Talk:William Lane Craig

Template:Informal mediation

Path of Science

Path of Science is a predatory source from Slovakia, and should not be used to support anything on Wikipedia because it fails WP:RS. Please do not restore it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, is there a finding or a source for Path of Science as a predatory journal? Squatch347 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The best freely available sources are https://beallslist.net/ (search both publisher and individual journal) and WP:UPSD. If you have access to Cabell's blacklist, that's also a resource. See also WP:VANPRED (and this section in particular). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the great response. Agreed with your assessment. Thank you for taking the time. Squatch347 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass edit

An IP just added a huge chunk of text [1] "Famous debate against Sean M. Carroll". I am seeing some unreliable blogs that have been cited here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hellom Psychologist Guy. I do know Blog sites are to be generally dismissed, as per WP:RS. But they can be [considered] reliable when they are being cited to attribute something said to the person that is shown as author on wiki. We are not giving info about Aron Wall and citing his blog, rather we are just re-describing what he said and citing his blog. All are like that, Luke Barnes is quoted from his blog site, Sean Carroll is similarly quoted from his blogsite and all are cited for the things that are shown here to have been said by them.

Now, if we were giving info about them, like their height and citing their blog site, then those sources would not qualify to be a Reliable source but that is not the case. I hope I made it understood. Have a good day, --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

When we were discussing this during the arbitration session there was a general consensus against adding specific debate details. I'm not sure adding this contributes significantly to the biography in a way that doesn't include a large volume of other debate run downs.

I think the key, in my mind, is to remember this is an entry not an exhaustive account. Squatch347 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347 Something that makes this debate unique is the way it was met. Even a book has been published about this debate, containing trascripts of the Q&A session. A Christian Radio described both sides to be leading in their respective fields they were representing. Notable-as-per-wiki people like Robin Collins and Don Page wrote reviews about this debate. Richard Carrier, a regular debator with his own Wikipage, commentated on the debate. The others quoted here do not have Wiki page [yet] but they all qualified experts in the area the debate revolved around: Cosmology, theoretical physics and physics. Also quoted was direct speeches by the participants on each other, from their own websites.--81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I can say something about Craig on my blog. For example, I have analyzed his Kalam cosmological argument, destroying each point made from a scientist's point of view. Would you quote that too? I don't think so, and I think you know why.

Blog writers are not equal. Sean M. Carroll is a notable scientist. If he debated Craig and has something to say about it on his blog, it's worth including. If Craig debates non-notable people who happen to write about it on their a blogs, that doesn't really matter and need not be included. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist I agree with you. I quoted Robin Collins, who was Craig's partner in the same debate, he is a philosopher with a degree in math and physics. I quoted Luke Barnes, who himself debated Sean M. Carroll and is a regular host in such events. All the quoted ones, IMO, qualify to be here. Read my comment I said to Squatch347. Here I reproduce it: "Something that makes this debate unique is the way it was met. Even a book has been published about this debate, containing trascripts of the Q&A session. A Christian Radio described both sides to be leading in their respective fields they were representing. Notable-as-per-wiki people like Robin Collins and Don Page wrote reviews about this debate. Richard Carrier, a regular debator with his own Wikipage, commentated on the debate. The others quoted here do not have Wiki page [yet] but they all qualified experts in the area the debate revolved around: Cosmology, theoretical physics and physics. Also quoted was direct speeches by the participants on each other, from their own websites." If interest on this debate rises a bit more, then this debate may even qualify to have a wiki page on it is own. This debate is certainly worthy to have its section here, IMO. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Robin Collins, Richard Carrier, and Don Page (physicist) are all notable, and if they had something to say about debating Craig, it's probably fair game to include. I can't say the same for Luke Barnes, however. Being a debate participant and an event host doesn't make one notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem IP, in my view, is that it isn't the only debate Craig has been part of that was published into a book (this is actually a fairly standard practice) or that was covered on the media sites. I think a (much) shorter summary would be a fine inclusion, but it would need to be coupled with a summary of other notable debates so that it isn't [WP:UNDUE]. It would, at a minimum, need to be significantly shortened, the current version gives the impression that this single instance is something like 50% of Craig's work. Squatch347 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Then, Squatch347 and Anachronist, which debates you think are worthy? I think his debates against Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman and Cristopher Hitchens were as widely met with interest as his debate against Sean Carroll. His debate against Shelly Kagan also generated public interest. Craig pursuing Richard Dawkins was also met with wide interest. Craig is, arguably, best known for his deployment of Kalam Cosmological Arguement and his debating career. Brief list of his debates would have been good. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a brief list would be a great add. The bigger question, imo, is format. Is this a table? (If so, what data points are we putting in there) Or a summary, bullet list? (Which might be harder as it would have text we'd need to format for each debate). We need to be aware that a discussion of this type has occurred in the past [2].

Perhaps the best next step is to agree what format it should take then we throw some names up on the list and see if we have the relevant sources for them. Squatch347 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to reception section

"In September, 2021 Craig was ranked as the 10th most influential person in philosophy and 3rd in Theology since 1990 by Academic Influence which uses artificial intelligence to measure impact by academics and institutions."

References

Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: Does AcademicInfluence.com carry weight? I've personally never heard of it, but if it's something that's widely understood to have importance in its area (such as the U.S. News and World Report rankings for undergraduate institutions), then it might. Otherwise, I'd prefer to omit it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it either (but then neither do I particularly pay attention to that area), but it is notable enough to have been mentioned by Forbes. Squatch347 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to Divine aseity section

I admit I have no degree in philosophy or religion but recent edits to this section seem to have left it unintelligible, "defends a deflationary theory of reference based on the intentionality of agents, so that a person can successfully refer to something even in the absence of some extra-mental thing" makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it isn't nonsense, but it is super technical jargon. It might not be a value add from that sense. Squatch347 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Views on evolution

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)