence demands it... but when their hearts are moved. And just who would it be that's doing the moving of people's hearts? Yep! The holy spook. So, we're right back outside the tomb again and WLC's heart has just been moved by the holy spook, telling him not NOT to believe what he is seeing. NOT to accept the evidence. NOT to agree with what reality is telling him. NOT to accept that Jesus is dead and staying dead forever.

 

Emotionally-driven denial. Pure and simple.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Point we'll taken regarding the emotional aspect. While I know I oversimplify, that's what simpletons do, I still contend that despite emotions being a large part of clinging to religious beliefs, whether a parishioner or part of the clergy, regarding the clergy, it is the food/shelter/clothing/creature comforts that are driving the *need* to be emotional about one's beliefs for fear of losing the above food/shelter/clothing/creature comforts via losing their job and/or being ostracized by their religious community.

 

Imo, it boils down to the *physical* aspects of our existence regardless of the clergy's appeals to the "spiritual" aspects of our existence. I think fear is also a large component of clinging to one's religious beliefs. My thoughts are free and worth every penny.

[Ellinas]

It's very easy to convince oneself of whatever is a convenient "truth" - be it religious or a viewpoint as to one's inherent attractiveness, cleverness or morality.

 

We have a knack of not letting reality get in the way.

 

So, maybe, maybe not a charlatan, in the sense of a cynical, determined liar.  But bullshit is bullshit regardless.

[LogicalFallacy]

I'd say most  believers are more likely to be hypocrites and ignorant than charlatans.

 

Although some very rich preachers are , I am quite sure, charlatans

What about faith healing people like Benny Hill? Does he believe what he does is truly of God, or do you think he is intentionally playing unsuspecting and un-sceptical people?

[★ Citsonga ★]

^^^ You mean Benny Hinn. Now, I am pretty confident that he's a charlatan.

[LogicalFallacy]

Oh yes, sorry, that's the dude. All over youtube he is. First time I heard of him I was looking at Fus Ro Dah videos (Skyrim reference for any gamers out there)

 

Had a look at other clips of him and I remember thinking this is all an act. Even if one believed god did 'slay in the spirit' etc anyone can see he is giving verbal and visual cues to fall backwards. If you watch you'll see that the 'holy sprit' doesn't affect anyone until said cues are given by dear Benny.

[L.B.]

I've known people that have worked with Hinn and other well-known TV evangelist types.

 

There's one thing that all of my acquaintances have said: Whether or not these preachers think this stuff is true, or even if they think much or all of it is bullshit, they have established this

century's populist religion. These are the people who worked to make the evangelical movement look, sound and act the way it does. They are stuck now.

 

Their preachers become style idols; the local pastor in your town is reading their books, mimicking their dress at times and usually desperately wishing he was allowed to use all of the famous people's trappings as his own to transform his local church into what he thinks is really happening at the megachurch in another city.

 

Their churches spawn music groups whose recordings sell in the millions. The music department in the church I left was slowly being taken over by late-20-something hipsters who want to play and sound exactly like the latest "worship' groups on the streaming channels they subscribe to.

 

The really well-known people definitely have struggles, doubts, questions and even disagreements with lots of what they teach and how it's presented, especially because it's the idiot masses who are the real public face of their churches. Most people on the street don't give a shit who John Hagee (asshole fundamentalist charlatan/scam-artist from Texas), but they know a fucking moron who spouts Hagee's stupid teachings and is probably racist, homophobic and xenophobic.

 

The big-time names in Christian circles have created a monster that they now obey and must serve without fail or their whole empire comes down. Not that Christ-inanity will collapse, but that the preacher him/herself will lose face, lose their publishing, lose their substantial income and lose their social cache and political pull.

[florduh]

My former pastor was very smart and well educated. He was also quite a hand at the apologetic arguments. He undoubtedly believed all the nonsense he was spouting. He lived a simple life, cared for people and was quite sincere in his beliefs and actions. Others see their flock as just a market for their product; Peter Popoff (decisively proven a liar) and Hinn (learned the wheelchair gimmick from Kuhlman) and Angley (if he can heal the deaf and lame then why does he settle for that wig which resembles spun aluminum).

 

Just being intelligent and educated doesn't guarantee the ability to see through the delusion. However, statistically for the rank and file believer, it seems that the uneducated are more inclined to be religious, fundy and spirit filled.