Activity

jakelafort posted an update 5 years, 7 months ago

Listened to the video of William Lane Craig and Roger Penrose.

Apart from some thought provoking notions about cosmology it was painful to listen to Craig. He is so unctuous and lacking in integrity that if there were truth in advertising the man would introduce himself as a professional charlatan who makes Christianity a little less embarrassing for believers.
- Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  I like William Lane Craig. In what way do you think he lacks integrity? He’s just got his ideas and he sticks to them. But he’s also very analytical. I’ve never felt he lacks integrity.
- D replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  His own words:
  
  I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.
- Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  That may seem off, to us rationalists, but I think he’s talking about the difference between the logic of love or compassion, and the logic of the physical universe.
- Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  But in a way, the two are separate domains, so it’s hard to see how they could contradict. Compassion has to take hard facts into account.
  - jakelafort replied 5 years, 7 months ago
    Craig posits dogma and does his utmost to reconcile science with mythology. He utilizes the same words and phrases repeatedly in a manner similar to a fortune teller so that the broadness of his language is more difficult to criticize. Further the language he utilizes gives a flavoring of sophistication where none exists. It is obvious he has worked long and hard on his craft. In doing so he has given an appearance of being respectable in his polemics and world view that is as meretricious as a pill that is claimed to be a panacea. By extension he gives theists with a conscience and a modicum of intelligence an excuse to remain in the cult. Integrity requires honesty. When we begin our journey of discovery we can never attain it if we adopt a world view that requires the abdication of reason and the constant defense of the indefensible. I understand religion (Christianity) from two perspectives. First it is a political institution. In this vein we merely need to examine what it has done and its effects. Second it makes some claims about describing reality. In this way it is in conflict with science. As to the former it is an institution that has a dreadful history, one that has done incalculable harm. Craig is an intellectual Christian soldier attempting to continue that harm. As to the latter he is full of shit. I did not feel like expanding. Simon i have no idea how you arrived at your interpretation of Craig. The quote unearthed by Davis is powerful and speaks for itself on the subject of integrity. How you got to where you did is beyond me.
    - Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      Love has a logic of its own. That’s not an abdication of reason.
      
      jakelafort replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      Simon what is the nexus between Craig and love? As i see it being an active apologist and gearing one’s efforts toward perpetuating Christianity is not love.
      
      Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      You could say there are two kinds of truth: truth as utility, and truth as reality. These were at the heart of the debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. JP was saying that what is useful is true, and SH’s line was that what is real is true.
      
      Christianity, on the one hand, professes peace and love. But reflecting the two sides of morality, and like the dark side of the bright moon, it punishes harshly too.
      
      jakelafort replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      I could not say there are two kinds of truth. Truth is not aesthetic unlike the designed lie which is aka religion.
      
      Taken as a whole any passages in the bible that are advocating peace and love are negated by a tenor that is all about power, maintaining an unjust social hierarchy and the contemporary mores which are a little awful…
      
      D replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      Simon, if you create a second realm of truth to suit whatever world-view you like then that becomes relatively free of being challenged and free of negation. It may seem harmless to you when it comes to “love” (though I would argue it is not harmless being thoughtless in the realm of love) but it is not the case when it comes to other world views. Imagine if I put say, white-supremacy in it’s own domain that was outside of the “rational logical world”. I posited that this domain had its own internal logic and that what every supported it, whatever about it was useful “was true”. Suddenly this seems a lot less palatable doesn’t it? Just because it is a religion doesn’t make it any less toxic. Apologists have gone to crazy lengths for 2000 years to shield their beliefs from actual rigorous critical thinking and challenges. When you can only engage intellectually with a person on their own idiosyncratic (or institutional) terms that person is really free from whatever criticism they choose to be free of. This is NEVER a good thing. This is ALWAYS a bad thing. Peterson and Lane-Craig are exceptionally intellectually flawed in this way.
      
      Simon Paynton replied 5 years, 7 months ago
      
      But if we assume that love has its own logic – then it’s possible to contradict it, with greed or anger. It’s negatable. If there was something useful about white supremacism, then I would be forced to recognise it.
- _Robert_ replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  William Lane Craig’s debates lack integrity, quoting his opponent out of context, never actually addressing questions directly and his voice alone is akin to fingernails against a blackboard.