Overexplaining William Lane Craig

JJ Lowder has a post up at the Secular Outpost that starts off with a nice explanation of how Craig misunderstands the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But then he begins wondering what could have caused this misunderstanding, and proposes some things that strike me as overly complex. The much simpler explanation is this: Craig doesn’t want to understand his opponent’s ideas.

As I’ve documented before, Craig habitually misrepresents his opponents views. And as Lowder himself has documented, Craig has openly stated that he believes writings criticizing Christianity are evil and should not be read by ordinary Christians, and that exposing people to criticisms of Chrsitianity if you don’t know how to refute those criticisms is literally doing the work of Satan.

Once you believe that, it’s really not much of a stretch to justify lying about atheists’ arguments by telling yourself atheists are evil and good Christians need to be protected from hearing their arguments.

Why is anybody still Catholic? (not a rhetorical question)
Catholics: why aren't you Protestant?
God: kind of like an abusive boyfriend
From the archives: The Sam Harris-William Lane Craig debate