|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
William Lane Craig's take on the Cameron/Comfort/Squad Debate
Posted on: May 17, 2007 - 7:28pm
   Offline
William Lane Craig's take on the Cameron/Comfort/Squad Debate
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ William Lane Craig's take on the Cameron/Comfort/Squad Debate is located at the top of the bar scrolling across. You can download it and listen to it. ttdm.blogspot.com
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Ironically I'd say that Craig ranks along with Comfort on the seriousness scale.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Come off it Craig actually has a degree. I don't agree with everything that the man does but he is a respectable Philosopher. He's even cited in the SEP's article on Philosophy of Religion (though Dempski is also). I think that many of the Theists that you guys discount at one time or another did have something good to say and honestly it's always bugged me that you are so quick to write them off. Perhaps if they had received their Ph.D's from Patriot University or if they were outside of their realm of expertise I'd understand why you could write them off, but to do it just because they say something that you disagree with is nothing less than bigotry.
ttdm.blogspot.com
I agree more with cslewisster here. I rarely took Craig seriously, especially after his "debate" with Tabash, but comparing him to a man like Ray Comfort is just unfair. At very least Craig has credentials and the ability to speak plain English with the vocabulary of a fully grown adult. Which is more than I can say for Ray Comfort.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So?
As James Randi says, "having a degree doesn't make you smart, it only means you should be..."
One of Craig's 'debate points' is his personal testimony of his conversation with Christ than began back in 68... that's Comfort level apologetics.
So?
Please stop misrepresenting a person you know nothing about. You haven't a clue as to how much I know about Craig.
I write him off because I've read him, and seen his arguments. He's stunningly bad.
Seriously.
I mean, I spent my money on the books. I really had hopes for more.
I'd say that there are theists on IIDB that argue as well or better than he does. You're impressed with him because he has a name and a degree. I'm not impressed with him because I've read his arguments.
See a difference?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The difference between Craig and Comfort is that Craig has a doctorate. If that impresses you, well then, I do hope everyone who glorifies the holy PhD will continue to stand in awe of the title when I earn my doctorate....
You mentioned the Tabash debate. That's representative of Craig. You yourself can see why Craig cannot be taken seriously. I fail to see why placing "PhD" behind his name somehow makes up for his bad arguments. What matters is the persons' arguments, and Craig has more than his share of BAD ones.
Oh, and if you want to hear a positive word for a Phd Theologian, I found Dallas Willard's style of argumentation in one debate I've read to be .... almost 'ok'. Although in the end he was given to the same sort of wildly unsupported assertions that plague his field.
C. S. Lewisser should know who that is...
Oh, and Peter Kreeft has moments of rationality. Although his 20 arguments for the existence of god are ridiculous, he at least presents them in a fair minded fashion, and he seems to be open to actual, legitimate questioning of his arguments.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
But it does give you more clout.
I'm not going to defend all of his debate points (but I don't believe a testimony is the same as the WOTM), but I'd still say that he has actually contributed to his field in an academic way which is more than you could say for Comfort.
A) It's more recognition than Comfort has in the area of Philosophy of Religion.
B) It's a scolarly article, the indication is that he has participated in his field of study and has done so in a way that makes him a bit of an expert in certain studies.
I know enough about him to know that he is not anything like Ray Comfort.
I never said I was impressed with him, I simply said that he is not anything like Ray Comfort and I would not discount everything the man has to say.
ttdm.blogspot.com
Well if you're talking about Psychology I'm sure that they will be in awe
ttdm.blogspot.com
Also I'd like to say my main point here is that Ray Comfort has knowledge comparible to a teenager, Craig does not. It's unfair to group them together, Craig (if you'd like to admite it or not) has done academic research and he has contributed to the field of Philosophy of Religion.
ttdm.blogspot.com
That's unfortunate. One's abilities ought to be what gives them clout.
Their arguments aren't all that different.
I don't automatically discount everything Craig says. I don't know why you have to misrepresent what I say. What I am telling you is that Craig impresses me about as much as Comfort does... The ability to write scholarly papers doesn't impress me as long as what is in the paper is not really all that different than banana theology...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well I'm sorry Todangst I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I had thought you were discounting him in general and I was just reacting to what I felt was an unfair statement. To me, the most important thing that separates Craig from Comfort is that Craig can get himself published in Blackwell (a few times at that), the drivel that Comfort spits out isn't even worth using as toilet paper.
ttdm.blogspot.com
I do not think it was intentional. Please don't think there is any enmity between us, we are voicing a difference of opinion, and it is natural that the first step in such a situation involves working out just where the difference lies.
Comfort is an embarrassment to more serious thinkers, whereas Craig is not. I will certainly concede to that.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I wouldn't put the guy very far above Comfort based on that interview clip. Here's some basic errors:
1. Big Bang theory describes what happened picoseconds AFTER the raw energy that became the universe came into being. It is not an account of the origin of the matter and energy in the universe, as Craig claims. This huge error destroys his entire attempt to refute Brian's static universe theory.
2 . He supported the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (matter/energy cannot be created/destroyed) then turned right around and contradicted himself by also supporting the Christian doctrine of causation, in which Christians claim that things which "come into being" must have a creator. Take another look at the 1st Law, Craig. Nothing in this universe has "come into being" since the Beginning. It has only changed state.
3. He said that noting that Christian morality comes from previous moral codes misses the point of the origin of morality. I guess he's OK with the idea that the Bible is just warmed-over stuff from previous cultures and that the Sumerians knew as much about God's moral laws as the writers of the Gospel.
4. His entire morality argument amounted to an arguement from ignorance. "I don't understand why people all have similar moral instincts, therefore God."
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Craig does have a degree but he uses the same debunked argument for the existence of god over and over again. The only other difference between him and Ray is that Craig manages to sound more intelligent when he debates (hint, he uses bigger words and less dorky pictures).
Precisely, gentlemen.