William Lane Craig explaining, indirectly, all the reasons why Richard Dawkins doesn’t want to debate WLC. He is very effective.

I am a firm believer that there are very effective atheistic arguments out there, but I think this movie explains why it takes a particularly selective look at philosophy to connect a naturalistic viewpoint with out-and-out atheism.

You can see some of this tension as Stock admits that he’s some sort of undefinable agnostic-atheist composite.

An Interesting Dismantling of Naturalistic Atheism

11 thoughts on “An Interesting Dismantling of Naturalistic Atheism

  1. There is this NA myth that WLC is a hack. In fact, the opposite is true he is one of the most respected philosophers of religion and time in the world. And, even Hitchens acknowledged this point, for Christ’s sake.

    The main culprit behind the dissemination of this silly misconception about WLC, who has, on a number of occasions, insulted and ridiculed the academic integrity of WLC, despite several prominent philosophers writing him to inform him that WLC is, in fact, a respected philosopher of religion and time with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in these areas, is Richard Dawkins. Surprise, surprise.

    Of course, WLC has beliefs about Christianity that I do not agree with and, in fact, I think him wrong on a number of things. However, what WLC claims philosophically must stand on its own merits and be examined on its own merits, but the NAs seem incapable of understanding this simple point.


  2. I saw this posted a while back but was on holiday so tracked it down. Could not disagree more with WLC’s academic integrity. If you follow the man’s education, read his works, it’s as if Medieval literature finding its revival. On the other hand, he is, and it pains me to say it, a brilliant rhetorician. Really very good. He is also quite a strong logician. This latter part, though, is what tends to cause his arguments to err and I don’t mean that this so due to logical faltering but, rather, inappropriate use. Fortunately, the still prevailing logico-mathematical ‘Either something is the case or it is not / either something is true or it is not’ took a serious hammering at the beginning of the last century and is starting to be recognised as inappropriate when addressing subject matter such as aesthetics, metaphysics, linguistics, etc.. It’s hardly on its knees but at least steps are being taken in the right direction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s