William Lane Craig on ad hominem attacks (redo)

[TheYazoo321]

hes a wanker

[sonic8005]

Thanks for making this video. I'm sure Craig would be arguing that this is an ad hominem even though you did address the validity of his arguments. Also I agree with Prof, music was a good addition, especially with this guy talking.

[drfoxcourt]

When you don't have decent argument on your side, you can always accuse the other side of the things you are guilty of yourself.

In a rational world, Dr Craig's PhD would be in charlatanism.

[estragon9]

It's disingenuous of you guys to make fun of Dr Craig. He is an eminent scholar with a PhD. He's read philosophy and stuff, and is one of the prominent authorities in truthology.

[drukenhard]

@estragon9 Thank you....that's the best laugh I've had all day!

[hellshade2]

dr william lane craig....is this guy for real? holy crap....

[mistergarth]

There's something deliciously twisted about an advocate of creationism complaining about the dumbing down of public education. High school biology texts dance around natural selection—the cornerstone of modern biology—to keep from offending the delicate sensibilities of creationist Christians. The result is dumbed down biology.

[ManicEightBall]

@mistergarth

The interesting thing about that is that he is really tight-lipped about whether or not he is a creationist. I've never heard him say it, and never heard him deny it. He does talk about evolution, but he always talks about it in the third person. "If one believes that evolution is true..."

[Hektor88]

@ManicEightBall He has referred to himself as a "progressive creationist," and is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. So yeah, he is a creationist. Not that totally insane Kent Hovind kind, but creationism itself is insane enough that he is still pretty high on the scale.

[lfzadra]

@ManicEightBall Craig is a creationist, but he never really use this therm because the guy wants to pass the idea that he is in line with mainstream science. Craig believes that evolution happened, but thinks that God guided the process, otherwise it would be impossible. So, he is some sort of ID/Creationist guy. In the end, all this things are more or less the same (god did it). His position is vague on the topic, and I never saw him giving clear definition of it.

[ukchristian28]

@mistergarth

Errr, Craig's not a creationist from what I know of him.

[ukchristian28]

There are no ad hominem attacks in this video. Craig throughout is talking about the kinds of arguments he receives and how they are stupid and shallow. At no point do we see him attack someone's character and then use that attack as an argument against their position. You clearly don't understand what an ad hominem attack is.

[dookiecheez]

I like it when believers describe themselves without realizing it, for 3 minutes.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

William Lane Craig is the personification of the ad hominem.

[DonSSanders]

Either WLC is the smartest mofo on the planet OR HE IS CLEARLY TALKING OUT OF HIS ASS much of the time.

[superfisto]

WLC likes to "talk shit" on arguments. He personally attacks them.

[TychoCelchu]

"The sophisticated literature that is out there on these topics." Would that be the bible?

[7926645]

I’m sure he means good rigorous brainwashing, not “good rigorous argumentation”. Get ‘hem while their young Willy.

Argumentation my arse.

Is what I said an ad hominum?

[ProfMTH]

LOL. The music really makes this a homerun.

[ManicEightBall]

@ProfMTH

Thank you. Finally, someone noticed the music.

[dabigq]

Argument from incredulity is incredulous!

[supersmash43]

0:34-0:36 not necessarily an ad homenim attack because he said their thinking was unsophisticated but he could still be insulting their intelligence.

[ManicEightBall]

@supersmash43

I think the problem here is really poisoning the well. That is, he's telling his followers that they don't need to pay attention to his opponents because his opponents are unsophisticated or irrational, or whatever. His followers are not likely to delve into atheists arguments as much as he does, and won't really know why we're supposed to be wrong. For example, do any of his followers know that he basically has said that the theory of relativity is wrong?

[supersmash43]

@ManicEightBall yeah your right. It is just a red herring. He is now trying to deviate from the arguments his opponents make by telling that they are stupid. His followers, therefore, do not have to think for themselves or think critically about William Lane Craig's argument. Ergo, it is both an ad homenim and a diversion tactic. Could anyone name a single atheist philosopher completely dismiss his opponents as stupid and irrational? Of course it is cleverly hidden in his skillful rtheoric.

[jvincent107]

@ManicEightBall

I've listened to Craig for a while now and I've never heard him deny the theory of relativity. Could you give me a link to something Dr craig has written about it or something to back up what ur saaying?

[SHIBBYiPANDA]

@ManicEightBall He has?

[ukchristian28]

@supersmash43

Insulting someone's intelligence is not in itself an ad hominem. It is only an ad hominem if a personal attack is used as an argument against someone's position. "John is an unsophisticated ignorant fool, therefore his argument against the design argument is false". However if you say "John is an unsophisticated ignorant fool for the following reasons" then that is not an ad hominem. Calling John that without backing it up would not be an ad hominem either.

[supersmash43]

@ukchristian28 ok fair enough...you are correct.

[SexyMelon]

Haha! Classic apologetics, no?..

[dewinthemorning]

What did he say at the beginning? - "No ad hominem attacks"?

Yeah right!

[toelesshoe]

If craig is so enamoured with rational thought why does he use his "empty tomb" crap, as proof of a ressuection?

[BoteAMVCreator]

lol...there are no ad hominems in his speech.... "irrational, absurd, ludicruous, sophomoric" are adjectives which he ties to "material, response, argument"...

Context is king kids, context is king...

[ManicEightBall]

@BoteAMVCreator

You refer to yourself in the 3rd person, don't you.

[BoteAMVCreator]

@ManicEightBall Attaching additional semes which aren't there and not consulting the syntax of the sentences is not what constitutes a rebuttal of a philosopher. Also, a teenage parading of cynicism won't get you anywhere. Listen to Craig without bias, reread the definiiton of ad hominem and read his thoughts on paper and maybe you'll realize why this video is nothing more than a personality bashing circus instead of a serious critique.

[AgeOfReasonXXI]

Craig is not just a deluded fundamentalist. he's something much worst than that: a hypocrite, liar, hopelessly entranched in his desparation to prove himself right and that god is not a delusion. otherwise he'd be admitting he's wasted his whole life on folly. any objectivity in making his "case" is long gone. If Caig could actually see with his deranged brain the failure that he is, he'd probably kill himself

[MattBaumann777]

Does this guy actually debate Dawkins at any point?

[ManicEightBall]

@MattBaumann777

Dawkins says he won't debate creationists.

[momoseth2]

@ManicEightBall

Funny, because Craig isn't a creationist.

[IagelaosI]

@ManicEightBall Dawkins wont debate William Lane Craig, because he knows his arguments are so weak grounded that if they were put up against any kind of scrutiny, he would lose all respect his fans have for him. Let me also note, that Lane Craig is not a creationist. I will leave that to you. Do a little research instead of stating ideas on pure ignorance.

[sameer137]

@ManicEightBall : WLC is not a creationist

[jamesrands]

@ManicEightBall They did debate at the Cuidad Del Ideas (or something like that) in 2010. Craig looked like what he is; a second rate pseudo-intellectual who would struggle to get a bachelors degree from a decent university. And having grinned his way through a thoroughly inept attempt to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he stated that he had made ten arguments which proved god existed and counted out nine on his fingers, flicking out two fingers when he realized he couldn't even count.

[Roper122]

OK.. that made me laugh..

Not sure if it was the music ..

or how you just let Craig hang himself..

But funny stuff.

[berrylict]

what a clown.

[mike10121996]

Very sad. a) the citation in the beginning and the clips were from two different contexts. b) claiming that some one is taken in by sophomoric logic is not an ad hominem attack, saying your a wicked or ignorant person SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG is an ad hominem attack. c) Richard Dawkin is an excellent bio chemist and zoologist but is obviously NOT a philosopher. Read the book, claiming that religion is evil SO THAT MAKES IT WRONG is by definition an ad hominem attack. Nice try.

[jijigagikijiwizgkzz]

What an ass.

[ThePhantomBlacksmith]

I've noticed this trend. More than once I see Theists using this angle.- "We're appalled at these unsophisticated and sophomoric arguments these new atheists are making. People are buying into it because they are ignorant of the true intellectual discourse that is out there." Of course they never give any examples or elaborate. They're just trying to label the argument as base and crude to strip it of credibility. It's the best they can do, because they have nothing else to bring to the table.

[ManicEightBall]

@ThePhantomBlacksmith "I see Theists using this angle.- "We're appalled at these unsophisticated and sophomoric arguments"

I think this is called poisoning the well. Comments on my video often start out with "You obviously don't know anything about logic, so..."

Craig seems determined to make his fans all dismiss atheist arguments without hearing them. Whatever he tells you, it's personal.

[trooperJac]

I don't think these are ad hominem attacks. They are daft statements though but I expect he really believes what he is saying. His desperation for the christian mythology to be true has clouded his judgement.

The universe must have had a 1st cause (bald assertion) therefore there must be a god (argument from ignorance) and I believe that god is the god of the bible (pulled outta his ass)

[lukeism2]

craig is a liar

[HaligonianType1]

Go little Spanish flea! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Go flea!!!!!111111111oneone222333­four5

[SierraBravoOneNiner]

Sorry, but as much as I think Craig is delusional, I must have missed the ad hom' attacks? Commenting that something is (in Craig's opinion) irrational, sophomoric, unformed silly, ignorant responses, irrational etc etc. is not ad hom'. These statements are addressing the information, not who presented the information. Saying the same things but saying they are true because say, Hitchens drinks and smokes, well different story.

[Hopeful71]

It's funny because it is both true and an ad hominem at the same time.

"Yes, people today are so unsophisticated that they can't tell a good (valid & sound) argument from a bad one (ie an ad hominem like I am making right now)"

How can you not love a self-referential tautology like that?

[bttsstewart]

I assume that by "sophisticated literature" he means "Christian literature." -_- Jeese...

[Royaleah]

Wow! How can he think like that? He almost makes the entire case against himself.

[FiverBeyond]

Yeah, as an atheist I hate to vote against my own group, but Dr. Craig isn't making an ad hominem attacks here... he is clearly and distinctly talking about the arguments, not the character of those making them.

Let's beat 'em using logic and reason instead, eh?

[THEHARMONIKZ]

WELOME TO YOUTUBE, home of the freethinking,secular,humanist,­atheist types.

freedom from church and mental state.

[nightmareofsolomon]

I find it funny that he calls Dawkins and other atheists' arguments unsophisticated while he has his own inane cosmological argument.

[KixDanis]

I think that you're misunderstanding the difference between him using arguments without ad hominem, and stating his opinion of why Dawkins is so popular, which I agree with when you look at his arguments. I don't think he individually treats people disrespectfully instead of tackling their arguments. Do you really think that when you look at his written material and debates, etc?

[crazy4carolyn]

You are the truly absurd one "Dr." Craig.

[thegloc]

Very, very weak. I can't spot any ad homines coming from Craig. And of course logic and your study of it is relevant. The video's title suggests that you are exposing fallacies from Dr. Craig. This video, to your discredit, shows that, though you may have studied logic, you are not able to spot fallacies.

[thegloc]

Very, very weak. I can't spot any ad homines coming from Craig. And of course logic and your study of it is relevant. The video's title suggests that you are exposing fallacies from Dr. Craig. This video, to your discredit, shows that, though you may have studied logic, you are not able to spot fallacies.

[thegloc]

Very, very weak. I can't spot any ad homines coming from Craig. And of course logic and your study of it is relevant. The video's title suggests that you are exposing fallacies from Dr. Craig. This video, to your discredit, shows that, though you may have studied logic, you are not able to spot fallacies.

[gunner23]

ermm this isnt an ad hominem attack lol

[longhornman99001]

I hope you know that an ad hominem is when you conclude that someone's argument is wrong because of some fact about the person who gave the argument. Craig never made any argument like that.

[tarasan1]

this is a horrible video, i assume that u have no idea how logic works, or at least i hope u dont cause id take ignorance over deceptiveness anyday.

[ManicEightBall]

@tarasan1 " i assume that u have no idea how logic works"

This is really not relevant, but yes. I have studied quite a bit of logic. I have studied natural logic, propositional calculus, predicate calculus, lambda calculus, and more.

Logic is not all about informal fallacies, and this video is not about ad hominem attacks.

[tarasan1]

@ManicEightBall

in which case your title and your video are very misleading.

[Christianjr4]

Those aren't even ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem attacks deliberately set out to discredit an argument by attacking the character. Craig isn't doing that here. He's explaining a phenomenon, not the soundness (or lack thereof) of Dawkins' arguments.

[ManicEightBall]

@Christianjr4

I can tell you haven't ready any of my comments.

[StopSpamming1]

Lovely finds.

But he always wears a tie, so he must be right.

[jesseakers]

well the interview wasnt part of a debate so what is the point?? if had done all this during a debate that would be outlandish- be he simply interviewing and giving his opinions....???

[ManicEightBall]

"well the interview wasnt part of a debate so what is the point??"

Whether or not you are standing at a podium has nothing to do with whether you are using an ad hominem fallacy, and my main complain was not that he is committing said fallacy. Look at all he says in the first section.

[MinervaInTheBrain]

WLC must be some sort of Tony Clifton or something, it's like he's referring to himself as Richard Dawkins or some mythical youth that cannot think logically.

He's such a smug little...

[MarkLucasTube]

I find Craig to be very flawed in many of his arguments but this video is dishonest. Craig said that he would not argue ad hominum "tonight" during a debate he was going to have. Then you edited in some personal criticisms he made in general comment at another time. By all means attack Craig's stance and arguments but for this video - shame on you.

[ManicEightBall]

Craig said that he would not argue ad hominem "tonight"

So your defense of him is that he only promised to not commit the ad hominem fallacy on one particular night? If so, I don't think he would want you defending him.

[MarkLucasTube]

@ManicEightBall You're mistaken. I made no "defense" of Craig in my comment at all. I made a criticism of the video saying it was dishonest - as indeed it is. You're suggesting that anyone who criticizes another 'person' in any context at any time, loses the right to claim that they can and will enter a 'debate' without recourse to ad hominem tactics. Your suggestion is therefore clearly wrong.

[FairCogent]

...and there you go. Five stars.

[ManicEightBall]

Thank you.

[kwmitch1]

Dawkins is "sophomoric" in this area. He should stick to his field.

[ManicEightBall]

"He should stick to his field"

Funny, that's what I think when Craig plays physicist or statistician.

[regelemihai]

All he ever "plays" is a philosopher. He's one of the world's most renonwed thinkers. Dawkins' uses shoddy logics and operates outside his field of experitse while Craig doesn't. The fact he uses physics(valid arguments, mind you, based on those statistics) to support his argument doesn't make his point any less valid.

[ManicEightBall]

Craig has made a number of claims in Physics and math. Those claims are way outside his field.

Personally I don't see a problem with that. I think you should make whatever claims you want, and people can call you on it if they think you're wrong. That's all I'm doing here.

[regelemihai]

@ManicEightBall

Fair enough.

Oh and might I add--What the *bleep* did YouTube did to the comment pages????

[digitaljez]

@regelemihai Its a bummer Dawkins made it into the Top 100 Public Intellectuals and Craig didn't. Does that mean Dawkins operates better outside his field of expertise than Craig operates within his own field ?

[regelemihai]

@digitaljez

No, it doesn't mean anything. It's a public poll, not a professional evaluation of anything. Nowadays people appreciate many alleged intellectuals, and when voted by the general public(not by profesisonals) it's no shock that atheists who defy cultural norms will be heralded.

It's fair ro point out that your commoet is a red herring. How does it address what I said?

[digitaljez]

@regelemihai I think those polled are slightly more informed than the general public.

I can't see Craig amassing the doctorates and awards Dawkins has by the time he reaches 68.

Amongst whom is Craig such a renowned thinker anyway ?

Obviously not the ignorant masses that disgust him so much.

All he appears to have done is revive a medieval argument that does not establish the properties of the first cause that he would like it to.

[regelemihai]

He is considered among professional philosophers as one of the greatest Christian philosophers or our age. He has debated all of atheisms greatest proponents. He holds a masters degree in church history, a doctorate in Philosophy and a doctorate in Theology.

The poll you pointed to is not a study. It's a public opinion poll that features, among the many other "intellectuals", General Patreus and the Pope. Yeah...

[LowresTV]

WLC is just a preacher, trying to "sell" hs religion, putting it in a "Logic" and "reason" level. But he fails big time.

[shashintokyo]

LOL! Spot on! WLG is an idiot posing as an intellectual, after-all, any person who actually believes in faith needs a full frontal lobotomy!

[badpanda84]

@shashintokyo agreed but at least it isnt as stupid as the young earth creationist

[shashintokyo]

@badpanda84

Totally agree. But I have more contempt for WLC, he clearly is not stupid, yet he uses his intellect to create "logical" arguments for faith. Someone so smart should be an atheist. Actually, when I listen to him, I don't really believe that he believes what he says. That's why I have contempt for him.

[Birdieupon]

Lame video. You took a clip from the pre-debate between Dr Craig and Hitchens then juxtaposed it with his answer to a broad sociological question. Would you deny that there is ignorance out there in the eduction system and culture which needs fixing? Atheists make this very complaint against evolution-deniers, especially Dawkins himself calling people "ignoramus".

You even omitted Craig's criticism of the church itself AND his specific example of poor atheist argumentation.

Propaganda.

[drcraigvideos]

LOL! You don't seem to know logic or the meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem means you think the argument is false because of the arguer (at eight minutes and thirty seconds: watch?v=aM0KcIt_pXw). On the other hand, to say that someone is inept or sophomoric, because, well, they really ARE inept and sophomoric is a statement of fact as far as I'm concerned. If a man with an IQ over 100 said that 1+1=3 would you call him smart? If I said he wasn't you'd probably accuse me of ad homineming him.

[ManicEightBall]

"LOL! You don't seem to know logic or the meaning of ad hominem."

Actually, there are two types of ad hominem. You mention one.

He is trying to say these ideas are wrong because the people are sophomoric. That is exactly what he is doing. If he could demonstrate that these people don't know what they're talking about with real arguments, he would, but he isn't.

[drcraigvideos]

"He is trying to say these ideas are wrong because the people are sophomoric."

That's a lie. You edited out the part where he mentioned sophomoric atheists suggested that people literally always existed. Dr. Craig demonstrated it, and you edited out. That's dishonest and inconvenient of you, isn't it?

[ManicEightBall]

The fact that he is describing the people at all is pointless. If he wants us to know that it's not an ad hominem, he shouldn't be evaluating the people at all. It isn't about what gets edited out; it's about the fact that he insults them at all. Any other argument he might have made doesn't mean these are not ad hominem attacks.

[Birdieupon]

@ManicEightBall

"It isn't about what gets edited out; it's about the fact that he insults them at all."

Nonsense. You were accusing him of ad hominem and said, yourself, "If he could demonstrate that these people don't know what they're talking about with real arguments, he would, but he isn't."

Gee, maybe that's the bit you edited out. The "always existed" example was there for precisely that purpose. You are being dishonest and cheap. That's not ad hom against you, but plain truth!

[robbrown47]

Sounds like ad hominen attacks to me.

[YOURINQUIRER]

In an interview after the panel he shared in with Christopher Hitchens (here on YT), Craig said Hitchens was "weasly", "oiley" and said that he (Hitchens) and those like him "lack the intellectual substance" to deal with his (Craig's) arguments. In his debate with Richard Carrier, during the Q&A, he referred to Richard as a "hack". The man is pure, polished hypocrisy.

[ManicEightBall]

"...said that he (Hitchens) and those like him "lack the intellectual substance"

That SOO sounds like Craig

[YOURINQUIRER]

You should do a video on it. It was the "Christian Book Expo" interview with William Lane Craig.

[SmalltimR]

lol

So pointing out that arguments and peoples approaches to problems are unsophisticated is ad hominem?

How unsophisticated!

[ManicEightBall]

And yet another completely misses the point.

[YOURINQUIRER]

Because of all the insults he heaps onto it.

[fhkjds]

I don't think it WAS personal. He was just saying, "If you think that these are good arguments, you haven't been exposed to good argumentation." It was more about the climate of ideas than anybody in particular. And he's right! It's just a popular-level book, no academic philosopher, theist or atheist, would read that book and go, "Gee, never thought of it that way!"

[YOURINQUIRER]

He doesn't just say that. He layers it with insult after insult, over and over and over again.

[jameshanley40]

You are being dishonest making this stupid video.

This is not part of a formal debate.. Craig is right about Dawkins. And is criticising the nature of Dawkins's ***arguments*** anyway, not the person.

And if you want Craig to not say what he is saying, and dawkins to say that about the pig and creationists... then you really are pathetic.. And playing games,, and dishonest.

[YOURINQUIRER]

How can you judge what an ad hominem argument is when your comment is swimming in alimost as many as Craig's?

[JaffarDS]

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

That is an ad hominem.^

Craig NEVER EVER says that the claims are FALSE, he says they're extremely weak.

[ManicEightBall]

You guys all seem hung up on the definition of ad hominem. You're obviously not critically listening to everything he says.

For the record, I've had dozens of people giving me their definition of this word. I don't need any more, thank you.

[JaffarDS]

Maybe because the definition matters?

[ManicEightBall]

No, these people are looking for an easy reason to ignore what this video says. They come up with one argument (the same one over and over) and figure that's the end of the story.

The question the reporter asked was if his debates were contrary to his Christian beliefs. Rather than just find some excuse to disregard the video, maybe you should think critically. You should think critically, even of people you agree with. Otherwise you won't know why you have the beliefs you do.

[Birdieupon]

@ManicEightBall

"Rather than just find some excuse to disregard the video, maybe you should think critically."

Maybe you should edit honestly.

[YOURINQUIRER]

You're right in part. It's called "Ad hominem abusive" (also called argumentum ad personam) and usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

[JaffarDS]

I don't think he's claiming or implying that what he's saying has to do with the opponents argument. It's okay to call someone's argument a bad argument.

[Hustada]

Dr. Craig isnt the only respected philosopher or theologian who finds Dawkins arguments silly and sophmoric. There are quite a few, secular and christian who feel Dawkins is out of his league on many of these topics. He's a knowledgeable and intelligent biologist but he's more than lacking with regards to theology and philosophy.

[jameshanley40]

Hustada: I can believe it. But can you name other atheist philosophers that think Dawkin's arguments are silly?

[MorePreciousThan]

Unfortunately you can't post links in these comments, but do a search for "Books on atheism garner criticism from unlikely places". It is a New York Times article.

[jameshanley40]

MorePreciousThan: Well only a fool would think that an atheist can't criticise a book by an atheist, so not such an enlightening article. Anyhow, the article is poorly thought out. Sam Harris *is* a good philosopher. Maybe Craig has something on him, though he hasn't focussed on him. But these critics have nothing on him. Dawkins is just too arrogant to be afraid of debating Craig, and dawkins gets out of it for his stupid inconsistent incorrect inapplicable dogmatic reason.

[YOURINQUIRER]

So far nearly every objector to this video is guilty of the same behavior in their comments. No wonder Christianity is on the decline in the U.S.

[tantzer]

He's calling Dawkin's arguments weak. This is not ad hominem. He said "sophomoric/silly arguments"--didn't say "sophomoric/silly person." Big difference. Look up ad hominem in the dictionary.

By the way, sophisticated arguments for atheism can be given; but those of Dawkins and Hitchens are not among them. Craig is right to call their work shallow. But this doesn't mean that all atheist philosophies are shallow.

[IDquest]

Uhm, okay, Dr. Craig says he'll not ad hominem people yet he thinks people are not good at philosophy. And where is the ad hominem attack? The desperate lengths people go to to refute Dr. Craig is quite pathetic.

[jebus6kryst]

It is always funny seeing anyone eat his or her own words.

[tetralophodon]

if this argument is meant to expose some sort of irony, while the music may seem funny, this video is not, an ad hominem as dr craig explained is a fallacious argument which attempts to discredit an argument by making fun or poking fun at the person making those arguments. Not anything at all that you tried to expose here

[ManicEightBall]

It's interesting how the only word you people hear is "ad hominem" and all the other words he says you just ignore.

Don't excuse everything he says based on some technicality.

[BillTheCat7]

I don't see any ad hominem attacks here either. He does not mock and ridicule, but, as a philosopher, he has legitmate criticisms.

If anyone wants to see someone mock and ridicule, then just watch Hitchens and Dawkins.

[tetralophodon]

i would agree. He is a person who is involved in academia, so of course he can make some criticisms if he likes, he is not disproving atheism by mockingit, he is merely trying to expose the tatics of what is usually called "new atheism" and how it tries to popularize and make attempts to coerce the younger audience, who is unaware of the true academic world. He also doesnt say "therefore atheism is false". Usually we hear that kind of stuff coming from hitchens, dawkins or harris

[ManicEightBall]

It's like you guys are watching a totally different video from me. He is just criticizing? Educated people usually criticize arguments or ideas, not people.

His main point here is that people shouldn't listen to Dawkins and that he doesn't see any good arguments for atheism. There's no technicality that gets him off the hook just because it isn't phrased as a syllogism. He means to dissuade people from becoming atheists by mischaracterizing Dawkins personally and his friends as uneducated,

[tetralophodon]

No, im pretty sure we are watching the same video, and you are trying to reveal something that isnt there. First of all, the first section of the video was Dr.Craig speaking with some people before his debate with hitchens i believe, because he was asked if was going to try and counter any ad hominems from hitchesn would they arrise. The second is an unplugged academic critiique of dawkins very shotty philosophical work on atheism. He is just exposing dawkins for who he and his writings are.

[ManicEightBall]

Also, this is not just about whether something is techncally an ad hominem attack. He says a lot more than that, such as:

"For me it has no personal element at all"

"I think there's no inconsistency at between treating a person with respect and gentleness and disagreeing vigorously with his arguments."

The fact that you only address the definition of "ad hominem" speaks volumes.

Thanks for leaving your comments. They're always appreciated.

[tetralophodon]

Yeah it is, an ad hominem, As im sure many people have already ranted to you about, is a personal attack agaisnt someone inplace of an argument, in the second video Craig is making a critique of Dawkins popularizing ways and the fact that he as a biologist, does not have the ability to properly write a philosophical take agaisnt the case for theism, and how he targets the younger audience in his so called seige on theism. And the fact that you ask people to email you about a DMCA, speaks volumes

[ManicEightBall]

Making a critique against Dawkins? Is that the part where he calls people like me inept and sophomoric or the part where he says we are silly and ignorant?

He makes a critique of Dawkins? I think he's more talking about people who listen to Dawkins rather than the man himself. And the comments are all about the people and their level of education or intelligence rather than about the arguments themselves. What do you call that again? I forget.

Anyway, you're still ignoring his other claims.

[BillTheCat7]

It's not about being inept, sophormoric, silly, or ignorant, so please stop trying to paint yourself as being persecuted.

The fact of the matter is that most people have not taken the time to contemplate such esoteric questions. That doesn't mean they are "stupid".

At any rate, that is not what WLC is talking about. He's referring to people who make absolute claims without knowing basic philosophical constructs.

[tetralophodon]

First of all, one has to ask, what is the question being asked, namely, "why is dawkins so popular" and then WLC then answers. those being that most people do not have a grand understanding of philosophy, including Dawkins who has never set foot into a philosophy class. His arguments are some of the most irrelevant and non sensible in terms of an anti-theistic argument. Like i said before, he said that people follow him because of this lack of sophistication.

[tetralophodon]

also, could you please point out to me where WLC says, at any point, "therefore dawkins is wrong" or "therefore, atheism is wrong" because, one, he does not say this because he is making an academic critique of dawkin's material and his folloowrs

[ManicEightBall]

"And the fact that you ask people to email you about a DMCA, speaks volumes "

Yes it does. Some people didn't like the fact that I have a voice, so they tried to shut me up. So this video was taken down, and I counter-filed to get it back up. Apparently, some people think commentary isn't allowed.

So I think it speaks volumes about some Christians and their attitudes toward dialogue.

[BillTheCat7]

"Some people didn't like the fact that I have a voice, so they tried to shut me up. So this video was taken down...."

I find it hard to believe that you were forced to take the video down. Although I think you are wrong, you have been both rational and polite.

"So I think it speaks volumes about some Christians and their attitudes toward dialogue."

Yeah, well, that sword cuts both ways now, doesn't it?

[TheHonestTheist]

You seriously need to learn what ad hominem.

This sound track should be played to you making this rubbish video.

[ManicEightBall]

Yeah, I know what you mean. That song is really fun.

[edejardin]

An ad hominem is a fallacy; only arguments can be fallacious; hence, if we're not dealing with an argument (but with an observation, an insult, a critique, an explanation, etc.), we're not dealing with an ad hominem. QED It really is that simple.

[edejardin]

Wow, you guys *must* learn to distinguish an ad hominem from an insult, a criticism, an observation, etc.

An adhominem is *by definition* a fallacy; a fallacy is *by definition* an invalid argument; hence, if X isn't an argument, X cannot -- *by definition* -- be a fallacy. So, if an insult, critical observation, etc, is not part of an argument, *it's not an ad hominem*.

Now for the tough part: was Craig arguing that Dawkins et al. are wrong because they're unsophisticated? *NO!*

[adrenacrumb]

his statement is beyond ignorant. if you believe the bible is true it's because you have not read the proper material that shows how invalid, nonsensical, and immature the stories are. anyone who believes the buffonery contained within it is true, you must be using the logic of a 3rd grader. no, i'm not going to mention specifically what material that is but trust me it is out there, and you obviously haven't read it.

can you see how stupid craig's statement is yet?

[adrenacrumb]

an ad hominem is when you throw accusations out using no facts to back it up.. craig is making a false claim based on assumption. and yes, the term sophomoric is a personal attack. it would be like me calling you smallminded for reading the bible.

this is too hilarious, well done.

[WilliamHawthorne1]

Calling someone's book "unsophisticated" is not an attack on a person. Learn what ad hominem means and don't be so sensitive.

[hunkamonkiman]

He also basically called people that agree with Dawkins "stupid." I am offended. Maybe it could be called an appeal to ignorance, but it's still an opinion, containing NO evidence.  This man is a tool.

[ukchristian28]

@WilliamHawthorne1

Thank you for being someone with some sense.