I think you need some William Lane Craig
I’ve read most of “Reasonable Faith” and watched many videos of him on YouTube. I remain unconvinced. There are papers online that address his arguments outside the oral debate context and Craig is much less persuasive without an audience and stiff debate rules.
That’s unfortunate; open minded people find it incredibly compelling. He also has papers, books, articles, podcasts, etc. rebutting his opponents; it is not just debate. None the less, even if one is unconvinced, his arguments are at least as good as the opposition.
@Robert H
I am very open minded and i dont like the guy…
I admit that my distaste of him has to do with me being a Dawkins/Hitchens fanboy once upon a time (still a big fan of Hitchens’ rhetorical abilities and some of his arguments are not as bad as “philosophical Christians” make them out to be). I came to the conclusion that most theists were the types that you would encounter in a Youtube comments war and figured that there were absolutely no good reasons to believe, but that was mainly my fault for not keeping a relatively open mind and searching out people who are actually learned and from the theist camp. I was kind of disappointed because Craig didn’t make my atheism seem so much like a slam-dunk case, but I thank Craig for actually spurring me on to study deeper philosophy. It’s probably a dumb reason to hold a grudge, but I get physically irritated every time I force myself to listen to him.
When Craig explicitly states that the best example that solidifies modern evolutionary theory is the peppered moth, I get a little skeptical that this person is being intellectually honest. I’m not saying he’s misleading intentionally, but it’s what I call “subconsciously cutting corners.” If you think the peppered moth is the best thing going for modern macroevolution, I’m sorry, either you don’t want to accept evolution and you are obstinate, or you’re flat out lying. I know he’s said in the past he is “somewhere between theistic evolution and progressive creationism”, but that’s just a weak stance in my opinion. It doesn’t jive with his theology, so he takes the short cut by saying St. Augustine said we’re not beholden to a literal creation interpretation while really being noncommittal towards evolution and how that would fit into a theistic worldview. He knows it makes some elements of creation seem implausible, so he just throws it aside as a non-sequitur when you can easily make the case that it seems awfully complex and tedious for an all-powerful being to take that road when he could just snap his fingers and bring life into existence immediately.
He also totally slandered the Youtube atheists (while not a huge fan of them, there are a couple good users and this one in particular was DasAmericanAtheist if you’re familiar with him). The discussion was about mereological atomism and Craig totally misconstrued the concept. So either he was being foolish or manipulative, neither of which reflects well on him.
That’s unfortunate; open minded people find it incredibly compelling. He also has papers, books, articles, podcasts, etc. rebutting his opponents; it is not just debate. None the less, even if one is unconvinced, his arguments are at least as good as the opposition.
I know he has papers, books, articles, etc. Many of the papers I’ve read were direct responses to some of his publications, some of which he replied to which were then rebutted again. One paper I read forever ago which I found stunning was by David Steele, a professor of philosophy at Boston University. I was shocked, as an example, at how many unstated assumptions Craig made in things like the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I was also most amused at one debate when Craig attempted to use a basic calculus equation to prove that the resurrection was more likely than any other alternative explanation. Craig’s opponent stated that he’d be very interested to know what percentage Craig used for the variable in his equation for the probability that a miracle occurred. Craig had no response.
You are correct. Part of the problem is that I disagree with your definitions for faith:
and
Your first statement may be your opinion, and you didn’t necessarily imply that it was defined just as you stated, but it is only a true statement if the person who claims faith does so while neglecting evidence contrary to his beliefs. Although faith is used beyond just the religious sense, when it is clear that the topic is religious faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. I believe you know this and I don’t believe you are denying it, but I’m guessing you are applying your own biases to what you call “faith.” But when you say faith is defined as beliving something without reason, that is just plain incorrect. That is neither the religious or the general use of the word. Truthfully saying you have faith in someone is not saying “I trust you even though I know I’m probably wrong,” but more so “I trust you . . . I have my doubts, but I trust you.” If you specifically define faith as requiring “a lack of reason” then you are using a completely different word, one that I would never defend.
I’ve been using reason in the sense that it follows from logic and consideration of all known evidence. Because we know of gravity, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this explanation and it would be unreasonable to believe “God did it” unless maybe God frequently does this to mess with stubborn people. Consider this use of the word “reason”, meaning “baseless explanation”, to be irrelevant.
That is true, I am merely saying that the two can coexist. You can believe in something and have [used in the general sense] faith (belief without proof; believe without evident certainty) while having reasoned about it (considered all evidence you are aware of and have not ignored.) This should not be a point of debate.
My main problem with this is that you imply someone cannot have faith and use reason beyond a certain point, which reinstates your original argument:
Which I assume is entirely based on opinion. There is no apparent dichotomy between believing in a deity which controls human destiny and the political philosophy of libertarianism. Why? Because as long as the deity allows for free will, it is not preventing a libertarian ideaology or a libertarian society. And the idea of having an ultimate destiny for humanity is no more constraining to free will than death. If you are saying libertarian philosophy against power implies that one should not follow a god, then libertarians would also have to be against everything that is good because that is what the generic use of “God” implies, omni-benevolence.
Anyway, what I argue is this: (1) religious faith coexisting with libertarianism does not require any mental partitions, (2) religious faith is not a rejection of reason nor does it require an absence of reason, (3) one can believe in the supernatural and have faith in it.
Also you say:
This is what I believe to be the most likely and most reasonable “supernatural” belief: http://www.simulation-argument.com/
I would like it if you could find a link to that article, but if not that is alright. He has so much stuff on the Kalam and I have seen him do so many talks, with physicists asking questions, that it is hard to believe he has “so many unstated assumptions.” He was not using basic calculus to prove the resurrection was more likely; he was using probability theory and boy has it flustered some people that were not prepared for it! I personally do not like it, fyi.
@“Izzy”,
You don’t like him? I know a lot of atheists that certainly do not agree with him but think his arguments and talks are great none the less. I am not specifically calling anyone close minded. I am more making a generalized statement. I hope you didn’t take any offense to what I said. The fact is there are simply a ton of people that just immediately erect a wall of ‘can’t hear you’ when he talks and point out things they want to think are wrong and then fail to listen to responses.
I think you have a slanted view of Dr. Craig and his work. Have you interacted with or seen a lot of his stuff?
Just a heads up RobertH, I think your profile pic is the same as another frequent member of this site, Prateek Sanjay. So you might want something unique.
Eh, it is one of the default Avatars. I just created this just a few hours ago.
I know, many people use them but you might want to know that he’s at least recognizable for that avatar (at least by me.)
Is it good or bad to be associated with him? lol
“Lifted from wikipedia”
See if you can do better than that aye… Making an actual argument would also be ideal.
Robert, I’ve seen a lot of Craig’s stuff. Did you not read the body of my post? I’ve seen him in these debates:
Mexico vs. Dawkins, Ridley, Shermer
vs. Austin Dacey in Purdue
vs. Christopher Hitchens
vs. Peter Atkins (half of this debate, Atkins was unprepared)
vs. Victor Stenger in Hawaii (I didn’t think Craig did a good job in this one)
vs. Kagan
vs. Slezak
I’m aware of all the arguments he presents and I’ve listened to audio on his site many times and I’ve read many q&a’s as well.
Not directed at anyone in particular.
I find it shocking that atheists get just as emotionally upset over religious debates, as religious people do.
Flic, you can say it’s directed at me if you wish .
It’s unlike me to get upset at other people’s views by just hearing them. Craig is the only person who has the effect on me. I can’t control my emotions, they just happen.
People form beliefs and people want their beliefs to be correct. So no matter what point of view, some people are going to get in a tizzy when presented with a counter-argument.
No need to be condescending. I swear the arrogance on this forum sometime can kill enthusiam in the subject matter. Loosen up the collar and see that I’m merely displaying an alternate definition.
Your first statement may be your opinion, and you didn’t necessarily imply that it was defined just as you stated, but it is only a true statement if the person who claims faith does so while neglecting evidence contrary to his beliefs. Although faith is used beyond just the religious sense, when it is clear that the topic is religious faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. I believe you know this and I don’t believe you are denying it, but I’m guessing you are applying your own biases to what you call “faith.” But when you say faith is defined as beliving something without reason, that is just plain incorrect. That is neither the religious or the general use of the word. Truthfully saying you have faith in someone is not saying “I trust you even though I know I’m probably wrong,” but more so “I trust you . . . I have my doubts, but I trust you.” If you specifically define faith as requiring “a lack of reason” then you are using a completely different word, one that I would never defend.
I have a few issues with this. My intent was to parcel out how reason and faith differ. Why use the word “faith” when “reason” already exists. It seems to me you’ve been arguing thus far that there is no difference between faith and reason. I have failed to understand why you employ both terms.
Towards the end of this paragraph you fall into trouble for the same reason. You say, “Truthfully saying you have faith in someone is not saying ‘I trust you even though I know I’m probably wrong,’ but more so ‘I trust you . . . I have my doubts, but I trust you.’” This is highly problematic. These two statements are only different in the probability judgment one makes in relation to them. Fine. The former statement is simply someone making a risky speculation about someone else. The latter is a more probable endeavor. How is that faith? Implied in the former statement is the conclusion that the speculator is likely wrong, while in the latter his judgment seems more likely. How did these judgments come about? Well, based on the circumstances of each case: the past behavior of the person involved, his propensity to keep his word, his work ethic, his completion of similar tasks in the past, his intelligence, etc. In short, the probability judgments in these statements are not faith: it’s the adoption of judgments based on probability, judgments formed on the basis of objectively observable factors. This is reason, not faith. I’ll get to why this is a problem at the end.
That is true, I am merely saying that the two can coexist. You can believe in something and have [used in the general sense] faith (belief without proof; believe without evident certainty) while having reasoned about it (considered all evidence you are aware of and have not ignored.) This should not be a point of debate.
Again, this isn’t faith. Making determinations based on probability isn’t faith, especially if the judgment is based on a likely outcome. Does one have faith in gravity? That’s silly.
There is no apparent dichotomy between believing in a deity which controls human destiny and the political philosophy of libertarianism. Why? Because as long as the deity allows for free will, it is not preventing a libertarian ideaology or a libertarian society. And the idea of having an ultimate destiny for humanity is no more constraining to free will than death. If you are saying libertarian philosophy against power implies that one should not follow a god, then libertarians would also have to be against everything that is good because that is what the generic use of “God” implies, omni-benevolence.
There’s no contradiction so long as the religion does not violate libertarian principles. There is, I say, a mental contradiction because I see libertarianism as rational and logical, while the belief in the supernatural is not. I of course agree that libertarianism demands that people believe whatever they wish. I do think there’s something rather servile, however, about the concept of God, and thus unlibertarian, but that’s a topic for another day.
(2) religious faith is not a rejection of reason nor does it require an absence of reason, (3) one can believe in the supernatural and have faith in it.
To you, faith most certainly is not a rejection of reason because you define faith as reason! You have not attempted to defend faith. Instead, you gave some examples of “faith” that were really specific areas where someone would make probability judgments based on objective criteria. But here’s the rub. In order to make comparisions of probability, you must compare like with like. We can calculate the probability of natural events in the universe, but we cannot do that for supernatural events. Supernatural events are outside the realm of probability. That’s why asking what the probability of a miracle is is absurd. This is why I say faith has to be defined in a way distinct from reason to be of any use as its own word, and it is why I object to your definition. Faith is an entirely different concept from reason because it implies notions of supernaturalism.
I would like it if you could find a link to that article, but if not that is alright. He has so much stuff on the Kalam and I have seen him do so many talks, with physicists asking questions, that it is hard to believe he has “so many unstated assumptions.” He was not using basic calculus to prove the resurrection was more likely; he was using probability theory and boy has it flustered some people that were not prepared for it! I personally do not like it, fyi.
I tried to find the paper and discovered that it’s actually in a chapter of his book called “Atheism Explained.” He takes on several of Craig’s arguments, especially in one chapter. Infidels.org has an entire section of its website dedicated to debunking many of Craig’s claims. You can visit that here. As far as the probability theory thing, I remember laugher, not fluster, but that’s unimportant. You have probably watched his videos more than I have.
Mexico vs. Dawkins, Ridley, Shermer
vs. Austin Dacey in Purdue
vs. Christopher Hitchens
vs. Peter Atkins (half of this debate, Atkins was unprepared)
vs. Victor Stenger in Hawaii (I didn’t think Craig did a good job in this one)
vs. Kagan
vs. Slezak
I haven’t seen all of these, but the Austin Dacey debate was pretty good. Craig did pretty poorly in the Kagan debate.
This isn’t something I would openly share with everyone! 