Doug Krueger on Craig’s “PhDs only” rule

Doug Krueger, who’s been offering to debate Craig for years, showed up in the comments on my post on William Lane Craig’s refusal to debate Jeff Lowder to offer up some additional tidbits:

William Lane Craig has been ducking me for years. On three occasions Christian groups tried to organize a debate between us, and when Craig found out it was me as the opponent, he backed out. Once at Boston College (with Tacelli), once at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville , and again at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In each case he cited that I did not have a Ph.D. (I do now. What’s his excuse now?) It was AFTER all three of these that he debated Ron Barrier, who had no college degrees at all.

Oh, and after he had been ducking me on the grounds that I had no Ph.D., and he agreed to debate Barrier, someone at the SecularWeb contacted Craig and asked him to agree to debate me, since he obviously had no “Ph.D.-only rule.” Craig responded that it was not up to him who he debates, and that his hands were tied, and he could not back out of the Barrier debate (which was at least a month later). So much for the Ph.D.-only rule!

So Craig doesn’t choose his debate opponents, except when he does. Probably Craig is really deciding who to debate based on what debates he thinks would make him look good–which would be fine, if only he were honest about it. After all, one of the reasons Dawkins has given for not debating Craig is, “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”

Also, I pass on without comment Luke Muehlhauser’s comment on the possibility of Krueger debating Craig: “Douglas Krueger has offered to debate to Craig for years, though Craig avoids him; perhaps because Krueger is too familiar with Craig’s arguments.”

Why do Christian philosophers of religion believe?
Francis isn't the Pope the Catholic Church deserves, but the one it needs right now
Kris Komarnitsky's Doubting Jesus' Resurrection
William Lane Craig rationalizes his lie about Ehrman