Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, March 6, 2014

William Lane Craig: Not Even Wrong

William Lane Craig is a professional debater and a public speaker.  And he's very good at it.  Craig has an excellent stage demeanor, and I enjoy watching his debates.

Craig is what the ancient Greeks would describe as a modern day Thrasymachus, or the Greek sophist in Plato's Republic.  Thrasymachus's day gig was teaching the art of debate--commonly known as rhetoric or sophistry.  The useful tools of rhetoricians and sophists are a whole host of logical fallacies.  Wikipedia provides a formidable listing here.  The better these tools are utilized without detection, the better the rhetorician, and therefore the higher chances of winning a debate.

Detecting logical fallacies is a formal study in itself.  Debunking bullshit not only requires skill in detecting the fallacies, but requires an good understanding of the subject at hand.  Sophisticated subjects utilize their own jargon, so meanings of words, theories, and processes become muddled to the average listener.

That's why clarification is at the top of the list for MTSU's Philosophy Department head, Dr. Bombardi.  In his Elementary Logic classes, Dr. Bombardi provides a checklist for what he calls the seven steps for argument analysis.

1. Clarify meanings (a premise could try and define a word or use euphemisms)
2. Identify the conclusion(s) and specify the premises
3. Portray the structure
4. Detect assumptions (what is not stated in the premises)
5. Consider other relevant arguments
6. Consider other relevant arguments
7. Formulate an overall judgment

Keep these steps in mind as you watch Craig argue his preconceived notions about a vague god and its intervening in the natural world.  Craig reaches his conclusions based on distant probability--a probability that may as well include pink unicorns, garden fairies, Zeus, and celestial teapots.

In this video, Craig is debating Dr. Sean Carroll.  Carrol just happens to be an actual professional theoretical physicist and an atheist.  Craig does his usual pitch up to the 28 minute mark.  Carrol exposes Craig's tactics in this debate.  But don't take my word for it--check it out.


  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKCmG0h807U

  2. So when one tries to rename the concept of God as "The Flying Spaghetti Monster", all while retaining EVERY property of God and adding NO properties whatsoever, then tries to do a sleight of hand by switching the definition of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" from the one that is the same as the one of God to one that is, well, a flying spaghetti monster...would that not be the very definition of equivocation?