William Lane Craig and the problem with religious apologetics.

My thoughts on one of the biggest problems with the apologetics of religious fundamentalist as demonstrated by Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig. Here is the link to the video I am refering to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William Lane Craig
• Atheism
• Apologetics
• Critical Thinking
• Reason
• Faith
• Religion
• Skepticism
• Lee Strobel.

[kalebparham]

1. Ok, now what if you are like me. I have experienced several things that no amount of logic can explain accept with the existence of God.

2. This video was meant for Christians, not Atheist. It has no purpose in convincing anyone to follow Christ, but to convince those who have faith, but don't want to leave the faith.

[Xigano1]

@Sage80

A Ph.D. in Philosophy does not make one the arbiter of trouth.

[Sage80]

Calling someone a fundamentalist doesn't make you a genius all of the sudden. Craig has his Phd. You're on youtube.... you understand.

[SlykRyk666]

love your video. I despise WLC. He is the slimiest of the slimey IMO. But what motivates him and others like him to deliberately deceive people. He is an obvious Sociopath. Jim Jones comes to mind every time I watch one of these guys in action.

[gatogreensleeves]

"drcraigvideos" literally blocked my commenting on the Krauss debate, which was completely congenial with no ad hominem or insults and was all perfectly pointed philosophically. Guess I'm just venting. No one has EVER made an argument from deism to ancient anecdotal theistic miracles more plausible than the mountain of empirical evidence for mistake, delusion, and agenda.

[Jnest55]

It is also important to note that the video the blogger refers to is meant, not to be evidence for the Bible or Christianity to a skeptic, but an encouragement and strengthener of a Christian believer's faith.

In the context of debate, what Craig said would not be a valid arguement, but what he said was never meant to be...

[Jnest55]

@Jnest55 seeking confirmation for a belief through evidence is in fact quite logical and reasonable. For instance, scientists propose a hypothesis(something they believe could explain phenomina) and then test and look for evidence that would confirm the hypothesis: this is called the scientific method, which Im sure no one would say is circular reasoning.

circular reasoning comes when you use your belief, either directly or indirectly, to prove your belief.

[Jnest55]

cicular reasoning is not seeking confirmation through evidence of a predetermined belief--as the blogger here cited as a "textbook case of circular reasoning"-- rather, circular reasoning is confirming the belief with the belief itself.(ie: we date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils).

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace again, if you'll reread what I replied was not that Galileo did not believe in god but that he and other scientists like him had to go against what was taught & believed in order to understand how the world works. Take Darwin, he also believed in god & went against the creation myth because he saw how creatures seemed to share similar charicteristics. Many other scientists have had to ask the "WHY" to understand how things work. Hope your studies go well ExtremeGrace.