Thunderf00t, William Lane Craig & Philosophy

[TheTaoOfSteve]

Rand a mad woman? I wonder- do you doubt Aristotle's sanity as well? She built on his work. Tell me, good sir- what makes for a sound philosophy- the mere volume of prattling, sycophantic academics who praise it as "professional", or is it perhaps instead the practical usefulness of a philosophy in assisting one to lead a productive, self fulfilling & happy life? "Professional" or not, Rand's philosophy is supremely rational & USEFUL, which is more than can be said of Kant or Nietzsche.

[wisdominnature7]

@TheTaoOfSteve

As far as I am aware, Aristotle avoided Benzedrine fuelled rants about the utter moral evil of anyone who criticised the wisdom of acting like a self-centred, and self-proclaimed, adolescent genius. It is deference to cogent argument, even at the expense of one’s own ideology, that marks out a sound philosophy. An egocentric, politicised reading of philosophical issues is thus not a sound philosophy.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@wisdominnature7 Deference to cogent argument is only relevant if one is proven demonstrably incorrect, otherwise it is simply humility for humility's sake. Do you value deference over rationality & reason? Can you cite any example of Rand failing to use reason? I will recognize that Rand was an unlikable woman who was lacking in compassion. I can't say I like her, but my personal dislike of the woman does not give me cause to dismiss the whole of her philosophy, which is rational & useful.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@wisdominnature7 As to her self-centered & egocentric nature- she was self*ish* (to mean- 'concerned with one's own interests'), but she was not self-*centered* (to mean- 'concerned with one's own interests *to the exclusion of others*'). As to promoting egotism- I could demonstrate to you through polite discourse how *you* practically espouse the sort of egoism she championed, if you're interested. Politics is an area where is philosophy is needed MOST, not where it ought to be avoided.

[stiimuli]

whats with the uncomfortably close Blair Witch camera angle?

we really dont need to see up your nose.

[wisdominnature7]

@stiimuli

Front facing phone camera... I have a big nose, it hold much wisdom :)

[akylae101]

Haven't noticed Tf00t bashing all philosophy, just WLC for the clear crimes of being:

1 a fraud - saying he's a big shot while having virtually no useful output

2 a hypocrite - bashing name-calling without argument before proceeding to do the same

Take care

[jamey55lee]

Excellent video. The fact is, Craig does not do good philosophy. To use long discredited "proofs" of the existence of God, to suggest that atheists have a burden of proof and to stubbornly ignore solid facts which demonstrate the fallacy of his own arguments; the man is a mountebank and a disgrace.

[Forkroute]

What do you think of Taner Edis?

[stallion4life]

Funny, I didn't hear you say a single relevant thing about the CONTENT of Craig's philosophy.

[wisdominnature7]

@stallion4life

Here is me saying some relevant things about some of Craig's content:

watch?v=hu0xg_CpwlI

[integralmath]

@stallion4life when he gets some content to his philosophy, that will be a relevant criticism. The willingness to whore out one's critical faculties for the cheap quotemine and dubious slackjawed insult to logic he perpetrates is not, such as I can discern it, a philosophy of content which requires attention.

[drittenberry1]

@wisdomnnature7 here be boring people.. ha ha ha I am relatively certain that ANY kitten video would be more enlightning and entertaining. Thanks for the suggestion.

[TheLivingDinosaur]

I love listening and learning about philosophy, but in my dotage I'm certainly not intelligent enough to begin studying it in depth. My impression is that there are a lot of charlatans out there who are severely over-promising with regard to what exactly philosophy can deliver (empirical truths, for one), leading to the unwarranted disdain you're describing. I'd love to see a video from you along the lines of exactly what philosophy can do and, more importantly, can't do. That would help a lot.

[wisdominnature7]

@TheLivingDinosaur

It’s certainly too easy, on a forum such as this, to simply call one’s self a “philosopher” and authoritatively hold forth on one’s own ‘deep ideas’; without having earned the right. Videos explaining the virtues and limits of philosophy proper -- how its bloody hard intellectual work, how it influences the core of civilised life (politics, law, education, science and art, etc.), and how it’s a debate rather than a doctrine -- sound like a really good idea :)

[brucegrenehan1]

@wisdominnature7 & @TheLivingDinosaur It has long been a fascination to me how Christians simply cannot avoid deception in any of their explinations for their beliefs (ergo, even those who try to explain away ridiculous bible verses call themselves apologists). But, when they take on philosophical debates, I have yet to see one that does not rely on the fallacies for "proof." This is true with Craig as well since his beloved KCM concludes with a non-sequitor built upon two false premises.

[Gnomefro]

@TheLivingDinosaur I can't do a video, but I can recommend a great introduction to the philosophy of science, basic epistemology etc. "What's this thing called science?" by A.F. Chalmers. It basically runs though the most common views, explains the problems with them and gradually builds a better and better model of the scientific method while making it clear what tradeoffs and compromises he is making and why.

[niriop]

Well-said, and it's about time the philosophy-bashing stopped.

[drittenberry1]

lol this is hilarious. SERIOUSLY? Blah blah blah blah blah....

[wisdominnature7]

@drittenberry1

Here be intelligent people; feel free to navigate your way back to the kitten videos...

[StygianDysnomia]

@wisdominnature7 Haha, that made me chuckle.

[lduych]

RE: "I suggest that it is unfair to judge all philosophy by Craig's example"

@wisdominnature7

I agree, of course; but I'm a little surprised that you think people hold Craig to be a genuine philosopher. Despite the fact that Craig refers to himself (endlessly) as a "professional philosopher," I don't think even Craig's fans think of Craig as anything other than what he in fact is: a Christian apologist; someone who speaks for them better than they can speak for themselves.

[lduych]

@wisdominnature7

I revisited the Thunderf00t video. I can't find a reference to philosophy in general. Thunderf00t attacks the manner in which philosophical 'sounding' tricks of rhetoric are consistently employed by snake-oil salesmen.

By way of example: though Thunderf00t has often expressed disdain for the persistent presentation as 'new' or 'groundbreaking' Anselm/Aquinas styled arguments for the existence of God, I have yet to hear Thunderf00t express disdain for Aquinas or Anselm.

[wisdominnature7]

@lduych

Its more the commentary about philosophy that his videos tend provoke that worries me; I haven't seen enough to pass judgement on Thunderf00ts attitude towards philosophy in general. 

[lduych]

@wisdominnature7 I agree that the strength of Thunderf00t's video is found in exposing Craig as an intellectual "midget."

[stevjen1]

Nicely put. An educated fluid well meaning response to the other dudes video. Keep up the good work. Do you like Bertrand Russell?

[wisdominnature7]

@stevjen1

Surprisingly perhaps, I'm not old enough to have ever met him :0)

[Liodegrance]

1/ your argument is self-defeating: "[philosophy is]...allied to the rational and naturalistic world view.": "[a leading theistic philosopher is not highly regarded in the profession]"

2/ How is this not an ad hominem attack?

[wisdominnature7]

@Liodegrance

“Your argument is self-defeating”

No it isn’t; Craig may well be absent from the independent and prestige philosophy of religion journals because the editors, even those who disagree with naturalism, think he is a (well-funded) mediocrity.

“How is this not an ad hominem attack?”

Because you can go and check out the stats I cite for yourself on the ‘philosopher’s index’, that’s how.

[Liodegrance]

@wisdominnature7 The reason for my comment is that, not being a trained philosopher myself, i make a point of checking out material critical of WLC, his arguments and his methods. So far your own vlog has been the most persuasive, and amounts to:

WLC is out of step with the philosophical establishment

the philosophical establishment don't publish him.

This is only a good argument if you actually KNOW that he has articles turned down on grounds of quality.

[wisdominnature7]

@Liodegrance

I’m not privy to editorial decisions of leading philosophy of religion journals; but given there are other quiet conservative philosophers of religion who feature in them much more than Craig, I doubt it’s a liberal conspiracy. Thus, given that it is in a journals interest to publish the good stuff, there is some reason to believe that WLC is not the philosophical super-star his fans suggest.

[Satarack]

@wisdominnature7 If your not privy to such information; how can you make statements like, "Craig struggles to get his papers published in the relevant independent quality journals." Your only evidence for this is that other philosophers seem to have a higher tendency of publishing Journal articles; but in philosophy it is also common to publish books, of which Craig has published more than 20 academic level books.

[Satarack]

@wisdominnature7

Second, quantity of publications does not necessarily correlate with quality and influence. Consider that Quentin Smith is quoted as saying that, "that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence."

[wisdominnature7]

@Satarack

I can claim it by seeing what the leading quality independent journals are in Craig’s field, and how often he gets published in them. RE: Smith’s much quoted quote, we’d need to see how supportive those secondary articles are, and how much of a live issues sweeping arguments for Gods existence currently are: less it be a backhanded compliment. William Lane Craig, as culture war brand, can certainly shift pot-boilers; but its papers in good journals that signify original thought.

[Satarack]

@wisdominnature7 You seem to be dodging my main charge here instead of addressing it. Philosophy is not like hard Sciences where there is a strong desire and need to get published in Journals. But lets take a look at your argument here.

1. Journals only want to publish good work.

2. Craig does not feature as prominently in Journals you surveyed as others.

C Therefore Craig is a not a Good Philosopher.

The conclusion doesn't follow from your statements.

[Satarack]

@wisdominnature7 What conclusion would follow? Craig does not often publish Good articles. But stop a minute, is that because most of the articles he writes are bad? Or is that because he doesn't often write articles to begin with, and the few that he does are good? Finally, that he publishes in one Journal over another doesn't logically tell us that therefore he was forced to publish in the lower quality Journal.

[Satarack]

@wisdominnature7 What I see in your video is a series of presumptions and assumptions, where despite your not being privy to information; you assume it anyway and run with it.

A quick trip of my own to the Philosopher's index did not substantiate your proposed claims about Craig's ability. Is Craig the most prominent philosopher of religion in his day and age? Not likely, but it does not follow from that that Craig is a, "trendy Charlatan," or struggles to get published.

[wisdominnature7]

@Satarack

“Is Craig the most prominent philosopher of religion in his day and age? Not likely…”

Then Thunderf00t and I have a point, do we not, in suggesting that it behoves You-Tube apologists not to keep implying, or occasionally even explicitly claiming, that he is? We are only asking that Craig get the credit he deserves, and no more.

[sonnygll]

I would say WLC is not even a philosopher at all, and Ayn Rand is by far the worst philosopher there has ever been.

I debated plenty of apologists here on youtube I thought were better than WLC.

[Kotherful]

Well said. And fantastic video.

[Artifactorfiction]

Excellent Vid

[EmmittBrownBTTF1]

Considering Craig's usual sources of funding perhaps "evangelicals' muppet" would be an apt description.

[piprod01]

I feel WLC's philosophy often suffers from internal conflicts:

Something cannot come from nothing. The universe came from nothing (a singularity).

He promotes intuitionism in respect to the big bang. He rejects that to begin means, the bringing into existence from a previous state of non-existence.

He claims to not pay attention to objections from people on the internet, he does so routinely.

He tells people to be cautious of popular science, at same time quoting scientists in the popular press.

[kurtilein3]

@piprod01

I dont really understand your comment. I reject that "to begin means, the bringing into existence from a previous state of non-existence.", simply because in the case of the big bang its just totally wrong. Also, it is true that something cannot come from nothing, the universe did NOT come from nothing. An infinitely dense, infinitely hot, and near-infinitely massive object is not nothing, thats just wrong. Time started with the big bang, matter/energy existed forever.

[phookadude]

I think my issue is that there are people who might have a degree in philosophy and then think thier title is philosopher. Rather like having a degree in art and then calling yourself an artist.

[GoblinXXX]

Ayn Rand was full of shit, but at least she did create a philosophy in objectivism. William Lane Craig is just a Christian apologist-- He doesn't even really espouse anyone else's philosophy, much less came up with his own system of thought. I don't see how he could be termed a "philosopher".

[KonijNx2]

WLC has a few very clever tactics when debating and an extremely confident persona (how you say it). I honestly believe that Richard Dawkins is afraid to 'debate' him. I think Dawkins' other reasons for avoiding the confrontation are valid, but I also think he's afraid and I don't blame him. There are few people that can handle WLC in a public debate. I wouldn't say he's dumb, I'd say he's very clever. But of course his philosophy is weak.

[TheCartesianTheist]

Let us not forget though that you [even though being a "trained philosopher" in your own words] had to be corrected by myself [a mere graduate in theology / philosophy] on Descartes.

Also, you might be a "trained philosopher" but that does not mean you know too much about philosophy of religion as a discipline does it? Are you trained in philosophy of religion or philosophy of time? If you are and you never came by Craig then you didn't do sufficient reading.

I'll take Quentin Smith over you.

[shotinthedark90]

Craig is not an original philosopher, he is not a "big player" in the field. That said, he has had a shit load of training (perhaps more than you, but probably not less). Craig functions as more of a popularizer, he stands as a bridge between the more rigorous, technical world of academic philosophy and the general, common sense public. The irony? Well, if that is not what you do here on youtube (even with this very video!), you can call me out, but by God that's what it looks like.

[TheOmegadusk]

I took a philosophy class long ago so let me see if I can get this right: Philosophy is essentially a way to explain how and why we believe in things and what it means to believe in those things from an ethical standpoint. The catch22 is that it is not it is mostly not as clean cut as most sciences are and relies heavily upon abstractions/concepts/semantic­s, which leaves it vulnerable to charlatans like WLC. To the layman philosophy and conartistry are hard or impossible to distinguish.

[TheStigma]

Hey - don't worry. I don't use WLC to judge philosophy. To be fair, using WLC to judge anything that he is also affiliated with (such as being of the human race for instance) would put anyone in a bad light real quick - and I surely don't want to accused of him being on my team - ANY kind of team.

[LaserBlowFish]

+1 for more philosophy done right :)

[sausage4mash]

He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 according to wiki .

I'm uneducated myself and as a layman I always assumed those with a Ph.D were the intellectual elite ,but obviously not if that moron Craig can get one ,perhaps he just has a retentive memory and that's enough. but I would of thought a Ph.D in Philosophy should require a bit more than regurgitating others idea's .

[EdwardHowton]

I have to admit that I used to think philosophy was simply mental masturbation about pointless nonsense like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.

People like Craig would have you believe that that is the case, after all. But, a friend of mine actually went into philosophy at the university level, and liked to bounce some of the subjects they covered (and her essays) off of me, and I got a whole new appreciation for it as a field. It's really quite interesting and useful.

[loveofphysics]

Excellent video, this sentiment you identified is analogous to someone dismissing the veracity of the scientific community based on the celebrity status given to creationists and climate change deniers by the insane right-wing nutters

[srikargottipati]

Good video. You can consider me one of those laymen Atheists who hate philosophy, due to people like Craig or Massimo Pigulucci, and dont understand why Philosophy is a worthful exercise.. I often eel Pilosophy is the Athist version of theology. Again I admit I might be wrong or might have formed a bad stereotype watch a few baddies like Craig. Would appreciate if you could explain to people like me, what is the crux of philosophy, why it is important and its impact on society

[zarkoff45]

@srikargottipati

Wait. I thought Massimo Pigliucci was a scientist, not a philosopher. Not heard too much about him but what I have heard did not lead me to think he was any where near Craig's camp.

[srikargottipati]

@zarkoff45 Massimo has 3 PhD's. 2 in Philosophy and 1 in Biology I guess. So, he is sort of both :)

[sausage4mash]

@srikargottipati Richard Feynman was a philosopher so it can't be all that bad :)

[wisdominnature7]

@srikargottipati

“Would appreciate if you could explain to people like me, what is the crux of philosophy, why it is important and its impact on society”

You know, that might be a good idea for a video :)

[customerjon]

@wisdominnature7 If you do this I will do something nice for someone. I have no money to bribe you with.

[zarkoff45]

Philosophy is the machine code of science? According to Richard Feynman, mathematics is the machine code of science:

watch?v=cGLI65Q7EfI

I am one of those people who have been guilty of dismissing philosophy as mere sophistry but it's not just Craig -- it's also Alvin Plantinga who apparently has published in peer reviewed philosophy journals and taught philosophy at colleges like Notre Dame:

watch?v=oSjRRp_3SSI

Science came to me with the philosophy of Ontological Naturalism built into it.

[2bsirius]

Yes, it's a guffaw to say that WLC is a philosopher who must be taken seriously. So it was surprising to me that his empty chair 'debates' were given space in such prestigious venues.

Imo it makes sense as the cynical question of how much influence money can have academic circles and whether it is a good idea for it to have that influence.

[wisdominnature7]

@2bsirius

I guess prestigious venues make money by putting bums on seats, just like crummy venues do. You cannot of course buy truth; but a wise scholar will, in being alert to all source of erroneous thinking, do her best to keep track of the skiploads of money that people spend trying to :)

[2bsirius]

@wisdominnature7

Yes

[Scarletpooky]

"gaping chest wound" lol