The mysterious W.Lane Craig

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
The mysterious W.Lane Craig

 Hello there!

You surely heard about William Lane Craig...  This sophisticated theologian and philosopher claimed

that some concepts of his religion can be proven by logic and science.

But, when the  latters  seem to contradict those concepts, surprisingly he even went as far as stating that

in any case, his religion cannot be refuted , even if it contradicts reason.

 

Is this a coherent position?


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
What I mean is that if we

What I mean is that if we assume that an idea is demonstrable, does this necessarly imply we assume it's open to possible refutations?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Yes, if an idea is

Yes, if an idea is scientific then it can be demostrated to be false or inadequate to explain the data.

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5909
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote: Hello

termina wrote:

 Hello there!

You surely heard about William Lane Craig...  This sophisticated theologian and philosopher claimed

that some concepts of his religion can be proven by logic and science.

But, when the  latters  seem to contradict those concepts, surprisingly he even went as far as stating that

in any case, his religion cannot be refuted , even if it contradicts reason.

 

Is this a coherent position?

Don't think so.

If it contradicts reason, and that really implies logic, that is the ultimate refutation of any proposition.

From what I have heard/read him say, that is not completely surprising, altho it is a bit WTF? to have him so explicitly demonstrate just how his position is based on the most empty and ultimately dishonest form of theology, which does indeed require 'sophisticated' argument, in the worst sense of that word: convoluted enough to make it all but impossible to point out any simple error.

This sounds like he is into the sort of 'argument' which openly uses special versions of 'logic' and 'reason' which are only applicable to God.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:termina

BobSpence1 wrote:

termina wrote:

 Hello there!

You surely heard about William Lane Craig...  This sophisticated theologian and philosopher claimed

that some concepts of his religion can be proven by logic and science.

But, when the  latters  seem to contradict those concepts, surprisingly he even went as far as stating that

in any case, his religion cannot be refuted , even if it contradicts reason.

 

Is this a coherent position?

Don't think so.

If it contradicts reason, and that really implies logic, that is the ultimate refutation of any proposition.

From what I have heard/read him say, that is not completely surprising, altho it is a bit WTF? to have him so explicitly demonstrate just how his position is based on the most empty and ultimately dishonest form of theology, which does indeed require 'sophisticated' argument, in the worst sense of that word: convoluted enough to make it all but impossible to point out any simple error.

This sounds like he is into the sort of 'argument' which openly uses special versions of 'logic' and 'reason' which are only applicable to God.

 

Like Rational_Theist.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
He's certainly a very

He's certainly a very persuasive persona.  But personally more than a couple of times I've seen him get a bit full of himself, I studied philosophy in college so I know that claiming to be a philosopher is no guarantee that the arguments of a philosopher are necessarily better than that of a layman.

I haven't read up on him as much as I have Lee Strobel.  But from what I've seen of Lee, I think that WLC does many of the same things.  He constructs elaborate, hard to rebut arguments based around 'solid facts' like depending upon the claims that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses (likely untrue) and that they would have 'died for a lie' if Christianity is false (also absurd, because such isn't based on history, but rather "Church Tradition", a collection of seemingly fabricated stories that can't be tied down with historical accounts).

The more you break down the argument to the point of the (often) unspoken premises that are frequently illusory, the less convincing WLC's arguments appear.  I'd have to see what claims he makes that can be proved scientifically.  That's historically been a very bad road to venture down for the theist.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5909
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate that 'died for a lie'

I hate that 'died for a lie' thing. Believing something strongly enough to be prepared to die for it doesn't mean that the belief must be true.

Anyone making that argument is either dumb or dishonest.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Majesty24 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
11111011 wrote:He's

11111011 wrote:

He's certainly a very persuasive persona.  But personally more than a couple of times I've seen him get a bit full of himself, I studied philosophy in college so I know that claiming to be a philosopher is no guarantee that the arguments of a philosopher are necessarily better than that of a layman.

I haven't read up on him as much as I have Lee Strobel.  But from what I've seen of Lee, I think that WLC does many of the same things.  He constructs elaborate, hard to rebut arguments based around 'solid facts' like depending upon the claims that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses (likely untrue) and that they would have 'died for a lie' if Christianity is false (also absurd, because such isn't based on history, but rather "Church Tradition", a collection of seemingly fabricated stories that can't be tied down with historical accounts).

The more you break down the argument to the point of the (often) unspoken premises that are frequently illusory, the less convincing WLC's arguments appear.  I'd have to see what claims he makes that can be proved scientifically.  That's historically been a very bad road to venture down for the theist.

 

 

 

Craig has debated some of the best atheists we have today. In my humble opinion, he has destroyed them all. He has over 30 years researching the fields of theology, philosophy, and cosmology, and christian apologetics.  As a christian apologist, he uses both scientitifc and philosophical reasons why theistism is more plausible than atheism. He is a genius, and in my opinion the best us christians have in apologetics.


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Thank for your answers. So,

Thank for your answers. So, to you, BobSpence1, WLC is making a special pleading. If it's the case then WLC is just an other clown.

I find him very funny: he accuses atheists of being narrow-minded and closed to refutations, but in the other hand he rejects any facts against his religion. As I said,  just an other clown....

His claim can be found in his book reasonable faith, what an irony!