I've been spending the day reducing our stock of Christmas chocolate and reading up on William Lane Craig. He's the thnking man's Ray Comfort. What's really annoying about him is that is has half an understanding of maths/physics/cosmology and uses it without shame against his heavyweight debate opponents (e.g. Hitchins), who have no hope of countering his bullshit as they are simply too out of their depth in that area. It pisses me off, because five minutes with me or anyone else suitably positioned would have him considerably downsized. However, here Dennett shows that 1) you don't have to be emmersed in the field to smell the crap; and 2) calling bullshit can be done in the most nuanced and gentlemanly fashion. Enjoy...
Edited by cavediver, : ABE: Just to add, this is audio only - the picture is a still, in case there is any confusion...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
It pisses me off, because five minutes with me or anyone else suitably positioned would have him considerably downsized.
I highly doubt this. Downsized in your terms perhaps, but not in the eyes of the audience. People like him knows how to really impress the audience with bullshit. Michael Shermer not too long ago had a debate with a creationist I can't remember right now. Shermer's weakness was he had too much faith in the audience and really thought they could see through his opponent's bullshit. In the end, though, Shermer turned out to look like a fool.
Cave, I'm willing to bet that if you ever take up debate with one of these bullshitters, you're going to get pwnzed up and down. In a debate like that, bullshitters usually win anyway because they aren't bogged down by facts and integrity.
Added by edit.
By the way, that was hilarious. Thanks for the vid.
Added by edit again.
I found this vid while watching the hitchin craig debate again. Enjoy!
I highly doubt this. Downsized in your terms perhaps, but not in the eyes of the audience...
Cave, I'm willing to bet that if you ever take up debate with one of these bullshitters, you're going to get pwnzed up and down.
Against the Hovinds and his ilk, I would agree 100%. I wouldn't even attempt to debate them. BUT Craig is different - he actually is an academic, an intellectual, and that is what makes him debatable. His teleological argument, his cosmological argument and his fine tuning argument compose at least half of his arsenal and all fail at the hands of those intimately familiar with the material - and it's not difficult to do so but you just need the knowledge. Have you ever seen anyone here try to get past me with the KCA? And that was while I was still a Christian
he actually is an academic, an intellectual, and that is what makes him debatable.
But obviously, he's not debatable even if he's an academic. Any true academic should have realized his own argument as bullshit long before he decided to bring it to the table. We're not just talking about differing opinion. We're talking about bullshit sprinkled in chocolate.
I highly doubt this. Downsized in your terms perhaps, but not in the eyes of the audience. People like him knows how to really impress the audience with bullshit. Michael Shermer not too long ago had a debate with a creationist I can't remember right now. Shermer's weakness was he had too much faith in the audience and really thought they could see through his opponent's bullshit. In the end, though, Shermer turned out to look like a fool.
Yes, I remember. It was Shermer and Hovind. It was painful to watch Shermer being pawed by Hovind, especially when considering the actual weakness of Hovind's material.
The thing is that Hovind comes to debates prepared. Shermer, thinking he could wipe the floor with Hovind, underestimated Hovind's oratory skills and his determination. Hovind has thousands of slides that he memorizes and a list of retorts to most evolutionist questions.
Hovind could sell ice cream to eskimo's. He just has natural affinity for debate. Consequently he knows jack shit about science. The problem is neither do most people. So he is able to swoon them through his bullshit.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
BUT Craig is different - he actually is an academic, an intellectual, and that is what makes him debatable.
I agree. Craig is a learned scholar, whereas some of the other one's are just clowns dressed in business suits.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Against the Hovinds and his ilk, I would agree 100%.
Indeed that is playing to their strengths. Popularist notions of common sense as opposed to counter-intuitive evidenced arguments.
BUT Craig is different - he actually is an academic, an intellectual, and that is what makes him debatable.
I don't know his arguments but is that true? Or is he just making popularists common sense arguments in a more intellectual sounding way? Like I say I don't know his arguments (I am gonna look them up) I just wondered how true that was as it seems that he wouldn't really have an argument at all if what you say is true.
His teleological argument, his cosmological argument and his fine tuning argument compose at least half of his arsenal and all fail at the hands of those intimately familiar with the material - and it's not difficult to do so but you just need the knowledge.
What knowledge does one need, at a minimum, to effectively counter these arguments?
Have you ever seen anyone here try to get past me with the KCA?
Yes.
And that was while I was still a Christian
I wasn't here when you were a Christian but I thought some form of cosmoloigical argument was at the basis of your Chritianity - at least initially in some sense?
How did you reconcile your religious beliefs with your cosmo knowledge? Or was that what ultimately led you "astray"?
Just interested. Not looking for some in depth debate on your one time beliefs.
Yes, think of C S Lewis, but actually philosophically competent His arguments are of course completely polarised by his faith, but he is a true philospher. And like most philosphers who theorise on time and cosmological implications, he only knows half the story which results in meaningless garbage. It's just that his meaningless garbage has an unbreakable Christian bias.
What knowledge does one need, at a minimum, to effectively counter these arguments?
A thorough knowledge of where we stand on our understanding of time, space-time, cosmological models, multi-universe scenarios, what's considered plausible, what's not considered plausible. In addition, you need the ability to wield these concepts with ease and with authority. It must be second nature. I would honestly say that only a small minority of scientists who described themselves as comsologists would be in this position - it requires a ridiculously specific set of research interests (Genereal Relativity, Quantum Gravity, Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, the Question of Time, etc) - those mentioned by Dennet would all be more than suitable. So expecting generalist intellectuals (outside their respective fields) such as Dennett, Hitchins, Dawkins to be able to argue such stuff is extremely unreasonable.
I wasn't here when you were a Christian but I thought some form of cosmoloigical argument was at the basis of your Chritianity - at least initially in some sense?
No, not in the slightest. I became a Christian at age 14 as I liked (needed) the idea of a patron deity, and evangelical Christianity was being pushed at me at the time. By the time I started in research I was convinced that the Universe didn't need a creator, I just belived that it had one.
Or was that what ultimately led you "astray"?
No - intellectual reasoning had been watering down my evangelical theology for years, and EvC made me realise that I had much more in common with the atheistic outlook than any of the Christians I knew. Crashfrog, Brian, and others forced me to realise the complete intellectual bankruptcy of Christian belief. I have spent seveal periods of a few years at a time back-slidden from my faith, but the actual step of announcing to myself that I no longer believe was extremely hard and formed one the biggest moments in my life.
And that was while I was still a Christian 
His arguments are of course completely polarised by his faith, but he is a true philospher. And like most philosphers who theorise on time and cosmological implications, he only knows half the story which results in meaningless garbage. It's just that his meaningless garbage has an unbreakable Christian bias.
™ Version 4.2