Difflugia wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:55 pm
historia wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:18 pmI don't always agree with Craig or Ehrman, but I've never seen them as dishonest, so I'm always a bit surprised by such assertions.
Questions for debate:
(a) Is William Lane Craig dishonest?
(b) Is Bart Ehrman dishonest?
(c) If not, why do some atheists here think they are?
I've mentioned this before, but William Lane Craig is dishonest in ways that are considered acceptable in forensic debate, but not academic debate. It's exactly the reason that lawyers have a reputation for being dishonest, despite most lawyers being honest to a fault, at least by a specific definition of honesty. As far as I can tell, his academic work is honest and rigorous by academic standards. His debates and apologetic arguments would be considered dishonest by those standards, generally in the form of "half-truths" that omit important details or give an impression different than the literal truth of the statement. He also likes to make claims about "most scholars," but his methodology for such claims is completely opaque, even in his footnoted, published works. When Craig is judged as dishonest, he's arguing as a lawyer does, but being judged as one would a scientist.
If that description alone doesn't make what's going on immediately obvious, pick any of his debate transcripts. He uses the same tactics and often repeats the same arguments, so if you don't think one is representative, pick another. I'll be using
the first transcript from
this list.
In general, most of Craig's "facts" are debated by scholars and when he implies any sort of consensus ("most critics"), he is tight-lipped about how he arrives at his conclusions. Presenting these literally as "facts" with little or no qualification, as he does here, would be considered dishonest in academic discourse. Since virtually everything he claims falls into this category, I won't be picking them out individually.
Here are speific examples of statements that are dishonest for other reasons.
Opening statement:
- "Mark is an instance of ancient biography, not creative Jewish storytelling." Ancient biography includes creative storytelling. I would expect Dr. Craig to know that.
- "Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb." This is debated, but Craig presents is as unqualified fact
- "In Mark’s account, there is no proof from prophecy cited..." In Mark, prophecy is only quoted by Jesus. Since Dr. Craig is talking about the empty tomb scene, Jesus wasn't present. Perhaps someone less familiar with the Gospels than Dr. Craig might be honestly sloppy or honestly fail to notice, but the lack of prophecy doesn't mean what Dr. Craig wants it to imply.
First rebuttal:
- "Dr. Crossley didn’t offer any refutation for this; indeed in his work he indicates he believes in the historicity of Jesus’ burial in the tomb." Dr. Crossley just finished his opening statement. He was not expected to rebut anything Dr. Craig said in his opening statement. This is rhetorically dishonest.
- "And as Dr. Crossley admitted in his last speech, in dealing with the Gospels we are talking about a genre of historical writing, namely ancient biography, not anecdotal creative storytelling." As it was in his opening statement, this is again a false dichotomy. The difference now is that Dr. Crossley has explained that ancient biography and creative storytelling are not mutually exclusive. If, somehow, Dr. Craig didn't know that to start with, he does now. While I wouldn't expect Dr. Craig to concede such a point in the middle of a forensic debate, such concessions are expected during academic debate. To one more familiar with the latter than the former, Dr. Craig appears dishonest.
Anyway, I hope I've made my point, mostly because I'd rather not read the rest of the debate. Dr. Craig is honest when viewed through a very particular lens It's a valid one, but at the same time, it's not the one through which most are viewing the material. Atheists and Christians alike think that Dr. Craig's arguments are intended to be honest beyond the adversarial contexts of forensic debate and Christian apologetics. I don't think they are.
That's excellent as a primer. I've had a look at some of the links and there is a purpose in having debates and disagreements, not only between theists and atheists but in their own camps. It is how points of dispute are resolved.
Yes, Dr. Lane Craig IS a presuppositionalist, which is a position to take but will come under question because the Basis is not there other than trusting the Bible and opting for faith based dismissal when it fails to support that supposition.
I would like to see some salient disputes (either between Carrier and Ehrmann or between Lane - Craig and the others) and see what seems the best argument. I remember being very surprised (and even alarmed) when one of these (I think it was Carrier) said that Persia was hated by the Jews. Well, he may have meant the Romans, or even the Macedonians, but they were fine with the Persians. Cyrus was even regarded as a Messiah for being used by God to free the Jews from Exile. From then on so long as the Jews didn't rebel Persia was cool with them; and as long as Persia left their religion alone, the Jews were fine with them. The 2nd temple even had a 'Susa gate' in honour of the Persian capital.
Just sayin' anything and anyone can be questioned.
Presupposition is rife and rampant in this :
"Mark is an instance of ancient biography, not creative Jewish storytelling." Ancient biography includes creative storytelling. I would expect Dr. Craig to know that.
"Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb." This is debated, but Craig presents is as unqualified fact
"In Mark’s account, there is no proof from prophecy cited..." In Mark, prophecy is only quoted by Jesus. Since Dr. Craig is talking about the empty tomb scene, Jesus wasn't present. Perhaps someone less familiar with the Gospels than Dr. Craig might be honestly sloppy or honestly fail to notice, but the lack of prophecy doesn't mean what Dr. Craig wants it to imply."
I get the point 1. This sounds like saying what happened, not OT Mythology. But that doesn't make it right, nor does it make Jewish Myth wrong as Lane - Craig believes the Flood (even saying that all the wicked babies had it coming ...don't ever make me Dictator, as my first order would be to put Lane - Craig on trial for extreme social antipathy)
2 Matthew (he means the synoptics) and John have different stories built on the claim of an empty tomb. That was Claimed to impart credibility (as all 4 agree the empty tomb) but that is (I argue) the basic claim of the resurrection and the contradiction eliminates Mark and John as independent confirmation rather than independent fabrication. Either Lane -Craig hasn't considered that (admittedly, few do consider it) or he doesn't care. After all Evidence doesn't matter - Faith does. That's what Presuppositionalism does.
It's pretty weak to say that Mark has no prophecy. That somehow makes it more credible eyewitness? The fact that Matthew generates reams of Prophecy, just as Luke generates reams of parables and John spews carboys of turgid sermons by no means adds credibility to Mark as such, though true, it does make his version look the earliest to the story.
I've said before that I don't think that Lane - Craig on the Resurrection has any real case. Though he may cleverly dress up problems to look like frank honesty about eyewitness slips, just as a brutal contradiction is supposed to show they are both credible eyewitnesses. There is nothing to do but disagree and say just why.
”
"
