Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about William Lane Craig. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Craig maintains that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. Craig is not convinced that the "current evolutionary paradigm is entirely adequate" to explain the emergence of biological complexity, and he is inclined to think that God had to periodically intervene to produce this effect. He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and was a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.

This is confusingly phrased, possibly due to a deliberate attempt on his part to obscure his views, but imv it doesn’t make sufficiently clear that he believes in intelligent design. If I’m a reader, I don’t want to click through to find out the finer points in opinion of every organization he’s ever belonged to and every paper he’s ever written, I want to see on the face that he does or does not believe in X or Y. This is not an area I have a lot of experience with, though, so I’ll defer to more experienced editors. Postleft (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Postleft!

Looking at the sources I'm not sure that he does subscribe to Intelligent Design in the sense that Wiki's main article describes it. I think we would need a good secondary source of his view on that that fits intelligent design rather than teleological argument. The current phrasing is probably closer to what the sources describe his views are than a direct reference to a term that is disambiguated here. Squatch347 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance! Postleft (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"This is confusingly phrased, possibly due to a deliberate attempt on his part to obscure his views." It's called nuance. Also, I'm not sure what you're confused about. Craig believes the most current and popular version of the theory of evolution is unconvincing; he's skeptical about the position. He believes there isn't good evidence for a monophyletic origin of life, and he believes the evidence is instead consistent with a polyphyletic origin of life. There's a recent three-minute video on the channel Capturing Christianity on YouTube titled Dr. Craig Reveals His Beliefs on Evolution where Craig explains his views in terms that you may not find confusing. It's also worth noting that a person can be skeptical of the theory of evolution or aspects of it while making no commitment to Intelligent Design. 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

His nuanced views on well established scientific theories are irrelevant unless they have been covered in-depth and in significant detail in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If the goal is to find out what Craig believes with regard to evolution, then do yourself a favor and listen to what Craig says he believes with regard to evolution. Simple. I don't see how Craig's on words from his own mouth about evolution is an unreliable source for what Craig believes about evolution. You may want to rethink that position. Or you can continue to speculate and lie about his position on evolution. 'Well-established' isn't synonymous with best explanation or explanation with the best evidence, btw. 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT the goal? Wikipedia reports on what the reliable independent sources say about Craig. We have zero interest in his words UNLESS they have been reported by somebody independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The goal of Wikipedia is not to publish accurate information. I agree. But if somebody wants accurate information about Craig's beliefs on evolution, then they should listen to Craig's own words about his beliefs on evolution. I refer back to that YouTube video. And if a source that you call 'reliable and independent' contradicts Craig's own words about his own beliefs, then it should be ignored since it doesn't correspond with reality.2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously it does. On one hand we have speculation and misinformation about Craig's beliefs on evolution from 'independent and reliable sources.' On the other hand we have Craig's own words, coming from his own mouth, about his views on evolution. I refer back to that YouTube video.2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please suggest which parts of the well sourced article are incorrect and provide independent sources to support your assertion. I have zero interest in watching a YouTube video. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Any piece of information found in this article with regard to Craig's views on evolution that is in contradiction with Craig's own words about his views on evolution are incorrect, obviously. But in order to compare what has been curated in this Wikipedia article with what Craig himself said with his own mouth, you must watch the three minute video of Craig explaining his views on evolution. I don't care if you have zero interest in the truth. As I said before, my words are for those who are interested in reality. And your zero interest in watching a YouTube video is odd in light of the fact that this very article uses YouTube videos as sources. The difference is the YouTube video I am referring to is new while the YouTube video this article refers to is from 2009. What's more, the 2009 video is from the YouTube channel DrCraigVideos which is controlled by Craig himself. Is that what you meant by independent and reliable source?2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again you have misunderstood entirely how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, we have no interest in his YouTube videos, UNLESS they have been reported on by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You claim the editors of Wikipedia are not interested in Craig's own words about his own beliefs or his videos; yet, this article hyperlinks to a YouTube video of Craig's own words on a YouTube channel called DrCraigVideos--which is controlled by Craig. The video that I mentioned earlier is also a YouTube video of Craig's own words but it's not over a decade old and it doesn't come from a channel that is directly controlled by Craig. Why are you having difficulty understanding this obvious discrepancy? Driving my point further, that same sentence has a second source that is once again, Craig's own words, but this time it's from Craig's own website: reasonablefaith.org. In what way is Craig's website 'independent'? In what way is Craig's YouTube channel 'independent'? That second source comes from Craig's Question of the Week. What 'independent and reliable source' reported on his answer that this article is citing? And where is the 'significant coverage' of his answer? Clearly, you don't seem to know what's going on or how Wikipedia actually operates. It's also worth noting how you kept on stating that you weren't interested in watching YouTube videos when this very article is using YouTube videos as sources. Did you change your mind about YouTube videos?2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source and if it is being used as a reference in the article it should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you were ignorant of the fact that this article directly references a YouTube video from DrCraigVideos--which is controlled by Craig. Are you also ignorant of the fact that this article is referencing a written response by Craig from his Question of The Week from his website reasonablefaith.org? In what way is reasonablefaith.org independent? And where is the 'significant coverage' of Craig's written response that would warrant using a source that is nonindependent? Wikipedia is a joke.2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the YouTube links, reasonablefaith.org is NOT independent and shouldn't be used either. Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Good job. Let me know if you need anymore help understanding how Wikipedia works.2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you're removing sources from YouTube and reasonablefaith.org, you may as well be consistent about it. Did you miss the other sources from reasonablefaith.org? There's a header titled References at the bottom of the article. You should probably start there.2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess the Wikipedia editors really dropped the ball on this one. The References section is chock-full of sources from reasonablefaith.org. It looks like none of the editors for this article understood Wikipedia's policies. That's weird. 2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's been a constant problem for many years, that his colleagues and friends have edited here, ignoring the Wikipedia guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that Craig's friends and colleagues are incorrectly editing Craig's wikipedia page? Do you have any evidence for that claim? Also, that doesn't explain why you didn't catch a Reference section that is full of references to reasonablefaith.org. It's almost as though you don't know what you're doing.2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

OK I'm done with this now, you are just trolling. Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Theo-- you still haven't removed the other reasonablefaith.org citations. Are Craig's friends and colleagues preventing you from doing so? Or did you miss them? I'm not trolling you Thero. I'm genuinely curious about the evidence you have for your claim that the reason why Craig's article is chock-full of reasonablefaith.org references is because of Craig's friends and collogues. Because that doesn't seem to be the case. It just seems like you're incompetent. 2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A longer vacation has been granted. The next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I note that the part of the article where Craig defends the personhood of this first cause he allegedly gets to is written in the active voice. That suggests wikipedia agrees with the conclusion, which is itself not accepted by a majority of scholars. Can someone fix this please? Phil of rel (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The references section for this article is filled with sources from reasonablefaith.org which is Dr. Craig's own website. I talked to another extremely experienced and competent Wikipedia editor (Theroadislong (talk)) about this matter and he believes this violates Wikipedia's policies. This prompted him to delete only some of these sources. Why weren't they all deleted? 2601:182:0:C580:C8A:4D46:83D:87B7 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of William Lane Craig fans use wikipedia (which is fine), and edit in way too much of his material (which can result in WP:UNDUE). If you'll look at the page on the kalam cosmological argument, it is dominated by Craig. It would be nice to have some input from other scholars. The majority of whom do not share his views.--Phil of rel (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No where in this source [1] does it suggest that Craig is the 5th most influential theologian in the world. It states quite clearly that he is #734 most influential philosopher, to extrapolate anything else from this source is original research and edit warring to retain this is likely to lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is a correct reading of the source and I'm not sure the vague warning about a block is productive to discussion.

It is pretty clear given that Academic Influence is rating academics, that the 734 is his ranking amongst all academics. That is literally what the headline of the linked page says they are assessing. You can then filter by academic field and time (as well as a host of other factors).

So, for example, if you look at their list of top anthropologists of the last 10 years (https://academicinfluence.com/rankings/people/most-influential-anthropologists-today) you'll see that Ulf Hannerz is the #1 ranked anthropologist being first on the list. But his influence rank number is 11,230. Those are two different populations.

Likewise, when reviewing Craig on the lists referenced, he appears in the thirteenth and fifth slots when searching for those relevant criteria. I don't think counting on a ranked ordered list falls into WP:OR.

Finally, if we review their About page we can see their method for compiling such lists, which includes what they argue is an objective, rank ordered list: https://academicinfluence.com/about/methodology. So given that the source is telling us that the list is ordered, noting that in the article doesn't seem to be an issue.

Hope this clears it up a bit. Squatch347 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No that is not remotely clear, the fact remains that the source does NOT explicitly say he is "the 5th most influential theologian in the world." It requires synthesis. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the objection. If we have a source that says:"here is our list of something from 1 to 100" we shouldn't take that as a ranked list? I would maintain them putting him in the fifth spot on a ranked list is, in fact, explicitely stating it. Squatch347 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Then please provide the explicit link to the ranked list that shows this, I can't see it? Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I can see why that wouldn't be obvious.

For Philosophy the link (https://academicinfluence.com/people?year-min=1990&discipline=philosophy#search-results) is titled: "List of the most influential people in Philosophy, for the years 1990 – 2022". You can see in the web address the relevant criteria (Discipline: Philosophy, Year start: 1990).

For Theology the link (https://academicinfluence.com/people?year-min=1990&discipline=theology#search-results) is titled: "List of the most influential people in Theology, for the years 1990 – 2022".

Was that what you were looking for? Sorry if I misread what you were asking. Were you asking for the specific lists or the specific language that says the lists are rank ordered? Or did I misunderstand the question completely?

Looking over the links it does seem like they've moved a tiny bit. From their methodology, it looks like the machine learning algorithm updates from time to time and so the resulting rankings change a bit. The current numbers are 19 for Philosophy and 4 for Theology. We can leave as is with an as of date or update to the current numbers, I'm agnostic. Squatch347 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed before, in archive 3, 6 and 13, but there has never been a single good reason for including him. Squatch has blabbed and blabbed and the quote has been in the article because of pure pigheaededness. What Came says about Dawkins is not relevant here, period.

Dawkins has that policy of not debating creationist loons, so he will not debate Craig. Even that is barely relevant for this article, as Craig is just one random guy in a big crowd of similar types. Adding a secondary commentary by someone who has no idea about the situation of biologists beleaguered by ignoramuses who wrongly believe they have something interesting to say, is just not WP:DUE.

If you want to keep Came, you need to give a really good reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the polite response that certainly doesn’t push a viewpoint ;-). I offered a reason many times, a reason that others offered as well, a reason that jives with WP:DUE. Came is responding to Dawkins’ declining of a specific event, not a general policy of Dawkins. And Came is a part of the academic department that invited Dawkins to that specific event. Arguing that the response from a senior member of the group that invited Dawkins to an event that was covered in WP:RS is not relevant because “he isn’t a biologist” isn’t covered under WP:DUE

Squatch347 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about a non-event. Nothing happened. Dawkins said no to a debate because of Dawkins' principles, and there was no debate. His principles have nothing to do with the specific people he does not want to debate. You think that this non-event is an event that needs expatiating. Should we also add what person X and person Y and person Z think about the fact that Dawkins does not like debates, if those people were involved in the attempt to get him to debate? To an article of one of dozens of people who asked to debate him (called his fleas" by Dawkins)? That is very much not DUE. The non-event itself is not DUE, actually. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an odd reading of WP:DUE. Look, I get that you don’t like it, and that you don’t think it is relevant, but that isn’t how we determine what is covered in an article. We cover what WP:RS cover in an article. There isn’t a magical exception for when events or processes broke down. We still have an entire section on the 2021 government formation in Iraq even though it is a non-event since nothing has been formed yet. The absence of something is noteworthy as well if it attracts RS coverage, as long as it is covered proportionally; that is literally what DUE is saying.

I get that this is Dawkins’ general policy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant if it is covered in a WP:RS. If we are going to remove reliable sourcing, we need something more than a vague reference to DUE, you need to offer at least something about how DUE applies.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We cover what WP:RS cover in an article. Wrong. There is no rule that says we have to cover everything that is somehow marginally related to the subject just because it was mentioned by RS. We have to draw a line. Since this part concerns Came and Dawkins, but not Craig, it does not belong in the Craig article. I already said that, didn't I? we need something more than a vague reference to DUE - Will you hear it this time? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well this conversation is clearly designed to go nowhere; I'll let you have the final word. Squatch347 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This blog post by PZ Myers reminded me to check if the text in question had been inserted again. It was. Reverted again, because there is still no valid reason to include it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, Craig isn't a creationist and Dawkins had previously debated creationists. IIRC Dawkins refused debate out of cowardice. --TheKingOfTheGuild (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Craig uses some of the bad logic creationists use too. Debating him would be just the same waste of time as debating them. Your opinion on Dawkins' motives does not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this thread is relevant anymore, but Dr. Came did very well against WLC. And, not that it matters, Dr. Came seems like a really nice guy.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a section with links to WLC's YouTube (and/or other platforms) debates. And I don't mean those debates which WLC clearly wins, but also where he clearly loses (like Sean Carroll). I know there used to be such a list but it was removed for some reason. I really don't have time to edit Wiki anymore, so I won't be able to do it. Opinions? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, people can easily find his videos on YouTube. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a good addition in theory as it is a large part of his public persona, however we've been down that road before and we had trouble finding enough sources that aren't primary. These are usually college events and they aren't exactly covered in major news sources. I don't think we have enough to add this section. Squatch347 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If Wiki is not a "directory", then all external links need to be removed from every article. That's not going to happen so some kind of directory is needed in this article. Just my opinion since I don't have the time or energy to create such a list. Still, there was an external link in the past that listed his debates. I think it is a neutral addition if the list, or any external link, was added to the article again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have that link? I'd like to take a look. Squatch347 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the original link but I did find a list at WLC's Web site. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/store/store-debates

Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to talk about the most recent content additions to the page.

It seems a bit odd that none (except one) of the links work. These were added by an IP a few days ago, but I don't think the links have been updated to the actual articles. I went through a few (not all) and did searches by titles or authors if they were listed and couldn't find the actual articles. I'm not sure how to correct the citation for these.

I'd also like to raise the issue of source quality for a few. Patheos is a blog site, so not RS. I wouldn't call infidels.org or atheist republic traditional RS either, nor are some of the authors notable in any field I can find to warrant addition.

I've taken a stab at what needs to be changed and self-reverted to clarify which citations I'm talking about. I'll update this comment with the diffs in a minute. Squatch347 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

When attempting to self-revert, I got the red warning that I was inserting non-reliable sources into the article, so I feel pretty confident in my take that these should be removed.

Here are the diffs I am proposing: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]