Author: firstcauseargument
7915View
2m 11sLenght
116Rating

Atheist blogger Luke Muehlhauser (of commonsenseatheism.com) warns atheists not to underestimate William Lane Craig*. Well over the majority of immature and naive youtube atheist videos and blogs have either deliberately lied about Craig, completely misunderstood his argument, or dodged many of Craig's written and audio/video material. It's no wonder the majority of these skeptics and critics are not educated in history, science, religion or philosophy. Better thinking atheists, however, are catching on to the dishonest display many in their unbelieving community have of him; and are actually calling them out on it! * - http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2996 Do Not Underestimate William Lane Craig by Luke Muehlhauser on September 2, 2009 I have repeatedly asked atheists not to underestimate or dismiss Christian apologist William Lane Craig. ... when discussing his favorite topic, the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence, I think Craig is remarkably clear, philosophically rigorous, and scientifically informed. I will even say he almost always understands the philosophical and scientific issues in play better than his professional critics, who are physicists or philosophers themselves. This should be no surprise, as Craig has dedicated his life to those issues. However, atheists often throw out naive objections that they assume must defeat the argument. I think the subconscious thinking of the atheist may go something like this: 1.If the Kalam cosmological argument is sound, then atheism is false. 2.But atheism isn't false, because God is very improbable (due to the argument from evil, the absurdity of magic, etc.) 3.Therefore, there must be a problem with the Kalam cosmological argument somewhere, and I don't need to bother understanding Craig's responses to every objection that has been offered. This is similar to a common reasoning tactic of the believer, what ex-apologist called "modus tollens-ing" any objection to theism: 1.If objection x is sound, then theism is false. 2.But theism isn't false, because argument y is sound (or, because I know God to exist from my personal experience of him). 3.Therefore, objection x is not sound. I think atheists raise many objections to the Kalam argument that they would never think to raise if they didn't know that (according to the Kalam argument) they implied a Creator. For example, it seems to me that some atheists object to the causal principle ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") only after they see it as Premise 1 of Craig's argument. They would never think to object to the causal principle otherwise. The fact is that Craig holds his own very well against scientific objections from professional physicists, and -- amazingly -- seems to understand the scientific issues better than they do. On top of that, he always understands the philosophical issues better than they do. Just to drive my point home, here's a video of Craig answering high-level questions about the Kalam argument from philosophers and physicists, including some former debate opponents. Craig's understanding of the scientific issues is astonishing (and his understanding is only increased by the recent contributions of James Sinclair to Craig's chapter in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)...