|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
CrashTestAuto
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satarack

That does not follow.  The fact that Dr. Craig had already believed the conclusion before he developed his arguments tells you nothing about what Dr. Craig would have done had you gone back into the past to present these arguments to him before he had become convinced of the conclusion.  In fact it seems to make it more likely that should this happen that he would be convinced of the conclusion by the arguments, given that he must have been amenable to the conclusion from the fact that he arrived at it apart from the arguments he gives.

That isn't what I was getting at.  My point was, if the only people who consider an argument successful are a fraction of the people who already accept it's conclusion, then this is good reason to be suspicious of the argument.  William Lane Craig passionately supports his arguments because he already believes their conclusion, and also because he has built his entire career on them.  This basically undermines any weight that his acceptance of the arguments lends them.  Given the sheer volume of opposition they have received from basically everyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that Craig is simply biased.
johnBee
Reply with quote  #17 
I don't find this video to be very helpful given that it was taken out of context from the original debate. However... having watched(or listened) to the debate in full, I can assure you that the arguments presented by Robert Price were very impressive given that he chose to opt-out from challenging the arguments of the debate in favor of attacking WLC instead.

Having said that, aside from saying he didn't find the evidence convincing, what did Robert Price bring to the debate?
Based on what I've heard, I'd have to say, not very much.

Lawlessone777
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
That isn't what I was getting at.  My point was, if the only people who consider an argument successful are a fraction of the people who already accept it's conclusion, then this is good reason to be suspicious of the argument.  William Lane Craig passionately supports his arguments because he already believes their conclusion, and also because he has built his entire career on them.  This basically undermines any weight that his acceptance of the arguments lends them.  Given the sheer volume of opposition they have received from basically everyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that Craig is simply biased.

This thread is absolutely rife with logical fallacies. I honestly lost count of quite a few of them. Your post here, Crash, makes a blatant argument ad populem by stating that the number of people who hold to a particular belief weight against the validity of the argument. Your claim that they should be considered defunct because there has been a lot of criticism of them is also an obvious argument ad populem as well as an argument from authority. You're also making a blatant ad hominem attack by going after the character of WLC instead of his arguments. You're attempt to claim that WLC's arguments should be considered faulty because his motive for doing so is obvious Christian Evangelism is a blatant appeal to motive. Finally your attempt to appeal to the fact that WLC's belief in God stems from his personal witness of the Holy Spirit and not on his arguments is a flagrant genetic fallacy. Then you're tying this altogether with kettle logic and attempting to present it as a logical refutation of his arguments.

I have genuinely never, in my life, seen so many logical fallacies crammed into a single paragraph such as this. This post made by Lucid is simply rife with these logical fallacies, and are in no way even remotely close to correct. This is the perfect, pure, and complete definition of ad hominem in it's most obvious sense. Simply posting a claim that is peppered with logical fallacies and then responding to complaints that there are logical fallacies by saying, "Anyone who thinks these are fallacies is wrong." is itself a logical fallacy. This is blatant kettle logic and obviously flawed from the very get go. Seriously, it's honestly depressing that you think attacking William Lane Craig will somehow refute his arguments. Start doing some honest philosophy and talk about the arguments, not the person. This is brain poison.
Lawlessone777
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Many christians here seem to think that anything other than a direct engagement with Craig's arguments amounts to nothing more than ad hominem attacks. But I think that this is actually a diversionary tactic to discount the very reasonable, very real criticisms of Craig's flawed mentality

I want to respond to this particular part alone because it is so logically flawed, and so obviously a cover for a blatant ad hom I simply need to underscore it. Claiming that your blatantly ad hominem argument is not ad hominem, and then accusing anyone who calls you on your obvious ad hominem argument of putting forth a red herring is completely asinine and an obvious appeal to consequence. If you want to personally attack William Lane Craig then that's fine, go ahead and allow this thread to degenerate into childish name calling. However don't substitute good philosophical discussion of his arguments with this exercise in name calling. Accept it for what it is.
CrashTestAuto
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777

This thread is absolutely rife with logical fallacies. I honestly lost count of quite a few of them. Your post here, Crash, makes a blatant argument ad populem by stating that the number of people who hold to a particular belief weight against the validity of the argument. Your claim that they should be considered defunct because there has been a lot of criticism of them is also an obvious argument ad populem as well as an argument from authority. You're also making a blatant ad hominem attack by going after the character of WLC instead of his arguments. You're attempt to claim that WLC's arguments should be considered faulty because his motive for doing so is obvious Christian Evangelism is a blatant appeal to motive. Finally your attempt to appeal to the fact that WLC's belief in God stems from his personal witness of the Holy Spirit and not on his arguments is a flagrant genetic fallacy. Then you're tying this altogether with kettle logic and attempting to present it as a logical refutation of his arguments.

I have genuinely never, in my life, seen so many logical fallacies crammed into a single paragraph such as this. This post made by Lucid is simply rife with these logical fallacies, and are in no way even remotely close to correct. This is the perfect, pure, and complete definition of ad hominem in it's most obvious sense. Simply posting a claim that is peppered with logical fallacies and then responding to complaints that there are logical fallacies by saying, "Anyone who thinks these are fallacies is wrong." is itself a logical fallacy. This is blatant kettle logic and obviously flawed from the very get go. Seriously, it's honestly depressing that you think attacking William Lane Craig will somehow refute his arguments. Start doing some honest philosophy and talk about the arguments, not the person. This is brain poison.

Lawless, please read whole posts.  You are a really good poster when you aren't going down the whole arrogant, logical fallacy, brain poison route.

I've already clearly stated that Craig's arguments fail on their own merits.  I am not arguing that we should doubt e.g. the KCA because it's supporters are biased.  I think we should doubt the KCA because it is completely unsupported.

What I am saying is that the only reason to give the KCA any further attention is because it has a lot of support, including from someone with two doctorates.  If it can be (and has been) shown that this support is based on personal bias, and not objective reasoning, then we have no reason left to give it attention.

Effectively, I am saying that the KCA etc. are bad arguments, and empirically the only people who think they are good arguments believe their conclusions for unrelated reasons.
Lawlessone777
Reply with quote  #21 
Actually crash I was referring both to this post, and your previous one. Let me quote you your post from the front page:

Quote:
A complete lack of objectivity in addressing an argument's worth, or any other evidence is a bad thing.  There is no ad hom fallacy here, because the arguments aren't the things being attacked.  The motivations forsupporting the arguments are being attacked.

 In attacking someone's motivation for supporting an argument you are, as I stated in my previous post, making an appeal to motive. A logical fallacy. Lucid also made a blatant ad hominem in the opening post by presenting that video, and in your previous post you said:

Quote:
That isn't what I was getting at.  My point was, if the only people who consider an argument successful are a fraction of the people who already accept it's conclusion, then this is good reason to be suspicious of the argument.  William Lane Craig passionately supports his arguments because he already believes their conclusion, and also because he has built his entire career on them.  This basically undermines any weight that his acceptance of the arguments lends them.  Given the sheer volume of opposition they have received from basically everyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that Craig is simply biased.

Again, appeal to motivation, you're going after the fact that William Lane Craig has built his career on these arguments and so you're saying his motivation undermines any weight that his acceptance lends them. What you're saying is the only reason why WLC believes the arguments to be true is because they support this existence of God, and because he built his career on them, not because they are technically correct. This is, as I stated before, an obvious and blatant ad hominem fallacy. You are attempting to attack and undermine the character of William Lane Craig in an attempt to discredit his arguments.

My arguments stand, I do read your posts, and your attempt to undermine by complaints about what you're saying by accusing me of not reading your posts and opening by saying that I'm a "good poster when I'm not going down the whole arrogant, logical fallacy, brain poison route" was again, another fallacy.

My annoyance with this whole shindig stands, honestly Crash, is this where you want academia to go? Do you want debates to boil down to the opponents questioning the others motives, attacking them for believing in God for reasons other than their arguments, or appealing to populus, motive, or authority? Do you honestly want to stop talking about the arguments, and start talking about the individuals?

I've seen the atheists on this board make a thread trying to justify why it's okay for them to mock believers. There's currently a thread on the front page where atheists are trying to justify why it's not okay for believers to mock them back. And now you're attempting to justify why it's okay to substitute good argumentation for questioning motives, or making ad hom fallacies? It's not the personal attacks on WLC that surprise me, honestly if you go to any youtube channel where his videos are posted you'll find the atheists there spew nothing but vulgarity and vitriol, what genuinely surprises me now is the fact that you're trying to justify why its' okay. And it's really not. Let's not make threads trying to say why it's okay to attack WLC and start making threads discussing philosophy, theology, and science.
Lawlessone777
Reply with quote  #22 
Actually crash I was referring both to this post, and your previous one. Let me quote you your post from the front page:

Quote:
A complete lack of objectivity in addressing an argument's worth, or any other evidence is a bad thing.  There is no ad hom fallacy here, because the arguments aren't the things being attacked.  The motivations forsupporting the arguments are being attacked.

 In attacking someone's motivation for supporting an argument you are, as I stated in my previous post, making an appeal to motive. A logical fallacy. Lucid also made a blatant ad hominem in the opening post by presenting that video, and in your previous post you said:

Quote:
That isn't what I was getting at.  My point was, if the only people who consider an argument successful are a fraction of the people who already accept it's conclusion, then this is good reason to be suspicious of the argument.  William Lane Craig passionately supports his arguments because he already believes their conclusion, and also because he has built his entire career on them.  This basically undermines any weight that his acceptance of the arguments lends them.  Given the sheer volume of opposition they have received from basically everyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that Craig is simply biased.

Again, appeal to motivation, you're going after the fact that William Lane Craig has built his career on these arguments and so you're saying his motivation undermines any weight that his acceptance lends them. What you're saying is the only reason why WLC believes the arguments to be true is because they support this existence of God, and because he built his career on them, not because they are technically correct. This is, as I stated before, an obvious and blatant ad hominem fallacy. You are attempting to attack and undermine the character of William Lane Craig in an attempt to discredit his arguments. You opened with this by saying, "It's a good reason to be suspicious of the argument."

My arguments stand, I do read your posts, and your attempt to undermine by complaints about what you're saying by accusing me of not reading your posts and opening by saying that I'm a "good poster when I'm not going down the whole arrogant, logical fallacy, brain poison route" was again, another fallacy.

My annoyance with this whole shindig stands, honestly Crash, is this where you want academia to go? Do you want debates to boil down to the opponents questioning the others motives, attacking them for believing in God for reasons other than their arguments, or appealing to populus, motive, or authority? Do you honestly want to stop talking about the arguments, and start talking about the individuals?

I've seen the atheists on this board make a thread trying to justify why it's okay for them to mock believers. There's currently a thread on the front page where atheists are trying to justify why it's not okay for believers to mock them back. And now you're attempting to justify why it's okay to substitute good argumentation for questioning motives, or making ad hom fallacies? It's not the personal attacks on WLC that surprise me, honestly if you go to any youtube channel where his videos are posted you'll find the atheists there spew nothing but vulgarity and vitriol, what genuinely surprises me now is the fact that you're trying to justify why its' okay. And it's really not. Let's not make threads trying to say why it's okay to attack WLC and start making threads discussing philosophy, theology, and science.
lucid
Reply with quote  #23 
Quite a lot of you jumping to Craig's defense, which is funny because I think we've effectively shut the door on him here. His motivation is not to be a good historian, it's to save souls. So why bother listening? 
 
He only offers arguments out of a technical need to, and not because the arguments themselves are innately persuasive. Indeed to many people see them to be quite obviously unsound in many ways. But there is no point in telling him that because he's already decided that counter arguments are merely an example of the unsaved ignoring Jesus' knocking at the door of their heart.

While he presents himself as some scholar giving an objective analysis of the facts his core intention is not to do actual historical research in order to determine which parts of the gospels are most likely true: No, he has already decided that the gospels must be true and is committed to their religious message. 

As Price puts it -

"His entire enterprise is circular since he grounds christian belief in a subjective state described already in christian theological terminology" 

Furthermore, this presuppositionalist dogma means that he slaps a label on every person who offers an objective critique of his arguments, calling them "unbelievers" - not because he thinks they are sincerely unconvinced by means of objective analysis, but because they have not yet had their souls saved via a subjective experience described in the gospels!. 

Any honest scholar will be open to the possibility that new evidence can change his mind, or that his current beliefs may be false in some way - that is the point of being objective and unbiased, but Craig doesn't have this problem. 

He is incapable of even considering that his own arguments may be fallacious, or that skeptics really do hold reasonable doubt. Because in his mind he has already decided that such skepticism must mean that he is a poor apologist for Jesus, and not that skeptical views of Jesus are in any way valid. 

Price again -

"He is so committed to the party line, that he cannot see the truth as being anything but that party line"

Indeed if anyone here is to be accused of ad hominem argumentation, it is Craig! For in his mind, every person who critiques his arguments or fails to find them convincing is merely hiding some guilty secret and feigning disbelief, or as he puts it "casting up a smokescreen" of false intellectualism. 


Blake1960
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
Quote:
That isn't what I was getting at.  My point was, if the only people who consider an argument successful are a fraction of the people who already accept it's conclusion, then this is good reason to be suspicious of the argument.  William Lane Craig passionately supports his arguments because he already believes their conclusion, and also because he has built his entire career on them.  This basically undermines any weight that his acceptance of the arguments lends them.  Given the sheer volume of opposition they have received from basically everyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that Craig is simply biased.

This thread is absolutely rife with logical fallacies. I honestly lost count of quite a few of them. Your post here, Crash, makes a blatant argument ad populem by stating that the number of people who hold to a particular belief weight against the validity of the argument. Your claim that they should be considered defunct because there has been a lot of criticism of them is also an obvious argument ad populem as well as an argument from authority. You're also making a blatant ad hominem attack by going after the character of WLC instead of his arguments. You're attempt to claim that WLC's arguments should be considered faulty because his motive for doing so is obvious Christian Evangelism is a blatant appeal to motive. Finally your attempt to appeal to the fact that WLC's belief in God stems from his personal witness of the Holy Spirit and not on his arguments is a flagrant genetic fallacy. Then you're tying this altogether with kettle logic and attempting to present it as a logical refutation of his arguments.

I have genuinely never, in my life, seen so many logical fallacies crammed into a single paragraph such as this. This post made by Lucid is simply rife with these logical fallacies, and are in no way even remotely close to correct. This is the perfect, pure, and complete definition of ad hominem in it's most obvious sense. Simply posting a claim that is peppered with logical fallacies and then responding to complaints that there are logical fallacies by saying, "Anyone who thinks these are fallacies is wrong." is itself a logical fallacy. This is blatant kettle logic and obviously flawed from the very get go. Seriously, it's honestly depressing that you think attacking William Lane Craig will somehow refute his arguments. Start doing some honest philosophy and talk about the arguments, not the person. This is brain poison.


Truth! Well said Lawless.
Blake1960
Reply with quote  #25 
>>> I've already clearly stated that Craig's arguments fail on their own merits.

You state lots of nonsense absent any supporting evidence whatsoever, for instance repeatedly asserting that Dr. Craig is "dishonest" or a "deceiver." I can hardly stand reading the forum due to the copious amounts of such disingenuous and malicious bile obviously intended to defame Dr. Craig.

Please wake up and do your jobs moderators!

These malicious defamers have not invited us into their house like the tax collectors and other low people did for Jesus; rather they have barged into your house and taken up rudely disrespecting the forum code of conduct aiming to malign and defame Dr. Craig. Justice and love of truth and honor cry out for action.

Please don't let this wonderful forum be trashed by such hostile God-haters.
tcampen
Reply with quote  #26 
I think the point was lost here. I agree personal attacks get us nowhere, but I don't think that is really the point here. But this has nothing to do with WLC's arguments or their merits. It's about apologetic tactics and the "does it really matter" factor. 

It is beyond dispute that WLC asserts arguments to the effect of "if my arguments have not convinced you, then it is my fault of not articulating them well enough", etc. He has also often admitted that there is no evidence or logical argument, regardless of how powerful or credible, that could convince him his religious faith is wrong due to his personal, subjective experience-based beliefs. 

Whether WLC's arguments hold water should obviously stand on their own, regardless of who is asserting the propositions. Done. But when so many of use do not find his logical arguments convincing philosophically, and when WLC himself admits that even if incontrovertible arguments or evidence proved his positions wrong he would still not change his beliefs, and when WLC himself admits that faith isn't about the convincing nature of these arguments as one can come to the lord validly via personal experience, then it is a fair question to ask what is the point?  Why should his arguments matter to us, when ultimately, they really don't matter to him?  
Matthias
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcampen
Whether WLC's arguments hold water should obviously stand on their own, regardless of who is asserting the propositions. Done. But when so many of use do not find his logical arguments convincing philosophically, and when WLC himself admits that even if incontrovertible arguments or evidence proved his positions wrong he would still not change his beliefs, and when WLC himself admits that faith isn't about the convincing nature of these arguments as one can come to the lord validly via personal experience, then it is a fair question to ask what is the point?  Why should his arguments matter to us, when ultimately, they really don't matter to him?  
Well, primarily because the reason you should care about the arguments people present isn't to be fair to them, but because you care about the truth (if you care about the truth.) The principle of charity is for your benefit, not the other party's, and you should ideally steel-man every argument you come across.

Where I think the legitimate intuition here may lie is that knowledge of Craig's bad faith may change your priors about the logical uncertainty of whether his arguments are valid. Oftentimes when someone presents an argument and it seems just wrong you think to yourself, and often justifiably, surely I'm missing something? If you know they're just throwing out whatever they think will stick, you may not find it worth your time to figure out what if anything makes it work. You may also want to look elsewhere for arguments for the same position, and you may want to discount the probability of factual assertions he makes. 

However, as best I can see Craig's arguments have frequently been adopted by people who seem to be in good faith, so this heavily qualifies the above. 

Perhaps Craig should be compared to a publicly avowed Satanist who claims to believe in God, but wants to deny Him souls and so gives bad-faith (lol) arguments for atheism. There's a sense in which you might subject any of her bad faith atheological arguments to heightened scrutiny, but in the end if they're valid they're valid, whether or not she cares that they are. Further, all things being equal we'd like for people like Craig or the hypothetical Satanist to be open about their bad faith, and they may well have adopted their bad faith position for good faith reasons, so it's not clear that such a stance should be reviled.
harvey1
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcampen
He has also often admitted that there is no evidence or logical argument, regardless of how powerful or credible, that could convince him his religious faith is wrong due to his personal, subjective experience-based beliefs. . . when WLC himself admits that even if incontrovertible arguments or evidence proved his positions wrong he would still not change his beliefs, and when WLC himself admits that faith isn't about the convincing nature of these arguments as one can come to the lord validly via personal experience, then it is a fair question to ask what is the point?  Why should his arguments matter to us, when ultimately, they really don't matter to him?


WLC's position is a little more complex than this. Read this Q&A for a more complete perspective of his views.
lucid
Reply with quote  #29 
Unbelievable. People here are so touchy. 

Again, I stated at the outset that I expected the christians here to immediately categorize any critique of Craig's methodology as ad hom. No surprise there. 

What I'd like to know is how many of you actually think that his approach to truth is commendable? 

I mean would you accept it if an apologist for Islam gave you some arguments for mohammed being gods messenger, but then qualified these arguments by admitting that if you have doubts, everything you say in response will be rejected simply because you have not personally had a revelation of Allah? 

What if this apologist said, "If you don't find my arguments convincing, it only means that I'm a poor apologist, not that you aren't accountable to allah and his messenger. You are simply an unbeliever casting up a smokescreen of intellectual denial

Is this an acceptable methodology to you? Can you find no fault with it? What would the point be of even bothering to engage with the so called arguments of this islamic apologist if they were only offered cynically, and if he was going to reject everything you said in response anyway due to his dogmatic presuppositions? Would it be ad hom to criticize his methodology as being circular and pointless as far as historical analysis is concerned?


harvey1
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
What I'd like to know is how many of you actually think that his approach to truth is commendable? 

I mean would you accept it if an apologist for Islam gave you some arguments for mohammed being gods messenger, but then qualified these arguments by admitting that if you have doubts, everything you say in response will be rejected simply because you have not personally had a revelation of Allah? 

What if this apologist said, "If you don't find my arguments convincing, it only means that I'm a poor apologist, not that you aren't accountable to allah and his messenger. You are simply an unbeliever casting up a smokescreen of intellectual denial

Is this an acceptable methodology to you?


It's not a methodology. If someone has an experience that they really believe is something that happened to them, then I would expect them to hold to that viewpoint. If they didn't, then they must be lying to themselves. For example, if tonight you were visited by some alien species, and unlike what you hear this was the first contact by an alien species with an earthling and against all odds it happened to be you, then I would think you would hold to the truth of that experience regardless if you didn't have a shred of evidence to support your experience. I would think that you would be as cocky as the Muslim preacher that that encounter happened to you.

The issue is not the person who had the veridical experience. They have what they consider to be sufficient evidence to hold their view (whether that it should be sufficient we can and should be skeptical -- but if they are convicted of that evidence nothing more can be said -- nor can we accuse them of not having warrant to believe what they believe). Rather, if they try to convince others, now we can hold their hand to the fire and demand evidence for their beliefs which aren't based on their experience. After all, they could be lying, mentally ill, or someone slipped LSD in their coffee. We can certainly listen to their claims and try and determine if they are in a position to know what they claim, how convicted they appear, etc., but we have to be skeptical of claims that have no means to collaborate their claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
Would it be ad hom to criticize his methodology as being circular and pointless as far as historical analysis is concerned?


If your attack is on the person and this attack is irrelevant to their argument, then of course it's an ad hominem.

All you have to do is watch the movie "Contact" and that'll explain everything.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.