Jesus: UL?

Great Debates
81

No, I would say that the point is that Craig seems to have philosophical objections to a highly speculative branch of physics (after all, even if there is a before the Big Bang, you’d never be able to see it, so how on earth would you prove or disprove your hypotheses?). You, in turn, state by fiat that he’s misunderstanding things and that because he, in your (thus far unsubstantiated, IMO) view, has a misconception (of which he may not even be aware), he’s dishonest and unreliable in all else as well.

Though I give you kudos for at least attempting a cite, it is not one that, on the face of it, helps your argument one bit. Were you to find a cite that shows that Craig is unreliable as a philosopher or theologian or historian, then you’d have a leg to stand on. Alleging that his philosophical objections to physics are ignorant has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.

:rolleyes: Let me repeat this again: just because you feel he is dishonest does not make him so. In fact, the vast majority of us seem to feel that you’ve shown nothing of the case. And you’re really stretching to claim that being mistaken is being dishonest (especially as you haven’t yet demonstrated his being mistaken: he’s not objecting to the science per se, but to the philosophy). And of course, while ascertaining what caused the Big Bang is a crucial point, it also lies outside the realm of experiment at present, and can hence hardly be called real scientific inquiry.

Ahem. “It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer upon initial inspection” is nothing more than code for “I think it’s true and I can’t demonstrate it.” If you wish to claim that Craig is intentionally misleading, you need to support that claim, not merely assert it and expect it to stand on its own. Further, if a person has an honest misconception of something and builds an argument upon that misconception, he’s only dishonest if he realizes said misconception. Otherwise, he’s merely mistaken. And if you don’t think that people in academia ever have misconceptions, you obviously haven’t been paying enough attention to the history of science. People thought the earth was at the center of the universe. People thought that there was an ether. People had no conception of relativity or quantum mechanics, and yet they based arguments upon their current understanding of the world. Would you then claim that they, too, were being dishonest?

Really, this grows tiresome. If he is intentionally misleading, then he is of course a liar. Otherwise, being mistaken (if he is mistaken) about physics is irrelevant. I, for example, do quantum field theory calculations all day long. Were you to ask me about, say, chemistry, I could tell you what I remember about it, but I might, in fact, be mistaken. Does this then make me an idiot or a liar?

82

Even if we grant these points are the crux of his argument (which I don’t), you’ve obviously missed the point. We are talking about a highly esoteric branch of physics here – one which is extremely speculative in nature, and presently beyond verification. If Craig happens to err on some of these points, does that necessarily make him an idiot? Or a liar?

No, you merely found a page full of perceived errors, not necessarily lies. (I say “perceived” because various posters have already pointed out some of the errors in your attack on Craig.)

Come on. You keep asserting such things, and you appear to be vastly outnumbered in your assessment.

Besides which, you seem awfully quick to assert that Craig never got his objections published. In reality, he has – multiple times, in fact. Check out the “publications” section of his web page, which includes the following (among others):

*  "The Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Infinite Temporal Regression." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 59 (1977): 261-279.
*  "A Further Critique of Reichenbach?s Cosmological Argument." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (1978): 53-60.
*   The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan & Co., 1979; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979, 208 pp.
* P- The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino: Here?s Life, 1979, 107 pp.
  • “God, Time, and Eternity.” Religious Studies 14 (1979): 497-503.
  • “Whitrow and Popper on the impossibility of an Infinite Past.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (1979): 165-170.
  • “Wallace Matson and the Crude Cosmological Argument.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1979): 163-170.
  • “Dilley?s Misunderstandings of the Cosmological Argument.” New Scholasticism 53 (1979): 388-392.
  • “Kant?s First Antinmony and the Beginning of the Universe.” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 33 (1979): 553-567.
    • The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, London: Macmillan & Co., 1980; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1980, 305 pp.
    • P - “Philosophic and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 32 (1980): 5-13.
    • “God, Creation, and Mr. Davies.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 168-175.

Not the same thing, and you know it. Nowhere did he claim that something must be seen in order to have physical relevance. This is a classic example of the Straw Man Fallacy, of which you purport to be familiar.

So those are the only two options? Absolutely no other options are available?

I suggest that you read about the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. I’m sure that teh web site which you cited will explain it in sufficient detail.

83

And when these hypothesis are not supported by empirical evidence (e.g the “universe within a meta-universe” idea), they are essentially useless and can be reasonably discarded. Unless, of course, you think we should give serious credence to the possibility that we are nothing but brains floating in a Matrix-like VR simulation.

In fact, Craig explicitly acknowledged several of these hyopthesis – including the quantum fluctuation theory of which you spoke. Rather than ignoring these ideas (as you seem eager to believe), he acknowledged them and presented philosophical arguments against these claims.

84

No, they can’t. The idea of the quantum fluctuation in a vacuum is a very promising idea. It cannot be discarded just because you don’t like the implications.

The difference between your Matrix simulation idea and the quantum fluctuation idea is that the quantum fluctuation idea has great explanatory power, and leads to new avenues of research. This is the process called science: a phenomenon is poorly understood; a hypothesis is offered which explains the phenomenon; the hypothesis is then tested against the data; predictions of the hypothesis are then tested. If the hypothesis passes through all of these stages, it becomes a theory.

The quantum fluctation hypothesis is currently in the testing of predictions stage. This is quite difficult, though, as you can imagine. Better technology will most likely be needed before the hypothesis can be tested with any rigour.

Of course, if you have no interest in science, or in understanding the universe you inhabit, you are free to discard whatever ideas you wish.

He only mentions them to sound smart, and to fool people into thinking that he actually cares about science. In this way, he bamboozles people into thinking that he actually has some credibility.

But, as I have pointed out, Craig is wrong on nearly every point. Either he is mistaken, and hence intellectually dishonest and sloppy, or he is a liar.

Would you like door #1, or door #2?

85

Jubilation,

Which of the articles you listed deals with the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. You know, the one where Craig lays this hypothesis to rest.

When I asked why he hadn’t published his objections, it was in reference to this idea.

I would be very interested to see his objections to this idea.

86

I would dispute that Craig has philosophical objections. He has theological objections, that he cloaks in philosophical language to give them an appearance of credibility.

And, I am not stating anything by fiat. My main objection, which I think can hardly be disputed, is that it is not a logical necessity for the universe to have begun at the Big Bang. And Craig’s dismissal of all ideas which belie his wish that this was so points out his dishonesty.

Craig is wrong on several points, the most important of which is his insistence that the Big Bang implies by logical necessity that the universe had a beginning. This is plainly not true. Here is one article, picked basically at random, on the quantum fluctuation idea:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

I want to emphasiz here that I am NOT saying that this is how the Big Bang happened. I am just saying that it is a possibility, and the fact that it is a possibility shows that there is no logical necessity that the universe began at the Big Bang.

Call that a philosophical, theological, or scientific objection. Whatever you call it, Craig is clearly wrong. And the fact that he would be so lacking in skepticism, and so willing to jump to unwarranted conclusions on something so momentous as the beginning of the universe shows that he is at best intellectually sloppy, and at worst a liar.

Perhaps I haven’t been explaining this very well.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume for the moment that Craig is merely mistaken. Let’s say that he is merely misunderstanding the implications of quantum theory. What does this say about him? Well, clearly he is not shy about using the Big Bang theory to bolster his claims. So, he is willing to incorporate science into his ouvre. Now, what are the implications of this?

If one is willing to accept certain claims of science, one is bound to accept, at least in part, the scientific method. To not do so would be to discredit the very ideas you have accepted already, for it would say that the ideas that were correct were correct basically by random luck. You must accept the skepticism which is intrinsic to the scientific enterprise.

Thus, if one uses an idea of science, and discards another, in order to claim some scientific validity, this can only be done after a rigorous examination of these ideas. And clearly Craig has not done this.

Craig has by no means been able to dismiss the quantum fluctuation idea. (If he has, please point me to the article.) He merely sweeps this under the rug with a wave of the hand.

This, my friend, is dishonest.

It is dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because it does not suit one’s wishes. And this Craig has done repeatedly.

That is not true. There is another possibility. Oftentimes people will intentionally avoid trying to clear up their misconceptions. And this is dishonest.

Craig knows about the quantum fluctuation hypothesis. He knows it is taken seriously by numerous scientists. Thus, it is his obligation to understand it thoroughly before he dismisses it. To not do so is intellectually dishonest.

No kidding? You mean people have had misconceptions before? Well I’ll be damned, I thought scientists always only believed the truth! :rolleyes:

It would, if you found an idea in chemistry that you did not fully understand, and dismissed it without fully exploring it.

BTW, what is the ground state energy of the helium-2 atom?

87

Just passing through, but I just wanted to point out the irony of discrediting the gospels because they possibly were written 40-100 years after the fact and thus not by eye-witnesses but having no problem with the Big Bang which we didn’t start seeing the evidence of until a few billion years afterwards.

88

themoon, I’m not sure what you think you’re trying to express here, but it looks as though your attempts to discredit Craig in the realm of scriptural exigesis are utter failures.

You jump from “he shoulda knowed better” to “he’s dishonest” with the implication that if he is less than perfect in his exposition of dogma-used-to-view-science, then he must be equally flawed in any other area.

First off, your leap to “dishonesty” seems to be a deliberate and willful denial that people can make honest mistakes, even bad mistakes, given their beliefs and upbringing. Demanding that that situation be seen as dishonesty is, itself, less than completely honest.

Second, there are numerous examples of people who are quite learned, even brilliant, in one field, whose attempts to do serious thinking in another field fall flat on their face. (Or should we recognize that we really have no solid state electronic components in any of our modern devices because the man who got a Nobel prize for the transistor became a blithering idiot on the subject of race and intelligence?)

If you have specific evidence that Craig has falsified information or ignored genuine evidence when publishing on the subject of scripture, then present it. Otherwise, simply drop this fruitless attack on his person, because it is not doing anything to help your reputation. (This resembles your insupportable dismissal of the Tektonics site; I have found stuff there with which I disagree, but it is hardly in the same category as the utterly false sites found on Jack Chick’s page.)

89

First of all, you’re the one who asserted that Craig never published his ideas on this hypothesis. Since you’re the one who made that claim, I invite you to substantiate it – unless, of course, you hold Craig and your critics to a much higher standard than what you’re williing to follow.

Second, I invite you to read his various publications on the Kalam cosmological argument. The following may prove particularly useful:

  • Discussion by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 125-129, 148-157.

  • “The Caused Beginning of the Universe: a Response to Quentin Smith,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993): 632-633, 635.

And third, even if Craig did NOT publish his ideas, does this mean he was unwilling to do so, or that they lack validity? Hardly. As any true scholar knows, there can be any number of reasons why someone doesn’t get around to publishing a particular idea. Besides, one might as well ask why YOU don’t get your objections to Craig published in a Philosophy journal, thereby earning credibilty for yourself.

90

You keep saying such things, which shows that you miss the point. It all depends on what you mean by “discarded.”

If you mean that we can’t say it’s ABSOLUTELY not possible, then your statement would have merit. By the same token, we can not “discard” the notion that we are living in a vast VR simulation, or that we are living out a cosmic version of the Truman Show.

However, that doesn’t appear to be the sense in which Craig is “discarding” the quantum hypothesis. Rather, he’s arguing against the plausibility of this hypothesis, rather than its mere possibility. (Notice that he nowhere claims that “imaginary time” is meaningless or absolutely impossible. Rather, he merely says that the hypothesis based physicalizing “imaginary time” is physically implausible and “does not seem to be even physically intelligible.”

It is perfectly reasonable to “discard” hypotheses which are bereft of empirical evidence (e.g. your meta-universe idea). Similarly, it is reasonable to “discard” hypothesis which appear to highly implausible, due to either scientific or philosophical grounds. (I, for example, would be inclined to discard any hypothesis which totally rejects the philosophical notion of causality, a fundamental basis for the scientific method.)

91

tomndebb wrote:

Huh huh, you said “exigesis”! :wink:

92

Are you just alleging that his stated philosophical objections are thinly disguised religious propaganda with no rational basis whatsoever? It seems to me like you’re doing so, in which case I’d like to know how you know his stated philosophical objections aren’t actually so?

No, you’re missing my point entirely. I also see no logical necessity to conclude that there is no “before” the Big Bang. However, that Craig has a different view does not make him dishonest, and that you are stating by fiat.

Then I guess you’ll have to lump all the scientists who have ever reached unwarranted conclusions in with him.

It would be dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea merely because you don’t like it and claim to have done so on scientific grounds. It would be dishonest to state that such a dismissal constitutes scientific proof. It is not dishonest to dismiss a scientific idea on philosophical grounds. How do you think science advances? It’s hardly monolithic, and it’s certainly conceivable that multiple scientific explanations can be offered on some observation. When this happens, philosophical objections are important in helping us to decide what we accept and what we reject.

For instance, I could propose that nuclei are held together by incredibly tiny invisible green guys, and develop a whole formalism about ITIGG forces. No sane scientist would accept my hypothesis, even if it happened to agree with current data, because they would have a philosophical objection to it (i.e. they’d apply Occam’s Razor).

:confused: Ermm… if you don’t know you have a misconception, why would you try to clear it up? Should I go clarify my misconception that my login name is g8rguy? I could be wrong, after all. Maybe y’all see me logged in as Billy Bo Bob. You’ll pardon me if I don’t run off checking up on this, I trust.

Just wanted to make sure. After all, you’ve already effectively asserted that in academia, no sloppy thinking would occur, and this is surely not the case.

banging head against his desk If I never stated a scientific objection to something that I knew I failed to completely understand, I’d never state any objections at all, and nothing would get done. If I stated a philosophical objection to a scientific idea, I’ve done what scientists have been doing for centuries. Einstein had philosophical objections to quantum mechanics; I suppose he was a liar (or an idiot, if you prefer).

The ground state electronic energy of neutral helium is about -2.905 hartrees. Why? What does this prove?

93

Wait a minute – a helium-2 atom?! There’s no such isotope!

A “helium-2” nucleus would have to consist of 2 protons and no neutrons, which wouldn’t be able to hold itself together. The lightest isotope of helium is helium-3.

94

Excellent example!

Laymen (and misinformed non-laymen) often think that science has no need for philosophy. Quite the contrary is true. Science is predicated on philosophical tenets, such as causality and Occam’s Razor. In fact, we can legitimately refer to science as The Philosophy of Nature, according to a philosopher-academic that I once studied under.

So it is perfectly reasonable to reject a hypothesis on philosophical grounds. Scientists do it all the time.

Moreover, what of themoon’s statement that NO serious scholars believe that ANY of the gospels were written by their putative authors. Since this claim was shown to be false, is this not sloppy thinking? Should we automatically dismiss anything that you say, themoon, because of this error?

Another excellent point! Laymen (and the occasional, misinformed non-layperson) also often think that scientists fully understand what they expound on. The most knowledgeable scientists, on the other hand, recognize that they seldom (if ever) fully understand what they are studying. This does not prevent them from presenting opinions and objections on the matter.

Blast it, gr8guy! I was going to use that example. Dang you! Dang you to heck!

95

Or did you mean helium II (with a Roman-numeral 2), which signifies the superfluid state of liquid helium?

96

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by g8rguy *
**

Well presumably, if you had provided the wrong answer, this would be conclusive proof that you are a liar and/or a moron – and that your views on history, archaeology and Biblical exegisis are therefore incorrect. :rolleyes:

So, themoon, will you tell us which journal articles you have published, containing your thorough dissection of Craig’s viewpoints? After all, if Craig’s notions must be published (which they are) in order to have validity, surely we can hold you to the same standard. Right?

97

Oh yeah, right. I guess I must be a liar and/or a moron because I didn’t know what he was getting at. :smiley:

And JThunder, sorry I stole your example, and thanks for the kind words, man. [sub]what, you tryin’ to make me blush?[/sub]

98

Shouldn’t it be “gr8guy”? Just wondering…

Anyhoo, I’ve been thinking about this thread, off and on today. It has me intringued. The thing that really interests me here is the divergent reaction people of different viewpoints have upon reading William Lane Craig. Of course, these same reactions would probably be observed if Craig was substituted with any random fundy. The phenomenon is an interesting one, nonetheless.

I think I have some insights to share with you all that you will find quite valuable. You will want to pay careful attention to these nuggets of wisdom I am about to impart unto you. My background is in mathematics, so some of what follows will use some concepts from maths to explain my thoughts. Hawking says that every equation you use reduces your readership by half, so I will not use any equations. Anyway …

When I first came upon Craig’s article about the Big Bang, and his “philosophical” objections to explanations that do not involve Jeebus, it seemed obvious to me that Craig was being dishonest. It was obviously not so obvious to several other posters here. I have asked myself why this is the case.

The first question I asked of myself is, “could I be wrong about Craig?” Could it be that I have misjudged him, and that he really is an honest seeker after the truth? I then went back and re-read the article in question to see if my appraisal of him had been wrong. I honestly went through the article with an open mind, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

After reading the article, I was left pondering for a while. While there was no real glaring instance of him telling an outright lie, the article, taken as a whole, WAS dishonest. It lead in the direction away from the truth, and toward a pre-conceived notion that Craig had wanted to reach before embarking on his task. How, I asked myself, did he get to such a place without taking a huge misstep somewhere?

Then something dawned on me, and lead me to a revelation of sorts about the way apologists work.

This is where the mathematical bit comes in, and I think you will agree, it is quite clever. Bear with me for a moment.

Take out a pen, and draw a smooth curve on a piece of paper, with a big right turn, but one that does not have a sharp corner. Now, place the paper at a distance. If you look at it from a distance, you see a big turn. However, and this is the clever bit, if you “zoom in” on the curve, the curve will appear more straight. If you have drawn the curve smoothly enough, the further you zoom in, the more straight the curve will appear. Get close enough, and the curve will be indistinguishable from a straight line. In mathematical language, a smooth curve is homeomorphic to a straight line; for any tolerance, you can get close enough so that the difference between the curve and the straight line is less than the tolerance specified.

What does this have to do with William Lane Craig?

Well, what Craig has done here is make a big right turn away from the truth. But, he has done it using a succession of small untruths. At each step, he makes statements that seem plausible. They are close enough to the truth, that to the untrained, or uncritical, they seem like the truth. But, when you add them all up, they add up to a big lie.

This seems to be Craig’s strategy. If he wants to arrive at a conclusion, he does not go there by the direct, obviously dishonest, route. Rather, he “zooms in” on the problem, and makes his steps small enough so that he can appear to be traveling on an honest path to the truth. He does not just say, “Jesus created the universe,” he starts out by saying, “the quantum fluctuation idea has been discredited,” and then proceeds along these sorts of lines, until he gets to his goal, “Jesus created the universe.”

This sort of strategy is quite common among apologists, if you will reflect on the various apologists you have read. If they ever get to a sticking point, they “zoom in” on it, making the steps smaller and smaller, angling them in such a way that they arrive at the untruth they wished to reach in the first place.

This is why it is so important to be critical when examing these sorts of ideas. Even the smallest diversions from the truth can add up to a huge lie. And, indeed, isn’t this the point of the scientific method? We weed out all of the little untruths, however innocuous, because they might end up leading us into the valley of falseness.

Anyway, thanks for reading through this. It has been quite enlightening for me, and I hope it has been helpful for you also.

99

Not to be a dick themoon, but I think you overestimate the originality of your idea. It is indeed a good analogy, but that explanation is quite common, minus the line-drawing and mathematical terminology.

100

Oh.

Well, I’m sorry if the idea is not original. I didn’t mean to say that nobody else had thought of it before me. I’m sure somebody else has thought of it. I just thought it was a good idea, and I did think it up using my own brain. Sometimes I can do that.