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.

  • Godlesspanther

    The title is great. Over-explaining one who over-explains that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

  • Kevin

    YNormally I’m a fan of Hanlon’s razor — “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”.

    But Craig has been told to his face by the people who he quotes that he is misinterpreting their data. And he persists. Using the same quotes in the same context to try to make the same points — even after being corrected.

    I think malice is the most parsimonious conclusion with regard to Craig.

    Shorter me: Craig is just another liar for Jesus.

  • http://deusdiapente.blogspot.com J. Quinton

    Malice or not, it’s still good to explain why his reasoning is wrong. It’s not an effective strategy to counter his (mis)representation in the linked post with “Pff. WLC is a liar, don’t pay attention to this”.

    • rayndeonx

      I agree. That said though, the fact that a particular author engages in either dubious scholarship or has generally shoddy reasoning or viewpoints serves as a useful bullshit filter. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have to give a reasoned response to their argument, but you should be somewhat skeptical of just about any claim coming from them.

    • Kevin

      It’s been done over and over and over. Doesn’t change his behavior. Doesn’t change his PowerPoint presentation.

      I dismiss him as a liar for Jesus because he has shown himself to be one to the exclusion of all other considerations.

      Years ago, even before his “divine command theory” kerfuffle, I advocated shunning him. Deprive him of what he needs most — which is a person foolish enough to engage in one of his phony “debates”.

      He’s a slick con man who has perfected the fine art of bullshittery. One should not be in the same room with him unless it’s to testify against him in a court of law.

  • http://aceofsevens.wordpress.com Ace of Sevens

    That does leave the question about how WLC justifies his dishonesty to himself. I’ve often wondered whether he’s just a remorseless charlatan or he thinks that he has some good reason.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.hallquist Chris Hallquist

      Souls are at stake! What more reason does he need?

    • Dunc

      He’s a full-blown divine command theorist. If God commands it, it is right and good by definition. He has argued this about genocide, so a little misrepresentation is nothing to worry about.