A note on my sources for Craig’s arguments

In writing my post series on Craig’s arguments, my main source for them is his book Reasonable Faith. My main reason for picking this book is it’s the only source I know of that has all of Craig’s arguments in one place. It’s also the book which I suspect people are most likely to have. If you want one book to look at to check if what I am saying about Craig is accurate, that’s the one you should pick up.

There are other places where Craig has defended his arguments at greater length, and I have read what he says in many of those places. But in my experience he’s still always making the same basic arguments, so what I say about the arguments in Reasonable Faith will apply to the arguments he makes elsewhere.  On the other hand, I will sometimes cite other sources than Reasonable Faith, both for Craig’s replies to criticisms of his arguments and for examples of his dishonesty. If you want to dig really deeply into Craig’s arguments, you may want to consult those other sources.

(In case you’re wondering, this post was written in response to things Andres Ruiz said here and here.)

  • Rodney

    We discussed the Kalam argument in class. Curious, does WLC explain why it’s more likely to be a who than a what?

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

      Yes, but he doesn’t explain it very well. That’s two posts down the road.

  • Tom

    Have you ever debated him in person? Or wish to do so? – and if so, is there a likely chance that that can/will happen?

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

      Never done so, doubt Craig would be interested, and I’d be ambivalent about doing it even if he were. Maybe using the format for the Kagan debate in a debate on the resurrection? Eventually I’ll do a post on why Dawkins has very good reasons for refusing to debate Craig.

      • Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc
      • mnb0

        “Eventually I’ll do a post on why Dawkins…..”
        Why? Isn’t a link to that Dawkins article in The Guardian sufficient?

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

          True. But some idiot philosophically sophisticated Christians are using that article as proof Dawkins is a coward.

    • Tyrant of Skepsis

      I simply find the debate format horribly inadequate to strip away rhetoric and ambiguity to get to the heart of any matter as subtle as this.

      An informal one-on-one conversation (with a moderator if you wish, to prevent that one of the participants is hogging all the time, or to make sure valid questions which have been raised are not strategically ignored too often by the “opponent”) would be so much more conducive to actually understanding the matter from both sides. I am sure that WLC has no interest at all in such a conversation as his shtick is to take advantage of the debate format for optimal effect on the audience, pretty much irrespective of what it is he is actually arguing for.

      • ‘Tis Himself

        All debates do is show who is a better debater.

  • http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.com James Sweet

    A couple of people yesterday commented on how even if his arguments are more sound in the longer tomes than in the popularized versions, this doesn’t reflect well on his arguments. I’ve been thinking about that… I don’t think it goes quite that far, but if it is the case it certainly doesn’t reflect well on him as a writer.

    The Selfish Gene is an easy counter-example of a book that is both accessible to the mainstream as well as sound in all of its arguments (well, okay, it was written in the 70s so not everything in it is perfect science, but my point is there is nothing that was wrong because it was dumbed down).

    Then I got to thinking about the children’s books that I read to my young sons… It is true that in those that even remotely touch on science, I have tendency to interject my own commentary: “Except in reality, it’s actually like this and that…” But they are not all created equal. There is one book, which as all about the (eight!) planets of the solar system, and there’s not a single thing in there that I find factually questionable. There’s one page where I’m like, “Well, that’s true I guess, but it’s not the way I’d put it”, but that one is an extreme nitpick.

    So it can be done, even with books that are age-appropriate for three year olds! No excuses for Craig here.

  • Pingback: yellow october()

  • Pingback: cat 4 brother()

  • Pingback: blue ofica()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: water ionizer comparisons()