Talk:William Lane Craig

Dawkins and the Canaanites, part 2

We seem to have the next war about our coverage of Dawkins and Craig's Canaanites remarks. I believe Damiens.rf's preferred version is better, for the following reasons: Firstly, the "debates" section is hardly the right place to discuss Craig's position on the Canaanites. We only mention it there because Dawkins used it to justify his refusal to debate Craig. Whether Dawkins is right or not is irrelevant to that issue. Secondly, we should avoid primary sources in favor of secondary sources, especially when matters are contentious. This includes Dawkins and Craig themselves. I don't see how we can argue that Dawkins is either right or wrong about the genocide apology claims without violating WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. Huon (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? The content is referenced to reliable secondary sources NOT primary soources? It's verifiable that Dawkins said what he said, it's not for us to decide whether this is right or wrong...THAT would be WP:ORTheroadislong (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By definition, Dawkins is a primary source on what Dawkins says, and Craig is a primary source on what Craig says. Of course we can say that Dawkins accused Craig of genocide apologetics - we do so, and the Christian Post is a secondary source which shows that Dawkins not only did so, but that it's relevant to Craig. What we cannot say - and I believe you and I agree here - is either that Dawkins' accusations are well-founded or that they are wrong. Huon (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Damiens.rf's version I prefer is not actually his latest, but rather this one which does not contain the Craig quote. That quote is off-topic in the section on debates, and there is no reason to put it there except to argue that Dawkins is right, which we should not do (per WP:SYNTH). Huon (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, we need to say that Dawkins refused to debate Craig because of X. We do not need to evaluate whether X is coherent or not and frankly, aside from a single situation, we don't need to substantiate with quotes or evidence or anything more than a single link to a single article. The Guardian oped piece is fine. Let's remember that this is a very small bio page and we don't need to belabor any point beyond a brief sentence. Theowarner (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a secondary source like the Christian Post is better than a primary source like Dawkins' own op-ed piece. Other than that, I agree. Huon (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We should write why Dawkins refused to debate with Lane Craig but which Dawkins' version we should prefer?

In May 2011 "Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention" and "“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion” ::[1].

In October Dawkins says that was genocide's topic. Why we should prefer the last and not the first?--Domics (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't prefer the last, actually. I think it's needlessly confrontational; it may be relevant that Dawkins turned down Craig's invitation, but Dawkins' views on Craig are not, except insofar as they address his refusal. That first quote is a good one - do we have a solid source for it?   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In September Dawkins says: “I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy.”[2]. Again: no Canaanite question.--Domics (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like this large quote from Craig as it reads right now. It is the only substantial quote on the page and it really isn't representative of Craig's overall life's work. It's relevant only a fairly minor publicity stunt that has no lasting historical relevance or, really, is even relevant to understanding who Dr. Craig is. I am fine with "Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig." Beyond that, and it seems like we're just pouring gasoline on a smoldering ember. Let's trim this down and keep this page professional. Theowarner (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone has already pointed out, Dawkins has provided a long list of excuses as to why he won’t debate Craig. Why should we use this particular excuse? It's not clear that we need to include the Dawkins quote in the first place but if we’re going to use it, I’m going to have insist that the responses to Dawkins’s be added. I'm really putting my foot down on this.HyperEntity (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, I agree with you HyperEntity... if we're going to get into this, there's no way to do it 'little.' Which is why I think we shouldn't get into it at all. Theowarner (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry HyperEntity, but consensus is against you. We cannot add Craig's criticism of Dawkins in the way you propose. putting your foot down isn't going to change consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Theowarner; only a brief note; otherwise we must explain the whole affair with the various phases and write also Lane Craig's rejoinder to Dawkins.--Domics (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We have two people who think that either the whole affair be explained or not at all (myself and Theo) and another person who disputes whether the Caananites quote be included in the first place (Domics). Secondly, consensus can be wrong. The only reason presented in favour of not adding responses to Dawkins is that the Dawkins quote is mentioned in secondary sources and the responses are all primary sources. I have repeatedly pointed out that the use primary sources is in no way contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and that we should include responses for the sake of balance. In fact, Wiki:NPOV states that weight must be given to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence and that equal validity must not be given to every minority viewpoint.*

The claims that Craig is not worth debating, that his views on Old Testament are good reason not to debate him and that he has attempted to ‘bully, cajole or harrass’ Dawkins into debating him are minority view points. The first claim is rejected by most professional philosophers, the second claim was attacked by almost everybody who commented on it (incluing a number of philosophers) and the third claim is factually and demonstrably false. Presenting these statements without a response a bit like writing William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher but this claim is seriously contested by biologist Richard Dawkins who states that none of the philosophers he consulted had heard of him...and claiming it to be a neutral sentence. Further more, there is still the issue raised Domics: Even if we include ‘Dawkins refused to debate Craig’ which version should we include? Dawkins has given us many excuses to choose from. Consider the following:

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own. “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said. In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

This is relevant to Craig in that it refutes Dawkins’s assertion that he is not worth debating and uses secondary sources. Why not use it?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22HyperEntity (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to let HyperEntity and Theroadislong battle it out whether we should use primary sources to make Dawkins look craven or to make Craig look like advocating infanticide. We could even use the same primary source for both purposes! Again, whether Dawkins is a coward or not is irrelevant to Craig. We all seem to agree that shortening that sentence is an option; I have thus removed Dawkins' reasons altogether. Huon (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like censorship? We state that Dawkins has refused to debate Craig but we can't say why? Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, why did he? Can you agree with HyperEntity on a reason? Preferably without turning the article into a coatrack for an off-topic discussion? Huon (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well reliable secondary sources say:

• Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William Lane Craig because of Craig's views on genocide[3]
• This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.[4]
• it would look good on Craig’s CV but would not look good on his own.[5] Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated that secondary sources can back up my preferred version. Still, Theroad is right. We can't state that Dawkins has refused to debate Craig without putting the reason why. And if we put the reason why we'll have to add responses to Dawkins. I'm not in the mood for an edit war. Which is why I've removed the sentence all together.HyperEntity (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the sentence all together is appropriate. The Craig/Dawkins thing is such a petty little fuss... I really think it has absolutely no place on wikipedia. It's not relevant whatsoever to the argument that Craig is an "analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist." If we want to go back and define Craig as a sort of actor in the culture war, a sort of public figure with a press machine and so on... then this Dawkins thing might be more relevant. As it is... depicting him as an academic who does debate is absolutely fine... and we really don't want to muddy that with this petty 'empty chair' gimmick. Theowarner (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 326,000 google hits for "William Lane Craig Dawkins" and there clearly is NO consensus for removing correctly referenced neutral content about the refusal to debate, it is a very LARGE part of what makes Craig notable (in the UK at least).Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Google hits are a bad indication of notability. I got even more Google hits for a combination of "William Lane Craig" and "Dawkins" than Theroadislong, but still more for Craig without Dawkins. And Craig is not notable for not being debated by Dawkins. If that were his largest claim to fame, no one would have bothered with Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig in the first place. While I'm not sure whether his philosophical works make him prominent, his apologetics (see the Came quote about Craig being the "foremost apologist for evangelical Christianity") surely does. Anyway, what would you consider "correctly referenced neutral content" about the refusal; could you provide a draft? Surely this version violates WP:SYN by combining primary sources to make a point which is not itself supported by secondary sources. (As an aside, the "reliable secondary sources" you gave a little earlier were an opinion piece, another opinion piece written by Dawkins himself, and an article based on a Reasonable Faith Tour press release. I have severe doubts about using such sources for controversial claims.) Huon (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason to add the Dawkins debate issue as we don't have an section on any of the William Lane Craig debates..and I f i remember rightly he has debated countless atheists..If anything not debating Dawkins is as relevant was including an article on him debating hitchens or Shremer or any other atheists..It was a peripheral incident..and if it is to be mentioned anywhere it is to be included in Dawkins page...I disagree with the deletion request..a page on william lane craig is relevant..in the serious philosophy circles he is known as the guy who brought back the kalam Argument..and the only info that i can considered biased are his personal info for which we use his biodata and his C.V from talbot school of theology...most of the other info are largely legitimate sources...you can't argue about not using dreams from my father as a source on obama's childhood Sanju87 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

The most eminent, prominent, notable atheist in the world refuses to debate with Craig and you don't consider it worth mentioning in the article? I am left speechless!Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins quote. We rightly do not give the Harris quote about Craig being "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of [his] fellow atheists" (which is mentioned in the article used as a source by User:Theroadislong). Similarly we should not present Dawkins' opinion of Craig at length. I have tried to capture the gist of Dawkins' reason in the shortest possible manner. Huon (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the issue you know that Dawkins has provided several seemingly unrelated reasons as to why he won't debate Craig. Out of all of them, why does the current one deserve visibility? 96.234.40.76 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the one reported by a reliable secondary source. Huon (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You have replaced what he actually said "Craig was not a worthy opponent." and "I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters" with original research, namely "accusing him of self-promotion" which is not in the reference?Theroadislong (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is in the source: Dawkins told The Daily Telegraph that he had "no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion." I'd say Craig's lack of worth as an opponent is inherent in that accusation, and per WP:DUE I really don't think we should spend more than a minimum of effort in explaining Dawkins' reasons. Huon (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pedantic but the reference is the Christian post reference which does not mention "self-promotion". Can we add the telegraph reference too please. I'm not sure why we need to expend minimum effort in explaining Dawkins' reasons, he is possibly the most notable atheist in the world and his comments are certainly pertinent to the article given the amount of coverage they received. Theroadislong (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Post reports what Dawkins said to the Telegraph: third paragraph from the bottom. The Telegraph article itself is here; I wouldn't mind substituting it for the Christian Post since the Telegraph seems to use more neutral language and is a higher-profile source. Regarding minimum effort: This non-debate is a rather trivial matter which made the news once, and it's comparatively insignificant to Craig why Dawkins refused. If we go into detail, WP:NPOV would require us spending even more effort to add that others disputed Dawkins' claims about Craig and accused Dawkins of cowardice, and we'd basically have to cover that entire debate, which is far too much coverage. For comparison, we'd spend as much effort on Dawkins' rationale as on one of Craig's areas of philosophical work, and that's certainly undue. Huon (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence for Craig's research time at the Belgian University of Leuven?

Yes, I know, it is in his resume. Strangely enough, however, I can find no evidence whatever on the site of the university itself. William Lane Craig is known for many things, but I do not think that honesty is one of them. In my view, that makes it reasonable to doubt his claim.

Bart B. Van Bockstaele (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

According to his biography, it wasn't the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven but the Université catholique de Louvain. I cannot find a reference to him on that university's website either, but I doubt they list all former researchers, and 1994 is a little too early to expect him on such an online list even if they had one. Anyway, I don't see a reason to doubt his Biola University CV. I am also unaware that Craig has had problems with dishonesty, especially on such a basic issue. What precisely makes Craig's CV dubious? Huon (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, Huon. I neglected to take into account that difference. Thank you for pointing that out to me! Now what would make his CV dubious? Two reasons: it is not unheard of that people lie on their CVs. The problem here is, of course, that it can be hard to distinguish between a lie and an unverifiable truth. I make a few claims myself, some of which can only be verified by someone with access to the DraCo computer gathering dust under my desk, and a few others that can simply no longer be verified by anyone. It happened too long ago, in a context that made it impossible to gather relevant evidence, and that is even assuming that I would have thought of that in the first place.

That said, William Lane Craig is either a blatant liar, or so ignorant as to not deserve any attention. One example on his own website.. Here, he claims (or quotes someone who claims, and accepts it without question) that "[...]the pre-frontal cortex of the brain—a section of the brain which is missing in all animals except for the humanoid primates." If that were true, how come we can find references to the pre-frontal cortex of just about any and all mammals, and to take a particularly funny example, here is a reference to an article about the pre-frontal cortex of the echidna, a very primitive mammal and therefore (if one initially accepts Craig's assertion) a prime candidate for a prefrontal cortexless animal.

This is only one example among very many, but I think the point has been made. This guy is a preacher, a proselytiser, not a philosopher, and because his goal is to prove a point, and not to find out what is true, he should be considered a charlatan.

That said, thank you for pointing out that I was careless myself when trying to verify Craig's claim. I will take that to heart.

--Bart B. Van Bockstaele (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the step from "citing a book outside your area of expertise which is wrong" and "lying about your CV". Besides, it's not as if being a non-tenured researcher at the Université de Louvain is so prestigious that it's worthwhile to make up having been there. And as long as Craig holds a professorship at a philosophical faculty and gets published in philosophical journals, he's a philosopher. What else would he need to be one? Huon (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that he is not trustworthy as a source of information. The example I chose is one that I personally like very much, but I can show many more that are just as verifiable. It is not a one-off, it is a pattern. Now, he either does this knowingly and willingly, or unknowingly. If he does it willingly, he is not a philosopher, but a snake-oil salesman. If he does it unwillingly, he is incompetent. But, in both cases, what he says is wrong. If he does it willingly, whatever else he writes -including his resume- regardless of the context becomes suspect, because he is known to lie to advance his cause. If he does it unwillingly, his CV is less suspect.

Why is this important? As a one-off, it shouldn't be. As a (for him) normal way of proceeding, it should be. This is not a cheap attempt at declaring him guilty by association, but the simple observation that he is a liar. Just as very few people would still believe Bernie Madoff's resume, now that he has been shown to be snake-oil merchant, there are no reasons to take anything Craig says at face value, including his resume.

It is even worse however. Biola University is itself suspect as an institution. Why? I refer to the doctrinal statement. Two quotes:

"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."

and

"As an employee of Biola you are expected to be in accord with the theological position of the University as expressed in the Doctrinal Statement."

Whether he believes this nonsense or not is essentially irrelevant. What is relevant is that he is contract-bound to uphold it and that, as such, he cannot possibly be a philosopher, but at the most a spin doctor for the institution he works for.

I would submit that you are correct that the pre-frontal cortex and whether animals do or don't feel pain is outside his area of expertise. That is even blatantly obvious. However, it is just as obvious that it is not outside his *claimed* area of expertise. In the words of his official page at Biola University, he has "science and religion" as one of his research interests.

In his typical way, he uses easily dismissed disinformation to as the basis for a point that becomes moot because that basis is untrue.

As a consequence. When he gets published in philosophical journals, I would submit that this says much more about the dismal quality of their peer-review process than about his rightful/wrongful claim to the title of philosopher. If anything, it motivates me to have even less respect for philosophers than I already have.

By your questions, you forced me to think a bit deeper than I had intended. I have to thank you for that. Maybe, it would be better if I wrote an in-depth article about this individual, and published it somewhere. On the one hand, I feel it should be here, because it is about him, and it is not irrelevant to what he is, but on the other hand it may become so long that it just doesn't belong here. I don't know. I have to think that over.

Thanks!

--Bart B. Van Bockstaele (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does the debate section state that reliable third party sources are needed? I thought we agreed that most of those sources are reliable (I'm not happy with the Dennett citation and I'll try to fix it but apart from that I'm not sure what the problem is).--HyperEntity (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Bart is biased against Craig's arguments and is using that as a reason to disregard other things Craig has to say. If every person was held to the standard of never misspeaking (or 'miswriting') I would imagine that Wikipedia would not have any content. Considering the topic is outside my area of expertise, I don't even know if what Bart is saying is true. But the opinion reads as though it is heavily biased. 69.174.58.116 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment The Université Catholique de Louvain affiliation is on a number of books and journal articles, e.g. here. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion.

I nominated this articel because there is no "Significant coverage" of the sources which are given and most of the linked pages are biased pages which is in conflict with ""Independent of the subject". Further there are no independent "secondary sources", for example, many pages link to sites like "reaonable faith", "discovery institute", "infidels" or "apologetics" or similar biased stuff(one is broken), shouldnt it be more like he is meantioned on "CNN" or "BBC" and not only on dubious internet sites??. In my opinion: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." is not given. I think the main reason for this articel was the event with Richard Dawkins, which was correct, but what followed after that? I wich case outside of the debate thing with richard dawkins did he get attention? I think " Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" applies here. Greets --91.89.69.192 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst not agreeing with the deletion nomination I do feel that the Richard Dawkins detail should be included in the article it is a major part of what makes Craig notable, as I mentioned before reliable secondary sources say:

• Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William Lane Craig because of Craig's views on genocide[6]
• This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.[7]
• it would look good on Craig’s CV but would not look good on his own.[8]

It seems like blatant censorship to NOT include this?Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig is well known in the field of philosophy especially in the discussions on Kalam Argument.his most notable work on the field dates to 1979..way before the Dawkins fiasco..he was well known enough in the field of analytical philosophy before the dawkins incident...to claim that sufficient coverage need to be found on sites like BBC on a specialised subject like analytical philosophy is asking for a wee bit too much...Alvin Platinga and Swineburn are known philosophers too with wikipedia pages but I hardly think i'll find references to them on CNN or the BBC..there are adequate references to Craig and his position in the International Philosophical Quarterly as it would be expected in his field of expertise..so he is sufficiently well known in his field..the linked pages are pages related to and linked to William Lane Craig..its expected that links will lead to resources on the philosopher who is being discussed... and about Dawkins refusing to debate him..its irrelevant in the larger scheme of things...craig has had many debates.. we cannot go into the details of all the debates he had..if the details of the debates he had are not included here, there is no need to discuss the debates he did not have....if it need be mentioned anywhere it need be mentioned on Dawkin's page after all it was dawkins who did not want a debate with craig...if Craig refused to engage in a debate its relevant to include that in Craig's page.. Craig is not notable for not being debated by Dawkins..his notability lies in reviving the Kalam Argument..To paraphrase Theowarner the Dawkins' refusal to debate is not relevant whatsoever to the argument that Craig is an analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. And I Disagree with the deletion request...William Lane Craig is relevant in the field of philosophy as far as the Kalam Argument is concerned and the article and its sources are good enoughSanju87 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

reliable source? If not, he isnt. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP did not create the deletion discussion; I have done so and pasted its rationale. It can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/William Lane Craig. Regarding "censorship": The sources presented by Theroadislong are mostly opinion pieces, plus a press release of WLC's tour. Those are not reliable secondary sources. The Dawkins affair was comparatively insignificant; it's certainly not what Craig is notable for. On the other hand, obvious proof that the article is not based on the non-discussion is the fact that it predates that affair. Huon (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"it's certainly not what Craig is notable for.." for what else? Reliable source? Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the sources are eminently reliable as are the following selection:

• Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate "the existence of fairies and water-nymphs".[9]
• This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him [10]
• Dawkins Refuses God-Debate
"Apt to be interpreted as cowardice", says Oxford academic. [11]
• William Lane Craig refutes Dawkins genocide claim [12]
• The high priest of atheism has been invited there to debate with America's leading Christian apologist, the analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig. [13]
• William Lane Craig has said that Richard Dawkins's "argument for atheism is a failure[14]
• New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate [15]
• Richard Dawkins is wrong to call William Lane Craig morally repulsive. [16]
• Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. [17]
• William Lane Craig vs. Chair of Dawkins. [18]
• Dawkins defends decision not to debate apologist William Lane Craig.[19]

I feel VERY strongly that this article is being censored.Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

All these sources are about his debate with Dawkins + some christian, dawkins sites(which are imo biased), for what else is he notable? Foe example: Is he mentioned in some relevant(notable) philosophical journal? Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source???He's the one of the authors most cited by the Stanford philosophical Encyclopedia in its article on the Cosmological argument, that is the one of the most reliable philosophical sources I can think of. pick up any book defending or critiquing the cosmological argument Craig's position is invariably mentioned.....and oh yes International Philosophical Quarterly has articles every year discussing critiquing and defending the Cosmological argument of as put forward by Craig a search in Philosophy documentation centre got me these many articles http://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/search?show=mine&q1=William+lane+Craig&f1=&op1=OR&q2=&f2=&op2=OR&q3=&f3=&op=AND&yf=&yt=&rows=10&sort= thats as reliable as we can get in reviewed publications... This Page was started in 2003...it predates the entire Dawkins hooplaSanju87 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

(ec) To Theroadislong: If you can write a short entry on Dawkins' debate rejection based on reliable secondary sources - that is, not opinion pieces, not Craig's own website, not Dawkins' website, definitely not Conservapedia! - I, for one, wouldn't object.

To 91.89.69.192: Craig is notable as the main proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument. References 7 to 11 and 13 are all third-party papers in scholarly journals or entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussing Craig and his views. I'm no expert on the relative importance of those journals, but in combination he seems notable enough. Huon (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

hm he defends the cosmological argument, and thats all he is famous for? And he doesnt have that many citations, if you type his name "William Lane Craig" into the search bar of the "Stanford philosophical Encyclopedia" you get only 11 entries: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22william+lane+craig%22"

And that is the most cited author? Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Belief it or not, even Richard Dawkins has more entries/citations: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22Richard+Dawkins%22 a total of 20 Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And i still think he was only notable because dawkins didnt want to debate him, and i think "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage"" applies here. And also his low importance reflects the poor quality of the referances in the articel which contains mostly links to site which are about him and dawkins, or sites like "apologetics" or "atheists" ect. never to a well known philosophical journal or stuff like that.. IMO he had his 15 minutes of fame. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the fact that The Stanford encyclopedia's article on the Cosmological argument cites Craig 5 times..and I think thats the maximum citation any author has recieved on the cosmological argument page..and one of the resources provided in that page is a paper by Craig. Craig has 11 citations in his area of expertise, Dawkins had 20 in his area of expertise, I don't see what the problem is..I have given you a link dealing with about 300 odd papers discussing craig and his ideas..and most of the journals in that link are high visibility philosophical journals. Craig was notable enough in the field of philosophy...if you hadnt heard of him till the Dawkins hoopla, it merely implies that analytical philosophy is a field you are unfamiliar with kindly read WP:SNOW Sanju87 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

Also, the article predates the Dawkins kerfluffle which currently isn't even mentioned. So apparently editors felt he was notable before that. I have listed some of our references to philosophical journals above. I believe there's just a single source even mentioning Dawkins right now, and we don't cite it for that. Also, "notability isn't temporary" contradicts "he had his 15 minutes of fame", and the first one is policy. Huon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think craigs field is philosophy? Not the field of the "cosmological argument" and 5 times? A joke? Ok maybe that is enough for the eng. wikipedia. But then we should a least give a reliable source who says that he is the most cited on his "cosmological field". Is William cited in a biological field?? We cant rely on wikipedia users. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm ok i think i would be better if we meantion him in the articel to the cosmological argument? What about that? And dawkins is mentioned in the Standord encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY not biology. Philosophy is not dawkins field and he got more citations in it. And i dont think that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Philosophical_Quarterly counts more that the Stanford encycl. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Cosmological argument is Analytical Philosophy, what you are stating is equivalent to stating that Crick was a geneticist and thus not a biologist.I have given you a link dealing with about 300 odd papers discussing craig and his ideas. his most notable idea has been the cosmological argument..but he has contirbutions in the Field of Molinism, A and B series of Time, ontology etc..if you looked through the entries that pop up on Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia when you searched his name that would have been evident...and most of the journals in that link are high visibility philosophical journals...and not all of them deal with the Cosmological argument...Craig is notable enough in the field of philosophy...if you hadnt heard of him till the Dawkins hoopla, it merely implies that analytical philosophy is a field you are unfamiliar with kindly read WP:SNOW...Again this article was started in 2003...a long time before the Dawkins non debate,There is no need to include Craig in the Cosmological argument page..he is mentioned by name..as well as referenced in it..And Dawkins is involved in the argument against the existance of God which is Philosophy, he has discussed scientific epistemology hence he gets a mention there... other mentions are in the fields where the magisteria of Science and philosophy overlap like definition of individual and replication and Dawkins is quoted as a measure of the Scientific or biological point of view

Sanju87 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

I completely agree with Sanjuro. Dawkins may be more notable than Craig, but Craig clearly passes the first criterion of WP:PROF and is notable himself. Huon (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These are not 300, its 248. And i dont know about that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Philosophical_Quarterly" why are the citations on this page more notable then these on Stanford encycl.? And even in this "International Philosophical Quarterly" dawkins has more citations: http://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/search?q=%22Richard+Dawkins%22 total of 380 ? I dont know, what is different from all the other people who are defending the cosm. argument? We should show what work or contributions he did exacly, not just say: "oh he did" greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I checked Sanjuro's link I ended up with 339 documents. But even if "only" 248 papers in philosophical journals discussed Craig and his work, that would still be quite a lot. None of this is a rationale for deletion. The article details what work exactly Craig did. Have you even read the section on his work? Huon (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins' ideas are discussed whenever the premises of new atheism are discussed,since existance of God is a question vexing a lot of philosophers, its obvious his name will come up. Hardly any of those works were discussing an original philosophical idea by Dawkins, the references were mostly peripheral. A large no. of the papers on Craig were a discussion of Craig's ideas. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a 1000 years old, but the modern version of the argument was formulated in 1979 by William Lane Craig. There is no rationale behind the deletion request, he meets all the criteria for notability WP:PROF .Sanju87 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

@Huon: You should type his name like this into the search bar "William Lane Craig" otherwise you get all the people with the name "William" or "Craig" and again, why should we prefer this "International Philosophical Quarterly" over the Standford encycl.? And why talks everybody about how much entries he has in this Internationl PC ? What about his 11 entries in Stanford encycl.? Ok @Sanju87: You have a reliable source wich states that Craig was the first guy who formulated the modern version of this argument in 1979? And maybe that should be mentioned in the article. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you even check out the results, those were a result of a search of William Lane Craig in the Philosophy Documentation Center, which is an archive of prominent peer reviewed journals, its not just the international Philosophical Quarterly..there are quite a lot of journals in there...There are 11 entries which refered to him in the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia, which concern the philosophical positions he's maintains like Molinism, A series of Time etc..they are not citations citations are in an article when the author of the encyclopedia refers to someone else's ideas..the entry on The Cosmological argument has 5 citations of Craig meaning the author refered to Craig's premise on the Kalam Cosmological Argument 5 times, meaning that the author of the stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy refered to Craig's position in 5 separate instances, (fyi in scientific literature citation means a reference to a persons work, the author theeby stating that the idea is not his own)..Stanford Encyclopedia is not a peer reviewed journal its an encylopedia, journals provide info on a persons work in current research, Encylopedia is a scholarly work by a single author in the case of the cosmological argument's case Edward N. Zalta wrote the article here's the article mentioned http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4 I if you go through the refered section it shows Craig's role in reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument Sanju87 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

Ok then why did it never appear in the article? If this is his great thing that he did, just write it in and everything is fine. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article uses the Cambridge Companion to Atheism's reference, which is equally noteworthy.Sanju87 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

I don't think that we need to be too concerned with questioning Craig's notability. He is. We seem to be a little confused on whether "notable" is a complimentary or not. Craig's notability, for example, within the Evangelical apologetic movement or within the pseudo-intellectual Fundamentalist movement is unquestionable. The fact that those movements are themselves a little suspect and are situated a little outside the mainstream is not the question. Another way to approach this is: if you are interested in Evangelical apologetics, you cannot go very long without wondering who Dr. Craig is. And at that point, wikipedia should be there with a brief biographical statement. Theowarner (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt by atheists to have one of the, if not the, foremost Christian apologist banished from the biggest internet encyclopedia. Their arguments are without merit, and their objection to the sources used for this article speaks simply of their biases. Here's some more info about Craig you may want to add to the article. The 2 of the 4 Horsemen of atheism who've had formal debates with him have held him in high regard. Sam Harris described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into into many of my fellow atheists" while Hitchens said he's "very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable...Normally I don't get people saying, 'good luck tonight and don't let us down'" Atheist Quentin Smith has said "William Lane Craig is one the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time." Preeminent British journalist Paul Vallely has also had some positive things to say about Craig including that "He has developed such a reputation that when he began a 10-day speaking tour of Britain on Monday he drew an audience of 1,700 at the cavernous Central Hall in Westminster....He is unafraid to range across ontological theology and moral philosophy and talks with ease about new developments in cosmology, mathematics and physics. He has a ready command of easy analogy and can be funny. He is a million miles away from the evangelical rhetoric that amuses and bemuses our secularist and modernist establishment. Proof, he says, is not about scientific or mathematical certainty; it is about a cogent and logical argument which is more plausible than what opponents argue." Internet Infidels' Jeffery Jay Lowder has also defended Craig from his atheist attackers saying "he is widely regarded as a leading expert on the philosophy of time." In fact, "As well as being author or editor of over thirty books, and author of nearly 200 peer-reviewed academic articles in professional journals of theology and philosophy, he is well known for his many public debates with atheists, agnostics and sceptics...Craig's areas of speciality are the philosophy of religion and natural theology. He has made significant contributions to the Kalam cosmological argument and his work embraces the philosophical and theological implications of modern physics, especially the Big Bang, quantum physics and the philosophy of time. The Kalam cosmological argument argues from the reality of the Big Bang to the need for an intelligent Creator." Philosopher, and atheist, Daniel Came refers to Craig as "the foremost apologist for Christian theism" and calls Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig "cowardice." I'm not sure if this has been addressed but someone on this thread claimed AC Grayling refused to debate Craig. Actually, they debated in 2005. Further in his recent tour of the UK many atheists refused to debate him; Polly Toynbee first agreed but then pulled out saying “I hadn't realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig's debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum," even though his debates have been readily available online, including YouTube, for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.90.97 (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

“Foremost Christian apologist”? Maybe the foremost self-promoter. Though skilled at underhanded, dishonest debate tactics, he’s an unsophisticated, third‐rate philosopher. However, “Two Citations” Craig’s utter lack of academic merit is beside the point. If the likes of Ray Comfort can pass our notability test, then surely William Lane Craig can. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL return of the internet warriors. I already said that everything is fine.... and BTW: im ONE person. greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion had reached a conclusion a few days ago,it was agreed that Craig was notable. Both sides need to stop getting worked up, its not helping. And internet warriors, this is not your battlefieldSanju87 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable Faith

Why must Reasonable Faith be in the intro, when the article body makes no mention of it (see WP:LEDE), and the only citation given for its existence is the book itself (which in no way suggests that it is noteworthy)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would further point out that The Kalam Cosmological Argument appears to be the only book of his mentioned in the article body, so can see no reason why "Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007)" should be in the lead either.

The article body needs to cover, and establish the noteworthiness of these books (with reliable, preferably prominent, third-party coverage) before this coverage can be summarised in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

All those books listed should be in the article. Whether they should be in the lede, in the body, or in both is a question of style. -- 202.124.74.155 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bald assertion, and thus worthless. (i) Whether they "should be in the article" at all is a question of WP:Verifiable third-party coverage. (ii) Including in the lead matter that isn't covered in the article (and isn't otherwise necessary for providing context to the general topic) is appallingly bad style -- no question involved. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting it from the lede without putting it into the appropriate place in the article is appallingly bad editing. -- 202.124.74.155 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The books are all mentioned in the bibliography?Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are (now). No, deleting lists of books, lacking apparent third party coverage, from the lead, without bothering to add them anywhere other than the Bibliography, is standard editorial practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would, however, argue that of the two books on time in the lede (Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity) probably only the most notable should be there. However, given that philosophy of time is one of his main areas of work, at least one should be. -- 202.124.74.134 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is so gosh darn notable, then why isn't there any (let alone extensive) third party coverage of these books? If you want it included in the lead then find some (preferably prominent and/or extensive) third-party coverage of them, to include in the article body, FIRST! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable Faith is, according to Craig, his "signature book" (link). Moreover it is for example mentioned in Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion : "Craig is the author of many books, incuding Reasonable Faith [...] which is an accessible defense of Christian faith". (VanArragon 2010, 127); or presented as a featured book in this article published in Veja (for the portuguese translation). Thucyd (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(i)I'm afraid I, and Wikipedia policy, cares very little for self-description. (ii) Mere "mention" really doesn't do us much good. Ideally, to be included in the lead, it should be the subject of its own section in the article body, based upon extensive third-party coverage. (iii) The portuguese article appears to be mainly a simple parroting of some of Craig's claims (which may or may not be from the book), rather than any scholarly or critical analysis of its contents. As such I would question its value as a source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to 3 of Craig's work The Kalam Cosmological Argument in their section on the Cosmological Argument, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time in their section on Eternity, and Divine for knowledge and Human Freedom in their article on Foreknowledge and Free will. If we include books by No. of Citations then, Theism, atheism, and big bang cosmology has 133 citations, Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview has 124, (Kalam Cosmological Argument has 178)Sanju87 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

No. of Citations would be a reasonable way of picking three books to highlight in the lede as an indication of the sort of thing he writes. -- 202.124.74.134 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, number of citations might be a reasonable way to pick which books might be appropriate to mention in the applicable sections. Books should not be mentioned in the lead without (non-trivial) coverage in the article body. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.

— WP:LEDE

If the article either does not mention a book, or only contains a bare mention of it (e.g. only stating that a pair of fellow evangelical apologists recommend it), then how can it be one of the article's "most important aspects"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Went through multiple Leads...Including Peter Atkins, Alvin Plantinga and A. C. Grayling etc. while the leads should give an introduction about the article and its important aspects (it does in this case, as it gives a summary of his philosophical ptns), mentioning major works in the lead seems to be on the basis of prominence of the work, and not on its mention in the article. So keeping the books based on citations is seems to be relevant. All the works are listed in the bibliography..the prominent works are listed in the Lead..the reason of prominence being the No. of CitationsSanju87 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

Citations basically indicate notability. -- 202.124.75.73 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad this topic came up again. Reasonable Faith is the only book that we should mention. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, perhaps. Unfortunately, while The Kalam Cosmological Argument kicked off the Kalam's popularity today, it is certainly a fairly obsure book. People don't need to read it in order to discuss Kalam. Reasonable Faith is a fairly well-read text book. I think it's reasonable to mention it. That said, none of the books besides Reasonable Faith are of any importance and should be excluded. Theowarner (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations wise "Reasonable faith" is behind all the others..his most cited being the Kalam Cosmological argument offcourse...Reasonable faith is popular..but its behind the others as far as academic citations are concernedSanju87 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But, I doubt Craig would warrant a wikipedia page on his notability for his academic work. Even his philosophy of time contributions, which are often cited as his most important academic work, isn't really enough for a wikipedia page. That's why I think it's important to focus on the popular level stuff... that's why he's notable. Theowarner (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The most notable of Craig's academic work is his formulation of the Kalam Argument, 3 of the works mentioned deal with the that, the other one deals with christian theology/philosophy and then off-course there is reasonable faith, The major premise of his kalam argument is refined to a great deal in the book he co-wrote with Quentin Smith so I'm kind of iffy about dropping it. Then you have the issue of having an objective criteria to select the books...I couldnt think of anything other than citations (atleast they give you an idea of academic relevance). Arbitrarily including books in the lead I felt could lead to challenges later on, Reasonable faith is his 5th most cited work (meaning all the others mentioned have more citations)...he's getting a lot of attention due to his popular level stuff but he's notable enough in the academia, he has an h-index of 25, which is impressive in philosophy,(Grayling has 17, Plantinga has 32, Swineburn has 28) Sanju87 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that Craig's formulation of the Kalam is his most notable academic work. It's partly complicated because Kalam is also his most notable popular-level apologetic work. When we factor its popular appeal, it's entirely possible that we are exaggerating its academic importance. I'm not sure, to go on, that he co-wrote a book with Quentin Smith justifies its inclusion above the contents or even being mentioned whatsoever on the page. Citations is an objective way to measure something, but I'm not sure what... maybe you can explain why you think that those citations are noteworthy. I would say that many of the citations are themselves suspect, though, simply because there is an odd tendency for Craig and his immediate cohorts to reference one another. Beyond their own agreements, I'm not sure that anyone else is really pay attention. As a competing objective measure, Reasonable Faith is listed about 15,000 on the Amazon sellers list. His other books score range from 500,000 to 1,200,000. That is to say, his other books are not noteworth. Theowarner (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations are used by those who disagree with someone and also by those who agree with the persons idea, its used when a person's work is to be discussed or critiqued. I agree that Reasonable Faith is his most popular work, but its in general apologetics...if he was not an academic I would have been perfectly fine only including that, but he is an academic and in the academia his other works are more notable, I knew Craig's formulation of the Kalam Argument (surprisingly!!) before I knew of Craig's work in Christian apologetics..That claim that there is a tendency among people who cite someone's work to usually agree with him can be used against any peer reviewed work by any author (I wouldnt agree with that statement though, since the most recent peer reviewed work I read which was excessively focussed on Craig's work was by Stenger) , so we can't use that to discount his citations, as we can't use it to discount anybody's academic citations. A purely academic work naturally won't be a popular work amongst lay people...but its relevance in the academia or amongst those who are involved in analytical philosophy would be more, and the only measure of a works influence amongst academia would be its citations. The book with Quentin smith wasnt included because he co-wrote it with Quentin Smith, its included because its among his most cited works. Sanju87 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Could people please cease...

... the idiotic habit of citing books as a "source" for their own existence! Their presence in the bibliography (with ISBN if we're really being picky) is ALL the WP:Verifiability we need of this obvious, uncontroversial & unchallenged fact. I may challenge that they belong in the lead I do not challenge that they exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh cool!!no hard feelings then Sanju87 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

Sorry, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Even worse is the faux-citation of the website of some organisation that happens to be mentioned by the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

proposed deletion of sentence in intro

This sentence appears in the introductory paragraph. I propose that it should be deleted on the grounds that it is neither a fair summary of Dr. Craig's theology nor does it contain any information which is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the introductory paragraph. We've not mentioned Craig's debates in the introductory and the few comments about Molinism that he's made are in no way more significant than his debates. Also, the sentence is oddly written and may not make sense to a novice encountering these topics for the first time.

In theology he has also defended Molinism and the belief that God is, since Creation, subject to time.

Thoughts? Theowarner (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that Molinism states that "William Lane Craig is probably its best known advocate today...", I would suggest that it should probably stay in (though should perhaps have some material copied from that article in order that the lead is actually summarising something on this topic). And the claim that " God is, since Creation, subject to time" appears consistent with what the 'Philosophy of time' section states. As for the debates, they are pretty near completely insignificant -- a mere sideshow, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that we can have such perfectly opposite interpretations. You would probably balk at the suggestion that almost the entirety of Craig's notoriety derives from his debates. But, when I mention Craig to people interesting in theology and religion, most haven't heard of him. And those who do say, "Oh, the guy who does debates." Now, this is obviously a matter of the circles we walk in... I'm not sure how to resolve these issues other than start comparing various "objective" measures. Perhaps we can just discuss things, though. I would suggest that a huge part of the reason why people know about Dr. Craig is because of his debates. What say you to that? Theowarner (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If he really is important only for his debates, then he really isn't important. Such debates are as common as mud, and completely ephemeral. Nobody (other than Wikipedia editors who obsessively compile lists of them) remembers them, unless a participant is unfortunate enough to make a complete fool of themselves. Certainly the only coverage they tend to generate is from blogs. If he is "notable" for something I would expect him to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for that something. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He's notable, I would say, primarily for his books (which get cited) and to a lesser extent for his debates (which get news coverage). Divine foreknowledge/Molinism has about a paragraph under "Philosophy of religion" and should be in the lede, and I'd oppose removing the sentence. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If he's notable only for his books, then he really isn't important. His books are remarkably obscure. Each citation only indicates that they are relevant in some isolated academic circles. I just don't see why that would alone justify a wikipedia page. But, of course, Dr. Craig does justify a wikipedia page and its entirely because of his work on the popular level: his debates, his podcast, his popular-level books. He's made himself into a minor celebrity. When we see facebook images of his hand around some similing undergraduate, it's not because of Molinism. Theowarner (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the only news coverage cited for his debates is for the one that didn't happen (against Dawkins). The rest appears mostly cited to related parties, blogs, etc. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does not appear to yield much reliable independent coverage, let alone coverage of sufficient prominence that we should give much WP:WEIGHT to the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

However, searching for William Lane Craig and Molinism finds a large number of reliable book sources, so the sentence should stay. -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

... and the debates are notable enough to stay in the body. Many of the debates exist as published books which have been cited. -- 202.124.72.47 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a fair test. "Molinism" is, unto itself, more likely to produce reliable sources because it's a highly technical term. So, to limit that search to things which mention WLC will probably produce only reliable sources. On the other hand, if you search WLC + debate, you'll find all sorts of nonsense because it is entirely about the popular level discourse. It's worth noting that there are about twenty more times more hits when you add "debate." (40k vs 840K). For whatever that's worth. When you search only William Lane Craig, you'll note that top hits are (as to be expected) not academic hits, per se. They are his website... his university page... and pages about his debates. None of this should be surprising. It's the nature of google more than anything else. Theowarner (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)