Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[Ada Lovelace]

You wont see willie craig and intellectual honesty in the same sentence.

That is what I gathered from reading the article and the comments about him. He was described by commenters as a rhetorician whose chief tactic seems to be the Gish Gallop, rather than a philosopher. I detest that strategy for debate because it's so manipulative; it's all about craftily using style to create the illusion of substance. It's frustrating enough when someone online posts a myriad of links or copies and pastes so much that there is an overwhelming wall of text to cheaply build their argument instead of constructing a solid position. I view those actions as variations of the Gish Gallop. When someone who is in a professional position bloviates it's even more vexing, because by virtue of their role their words are given more authority, even when they are lacking merit.

I'm not an admirer of Richard Dawkins, but that is primarily due to finding his style to be abrasive and arrogant. I disagree with a lot of his substance too, but at least he puts forth the genuine effort to provide it.

 

[bhsmte]

That is what I gathered from reading the article and the comments about him. He was described by commenters as a rhetorician whose chief tactic seems to be the Gish Gallop, rather than a philosopher. I detest that strategy for debate because it's so manipulative; it's all about craftily using style to create the illusion of substance. It's frustrating enough when someone online posts a myriad of links or copies and pastes so much that there is an overwhelming wall of text to cheaply build their argument instead of constructing a solid position. I view those actions as variations of the Gish Gallop. When someone who is in a professional position bloviates it's even more vexing, because by virtue of their role their words are given more authority, even when they are lacking merit.

I'm not an admirer of Richard Dawkins, but that is primarily due to finding his style to be abrasive and arrogant. I disagree with a lot of his substance too, but at least he puts forth the genuine effort to provide it.

A great debate to watch, is sam harris and willie craig from univ of notre dame. Harris, really exposed craig in that one.

 

[Silmarien]

I was unfamiliar with William Lane Craig until I came upon this thread, but have done a bit of reading the past few minutes. It's very late here at present and I have an early morning so I can't devote much time but I'll read more at a later point. This was the top result on Google about him:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I'm curious about your thoughts on the article, if you've read it.

I am not a fan of William Lane Craig (I get to say this a lot around here), but I would be careful judging him based on a comment by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is obviously far from an objective source, and I do think he was latching onto a convenient excuse to not have to debate him.

William Lane Craig is a philosophically trained apologist. I would not consider him a theologian, and there are honestly much better Christian philosophers out there, though he's the most popular one, at least in Evangelical circles. I'm uncomfortable with some of what I've seen from him, from twisting the views of biblical scholars to mischaracterizing alternative theological positions, but I wouldn't write off everything he says because of it. I am not sure that he's intellectually dishonest or just has some serious theological blind spots.

I just bought this book but haven't yet delved into it due to time restraints, but it's received positive reviews and accolades. You may be interested in it: The Religion of Existence: Asceticism in Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre

As the local crazed existentialist who slipped and fell into Christianity, that actually looks very intriguing!

A great debate to watch, is sam harris and willie craig from univ of notre dame. Harris, really exposed craig in that one.

I would say that Harris exposed himself in that debate, as his whole response was a red herring that had nothing to do with the topic. William Lane Craig's particular approach to Scripture was not relevant to the question at hand.

My qualms with Bart Ehrman notwithstanding, I'm more troubled by some of what happened in their debate on the Resurrection, where Craig gets called out for misuse of scholarship by an actual biblical scholar.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not a fan of William Lane Craig (I get to say this a lot around here), but I would be careful judging him based on a comment by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is obviously far from an objective source, and I do think he was latching onto a convenient excuse to not have to debate him.

William Lane Craig is a philosophical trained apologist. I would not consider him a theologian, and there are honestly much better Christian philosophers out there, though he's the most popular one, at least in Evangelical circles. I'm uncomfortable with some of what I've seen from him, from twisting the views of biblical scholars to mischaracterizing alternative theological positions, but I wouldn't write off everything he says because of it. I am not sure that he's intellectually dishonest or just has some serious theological blind spots.




I would say that Harris exposed himself in that debate, as his whole response was a red herring that had nothing to do with the topic. William Lane Craig's particular approach to Scripture was not relevant to the question at hand.

My qualms with Bart Ehrman notwithstanding, I'm more troubled by some of what happened in their debate on the Resurrection, where Craig gets called out for misuse of scholarship by an actual biblical scholar.

Dont know what you referring to in the harris debate, but craig's divine command theory got thoroughly exposed. Regarding ehrman, notba good idea to challenge his scholarship knowledge, few have the credentials he does and he trained under the leading scholar of the 20th century.

 

[Silmarien]

Dont know what you referring to in the harris debate, but craig's divine command theory got thoroughly exposed.

How so? Sam Harris just went after the Old Testament and the Problem of Evil, neither of which has anything to do with divine command theory.

Regarding ehrman, notba good idea to challenge his scholarship knowledge, few have the credentials he does and he trained under the leading scholar of the 20th century.

It would be nice to see N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, or James D.G. Dunn debate Ehrman--particularly the latter, as he's the most liberal, but I imagine public debate is not the best way to actually approach real scholarship.

 

[bhsmte]

How so? Sam Harris just went after the Old Testament and the Problem of Evil, neither of which has anything to do with divine command theory.



It would be nice to see N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, or James D.G. Dunn debate Ehrman--particularly the latter, as he's the most liberal, but I imagine public debate is not the best way to actually approach real scholarship.

No, debate is not the best way.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I am not a fan of William Lane Craig (I get to say this a lot around here), but I would be careful judging him based on a comment by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is obviously far from an objective source, and I do think he was latching onto a convenient excuse to not have to debate him.

William Lane Craig is a philosophically trained apologist. I would not consider him a theologian, and there are honestly much better Christian philosophers out there, though he's the most popular one, at least in Evangelical circles. I'm uncomfortable with some of what I've seen from him, from twisting the views of biblical scholars to mischaracterizing alternative theological positions, but I wouldn't write off everything he says because of it. I am not sure that he's intellectually dishonest or just has some serious theological blind spots.



As the local crazed existentialist who slipped and fell into Christianity, that actually looks very intriguing!



I would say that Harris exposed himself in that debate, as his whole response was a red herring that had nothing to do with the topic. William Lane Craig's particular approach to Scripture was not relevant to the question at hand.

My qualms with Bart Ehrman notwithstanding, I'm more troubled by some of what happened in their debate on the Resurrection, where Craig gets called out for misuse of scholarship by an actual biblical scholar.

I was more influenced by the comments readers wrote in response to Richard Dawkins' article than his own comments regarding William Lane Craig. I haven't solidified any judgement of him, though I don't know that what I've read about him thus far compels me towards exploring his work. I'm a college student in midterm season, so I have to be selective about my time with extracurricular reading.
In brief searches about WLC I found a condemnatory article on Creation.com characterizing him as being intellectually dishonest, but that's a massive pot calling the kettle black to me.

 

[Uber Genius]

I was unfamiliar with William Lane Craig until I came upon this thread, but have done a bit of reading the past few minutes. It's very late here at present and I have an early morning so I can't devote much time but I'll read more at a later point. This was the top result on Google about him:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I'm curious about your thoughts on the article, if you've read it.

I just bought this book but haven't yet delved into it due to time restraints, but it's received positive reviews and accolades. You may be interested in it: The Religion of Existence: Asceticism in Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre

Dawkins is in need of a logic class.

While his

I was unfamiliar with William Lane Craig until I came upon this thread, but have done a bit of reading the past few minutes. It's very late here at present and I have an early morning so I can't devote much time but I'll read more at a later point. This was the top result on Google about him:
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
I'm curious about your thoughts on the article, if you've read it.

I just bought this book but haven't yet delved into it due to time restraints, but it's received positive reviews and accolades. You may be interested in it: The Religion of Existence: Asceticism in Philosophy from Kierkegaard to Sartre

Dawkins refused to debate WLC because he has seen what happened when the majority of his fellow atheists debate Craig.

It is not that Dawkins' inference that atheism best explains the world we live in is unfathomable or even unreasonable. Rather Dawkins' approach to defending same is intellectually bereft.



His piece in the article you linked was filled with ad hominems. It also made the incredibly weak argument that God was unjust due to his destruction of the Canaanites. Problem is since God is the standard for evil why can't he punish evil? Since God creates moral obligations, oughts, duties, why can't he say after x number of warnings "Your entire culture gets wiped out?"

He just assumes that these things will offend our sensibilities, but offers no grounding whatsoever for morals given atheism. Nor can he.

His argument is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

I have elsewhere provided a long list of resources that aptly defend the atheistic inference. Dawkins is nothing more than a rhetorician for atheism.

WLC shouldn't waste his time debating Dawkins.

Nor should Christians spend anytime answering fallacious arguments posted by Dawkins. Fallacious arguments not possibly being true in any possible world, why bother?


As to the book on existentialism, I haven't read it. I will say that Kierkegaard's pseudonymous authorship makes it difficult to classify his thinking. For me anyways. Is his own name used to pen his own views or one or more of his pseudonyms' names?

I don't struggle the way he did to find evidence in favor of God's existence. I think the fideism often represented of SK, if it is an accurate portrayal, is obviously false.

But by all means, share a synopsis of the book if you have read it and the case it argues and I will be glad to consider it.

 

[Uber Genius]

This book title alone just makes it sound really cool!

Lives inside of a book called "Mortal Questions."

Mortal Questions : Canto

 

[Uber Genius]

It rather simply demonstrates my position that ideas about God are vacuous, they literally explain everything. They can have any properties. They indeed have any properties that the theist wants.

Hmm give an example from the video that demonstrates your claim.

Many think we've got to make sure that people who have nothing to do with the subject don't have their feelings hurt, because they've decided for whatever reason to adopt some specific metaphysical ideas about the universe. I don't care. Your vacuous ideas are vacuous regardless of whether science can rule them out or not.

Nice diatribe, give and example from the video rather than just chanting "vacuous vacuous vacuous."

If only my extensive reading into intelligent design offered what I was after instead of the same vacuous apologetic theism.

No evidence of any reading let alone "extensive." It seems if there were any reading or you had watched the video you could have turned around and responded to its many points with defeaters for the premises and arguments. Instead we get more rhetoric.

There is plenty of room for theists in science, as you can have whatever beliefs you want. The science is about evidence and testing.

Darwin's theory is not science?

He uses the same inferential method as ID (not that BioLogos is ID it is clearly not).

So if the inference can only be material then we have scientism.

All causes must be material causes or else it is not science. Is just a circular argument for scientism that is self-refuting. That is that statement is not testable and supported by evidence.

The reason the science can't test your beliefs though is because they are vacuous untestable lumps of philosophical mush.

Science can't test historical science. You just wiped out archeology, paleontology, geology, forensic science, anthropology, etc.

Evolution can not be tested in a lab!

It is a historical science.

All that can be shown is that small populations oscillate. It can test certain micro aspects of theories in the lab. It can't even test speciation the way you suggest.

Pure rhetoric. No content.

 

[Uber Genius]

People often have been right about how I have been wrong, and I didn't have a clue.

So . . . yes, we can talk about philosophy and other things. What I think I meant is there is stuff which is not getting the intellectual person anywhere good, plus it can be so complicated so it can take a lot of time to try to figure out what the person is saying, when it amounts to nothing.

But not all philosophy is such. Or, it can be right but only in some limited area which does not deal with a lot more which needs attention.

For one example, let's say one's philosophy is "Don't worry about anything." Yes, the Bible says don't worry about anything > Philippians 4:6-7 < but where one goes with not worrying can be in very different directions. Philippians 4:6-7 means to go into more and more prayer and how God's peace keeps our hearts and minds in Jesus. But someone might take not worrying in the direction of not feeling he or she needs to care about other people and their feelings and needs . . . not worrying, as long as the person is doing find, oneself.

So, I don't mean all intellectual stuff. But we need to discern what is worthwhile to pursue and invest our attention in it. And beware how ones can have very complicated ideas and they don't go anywhere we need to go, and it is likely we need our attention elsewhere. And what is each person's motives behind one's ideas? Two different people can have the exact same idea, but very different ways of using and/or acting on it.

And I am concerned about, like I said, I think, how ones can name a philosopher and idea, and we don't know for sure if people really have understood the person; and not only that but ones can just claim and assume that everyone in the philosophical school has the same ideas and understanding.

I prefer to let an individual speak for oneself . . . and ask, what has helped you about what you believe, please?

Well I'm not using using intellectual arguments to say "You don't have a clue," that is personal attacks to undermine your point rhetorically (ad hominem fallacy).

I use arguments and evidence as defeaters to undermine premises in arguments. Just the way Jesus did with the Sadducees in Matthew.

I think your point about some philosophical ideas having merit and others not is certainly true.

I agree that one can misconstrue what a philosopher or any expert says rather easily. We also must strive not to base any conclusion on sweeping generalizations based on one or two authorities. Scholarship has consensus opinions that change over time. We can represent our knowledge about a subjects as potentially changing based on new data and ongoing research assuming it is predicated on same.

Knowledge about how God has worked in one person's life and their perspective is extremely important data. For someone to eliminate that data because it doesn't comport with their own experience is to just limit their data. That individual just limits what can be known about the real external world, that's all.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm more troubled by some of what happened in their debate on the Resurrection, where Craig gets called out for misuse of scholarship by an actual biblical scholar.

Craig has one of his PhDs in the evidence for the Resurrection under one Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg was both a systematic theologian who studied under none other than Karl Barth, but also a Jesus historian.

Craig is both a scholar and historian or the highest rank. Now that doesn't mean that he is right. But even the atheist recognized that Craig's accusations about Erhmann were fair and accurate.

William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman

I would need to see the actual claim in context. Which Biblical scholar, and what claim.

For more on a textual critic engaging Bart on the text see Dan Wallace debate Bart Erhman:

The Bart Ehrman Blog and the Reliability of the New Testament Text

which seem to correspond closely with Craig's claims.

Again Mike Licona agrees with Craig about the deceptive nature of Erhman's claims to popular audiences as opposed to professional conferences.

Review of Bart Ehrman's book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God"... - Risen Jesus, Inc.

 

[Silmarien]

Craig has one of his PhDs in the evidence for the Resurrection under one Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg was both a systematic theologian who studied under none other than Karl Barth, but also a Jesus historian.

Craig is both a scholar and historian or the highest rank. Now that doesn't mean that he is right. But even the atheist recognized that Craig's accusations about Erhmann were fair and accurate.

William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman

Yes, I'm familiar with Pannenberg. Haven't read him, but he is certainly intriguing.

I do have concerns with Bart Ehrman as well--I think he is very quick to put two and two together and somehow end up with five. But I think he's honest, just sometimes sloppy and intent upon making a mountain out of a molehill. And very invested in his agnosticism/atheism, though I have come across very few biblical scholars on any side of the question who didn't set off at least a couple of red flags when it comes to bias.

This particular debate was specifically concerning whether the Resurrection is the type of thing that can be supported historically, though, and I think Craig's position was a little bit... impossible. Ehrman's position was a lot like Larry Hurtado's here:

"Historical analysis is not able to judge the validity of theological claims. [...] historians cannot really judge the question of whether God raised Jesus from death. All historical analysis can do is to explore when and in what circumstances such claims emerged, what people seem to have meant in making such claims, and what the subsequent effects were."

I would agree with that.

I would need to see the actual claim in context. Which Biblical scholar, and what claim.

It's in Ehrman's first rebuttal in the transcript above, where Ehrman points out that Craig is quoting scholars who do not actually agree with what he's saying. (Though he does not specify, unfortunately. It could well be that the scholars in question just don't take things quite as far as Craig would like to in the debate.)

Though to be fair, Larry Hurtado says basically the same thing about Bart Ehrman in that book review linked above. I'm not sure if it's a sign of dishonesty or just... seeing what you want to or expect to see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dont know what you referring to in the harris debate, but craig's divine command theory got thoroughly exposed. Regarding ehrman, notba good idea to challenge his scholarship knowledge, few have the credentials he does and he trained under the leading scholar of the 20th century.

I just read over half of Ehrman's book, God's Problem. In a nutshell: what I'm reading so far is mediocre---and he says that THIS is the central issue in his loss of faith.

Ok. Whatever. To me, his central proposition just looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. I'd hate to think that anyone else would simply lose faith because they read this book.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Dawkins is in need of a logic class.

While his


Dawkins refused to debate WLC because he has seen what happened when the majority of his fellow atheists debate Craig.

By that rationale do you think Dawkins declined the seven other invitations to speak on that same night out of trepidation? As I explained, I'd never heard of William Lane Craig prior to reading your OP, and I'm not an admirer of Richard Dawkins, but in this incident the latter is not the one showcasing failed logic.
Dawkins has an established history of willingness to engage in debate with prominent Christians, and he also receives more invitations than he can feasibly accept. If WLC is advocating that reason rather than rhetoric be used in debates he undermined himself with that silly and manipulative stunt.

 

[variant]

Hmm give an example from the video that demonstrates your claim.

It states quite plainly that God can do whatever it wants, it is uncontrollable, and thus, can thus explain any observable circumstance.

This means the idea of God is vacuous.

Darwin's theory is not science?

He uses the same inferential method as ID (not that BioLogos is ID it is clearly not).

So if the inference can only be material then we have scientism.

Darwins theory had to make predictions that could be tested as either true or false.

All causes must be material causes or else it is not science. Is just a circular argument for scientism that is self-refuting. That is that statement is not testable and supported by evidence.

All theories must be testable or it is not science.

Science can't test historical science. You just wiped out archeology, paleontology, geology, forensic science, anthropology, etc.

Evolution can not be tested in a lab!

It is a historical science.

All that can be shown is that small populations oscillate. It can test certain micro aspects of theories in the lab. It can't even test speciation the way you suggest.

Historical theory still makes predictions all the time about the evidence we will find vs the evidence we will not.

Gods can not be tested in any of these ways.

They can not be tested at all, they explain all observations.

 

[Hieronymus]

Let's throw in some facts and confessions rather than what will be dismissed as rhetoric:

I predict most of you will dismiss it without watching, or dismiss it without refuting the actual content.

 

[bhsmte]

I just read over half of Ehrman's book, God's Problem. In a nutshell: what I'm reading so far is mediocre---and he says that THIS is the central issue in his loss of faith.

Ok. Whatever. To me, his central proposition just looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. I'd hate to think that anyone else would simply lose faith because they read this book.

What you think of his reasoning for losing faith, has nothing to do with his credentials for NT scholarship and the historicity of the same. People move away from faith and to faith, for a myriad of different reasons.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I'm familiar with Pannenberg. Haven't read him, but he is certainly intriguing.

I do have concerns with Bart Ehrman as well--I think he is very quick to put two and two together and somehow end up with five. But I think he's honest, just sometimes sloppy and intent upon making a mountain out of a molehill. And very invested in his agnosticism/atheism, though I have come across very few biblical scholars on any side of the question who didn't set off at least a couple of red flags when it comes to bias.

This particular debate was specifically concerning whether the Resurrection is the type of thing that can be supported historically, though, and I think Craig's position was a little bit... impossible. Ehrman's position was a lot like Larry Hurtado's here:

"Historical analysis is not able to judge the validity of theological claims. [...] historians cannot really judge the question of whether God raised Jesus from death. All historical analysis can do is to explore when and in what circumstances such claims emerged, what people seem to have meant in making such claims, and what the subsequent effects were."

I would agree with that.



It's in Ehrman's first rebuttal in the transcript above, where Ehrman points out that Craig is quoting scholars who do not actually agree with what he's saying. (Though he does not specify, unfortunately. It could well be that the scholars in question just don't take things quite as far as Craig would like to in the debate.)

Though to be fair, Larry Hurtado says basically the same thing about Bart Ehrman in that book review linked above. I'm not sure if it's a sign of dishonesty or just... seeing what you want to or expect to see.

If one has the gumption to analyze the views of well credentialed NT historians, they will find these historians reach consensus on four basic things, that they consider historically reliable:

Jesus was a real historical figure
Jesus was baptized
Jesus had followers
Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the opinions on historical credibility are all over the place and there is no consensus. Furthermore, a historians job (if they follow the historical method), is to determine the most likely explanation. Since miracles by nature, are the least likely explanation, historians dont touch them.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't struggle the way he did to find evidence in favor of God's existence. I think the fideism often represented of SK, if it is an accurate portrayal, is obviously false.

Them's fightin' words. Kierkegaard is one of my most important influences.

I'm very literate when it comes to the rational arguments for the existence of God, since it helps me articulate whatever intuitions I have and pinpoint just where my disagreements with atheists lie. I've only been a full-fledged theist for just under a year (former pantheist), so knowing everything is very important to me right now. And it's certainly illuminating to take a second look at the arguments I wrote off as nonsensical in my Spinozist days.

But to quote John Donne, "Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, but is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue." I can go round and round in circles over the various arguments, spiral out of control and end up at radical skepticism instead. There's always a leap to faith involved; it might be over a puddle instead of across a chasm, but it's still a leap. Reason alone is not sufficient--the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

This is why I think writers like Kierkegaard are so important, perhaps especially in Apologetics. I frankly thought Christianity had nothing interesting to say until I ran across him, since everyone is always mired in endless debates over unanswerable questions. Fideism may be an equal and opposite reaction to this tendency, but we need people out there who challenge this very obsession with reason and focus instead on the real questions Christianity poses about the self.

But by all means, share a synopsis of the book if you have read it and the case it argues and I will be glad to consider it.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks like the argument is that the existentialist concept of authenticity has roots in Protestant pietism. I'm a former Sartrean, and I have definitely noticed parallels between Christian theology and the way existentialists approached questions concerning human existence--there are lots of things up to and including original sin that just seem obviously true to me because of this particular background, so it's interesting to think that my initial influences may themselves have been in dialogue with Christianity despite rejecting it.

We ran so far, we ended up where we started.

Which is probably appropriate, all things considered.