Argument From Observation Of High Profile Apologist Dishonesty

[Kommissar]

1. Christians like W.L.Craig as perhaps the best Apologist for Christianity and Theism.

 

2. For W.L.Craig, LOGICAL FALLACIES are the bedrock of his arguments.

 

3. W.L.Craig is a trained Philosopher.

 

4. Points 2 and 3 show W.L.Craig is a LIAR

 

5. Points 4 and 1, The best defense of Christianity and Theism is to LIE.

 

6. Therefore Christianity and Theism is INDEFENSIBLE.

 

 

I hate conceptual philosophical apologetics, as opposed to evidence arguments, with a passion. I am frequently baffled how anyone could find this drivel convincing. Let alone gleefully promote it as some silver bullet that finally will get the Atheists to shut up and believe.

[MereChristian]

1. Christians like W.L.Craig as perhaps the best Apologist for Christianity and Theism.

 

Wrong, and also relative. What is 'best'? Says who?

 

2. For W.L.Craig, LOGICAL FALLACIES are the bedrock of his arguments.

 

Sure, though this argument doesn't demonstrate that.

 

3. W.L.Craig is a trained Philosopher.

 

I guess.

 

4. Points 2 and 3 show W.L.Craig is a LIAR

 

Not necessarily a conscious liar, perhaps merely someone skilled at doublethink.

 

5. Points 4 and 1, The best defense of Christianity and Theism is to LIE.

 

Wrong because your first premise was too.

 

6. Therefore Christianity and Theism is INDEFENSIBLE.

 

Wrong because of the previous bad reasoning and also because it does not follow that just because a good, convincing argument isn't out there (or you haven't found it; have you read every apologist who has ever lived?) Christianity must necessarily be indefensible. All it demonstrates is that Christianity is not defending itself very well.

 

I sort of see what you're getting at and it's fine, but the argument isn't structured as rigorously as I'd like.

[Snakefoot]

1. Christians like W.L.Craig as perhaps the best Apologist for Christianity and Theism.

 

2. For W.L.Craig, LOGICAL FALLACIES are the bedrock of his arguments.

 

3. W.L.Craig is a trained Philosopher.

 

4. Points 2 and 3 show W.L.Craig is a LIAR

 

5. Points 4 and 1, The best defense of Christianity and Theism is to LIE.

 

6. Therefore Christianity and Theism is INDEFENSIBLE.

 

 

I hate conceptual philosophical apologetics, as opposed to evidence arguments, with a passion. I am frequently baffled how anyone could find this drivel convincing. Let alone gleefully promote it as some silver bullet that finally will get the Atheists to shut up and believe.

 

I Googled "W.L.Craig apologist" and this came in at the top of the results:

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-w-l-craig-caught-telling-more.html

[Kuroikaze]

Wrong, and also relative. What is 'best'? Says who?

 

Reasonable to ask, but do you know of ANYONE you would consider to better represent the christian position?

 

I cannot think of a single apologist whose arguments are even slightly convincing.

 

 

Wrong because of the previous bad reasoning and also because it does not follow that just because a good, convincing argument isn't out there (or you haven't found it; have you read every apologist who has ever lived?) Christianity must necessarily be indefensible. All it demonstrates is that Christianity is not defending itself very well.

 

Yes, but how many arguments does one listen to until one concludes it is very likely there are not good arguments? The fact that people have had several thousand years to come up with a defense and cannot come up with anything reasonable indicates to me that it is very likely beyond defense.

 

I have not read every apologist myself, but I have read many ranging all over the place in eras, and all of their arguments are amazingly similar, and equally bad.

[MereChristian]

Reasonable to ask, but do you know of ANYONE you would consider to better represent the christian position?

 

I dunno, Alvin Plantinga's okay. I don't go in for apologetics much.

 

Yes, but how many arguments does one listen to until one concludes it is very likely there are not good arguments? The fact that people have had several thousand years to come up with a defense and cannot come up with anything reasonable indicates to me that it is very likely beyond defense.

 

I agree, sort of. I don't think Christianity needs defense. It is not that sort of proposition.

[Kuroikaze]

I agree, sort of. I don't think Christianity needs defense. It is not that sort of proposition.

 

Care to elaborate? I am not sure what you mean by it does not need a defense.

 

I see you are a universalist so perhaps what you mean is that you do not feel the need to convince anyone that it is true. I guess that is fair, many of my profs in college were universalists.

 

 

 

For me, however, evidence and truth is paramount. The trend I notice among universalists in their thinking is that truth is relative to the person, which is a position I cannot accept.

 

Ideas either correctly represent reality or they do not, ideas do not become true simply because they are enjoyable or fulfilling for me.

[MereChristian]

 

I agree, sort of. I don't think Christianity needs defense. It is not that sort of proposition.

 

Care to elaborate? I am not sure what you mean by it does not need a defense.

 

I see you are a universalist so perhaps what you mean is that you do not feel the need to convince anyone that it is true. I guess that is fair, many of my profs in college were universalists.

 

I mean, in its purest form, and as I try to practice it, Christianity is not an empirical proposition but a spiritual one. Its empirical claims are not the point, but still necessary. For instance, at the core of it, the idea of heaven is just an exalted hope. Something only meaningful in the now, something meaningful as we are, something that's meant to be out of reach in our daily lives in its fullness but still visible in its glimmers. It is a concept partly defined by its absence and partly by its presence. And in the same breath that we acknowledge its function we must be unafraid to believe it, unabashedly. That is what gives a hope its power. That is why faith is necessary: to make spiritual propositions live. Faith is the battery that makes religion go.

 

But trying to take it all apart and critique it with evidential arguments is to miss what it is and what it is capable of offering. It is like dissecting a frog: you might learn something about frog anatomy, but you won't learn much about frog behavior. It's just dead flesh.

[Kuroikaze]

 

I mean, in its purest form, and as I try to practice it, Christianity is not an empirical proposition but a spiritual one. Its empirical claims are not the point, but still necessary. For instance, at the core of it, the idea of heaven is just an exalted hope. Something only meaningful in the now, something meaningful as we are, something that's meant to be out of reach in our daily lives in its fullness but still visible in its glimmers. It is a concept partly defined by its absence and partly by its presence. And in the same breath that we acknowledge its function we must be unafraid to believe it, unabashedly. That is what gives a hope its power. That is why faith is necessary: to make spiritual propositions live. Faith is the battery that makes religion go.

 

But trying to take it all apart and critique it with evidential arguments is to miss what it is and what it is capable of offering. It is like dissecting a frog: you might learn something about frog anatomy, but you won't learn much about frog behavior. It's just dead flesh.

 

you do sound a lot like my old professors.

 

Which is why I hope you are not offended when I tell you that do not think your position is very rational and I flatly reject it.

 

Pretending nonsense is real by simply claiming the a proposition is a "spiritual" one and effectively removing it from the purview of rational thought and empirical observation (the best tools I know of for understanding reality) ....... I am sorry I just do understand why some people choose to simply suspend rational thought because it makes them feel good/fulfilled.

 

If it is how you choose to live, more power too you, its your life after all. But do not hold your breath over convincing me to join in.

[MereChristian]

Pretending nonsense is real by simply claiming the a proposition is a "spiritual" one and effectively removing it from the purview of rational thought and empirical observation (the best tools I know of for understanding reality) ....... I am sorry I just do understand why some people choose to simply suspend rational thought because it makes them feel good/fulfilled.

 

You just answered yourself, whether or not I happen to agree with that answer.

 

To whom is my intellect beholden? Nobody, and nothing. It is mine, and if I recognize that some truths can be completely subjective and relational and still contain objective truths in them, that is my affair, not a matter for a committee of scientists to fuss over.

 

If it is how you choose to live, more power too you, its your life after all. But do not hold your breath over convincing me to join in.

 

And that doesn't really bother me, which is why I don't pay a lot of attention to apologetics.

[Vigile]

You just answered yourself, whether or not I happen to agree with that answer.

 

To whom is my intellect beholden? Nobody, and nothing. It is mine, and if I recognize that some truths can be completely subjective and relational and still contain objective truths in them, that is my affair, not a matter for a committee of scientists to fuss over.

 

Damn! Honest and rational. I think in all the years I've been on this site you are the first self-proclaimed xian I can say this about.

[Kuroikaze]

You just answered yourself, whether or not I happen to agree with that answer.

 

To whom is my intellect beholden? Nobody, and nothing. It is mine, and if I recognize that some truths can be completely subjective and relational and still contain objective truths in them, that is my affair, not a matter for a committee of scientists to fuss over.

 

I guess I do not understand your answer... Are you saying you do not feel you ARE suspending rational thought in order to believe?

 

I never mentioned scientists, or suggested your intellect ought to be beholden to something. I have an independent mind myself, and my general problem with religion is that it generally expects people to coral their minds and only think within certain parameters or limits.

When I mention empiricism and rational thought I was not speaking of submitting my thoughts or beliefs to a panel of scientists , but of the process. I believe the process, the particular WAY of thinking is objectively superior to faith based thinking, as measured by the accomplishments of each, and by their ability to ascertain objective truths.

 

I certainly have no problem with the idea of subjective truths when the notion is properly defined. Obviously, some things are subjectively true. I just do not think questions like "does god exist" or "is there a life after death" qualify as questions to which their answers are subjective. God either exists or he does not, and one of us is wrong.

 

And that doesn't really bother me, which is why I don't pay a lot of attention to apologetics.

 

Fair enough, I do not pay a lot of attention to apologetics either, though for entirely different reasons.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Damn! Honest and rational. I think in all the years I've been on this site you are the first self-proclaimed xian I can say this about.

 

I do agree, Sometimes we forget that the Christians who visit here most are by and large ignorant jerks.

 

Occasionally one does show up with which we can talk rationally with out being preached at or told we are going to roast in hell.

 

On that point I do appreciate mereChristian.

 

Well, gotta work tomorrow so I am off to bed.

[Kommissar]

Thanks folks, basically I have developed a special hatred for WLCraig.

 

Some idiot on youtube sent me a standard Logical Fallacy No evidence argument. I'd like to shame these fools from trotting out rubbish, I know it hurts their case in most peoples eyes, Im just so sick of them.

 

I suppose Philosophical Apologetics enables some to refuse to debate based on real evidence.

 

I found Alvin Plantinga quite boring, that's largely because it was incomprehensible to me as Im not a trained philosopher, as well as he wouldn't get to the point. But I couldn't see any smugness of logical fallacies, so he is definitely off my hitlist. It was a debate with Dan Dennet.

[Vigile]

Are you saying you do not feel you ARE suspending rational thought in order to believe?

 

What I understood is he believes because it makes him feel good. As long as he's not hurting anyone or himself that seems pretty rational and honest. Why do people smoke hash?

[MereChristian]

I guess I do not understand your answer... Are you saying you do not feel you ARE suspending rational thought in order to believe?

 

No, I'm saying if I do it doesn't matter. There are no standards. I can do what I want in that regard.

 

I never mentioned scientists, or suggested your intellect ought to be beholden to something.

 

Yeah, that just came out because someone mentioned strongly preferring evidential arguments.

 

When I mention empiricism and rational thought I was not speaking of submitting my thoughts or beliefs to a panel of scientists , but of the process. I believe the process, the particular WAY of thinking is objectively superior to faith based thinking, as measured by the accomplishments of each, and by their ability to ascertain objective truths.

 

1. How do we know if a truth is objective?

 

2. A case could be made that faith is necessary for reason, since all such scientific processes must presuppose some things.

 

I certainly have no problem with the idea of subjective truths when the notion is properly defined. Obviously, some things are subjectively true. I just do not think questions like "does god exist" or "is there a life after death" qualify as questions to which their answers are subjective. God either exists or he does not, and one of us is wrong.

 

I guess my point is where religion is concerned, I don't consider such categories particularly relevant. Either the claims are accepted and allowed to do what they are meant to do - reveal objective truth - or they are rejected and not helpful to anybody. Of course, even when the claims are acceped often people still don't gain anything out of it because they treat religion like a weapon with which to bludgeon the world into submission, and not a worldview which can help relate truth more passively.

 

Related question: If these people do not gain anything, have they lost anything? I would say yes.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks folks, basically I have developed a special hatred for WLCraig.

Very understandable.

 

Craig is trying to find an excuse or reason to believe, which totally contradicts and undermine the whole idea of faith to begin with. I could be wrong, but it seems like he's the total opposite to our friend MereChristian here.

[Kuroikaze]

1. How do we know if a truth is objective?

 

Of course we can never know for certain, but that does not mean we give up the trying. There are few things which can be known with 100% certainty.

 

2. A case could be made that faith is necessary for reason, since all such scientific processes must presuppose some things.

 

I somewhat agree, in the sense that we all must concede that reality is real and can be understood, it would be impossible for us to function otherwise.

 

Where I disagree is that you seem to put the claims on equal footing. As if because we cannot be 100% certain of a claim it is equal to far more suspect claims.

 

As a for instance, you make two claims, 1. you ate cereal for breakfast this morning. 2. you ate said cereal with big foot. It is true that I cannot be certain of either claim, yet I am likely to accept the first claim on your word alone, while I would require evidence for the second claim. We naturally form opinions about what things are likely to be true based upon past events/observations.

 

It somewhat comes down to a semantic argument, I would not use the word "faith" to describe because I do not think these concessions are made without reason, even if we cannot be 100% certain we are true.

 

Where I would only use the word faith to describe choices that are made with no reason, at least beyond emotional ones.

Of course it is true that one could argue that because I find no emotional fulfillment in religion my choice IS made, at least in part, for emotional reasons.

I could not prove this false, it is often near impossible to root out all of the thought processes that lead to a choice.

I can live with the not knowing, I simply attempt to make choices/form beliefs as rationally as possible.

 

In philosophy classes the classical argument along these lines is "how do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?" I always found such mental constructs rather silly, in the sense that EVERYONE has to concede that reality is real on some level. If they do not, nature dictates, they will not be around very long.

 

 

I guess my point is where religion is concerned, I don't consider such categories particularly relevant. Either the claims are accepted and allowed to do what they are meant to do - reveal objective truth - or they are rejected and not helpful to anybody. Of course, even when the claims are acceped often people still don't gain anything out of it because they treat religion like a weapon with which to bludgeon the world into submission, and not a worldview which can help relate truth more passively.

 

Hmmmm... I am not sure there is a "meant to do" when it comes to religion. It seems to me that the traditional use of religion has been as a weapon. A close examination of most religions texts will show that the very people who created the religion often used it as such. Though I certainly do not object to your position from a social standpoint (as I would fundamentalists) I am not convinced that religions purpose has ever purely been to better our understanding of the world, even if they started out pure it did not take long for people to manipulate them for their own ends.

 

But that is why I view reason as being so important. TV evangelists make lots of people "feel good" while emptying those same people's wallets to buy a new mansion. If these people were more rational, then TV evangelists would all have to go get real jobs.

 

Related question: If these people do not gain anything, have they lost anything? I would say yes.

 

I would agree, but what they have lost has nothing to do with being better at religion, but with being better at being human.

[Kommissar]

Thanks folks, basically I have developed a special hatred for WLCraig.

Very understandable.

 

Craig is trying to find an excuse or reason to believe, which totally contradicts and undermine the whole idea of faith to begin with. I could be wrong, but it seems like he's the total opposite to our friend MereChristian here.

 

Well I have since studied Plantinga a bit more and found him to be one messed up individual, I dont detect any of the irritating smugness of WLCraig but a profound ignorance nonetheless. The debate he had with Dan Dennet, Plantinga referred to Michael Behe's "work" multiple times in support of his position. I find Behe irreducable complexity actually worse than Ray Comfort's Argument from the Banana.

 

Ray Comfort argument their is another, better explanation for the existence of the Banana.

 

Behe's work is factually incorrect as well as the "Designs" in nature are totally inferior to the technological inventions. Compare the "Flagella Motor" to an outboard motor or a helicopter/chopper or even a helicopter with contra-rotating rotors. The flagellar motor, not very intelligent at all.

 

I recall reading a comment on youtube that Plantinga is trying to support belief and that it was dishonest to everyone. I'd really like to know more about that.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I grew to really dislike Craig after, reading by the time he stinketh by robert m price