William Lane Craig says: be careful not to be an instrument of Satan!

Commenter cl asks why I didn’t provide the full William Lane Craig quote about “instruments of Satan” in this post. The answer is that I was trying to be concise, but here’s the full quote anyways, with key parts bolded:

My experience as a young Christian of seeing some of my college classmates lose their faith left a deep impression on me, and when I began teaching I resolved to do all I could to help my students stay in the faith while still exploring the intellectual issues about the faith. In particular, I resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections. One of my colleagues who did not follow this method was causing some concern among certain Christian students in his classes. “I was only trying to get them to think,” he explained to me. “I was just playing the devil’s advocate.”

Those words hit me like a dash of cold water. For him they were merely a manner of speaking, but it was their literal sense that struck me. Playing the devil’s advocate. Think of it: to be Satan’s advocate in the classroom! That is something we must never allow ourselves to become. As Christian teachers, students, and laymen, we must never lose sight of the wider spiritual battle in which we are all involved and so must be extremely wary of what we say or write, lest we become the instruments of Satan in destroying someone else’s faith. We can challenge people to think more deeply and rigorously about their Christian faith without encouraging them to doubt their faith.

This is from p. 34 of Craig’s book, Hard Questions, Real Answers. Crossway Books, 2003.

  • http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com Lord Griggs[ Ignostic Morgan, Inquiring Lynn, Skeptic Griggsy, Carneades of Ga., Fr.or Rabbi Griggs]

    He and ole Alvin just revel in superstition: they really believe in demonic forces; faith doth that to people! So obtuse!
    See what Triablogue told me and Alex there! What an inane site! The blogger projected onto me his method of mere assertions! Has anyone else here come across that sanctuary of absurdity?

    • http://oldtimeatheism.blogspot.com/ Andyman409

      Yes. Triablogue is a scary place. And yes, WLC does believe in demons. I don’t have time to look for the quote, but if you go to his site, and type “ouija board” in the search bar, you’ll find some strange stuff!

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    For him they were merely a manner of speaking, but it was their literal sense that struck me.

    Translation: Craig is so brittle, so terrified of phantoms, and so incapable of rational thought, that he can’t even understand a well-known and common figure of speech without freaking out and crying for a total clampdown on any thought or information that might upset him. A lot like Pope Palpadict, in fact.

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    Ignorant wanker he!
    Everyone knows that the advocatus diaboli was just a nickname for the canon lawyer who was really called promotor fidei and was there to (as it says in the Catholic Encyclopædia “prevent any rash decisions concerning miracles or virtues of the candidates for the honours of the altar”

    All a lodarubbish of course, but it ought to at least be an accurate lodarubbish.

  • David Hart

    “We can challenge people to think more deeply and rigorously about their Christian faith without encouraging them to doubt their faith.”

    I’m not sure that you can do that about anything – surely doubt is inherent when trying to think rigorously about any subject?

  • Steven Carr

    CRAIG
    ….and so must be extremely wary of what we say or write….

    CARR
    As we all know, Craig is not dishonest. It is just that sometimes he writes things a little bit unclearly – open to misinterpretation.

    It is not as though he is putting great effort into everything he says or writes, checking it to make sure it says what he wants it to say….

  • Albert Bakker

    Guess it would be a bad idea if an opponent as a gesture of good will before a debate would tell him to go break a leg.

  • http://liberalrationalism.blogspot.com Tony Lloyd

    Worse in context.

    • Steven Carr

      Yes, Craig-defender cl spouted off about the dishonesty of Chris for not quoting Craig in full.

      That has now been revealed as throwing mud, bluster and blowing smoke.

      Which we knew all along , of course.

      But Craig-defenders have to say something, don’t they? Give them credit for trying to defend Craig. It shows loyalty. Devotion, even.

  • anteprepro

    We can challenge people to think more deeply and rigorously about their Christian faith without encouraging them to doubt their faith.

    Think deeply? Like deep-sea diving in a pond.
    Think rigorously? Perhaps by holding Christianity “rigorously” to its own rules, without regard to the rules other ideas are “rigorously” held to. Whereas everything else is “rigorously” tested against standards of logic and evidence, Christianity is “rigorously” tested against whatever standards for Christianity people want to make up in order to convince themselves that Christianity is “rigorous”. It’s playing chess with a pigeon and then re-inventing the rules of chess to make all the pigeon’s plays legal. It’s a game of desperate, ideological Calvinball.

    “Deeply and rigorously” without “encouraging them to doubt”? Transparent bullshit.

  • hexidecima

    this is quite reminiscent of C.S. Lewis and his insistence that no one mention the problems Christianity has becuase that might make someone question the lies presented to them:

    “And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son” (p.vi).” – Mere Christianity

  • MNb0

    I can assure Craig that I never have been and never will be some devil’s advocate. I don’t believe in him either.
    This reminds me of a Dutch guy who helps you to build spiritual tenability (for those who can read Dutch):

    http://www.geestelijkebevrijding.nl/homepage/show/pagina.php?paginaid=279785

    Of course the first step is to accept all kind of supernatural nonsense. If you don’t (I translate) “you rather don’t look at the dark sides of our existence”.
    Somebody else may find out what kind of logical fallacy that is.

  • MNb0

    At the other it’s official now – Craig is as mad as a hat. Remember the theodicy and Craig’s solution the Divine Command Theory? Combine that one with “lest we become the instruments of Satan in destroying someone else’s faith” and think a seconds of what that means.

    The child sacrifices of the Inca’s and Aztecs suddenly look completely rational.

  • Tony

    N.T. Wright (who’s supposedly on the other end of the spectrum from Craig) gives similar warnings, except he calls is “colluding with evil”, as though that makes any sense. It just goes to show that even liberal theology is just gussied-up ole time religion.

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

      That’s interesting. Source?

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

    Hallquist,

    Thanks for doing what a charitable thinker would have done the first time around. Before I comment the citation, I have a question: did you contact Craig to be sure you’ve interpreted him correctly prior to passing judgment, as Jeff Lowder did with you? If you say “yes,” I’ll ask why you didn’t provide this information to your readers, and I’d also like to see a transcript of the email. If you say “no,” do you think it’s charitable to launch a smear campaign without even attempting to contact the other person first?

    The more I dig, the more I see that your case is really just founded on faith, selective reading and wanton lack of charity. This is another perfect example. From the citation provided along with Craig’s remarks about “evil writing,” you’ve deduced the following:

    Think about what this means. If Craig ever found an argument he couldn’t refute, he believes it’s his duty to keep quiet about it, lest he act as an “instrument of Satan.” And if atheist writings are to be shunned, it’s probably best not to expose his fans to too many atheist arguments, even when he thinks he can refute them.

    This is damning. Craig is committed to misleading his audience by pretending many objections to his views don’t exist. But it’s worse than that: what is Craig to do when he can’t avoid talking about an argument which he also can’t refute? Given that souls are at stake (or so Craig thinks), it’s no surprise that his answer is “lie about it.”

    Essentially, Craig calls for Christians to tell both sides of the story on any given argument against Christianity, and that’s “daming” evidence that his answer is “lie about it?” If you really believe that, you simply do not have a grasp on logic, and you have a lower standard of proof than your average fundamentalist YEC. Same goes for all your fanboys.

    Your indictment does not follow from the evidence presented. For example, you deduce from this that Craig believes, “it’s probably best not to expose his fans to too many atheist arguments, even when he thinks he can refute them.” Yet, the evidence falsifies your claim: Craig has made an entire career out of exposing his fans to practically every atheist argument he can find. His website is literally chock full of atheist arguments and objections to them, as are his books.

    Since this is not the first time you’ve misrepresented Craig’s words, by your own criteria, a rational thinker would be justified in calling you a dishonest liar. Now, I don’t believe that, I think you’re just irrational and letting confirmation bias drag you around by the nose, but it’s completely unfathomable to me how you or anybody else can support this crusade as “rational.” It reeks of amateurism.

    • eric

      Essentially, Craig calls for Christians to tell both sides of the story on any given argument against Christianity, and that’s “daming” evidence that his answer is “lie about it?”

      It can be. If someone is representing two sides of an argument as equal when they are not, that’s dishonest. Take creationism for example: that is “telling both sides of the story” as a means of dishonesty.

      The full statement, to me, implies that Craig wants to make sure the credibility or compelling-ness of the non-christian argument is balanced by some equally credible or compelling counterargument, because he is vowing that his students will not lose their faith. There is simply no academically or pedagogically good reason to do that. You present the best, relevant arguments for each side. If there is not a revelant argument for one side, that’s just the way it is; you don’t make one up (a la creationism). But more likely for philosophy, if there are multiple relevant sides and one happens to be a lot more compelling than the other(s), well, again, that’s just the way it is.

      • anteprepro

        The more I dig, the more I see that your case is really just founded on faith, selective reading and wanton lack of charity.

        Ironic, coming from the King of Quibblers.

  • eric

    WLC’s statement

    Playing the devil’s advocate. Think of it: to be Satan’s advocate in the classroom! That is something we must never allow ourselves to become.

    reminded quite a bit of the new Texas GOP platform:

    We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

    Both the Texas GOP and Craig seem to agree that any education which could change a student’s current beliefs is bad.

    • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

      eric,

      The points about YEC are red-herrings as far as I’m concerned, because, as far as I know, Craig is not a YEC.

      Both the Texas GOP and Craig seem to agree that any education which could change a student’s current beliefs is bad.

      It seems to me that, again, you’re misreprenting what Craig said. I find it boggling because you seem more rational and fair-minded than anyone else in this thread. Craig didn’t say that. He simply said he disagrees with a one-sided presentation, and I wholly support that. Don’t you?

      You present the best, relevant arguments for each side.

      Yes, and that’s exactly what Craig calls on Christian professors to do. He says, and I quote, not paraphrase like Hallquist prefers: ‘I resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections.” Isn’t that a clearly stated interest in presenting the best, relevant arguments for both sides?

      • Steven Carr

        CL
        He says, and I quote, not paraphrase like Hallquist prefers: ‘I resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections.” Isn’t that a clearly stated interest in presenting the best, relevant arguments for both sides?

        CARR
        Are we allowed to laugh at the sheer transparency of cl’s comments?

        Craig says that if he came across an objection to Christianity that he could not ‘solve’ , he would never tell anybody about it.

        And cl says that that is simply trying to present the best arguments from both sides?

        I always thought the Iraqi Minister for Information had been executed.

        Which was a pity as I enjoyed him telling journalists how Saddam was winning the war, even as shells were exploding behind him in Baghdad.

        But the Iraqi Minister for Information must have been reprieved, and is now writing posts explaining how Craig is objective and fair.

      • eric

        CL, I think I am most bothered by this quote of Craigs:

        I resolved to do all I could to help my students stay in the faith while still exploring the intellectual issues about the faith.

        It is hard to see that quote in any good light. First, its terrible pedagogy. “Help my students stay in the faith” is not at all what a philosophy professor is supposed to do. Despite your protestations, it IS directly comparable to the Texas GOP’s desire not to have education change people’s beliefs.

        Second, it makes me suspect that Craig would not just present the strongest positions on all sides if the atheist side were stronger than the Christian side, because that would do exactly what he says he is resolved not to do.

        Lastly, I doubt Craig will do ‘all he can’ to help (e.g.) Hindu students stay in the Hindu faith. Or atheists remain atheists. In fact, when one considers atheism it becomes obvious that such a statement as Craig’s must be an admission that he’s going to play favorites. Its the only interpretation that makes sense, given that it would be impossible for him to do ‘all he can’ to maintain each students’ faith when different students will hold contradictory beliefs. Even if it wasn’t an impossibility, given his background and extensive time and labor spent in Christian apologetics, its very reasonable to think that he’s going to give his ‘all’ for the faith he believes in, not the ones he thinks are false.

        Such favoritism has no place in the classroom.

        • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

          …it makes me suspect that Craig would not just present the strongest positions on all sides if the atheist side were stronger than the Christian side, because that would do exactly what he says he is resolved not to do. Lastly, I doubt Craig will do ‘all he can’ to help (e.g.) Hindu students stay in the Hindu faith. Or atheists remain atheists.

          …and…

          Such favoritism has no place in the classroom.

          Craig is paid to teach philosophical approaches to Christianity at Christian schools. It’s not his job to present every philosophical argument for every position (Hindu, atheist, Christian, etc.) That said, he *STILL* presents them, but only with rebuttals. That isn’t “lying about it,” despite Hallquist’s slanderous, unscholarly hissyfit—or anybody’s defense of it.

  • Kevin

    I don’t know if this was intentional on Craig’s part, but his statement “I resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections” logically entails that he wouldn’t present a solid argument for atheism. If an argument doesn’t have a theistic solution, based on this passage, he would not present it to anyone for fear of causing them to doubt their beliefs.

    • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

      Kevin,

      Hi there. I have a few questions (and please try not to let certain comments about me being a ‘Craig supporter’ poison the well. I criticize Craig’s arguments when I think they fail. My whole stake in this discussion is that like Lowder, I take accusations of dishonest and lying very seriously. I simply do not believe Hallquist has met his burden of proof, at all). That said, you wrote:

      I don’t know if this was intentional on Craig’s part, but his statement “I resolved never to present objections to Christianity without also presenting and defending various solutions to those objections” logically entails that he wouldn’t present a solid argument for atheism.

      Do you think this justifies calling Craig “dishonest” or a “liar?” On Craig’s view, the worst possible thing he can do is increase his students’ chances of going to hell. So, let’s say some new atheist argument hit the scene, and unlike all the rest, it’s actually good. Or, perhaps it’s an old atheist argument that, for whatever reason, Craig hadn’t grappled with yet. Why isn’t Craig entitled to forego presenting it until he’s written his objection? Why should he have to present it sans objection in order to be called “honest?” Most importantly, why should his refusal to respond sans objection be considered sufficient evidence that he “lies about it?” After all, if he doesn’t present it, how in the world can that be considered a lie? How does Hallquist reason from, “Craig won’t present an argument with presenting both sides,” to, “Craig’s position is lie about it?” Does that logically follow, in your opinion?

      That doesn’t make any sense to me at all, but, maybe you’re seeing something I’m not.

      • Kevin

        Lying by omission is still lying. However, let’s be generous and strictly curtail the term to mean someone saying something false with intent to deceive; it would still be patently dishonest.

        Imagine a researcher who conducts a study that shows a statistically significant result and then publishes it. It is then uncovered that he ran the identical experiment 19 times with non-significant results. Do you think academia would accept the response of “I am simply positing the existence of this phenomenon and since I haven’t formed an explanation for why it didn’t show up in my other trials yet, I don’t need to disclose those results to you”? Get real. It’s called intellectual honesty. When you hang around intellectual circles, you’re expected to have it and not disclosing contrary evidence is a violation of that trust.

        Since you are fond of court analogies, we have before us a confession and a confession alone has been more than enough to convict many defendants.

        • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

          Kevin,

          Lying by omission is still lying.

          So then, is Hallquist a liar for all the things he’s omitted in this series?

          Imagine a researcher who conducts a study that shows a statistically significant result and then publishes it. It is then uncovered that he ran the identical experiment 19 times with non-significant results. Do you think academia would accept the response of “I am simply positing the existence of this phenomenon and since I haven’t formed an explanation for why it didn’t show up in my other trials yet, I don’t need to disclose those results to you”? Get real.

          How am I not real? I agree with you that this would be a dishonest presentation of the facts. I don’t think this is analogous to what Craig said at all. For one, your researcher publishes despite the non-significant results, and omits them. Craig, on the other hand, is not omitting the non-significant results, he’s withholding publishing of either. An honest researcher would say, “here are my significant results, but there are also these non-significant results,” or not say anything at all. Right? Similarly, Craig will only say, “here is an atheist argument, here is the rebuttal,” or he won’t say anything at all. From that, and that alone, Hallquist has said that Craig’s strategy is “lie about it.”

          Instead of being insulting and telling me to “get real,” maybe you can just explain how it follows? Would you say Craig was a “liar” if he only presented arguments *FOR* Christianity, but without addressing the atheist rebuttals?

          One last thing:

          When you hang around intellectual circles, you’re expected to have it and not disclosing contrary evidence is a violation of that trust.

          Exactly! And again: Craig won’t present an atheist argument without disclosing the contrary theist argument. How do we get from that to, “Craig’s strategy is lie about it?”

          • Kevin

            So then, is Hallquist a liar for all the things he’s omitted in this series?

            I am not sure what you think the lie by omission is? Is it this quote he didn’t quote in totality? In that case, no, that would not be a lie because it didn’t change the meaning of what he was conveying. If not, you’re going to have to be more specific.

            I don’t think this is analogous to what Craig said at all.

            Craig is saying that he would propose a hypothesis (i.e. God exists) and fail to provide the counterevidence (atheistic arguments with no apparent theistic response) since he couldn’t explain that counterevidence based on his hypothesis. The researcher proposed a hypothesis (e.g. X phenomena exists) and failed to provide the counterevidence (i.e. non-significant results) since he couldn’t explain that counterevidence based on his hypothesis. From my point of view, they follow the same form. Please point out a significant difference in the analogy.

            Exactly! And again: Craig won’t present an atheist argument without disclosing the contrary theist argument. How do we get from that to, ‘Craig’s strategy is lie about it?’

            Because if there isn’t a contrary theist argument, it follows that he would sweep the atheist argument under the rug, which is dishonest.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Kevin,

            Forgive me, it’s been a while.

            Please point out a significant difference in the analogy.

            I already did: “…your researcher publishes despite the non-significant results, and omits them. Craig, on the other hand, is not omitting the non-significant results, he’s withholding publishing.” A better analogy would be, “Craig proposes theistic solution to philosophical quandary X, but omits 19 atheist objections to said solution, objections which he knew about beforehand.” Even then, I wouldn’t call Craig a “liar,” but I would agree he was giving a dishonest or skewed presentation of the facts.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Kevin,

            As for your “what did Hallquist omit?” question, I wrote a post about it on my blog. It’s titled, “On Trigger Happy Atheists: Chris Hallquist.” In that post, I discuss the Harris example and show instances of facts Hallquist omitted, facts that change the meanings conveyed.

          • Kevin

            “Craig, on the other hand, is not omitting the non-significant results, he’s withholding publishing.”

            He’s withholding publishing? You do realize that the hypothesis in contention is that God exists, right? So you’re saying that Craig has since stopped publishing material about the existence of God? Really? Nonsense. You’re response is very silly considering, but you’re welcome to try again. If you don’t understand the analogy, perhaps you’re better off asking questions.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            I understand the analogy. I don’t think you understand why I reject it.

            Questions? No problem. In the case of your researcher, what’s the hypothesis in question?

          • Kevin

            You’re right, I don’t know why you disagree with it. You seem to be implying that Craig is not publishing arguments for the existence of God which just leaves me dumbfounded. As for the researcher, its not entirely relevant what the hypothesis is. It could be a cure for cancer, or it could be the God hypothesis, which is why I called it phenomena X.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            It could be a cure for cancer…

            Perfect, let’s run with that. Your researcher offers a single study supporting the claim that smoking weed cures cancer, while consciously omitting 19 contradictory studies. Is Craig offering a single argument supporting the claim that God exists, while ignoring 19 contradictory arguments?

          • Kevin

            We weren’t discussing what he is doing, we’re discussing what he said he would do. However, he said he would do such a thing. When you say that you won’t present evidence contrary to your position when you haven’t yet explained it, you have admitted that you would mislead the strength of your position if the evidence doesn’t go your way. That is not the behavior of an academic.

            Also, I would say that he hasn’t responded to criticisms* of his arguments particularly well** in public. Whether he has responded to them in his academic works is another matter. I haven’t read them, so Chris would be a better person to ask about that, but from those who I have asked, they tend to be of similar content.

            *The 19:1 ratio is not relevant here since we are not talking about significance testing.
            **This is being generous, on the surface, it looks like he misrepresents the objections to give an illusion of answering questions when he is actually giving non-answers.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            If you want to understand my objection, answer my question. If not, take care.

          • Kevin

            I’m not sure what the confusion is about. What part of my response did you not understand? I answered your question in the affirmative as it related to the analogy. Although, looking back over it, the technical literal answer would be no, he is not ignoring 19 counterarguments, but if this is the answer you were looking for, it would merely show you didn’t understand the analogy.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Although, looking back over it, the technical literal answer would be no, he is not ignoring 19 counterarguments, but if this is the answer you were looking for, it would merely show you didn’t understand the analogy.

            Hardly. Your “no” answer shows the paucity of your analogy. You presented your analogy as if it were representative of what Craig. It’s not even close. Now, if you want to start over and create an analogy that actually is representative of Craig, I’m game. Until then, you’ve got nothing.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Oops. That should read, “…representative of Craig,” not “representative of what Craig.”

          • Kevin

            I hardly see why the type of counter-evidence is significant. In philosophy, a defeater is a defeater. In regards to significance testing, the 19:1 ratio simply shows that the result was expected by chance and thus defeats the significance of the result. In deduction, you simply need to show that we are not justified in believing a premise or showing that the argument is invalid to defeat the conclusion. Like I said, harping on the ratio shows that you don’t understand the analogy. It’s almost like you think an argument with only one flaw is still sound. Also, Craig’s quote would also apply to significance testing, so yes, he said he would act like the researcher if the same conditions came up.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Unless you start making sense, this conversation is over. It began when you said, “Lying by omission is still lying” and then proceeded to give an example of a researcher who published one positive result while omitting 19 negative results, as if it was relevant in some way to Craig.

          • Kevin

            Right, the researcher presents evidence (or what he thinks is evidence) that supports his conclusion and then ignores the defeater for that evidence since he doesn’t have an explanation for the defeater. Craig said he would do the same. It’s relevant to Craig because he said he would act in the same way if the conditions were the same. The logic, the justification is the same in both situations. I also fail to see how there being different ways to undermine evidence is relevant, please explain. Now, if you want to rebut the analogy, you need to pick a difference and then explain why it is significant, not merely assert it.

          • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

            Now, if you want to rebut the analogy, you need to pick a difference and then explain why it is significant, not merely assert it.

            I didn’t merely assert anything. I explained the disanalogy and you’re just dancing around it. Craig isn’t using one argument to say God exists while ignoring 19 arguments that say he doesn’t. You need to make a better analogy if you want to make your point. If you can’t or won’t do that, I’m content to disagree.

      • Steven Carr

        CL
        He simply said he disagrees with a one-sided presentation, and I wholly support that.

        CARR
        IN other words, Craig said he would never dream of presenting any argument for Christianity without telling everybody the very best argument sceptics have produced against it.

        As anybody with an IQ of more than 3 can see that this is precisely the opposite of what Craig said, all cl is doing is emphasising just how shoddy what Craig said was.

        But we should give cl more posting space.

        I am certain he can dig himself in deeper.

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

          cl, Steven is exactly right.

          Steven, thank you for doing the work of responding to cl’s nonsense for me.

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

          In fact, thanks to EVERYONE who’s made useful contributions to this thread.

      • andyman409

        Because there might never be an answer to said philosophical issue? Doesn’t strike me as a hard question to answer.

  • MNb0

    The title of Craig’s book and website: Reasonable faith.

    What he writes: “”We can know the truth, whether we have rational arguments or not.”
    Ie unreasonable faith.
    There is no need to say more about Craig’s dishonesty.

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

      The reality is that many people will freak out about charges of dishonesty, so it helps to document everything in meticulous detail.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

    Hallquist,

    Steven is nowhere near right. For one, he uses an ad honinem approach:

    As anybody with an IQ of more than 3 can see that this is precisely the opposite of what Craig said…

    For two, Steven completely failed to grapple with my questions. More importantly, I’m not here to talk to Steven. Like I said elsewhere, he’ll make stuff up about his Craig and try to pass it off as Craig’s own words unless you call him on it. Funny, isn’t it, that Mr. “Craig is so dishonest” would resort to such a tactic?

    I get the feeling you won’t grapple here, Chris, and that’s too bad. I think it’s weak that you’ll hide behind anybody, let alone Carr. If you’re willing to talk, maybe you can answer the questions I asked Kevin (since Kevin chose not to answer them).

  • andyman409

    I think the difference is that chris is doing a condensed series on craig, and craig is a professor. It just seems intuitively obvious to me that Craig’s obligation, at least as a teacher if not as a philosopher, would be to say “I have no answer to that question yet”. Even Dawkins has figured that out.

  • Kevin

    Let’s try this again: “Now, if you want to rebut the analogy, you need to pick a difference and then explain why it is significant, not merely assert it.”

    I don’t think you understand the role that the ratio plays. It is merely a sign that the result is not significant (alpha is generally 5% which means that one in twenty trials will test positive by chance; IOW, by chance, for for every nineteen negatives, there will be one positive). As in, the results are what we should expect by random chance. This is one defeater to the researchers results, not 19 different defeaters. Also, these defeaters need not be specific to the hypothesis at hand, but for the evidence put forth to support that hypothesis. Do you understand this? Since you can’t represent the analogy correctly, it appears that you don’t.

    • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

      The difference is significant because it’s neither representative of what Craig has done, nor representative of what Craig said he would do.

      • Kevin

        Apparently its too much to ask for an explanation. If you want to try again, feel free to do so.

        • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

          I just gave you the explanation of the difference: your analogy is neither representative of what Craig has done, nor representative of what Craig said he would do.

          If you want to pretend I didn’t explain why I reject your analogy, I guess we’re done. You’ve given no good reason to accept Hallquist’s claim that Craig’s strategy is to “lie about it.” A rational person is under no compulsion to accept the claim.

          • Kevin

            I guess you could call what you said an explanation. I’m still at a loss as to what it has to do with my analogy. As per my previous request, I would need to have that explained to me.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/ cl

    I’m still at a loss to see how your analogy is in any way relevant to Craig. I know, I know… you already said,

    It’s relevant to Craig because he said he would act in the same way if the conditions were the same.

    …but Craig did not say he would use one positive argument for God while ignoring 19 negative arguments.

    • Kevin

      Right, how is that relevant to my analogy? I never said that Craig didn’t respond to 19 arguments against the existence of God and I never said that the researcher didn’t respond to 19 arguments against his hypothesis. Please explain how your response is relevant to my analogy.

  • http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b cl

    Uh, not sure what happened to the thread here since moving to Patheos, I had the following from “Kevin” in my Yahoo inbox:

    Anyone can see that he said that he would act in that way given the conditions I specified that were significant to the analogy. An analogy is not meant to be a 1-to-1 match to the situation, otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to make a distinction. All you’ve done is point out a superficial distinction and said that they don’t match. Well, that doesn’t refute an analogy. I’ve asked multiple times for you to explain why that difference is significant and I’m still waiting. *For some reason, its not accepting my handle, hence the 2. (Kevin)

    It’s not true that “anyone” can see. I honestly don’t at all see how “I won’t present an atheist argument without a theist counterargument” entails that Craig would “lie” about anything. It’s a totally vapid charge. It’s not a matter of your analogy “not being 100%,” it’s that your analogy is 100% irrelevant. I’ve explained, multiple times, why. So, rather than go back and forth forever, I’ll just let you have the last word.

    Unless you can actually advance the discussion with evidence and/or relevant analogy, then I’m game to continue. But if not, we agree to disagree: Craig saying he won’t present an atheist argument without a theist counterpart DOES NOT entail that Craig is a “liar” at all.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X