From xkcd: Guy: “I used to think correlation implied causation. Then I took a statistics class. Now I don’t. Girl: Sounds like the class helped. Guy: Well, maybe. The guy’s worry in this comic sounds silly, but it’s actually a fairly good depiction of how I feel whenever someone asks/tells me, “You have a lot [...]
Category Archives: William Lane Craig
Using vs. mentioning arguments
Posted by Chris Hallquist on June 17, 2011
17 comments
Note: the following bit is something I wrote specifically for a new book I’m working on, tentatively titled: Angry Atheists?: Why Anti-Atheist Backlash is Silly. At the end, I’ll throw in a bit of explanation of where the book will take the discussion from there, and I’d very much like feed back on it, whether [...]
Biblical scholars are not a bunch of baffled skeptics (also: Craig lies about Ehrman)
Posted by Chris Hallquist on June 10, 2011
12 comments
William Lane Craig would like you to believe that Biblical scholarship is made up of people who accept that all the major details of the Biblical story of Jesus’ resurrection are facts, who accept that there is no good non-miraculous explanation for those facts, and if they reject the resurrection do so only out of [...]
How William Lane Craig misleads his followers
Posted by Chris Hallquist on June 3, 2011
26 comments
Ever since going to the Harris-Craig debate, Craig has been on my mind an awful lot. There’s one thing I’ve alluded to here and here, and meant to do a post on, but kept putting off: the fact that Craig works very hard to give his followers a false impression of the facts on key [...]
More on Luke’s endorsement of William Lane Craig
Posted by Chris Hallquist on May 25, 2011
5 comments
I’ve said that I don’t think William Lane Craig deserves the praise that Luke Muehlhauser has heaped on him. But in my previous post on the subject, I said have less than I could have about why I’m not impressed with Craig. In particular, I didn’t respond to the many specific points Luke has made [...]