173 replies to this topic

[sthira]

Great stuff, John Ross. Thanks for posting.

Edited by sthira, 28 December 2013 - 02:19 AM.

[johnross47]

This is the easy way to do it........but it's sterile and pointless; it lowers the standard of debate on Longecity. I've posted a few copy and pastes just to show how little skill it takes. But really......I could read all those quoted items myself; I don't need somebody to stick them up here for me. What I want, and what you get elsewhere, is people debating in their own words; trying to set out a coherent case for their own synthesis of all their own studying and thinking.

[Deep Thought]

http://rosarubicondi...gs-cock-up.html

you can view the video referenced via the above link


William Lane Craig's Cock-Up.
Here's a fascinating example of how William Lane Craig tries bamboozles his lay audience with highly technical arguments and how he relies on their ignorance and credulity to get away with it.

In this example he uses a statistical theorem which will be obscure if not unknown to his audience, Bayes' Theorem, and purports to show that it 'proves' the resurrection of Jesus was hugely more likely than unlikely.

Unfortunately, as Richard Carrier, who understands this stuff, shows, his method actually showed that the resurrection could also be shown to be almost impossible using precisely the same technique, and how Lane Craig either deliberately, or through incompetence, made a school-boy error. No one in the audience appeared to notice the sleight of hand, or, if they did, they didn't have the courage to speak out.

Watch it now, and I'll discuss it more in a few minutes to see what conclusions we can draw about William Lane Craig and religious apologetics in general.

Okay?
Hallelujah! Er... or not.
So, by the simple trick of concentrating on just one variable in the equation, Lane Craig seems, to the uneducated, to show that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus actually happening approaches 1 (certainty).

However, his reason for choosing this variable seems to be because it gives the answer he wants, or at least the answer he wants his audience to believe. Had he included the other variable, as he should have done, he would have shown that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus being true approaches zero (impossible).

In fact, of course, you can play exactly the same trick with any mythical event and 'prove' it is hugely likely to have really happened, especially if your audience is credulous and eager to believe it.

So, what can we conclude here?

William Lane Craig has implicitly presented himself as an expert in maths and as someone who understands Bayes' Theorem, and his audience is suitably impressed with this. Here is a 'brilliant thinker, Christian apologist and mathematician' using maths to prove Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead, just as the Bible claims.

So, there are two possibilities here, neither of which are to Lane Craig's credit:
He is as clever as his audience has been lead to believe, and he is deliberately misleading them.
He is misleading the audience about his cleverness in order to fool them.
It is unrealistic to assume that William Lane Craig does not know his audience well, and knows what he can and can't get away with so we can be sure that either one or other of these deceptions was deliberate.

It actually matters not which. The effect was the same: to trick his audience into thinking they had just watched a very clever argument by one of the leading Christian apologists which proved that the resurrection of Jesus was almost certainly true. In fact, all they had witnessed was a trick worthy of any conjurer, snake-oil pedlar, or confidence trickster. Lane Craig knew well enough that the wool between their ears could be pulled down over their eyes, and he knew exactly how to do it.

There is one more thing that this tells us about William Lane Craig and his commitment to truth, honesty and integrity. He claimed, apparently in all seriousness, that Bayes' Theorem, as he presented it, was a compelling argument that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead just as the Bible says. Certainly his audience were convinced by it and he did nothing to disavow them them of that belief.

Why then, now the mathematical error has been pointed out, and Bayes' Theorem has shown, by Lane Craig's own method but without the school-boy error, that Jesus almost certainly didn't rise from the dead, is this suddenly not the evidence it once was? Why is William Lane Craig not touring the country showing how Bayes' Theorem refutes the Christian Bible and the central Christian dogma? He wouldn't be selecting his data would he?

Is this a seeker after truth at work, or a seeker after book sales, speaking engagement fees and TV appearance money?

No prizes for the best answer.

What of the audience?

Well, we know that none of them pointed out Lane Craig's error so either they lacked the maths to spot it or lacked the courage to speak out. One of the tricks religious apologists employ is the 'Emperor's New Clothes' trick. This depends on people either not speaking out because they either don't have the courage to go against the crowd - probably through fear of what the crowd might do to them - or because they persuade themselves that maybe it's they who have the problem; that they saw the mistake or deception but think they are mistaken because no one else has seen it, so they keep quiet rather than look silly. In effect, it's a form of passive-aggressive mob bullying or peer pressure. One wonders how many people come out of a William Lane Craig lecture wondering to themselves why they couldn't follow the intricacies of his reasoning but agreeing with everyone else how brilliant had been his argument, how unarguable had been his conclusions, and how right they are to hold the 'faith' they've just had so brilliantly 'proved' true.

This is a very powerful trick to use on an audience and accounts, at least in part, for so many charlatans getting away with it so often. It's the same trick as is used by preachers and priests on their congregation and by dishonest politician on their voters.

Religious apologists almost invariably talk to audiences composed largely of people who agree with them already and who are there simply to enjoy a celebrity apologist 'confirming' what they already know and to share in that nice warm, self-affirming glow of a shared experience and sense of being part of the in-group. In other words, the audience is already receptive and keen to agree with the speaker. The last thing they are looking for is dishonesty and sleight of hand. Apologists almost invariably speak to credulous audiences eager to agree and have any little doubts dispelled. It's what they are buying and the apologist knows well what he's selling.
- See more at: http://rosarubicondi...h.VED0kPND.dpuf

Good post, it gave me some food for thought.

I think Craig often shows signs of "duping delight". If you watch videos of him, a slight smirk creeps across his face and disappears within 1/3 of a second. So I definitely think he's deliberately lying. If he's smart, he'll know his line of thought is deeply irrational.

Example:
https://www.youtube....h?v=P_6vDLq64gE at 15:50. Her demeanor is scary.

Edited by Deep Thought, 28 December 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[johnross47]

"I think Craig often shows signs of "duping delight". If you watch videos of him, a slight smirk creeps across his face and disappears within 1/3 of a second. So I definitely think he's deliberately lying. If he's smart, he'll know his line of thought is deeply irrational."
I've had the same feeling. Has has a very creepy smug smile at the best of times, but you can see those little moments when he thinks he has scored a trick point and got away with it. I find it impossible to believe that he doesn't see the flaws in his arguments, unless he is only a tiny bit as bright as he advertises. He makes a massive parade of his wonderful arguments, then verbally waves his arms about hoping that, as usual, the audience won't notice he has left the argument behind and made a leap into the dark of faith and unjustified belief, completely detached, logically, from his arguments. He does this so successfully that even someone who says he is a logic teacher doesn't seem to notice. Maybe it's just confirmation bias and a great tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

[sthira]

Is this a seeker after truth at work, or a seeker after book sales, speaking engagement fees and TV appearance money?

Remember, my friends, this is about one thing and one thing only: J-Dolla Bill. Which is fine. Who's against making a buck? But to rob old, scared people is thoroughly deplorable. These mainstream media Christians are not about seeking honesty and truth. They only want money, and they prey on the weak. We do not forget.

[shadowhawk]

Logical fallacies all. Typical Atheist name calling.
GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 December 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[sthira]

Logical fallacies all. Typical Atheist name calling.

Yep. And given the contents and reactivity of your posts that's what you deserve: ad hominem. Oh, and comedy, we don't exclude humor.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: "And given the contents and reactivity of your posts that's what you deserve: ad hominem. Oh, and comedy, we don't exclude humor."

Which posts are you talking about? I deserve ad hominem attacks? Are you the S&M master? Don't forget hate speech and bigotry.
GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 December 2013 - 12:00 AM.

[johnross47]

Try googling different versions of "W L Craig misuse of science" or other similar queries about him. A huge number of highly respectable, and respected scientists and thinkers have complained about his dishonesty; not that he disagrees with them, or argues vigorously, but that he lies, smears and misrepresents. He is accused off practically every offenses against logic, evidence, and proper debate that you can think of.

[N.T.M.]

Why then, now the mathematical error has been pointed out, and Bayes' Theorem has shown, by Lane Craig's own method but without the school-boy error, that Jesus almost certainly didn't rise from the dead, is this suddenly not the evidence it once was? Why is William Lane Craig not touring the country showing how Bayes' Theorem refutes the Christian Bible and the central Christian dogma? He wouldn't be selecting his data would he?

This speaks volumes about WLC's integrity. Simply appalling.

[johnross47]

Logical fallacies all. Typical Atheist name calling.
GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES

You asked me to give just one example of Craig misusing science. I gave you some examples. How many would it take to convince you, or are you invincibly ignorant? Would you like to read comments by Guth and Vilenkin on his misuse of their famous paper showing that a particular model of expanding universe requires boundaries? I could google it for you but your posts suggest you are quite capable of doing it for yourself; you just choose not to.

[platypus]

It seems Christians are intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt? Did God stop having people tortured yet? :D

[shadowhawk]

] johnross47:[/size]You asked me to give just one example of Craig misusing science. I gave you some examples. How many would it take to convince you, or are you invincibly ignorant? Would you like to read comments by Guth and Vilenkin on his misuse of their famous paper showing that a particular model of expanding universe requires boundaries? I could google it for you but your posts suggest you are quite capable of doing it for yourself; you just choose not to.

I did ask you that. Well...I haven’t seen any. Typical name calling and lies.

Let’s take BGV Theorem as an example of your smears since you brought it up. Google some more because you obviously didn’t get it. And you call me “Invincibly ignorant.” OK at times this fits.

This is your evidence. Name calling. How scientific! You sure told me!!!




http://winteryknight...awrence-krauss/




Atheists claim:
“This speaks volumes about WLC's integrity. Simply appalling. “

I am not convinced. Do you wonder why???

Edited by shadowhawk, 31 December 2013 - 02:20 AM.

[johnross47]

"I am not convinced. Do you wonder why??? "
No I don't wonder why. It's pretty obvious.
http://www.ovguide.c...0000000008493d0

If you look at the whole of Vilekin's email it's quite clear that he is merely commenting on Craig's depiction of his theory in a particular paper. He is not commenting on the aggressive use Craig then puts this to in debates. He has however made it clear that it is not right to go beyond the boundary claim to say, as Craig effectively does "God did it" He regards what existed before as a mystery; indeed he regards the very idea of before as being, effectively meaningless, since time only began with the universe. As usual Craig is misusing the evidence. He puts the VGB argument first, then states his own extension of the idea alongside it so that, unless you watch both the conjurer's hands, you will miss the trick of proof by association, which is no more valid than guilt by association. Just stating two things side by side does not make a connection between them

If you want some first-hand accounts of the Craig experience try this. Read on down through all the comments.

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/4212

[sthira]

If you want some first-hand accounts of the Craig experience try this. Read on down through all the comments.

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/4212

Mildly amusing article and comments.  Frankly, the only debate or evidence that would satisfy would come from god itself, and not from yapping interpreters.  If god exists and god wants to say important stuff to us, have at it, dear god.  We have plenty of media outlets to give a communicating god adequate present-moment coverage.  

Speak god, our cell phone cameras are rolling:  tell us presently about life and love, hate and meaning, answer our earnest questions about the big bang and tell us why you permit so much awful suffering in this world.

But god -- whom we're told is such an omni-wonderful father -- remains silent.  That present-moment silence indicates that a) god doesn't exist; b) god exists but doesn't care; c) god exists and cares but we don't get the message; d) maybe god ain't so awesome if god can't get the message plain and clear to us.  Clean up and modernize the message.  Why bother chasing human argumentative tales?  Why the silly middle-men?  Who buys retail?

Is the topic of "god" even worthy of more of our precious time and attention?  We've been debating god for centuries, and still in this present moment, we suffer. 

[johnross47]

If you want some first-hand accounts of the Craig experience try this. Read on down through all the comments.

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/4212

Mildly amusing article and comments. Frankly, the only debate or evidence that would satisfy would come from god itself, and not from yapping interpreters. If god exists and god wants to say important stuff to us, have at it, dear god. We have plenty of media outlets to give a communicating god adequate present-moment coverage.

Speak god, our cell phone cameras are rolling: tell us presently about life and love, hate and meaning, answer our earnest questions about the big bang and tell us why you permit so much awful suffering in this world.

But god -- whom we're told is such an omni-wonderful father -- remains silent. That present-moment silence indicates that a) god doesn't exist; b) god exists but doesn't care; c) god exists and cares but we don't get the message; d) maybe god ain't so awesome if god can't get the message plain and clear to us. Clean up and modernize the message. Why bother chasing human argumentative tales? Why the silly middle-men? Who buys retail?

Is the topic of "god" even worthy of more of our precious time and attention? We've been debating god for centuries, and still in this present moment, we suffer.

I agree. It is a rather sterile debate because we are not able to obtain the information and evidence needed to settle it. Even those whose lives are devoted to it, like Alex Vilenkin and his colleagues, can only make educated guesses. I don't know if anyone here is able to even read their papers; it's not exactly basic maths.
It's interesting, but mostly as a spectator sport. Anyone who claims to know the answer is just blowing stale air from their butt.

There are other questions I find more interesting, such as issues of identity and consciousness. I might start a new topic on those lines.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: If you look at the whole of Vilekin's email it's quite clear that he is merely commenting on Craig's depiction of his theory in a particular paper. SH: The subject matter is Lawrence Krauss’s representation of his quotes of Vilekin’s position. (Watch the debates before you go popping off again about what you know nothing of. He is not commenting on the aggressive use Craig then puts this to in debates. He has however made it clear that it is not right to go beyond the boundary claim to say, as Craig effectively does "God did it" He regards what existed before as a mystery; indeed he regards the very idea of before as being, effectively meaningless, since time only began with the universe. SH. As Usual you are putting words in his mouth. No one ever said he (Vilekin) is a theist, He said the subject was outside his expertse. Rather As usual Craig is misusing the evidence. SH. nonsense .He puts the VGB argument first, then states his own extension of the idea alongside it so that, unless you watch both the conjurer's hands, you will miss the trick of proof by association, which is no more valid than guilt by association. Just stating two things side by side does not make a connection between them SH. What bull. Straw man. Craig never did this.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47:... It's interesting, but mostly as a spectator sport. Anyone who claims to know the answer is just blowing stale air from their butt.

How do you know ?

[shadowhawk]

If you want some first-hand accounts of the Craig experience try this. Read on down through all the comments.

http://freethoughtbl...r/archives/4212

Mildly amusing article and comments. Frankly, the only debate or evidence that would satisfy would come from god itself, and not from yapping interpreters. If god exists and god wants to say important stuff to us, have at it, dear god. We have plenty of media outlets to give a communicating god adequate present-moment coverage.

Speak god, our cell phone cameras are rolling: tell us presently about life and love, hate and meaning, answer our earnest questions about the big bang and tell us why you permit so much awful suffering in this world.

But god -- whom we're told is such an omni-wonderful father -- remains silent. That present-moment silence indicates that a) god doesn't exist; b) god exists but doesn't care; c) god exists and cares but we don't get the message; d) maybe god ain't so awesome if god can't get the message plain and clear to us. Clean up and modernize the message. Why bother chasing human argumentative tales? Why the silly middle-men? Who buys retail?

Is the topic of "god" even worthy of more of our precious time and attention? We've been debating god for centuries, and still in this present moment, we suffer.

C is my choice. Some do not want to get the message and God respects their choice.

[sthira]

[...]
c) god exists and cares but we don't get the message [...]

 
C is my choice.  Some do not want to get the message and God respects their choice.

Dear God, get this message from humanity: please end infinite suffering now, in this present moment and forever, and replace that suffering with infinite love and peace for everything everywhere in any dimension.

[platypus]

C is my choice. Some do not want to get the message and God respects their choice.

...so God now feels that those people need to be tortured forever in hell? Surely God is not that sick?

[johnross47]

C is my choice. Some do not want to get the message and God respects their choice.

...so God now feels that those people need to be tortured forever in hell? Surely God is not that sick?

It is certainly hard to reconcile the descriptions we are given of god's wonderfulness, and the vindictive, racist, narcissistic, unjust bully who commands rape, pillage, slavery and ethnic cleansing, that is worshipped by W L Craig, who in turn, seems to be worshipped by Shadowhawk. But what else would you expect from the made up tribal history of a bunch of bronze age shepherds? They lived by the standards of their day and wrote down self-justifying, self-aggrandising accounts of their history; judging by the space devoted to ranting against the behaviours they must have been particularly fond of incest, bestiality and homosexuality, and felt a strong need to claim divine justification for stealing other people's land and women. We live now with the unfortunate consequences of their psychological issues and their crimes.

[platypus]

Yes. It is also a weird scam when god is "saving" some people from himself, and then selling this as some kind of a happy message for everyone. Wouldn't it be nice if god didn't feel the need to murder and torture? Apartheid and genocide for the unbelievers? What??

Edited by platypus, 03 January 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[sthira]

Imagine an experiment wherein everyone on earth, all seven or eight billion of us, all prayed one simple prayer to god.  We prayed this clear, easily understood message as sincerely and consistently as possible.  We -- all capably sentient earth beings -- prayed it separately and together:

"Dear God: End Suffering Now."

I'm saddened to project that the result would be nothing from god.  We would receive no divine kindness or relief of suffering regardless of our mass needs and our deepest sincerities.  Perhaps we would learn to behave more decently towards one another and other creatures on this planet, but no help of any sort would arise from god.

This leads us to believe that god doesn't exist, or that god simply doesn't care about us or where we live.  Therefore, why would such a negligent god deserve any more of our time and attention?

[johnross47]

"I'm going to make some people and if some of them don't quite come up to spec on me-worship I'll amuse myself by torturing them for eternity."

There are special institutions for people like that and they're not churches.

[johnross47]

In connection with Vilenkin, it does puzzle me when he considers the possibility that "god" might be a formula. To some extent that was put into his mouth....he possibly meant a creative force in a much more vague way. It is rather like the extreme reification of Plato or Penrose to postulate any kind of conceptual entity having a real existence when nothing exists. If by nothing he means a quantum foam, in which there is a great deal of activity it also seems odd to equate it with nothing. Nothing continuous perhaps, but a lot of extremely transient events, some of which might have created our universe. Is that the same as an equation? Is that the same as nothing?
Personally my mental alarms ring whenever anyone reifies anything. As Wiki says;

" Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.^[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.
Another common manifestation is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation but real life may differ from the model (e.g. 'the map is not the territory').
Reification is generally accepted in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically,^[2] but the use of reification in logical arguments is usually regarded as a fallacy."
It would surely be as easy to say that the quantum foam has certain properties, as to say that a formula describing it has real existence outside of our minds. Always bearing in mind that the whole thing is hypothetical anyway.

[sthira]

What difference would it make beyond theoretical value if we knew the answers to these perplexing cosmological questions? Would fewer children be born with cancer? Would humanity stop whittling away ecosystems and eliminating fragile species? Would we have cleaner air, water, and lands?

[shadowhawk]

[johnross47]

What difference would it make beyond theoretical value if we knew the answers to these perplexing cosmological questions? Would fewer children be born with cancer? Would humanity stop whittling away ecosystems and eliminating fragile species? Would we have cleaner air, water, and lands?

I doubt it would make much difference. The believers would still believe, and the doubters would still doubt. Each would still accommodate environmental abuses within their beliefs.

[DukeNukem]

How many bones does God have? Given that he made us in his image, I imagine the answer is 206? Shadow?