Talk:William Lane Craig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Illinois (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (marked as Low-importance).
 


Debates and dialogues[edit]

  • "Sean Carroll at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, "God and Cosmology" (2014)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Melbourne, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?" (2013)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Sydney, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?" (2013)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at Brisbane, "Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?" (2013)". 
  • "Alex Rosenberg at Purdue University, "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" (2013)". 
  • "Klemens Kappel at Copenhagen, Denmark, "Does God Exist?" (2012)". 
  • "Kari Enqvist at University of Helsinki, "Does God Exist?" (2012)". 
  • "Peter Millican at University of Birmingham, "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" (2011)". 
  • "Peter Atkins at University of Manchester, "Does God Exist?" (2011)". 
  • "Stephen Law at Westminster Central Hall, London, "Does God Exist?" (2011)". 
  • "Sam Harris at University of Notre Dame, "Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?" (2011)". 
  • "Lawrence Krauss at North Carolina State University, "Is There Evidence For God?" (2011)". 
  • "Yusuf Ismail at Jubilee Community Church, Cape Town, "Identifying Jesus: Is he, man or both man & God?" (2010)". 
  • "Victor Stenger at Oregon State University, "Does God Exist?" (2010)". 
  • "Francisco Ayala at Indiana University, "Is Intelligent Design Viable?" (2009)". 
  • "Eric Dayton at University of Saskatchewan, "Does Evil Disprove God?" (2009)". 
  • "Shabir Ally at McGill University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2009)". 
  • "Ronald DeSousa at York University, Toronto, "Does God Exist?" (2009)". 
  • "Shelly Kagan at Columbia University, "Is God Necessary For Morality?" (2009)". 
  • "Richard Carrier at Northwest Missouri State University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2009)". 
  • "Christopher Hitchens at Biola University, "Does God Exist?" (2009)". 
  • "Christopher DiCarlo at University of Waterloo, "Does God Matter?" (2009)". 
  • "John R. Shook at University of British Columbia, "Does God Exist?" (2008)". 
  • "Bill Cooke at University of Auckland, New Zealand, "Is God a Delusion?" (2008)". 
  • "Louise Antony at University of Massachusetts at Amherst, "Is God Necessary for Morality?" (2008)". 
  • "James Crossley, "Was Jesus Bodily Raised From the Dead?" (2008)". 
  • "Roy Hoover, "Should We Believe That Jesus' Resurrection Was Historical?"(2007)". 
  • "Lewis Wolpert at Westminster, London, "Is God a Delusion?" (2007)". 
  • "Bart Ehrman at College of the Holy Cross, "Is There Evidence For the Historical Jesus?"(2006)". 
  • "Austin Dacey at California State University, "Does God Exist?" (2005)". 
  • "A.C. Grayling at Oxford, "Does God Make Sense In Light of Tsunamis?" (2005)". 
  • "John Shelby Spong at Bethel College, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2005)". 
  • "Austin Dacey at Purdue University, "Does God Exist? The Ultimate Debate" (2004)". 
  • "Hector Avalos at Iowa State University, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2004)". 
  • "Victor Stenger, "Does God Exist?" (2003)". 
  • "Quentin Smith at Harvard, "Does God Exist?" (2003)". 
  • "Peter Slezak, "Atheism vs Christianity" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "Who is the Real Jesus?" (2002)". 
  • "Shabir Ally, "What Must I Do to be Saved?" (2002)". 
  • "Gerd Ludemann at California Polytechnic State University, "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?" (2002)". 
  • "Torbjorn Tannsjo, "God and Morality" (2001)". 
  • "Paul Kurtz, "Is Goodness Without God Good Enough?" (2001)". 
  • "Massimo Pigliucci at University of Georgia, "Does God Exist?" (2001)". 
  • "Ron Barrier, "Does God Exist?" (2000)". 
  • "Eddie Tabash, "Secular Humanism vs. Christianity" (1999)". 
  • "Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, "Do Evil and Suffering Disprove God?" (1999)". 
  • "Edwin Curley at University of Michigan, "Does the Christian God Exist?" (1998)". 
  • "Keith Parsons at Prestonwood Baptist Church, "Why I am/am not a Christian" (1998)". 
  • "Robert Price, "Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise From the Dead?" (1998)". 
  • "Antony Flew at University of Wisconsin at Madison, "Does God Exist?" (1998)". 
  • "Peter Atkins at Carter Center, "What is the Evidence For/Against God?" (1998)". 
  • "Jamal Badawi at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity" (1998)". 
  • "Paul Draper at United States Military Academy at West Point, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Theodore Drange at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Gerd Ludemann at Boston College, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (1997)". 
  • "Douglas Jesseph at Arizona State University, "Does God Exist?" (1997)". 
  • "Douglas Jesseph at North Carolina State University, "Does God Exist?" (1996)". 
  • "Quentin Smith at Southern Methodist University, "Does God Exist?" (1996)". 
  • "Corey Washington at University of Washington, "Does God Exist?" (1995)". 
  • "Greg Cavin, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" (1995)". 
  • "John Dominic Crossan, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" (1995)". 
  • "Michael Tooley at University of Colorado, "Does God Exist?" (1994)". 
  • "Ray Bradley at Simon Frasier University, "Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?" (1994)". 
  • "Robert Deitz at Arizona State University, "Does God Exist?" (1993)". 
  • "Richard Taylor at Union College, "Is the Basis For Morality Natural or Supernatural?" (1993)". 
  • "Frank Zindler at Willow Creek Community Church, "Atheism vs Christianity" (1993)". 
  • "Kai Nielson at University of Western Ontario, "God Morality and Evil" (1991)". 
  • "Kai Nielson at University of Calgary, "Does God Exist?" (1982)". 

What's a " Christian Analytic philosopher"? & The Ordering of The Lead Revisited[edit]

Before I edited the article, Craig was referred to as an "analytic Christian Philosopher", with a link pointing to "Christian Philosophy". Yes, Craig is a philosopher who is Christian, just like Plantinga. However, Plantinga isn't called an "analytic Christian philosopher" in his article; he's just called an "analytic philosopher". Strange. And when you go to the philosopher Daniel Dennett's article he's merely called a philosopher, not an "Atheist Philosopher". Very interesting. From what I understand, Craig's PhD is in Philosophy, not "Christian Philosophy". If Craig were to become Muslim tomorrow, then would he still be an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? I guess my point is the editors of this article shouldn't be trying to mislead the readers by making it look like there are different kinds of analytic philosophers. There are analytic philosophers who possess different properties, sure (female philosophers, black philosophers, etc.), but these properties shouldn't be lumped in with "analytic philosopher" as though it were its own entity or school of thinking. What's next? vegan analytic philosopher? Brown-haired analytic philosopher? I feel the purpose behind this treatment of Craig was to downplay his credentials; and let's not forget how some of the editors of this article were trying trying to rearrange the lead of this article to first mention Craig as a theologian and Christian apologist before calling him a philosopher. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Craig is referred to this way in the sources, and we follow those. Craig's primary claim to notability comes from his activities in theology and apologetics (essentially Christian philosophy).   — Jess· Δ 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what sources one focuses on. You seem to be focusing on sources that fit your own view point and agenda. But there are sources that differ from your viewpoint and agenda. Some of which were mentioned on this very talk page. Did you ignore them? There's a laundry list of them down below referring to Craig as a philosopher first and foremost. Now, you've been frequenting this article for years, trying to downplay Dr. Craig's credentials. It's getting kinda weird. We know you dislike religion and theism, but that doesn't give you the license to lie to people about prominent Christian thinkers. And, finally, you never really addressed any of the points I made. For instance, why is Daniel Dennett not called an "Atheist Philosopher" in the opener of his article here at Wikipedia? Dennett is considered one of the four horsemen of atheism by... pretty much everyone, and yet, he's not called an "Atheist philosopher" Why? Because that would take away from Dennett's credentials. It'd make him look less scholarly and impartial. I'm sure I could find a bunch of sources that refer to Dennett as an "atheist philosopher", but when one says somebody is an atheist philosopher or christian philosopher, they don't mean to say there is a separate school of philosophy called "atheist philosophy" which they are a part of. What the writer is trying to show is that so-and-so is a philosopher who is an atheist. Now, Jess, are you interested in going to Dennett's page and changing his opener to describe him as an "atheist philosopher"? Or is that kind of tom-foolery reserved for only people who you disagree with? 100.43.29.68 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The contents of other pages don't influence this one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please don't make this personal, or a battleground, and please don't edit war. You seem to be saying in your first post that Craig should be a "philosopher", not an "analytic Christian philosopher", but in this post your emphasis seems to be the ordering of our labels. Could you clarify which point you're trying to address? Listing sources would also be helpful.   — Jess· Δ 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources have already been listed on this talk page under "Prominence of theologian, philosopher"; and I stand by my comments. If you don't understand my points, then go back and re-read them. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what sources specifically on this talk page you are referring too? Boomer VialHolla 07:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

His phd is in analytic philosophy, and he also has a degree in theology. There is no such thing as an "analytic Christian philosophy". Using "Christian" to describe his degrees, therefore, are pointless. I mean, why don't we just rewrite the intro like this:

William Lane Craig (/kreɪɡ/; born August 23, 1949) is an American Christian apologist, analytic Christian philosopher,[3][4][5] and Christian theologian.[6][7] Craig's Christian philosophical work focuses primarily on philosophy of religion (Christian), but also on Christian metaphysics and Christian philosophy of time. His Christian theological interests are in historical Jesus studies (with a Christian bias of course) and Christian philosophical theology. He is known for his Christian debates on the existence of God with much more reasonable public figures such as Christopher Hitchens[8] and Lawrence Krauss.[9]
Craig established an online Christian apologetics ministry, ReasonableFaith.org. His current Christian research deals with divine aseity (from an obviously biased Christian point of view) and the challenge posed by Platonist accounts of abstract objects. Craig is also a Christian author of several Christan books, including Reasonable (Christian) Faith,[10] which began as a set of Christian lectures for his Christian apologetics classes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess and his friends will need to explain what exactly a "christian analytic philosopher" is and if it differs from a "philosopher" or a "analytic philosopher". For instance, is an analytic philosopher who was raised Christian or believes in Christianity a "christian analytic philosopher"--or is that merely a philosopher who happens to be Christian? Or is that label reserved for only analytic philosophers who get Christian Analytic Philosophy PhDs (what's that? Craig has a PhD in Philosopher, doesn't he?)? And is the goal of this sort of labeling to somehow separate what Jess thinks are the "true philosophers" from the fake "christian philosophers"? Are there vegan analytic philosophers or muslim analytic philosophers? Jess said that other articles shouldn't influence this one, but I'd like to know if he would support somebody editing Daniel Dennett's article to describe him as an "American Atheist philosopher" instead of just an "American philosopher" Finally, Bill the Cat brings up a good point. If we are to tag Christian everywhere shouldn't we add that he is a "christian theologian" instead of just a "theologian"? Shouldn't we be consistent with our undermining of Craig's credentials? As for the ordering of the lead... this was talked about extensively down below under "Prominence of theologian, philosopher" where somebody posted several sources demonstrating that there are many people who see Dr. Craig as a philosopher first and foremost. When I have time I'll transfer the sources up here. Sources showing that Craig should be referred to as a philosopher first and foremost: http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/ https://www.hbu.edu/About-HBU/General-Information/HBU-in-the-News/Press-Releases/2014/January/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-to-Join-HBU-Faculty.aspx http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/02/2015-cadbury-lectures-24-02-15.aspx http://www.millican.org/other.htm http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/modern-authors/william-lane-craig/#more-119 http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/02/01/william-lane-craig-interview/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-william-lane-craig-calls-atheist-hotline-a-wrong-number-98182/ http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/william-craig/profile http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392 http://michaelgleghorn.com/artReasonableFaith.php http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/craig-kalam-and-quantum-mechanics-has-craig-defeated-the-quantum-mechanics-objection-to-the-causal-principle-870.html http://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/ http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/a-philosophical-perspective-on-the-uniqueness-of-the-quran/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/04/05/debating-william-lane-craig/ http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/smith2.html http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com/2008/06/craig-vs-cooke.html http://idpluspeterswilliams.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/william-lane-craig-defends-viability-of.html http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/did-god-really-command-genocide/348680 (In this book Craig is described as a Christian philosopher (pp. 21, 81)) http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195331356.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195331356 (in this book WLC is mentioned alongside Richard Swinburne and William L. Rowe, without any qualification) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (in this book William Haskar refers to Craig as a philosopher on page 139) 100.43.29.68 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Those sources fall into one of several categories: 1) low quality, blogs, lacking significance, 2) written by the subject, so not independent, 3) identify Craig as a leading Christian apologist and discuss his contributions to that field, not philosophy generally. Again, you need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND: it's not "Jess and his friends". I've presented a very clear case based on policy and sources which shows why the article has been this way for years. To repeat it:
  1. MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology.
  2. His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
  3. Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", "Apologist", "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
  4. Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.   — Jess· Δ 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
and:... By the way, I provided several news sources above, but here are several book sources. The funny thing is, the difficulty isn't in finding book sources generally; it is in finding sources about WLC that aren't written by WLC.
  • Chris Sandoval: William Lane Craig of Biola University, the brightest and best apologist of our times...
  • Brian Morley: Classical Apologetics... One of the most prolific and respected scholars in the classical camp is William Lane Craig
  • Clifford McManis William Lane Craig, who many claim to be the premiere Christian apologist of our time
  • Alex McFarland: Moreland and Craig are two top contemporary apologists
Our primary interest should be reflecting our own article in the lead, but these sources give some indication of weight.   — Jess· Δ 04:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, you will have to be more specific than this. Many sources were posted and all you’ve done here is make the claim, without providing evidence or going into any detail, that every single one of these sources fall into the following categories: low quality, blogs, lacking significance, not independent, etc. Further, blogs may be used as sources if the author “is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications”. So let’s look at one of these blogs that has been posted, namely Peter Millican’s blog, and let’s see if this standard set by Wikpedia has been met.

http://www.millican.org/other.htm

“In 2011, William Lane Craig, the prominent American philosopher of religion and Christian evangelist, toured a number of British universities debating with atheists and sceptics.”

Now, who is Peter Millican? Well, according to his article here at Wikipedia, he is the following: “Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. His primary interests include the philosophy of David Hume, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, epistemology, and moral philosophy. Millican is particularly well known for his work on David Hume, and from 2005 until 2010 was co-editor of the journal Hume Studies.” Millican is atheist, by the way. Finally, a list of his published work in Philosophy is listed at the end of the Wikipedia article. So what we have here is an expert in Philosophy, with published work in Philosophy, who is an atheist, stating on his blog (before anything else) that William Lane Craig is a prominent American Philosopher.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned it looks to me like the criteria has been met.

This indicates to me that you didn’t look at the sources or you’re ignorant of some of Wikipedia’s policies pertaining to reliable sources.

Regardless of the reason, I ask you to 1) Stop edit warring while accusing others of edit warring (according to your talkpage you seem to have a habit of this) and 2) Examine the sources and explain in detail what's wrong with them. Otherwise, how are we to have a genuine discussion that will hopefully bring us to consensus about this issue?

Oh, and one other thing. You wrote, "'Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument.' If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist." For your argument to work one would have to accept the premise that only a Christian apologist would write about or defend the cosmological argument. To me this premise is obviously false and your argument fails. If you have a rebuttal to this then I'd like to see it. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The core defining characteristic of William Lane Craig, dominating almost everything he does in public life, is that he is a prominent Christian apologist. He sometimes enlists techniques taken from analytic philosophy and/or traditional logic as part of his style, but those are merely embellishments, the manner he chooses to decorate his arguments. I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself, or for that matter to formal logic. It is, right from the start, an unbalanced approach to the article to suppress noting in the lead sentence that he is, foremost, a Christian apologist. Accordingly I have reverted the contentious edit just made by 100.43.29.68. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
“The core defining characteristic of William Lane Craig, dominating almost everything he does in public life, is that he is a prominent Christian apologist.”

That’s what you’re claiming, yes. There is no doubt WLC is a Christian apologist, but should that be what is mentioned first in his article? Is that his core defining characteristic? Does his apologetics not flow from his expertise in Philosophy and Theology?

“He sometimes enlists techniques taken from analytic philosophy and/or traditional logic as part of his style, but those are merely embellishments, the manner he chooses to decorate his arguments.”

I apologize but this charge, in its current form, appears unfounded and emotional. You’re asking us to ignore WLC’s PhD in Philosophy, his published work in Philosophy, and the opinions of other Philosophers (regarding WLC’s expertise in Philosophy), to form the belief that he may appear to be a philosopher, but he’s not really a philosopher; he may appear to be doing philosophy, but he isn't doing philosophy. This just sounds silly to me.

“I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself”

This is just an appeal to ignorance. For those who don’t know what that is:

“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

So your proposition here is WLC has not made any useful contributions to analytic philosophy, because it hasn’t been proven that he has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy.

Now, if you were to demonstrate that you have a PhD in Philosophy and published work in peer reviewed journals, then this may mean something. Otherwise, it doesn’t. It just comes off as an appeal to ignorance from a guy who edits Wiki articles. Do you have a source from an accredited Philosopher who shares your opinion of WLC? If so then that’d help your case tremendously.

One other thing I noticed. The question is should WLC be referred to as a philosopher before he is referred to as an apologist, or a theologian. That’s not contingent upon whether or not he has “made any useful contributions” to philosophy. Instead, it’s contingent upon what reliable sources say WLC is.

Also, “Useful contribution” is a very ambiguous and person-relative term and in this case it's only coming from you. Meaning, you personally think he hasn't made any useful contributions. Forgive me for saying so but who cares what you think individually? I'd take the opinion over Peter Millican over yours, thanks.

Therefore, I’ve decided to revert your revert.

100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This may be seen as irrelevant to some but I found it interesting. Googling William Lane Craig apologist returned 73600 results. William Lane Craig theologian returned 419000 results. And William Lane Craig philosopher returned 503000 results. So it's the last pairing that found the most results. Interesting. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Going back to that irrelevant question about whether Craig has made "useful contributions". "[A] count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam [cosmological] argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence…. The fact that theists and atheists alike “cannot leave Craig’s Kalam argument alone” suggests that it may be an article of unusual philosophical interest or else has an attractive core of plausibility that keeps philosophers turning back to it and examining it once again." Quentin Smith, atheist philosopher of time, language, physics, and religion (accessible source of the quote, pg. 183)

100.43.29.68 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Most sources state that he is a philosopher or Christian philosopher (and Christian philosophers are philosophers). Here are twelve. I could give hundreds if not thousands more (I already have given some in previous posts on the talk page).
1. Francis Beckwith 1992, 'Philosophical Problems with the Mormon Concept of God', Christian Research Journal [1], p. 96: "Philosopher William Lane Craig".
2. Bill Ramey 1998, The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary, [2]): "philosopher William Lane Craig".
3. N. Allan Moseley 2003, 'Loving God with Your Mind', in Thinking Against The Grain: Developing a Biblical Worldview in a Culture of Myths, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 25: "Philosopher William Lane Craig is another Christian leader".
4. John Hick 2005, Religious Pluralism and Islam, Lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought in Tehran, February, [3], p. 7: "exclusivist Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig".
5. Ron Rhodes 2006, Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics, OR: Harvest House Publishers, p. 10: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
6. George L. Baker 2008, 'Human Free Choice and Divine Omniscience: Toward Resolution of an Apparent Incompatibility', The New Philosophy, January-June, [4] p. 270: "The philosopher William Lane Craig".
7. "Michael Chamberlain 2009, 'First, the Log in Our Own Eye: Missionaries and their Critics', in Mary Shepard Wong & Suresh Canagarajah (eds), Christian and Critical English Language Educators in Dialogue: Pedagogical and Ethical Dilemmas, NY:Routledge, [5], p. 48: "philosopher William Lane Craig".
8. Christopher J. Yeung 2010, 'Divine Omniscience: Is God's Foreknowledge at Risk in the Context of Contemporary Science?', Theology and Science, vol 8, no. 2, p. 187: "Philosopher William Lane Craig".
9. Alex McFarland & Elmer L. Towns 2011, 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Thoughtful Responses to Strengthen Your Faith, TN: B&H Academic, [6], p. 35: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
10. Tom Gilson 2013, The Party of Reason? in Tom Gilson & Carson Weitnauer (eds) 2013, True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism, MI:Kregel Publications, [7] p. 22: "noted Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
11. Matthew R. McWhorter 2013, 'Aquinas on God’s Relation to the World', New Blackfriars, vol. 94, p. 3,6: "the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig ... The philosopher William Lane Craig".
12. Simon Dein 2013, 'Religious Doubts: Implications for Psychopathology and Psychotherapy', Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, vol. 77, no. 3, p. 202 "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
13. Corey Miller & Paul Gould 2014, 'Introduction: Faith, Reason, and God', in Corey Miller & Paul Gould (eds) Is Faith in God Reasonable?: Debates in Philosophy, Science and Rhetoric, NY: Routledge, [8], p. 5: "Christian philosopher William Lane Craig".
More sources have been cited on this Talk page, including the 13 I have cited above and the ones I have previously cited in other posts, pointing toward the idea that he is known as a philosopher first and foremost. Statements like 'I'm not aware of any plausible academic who thinks Craig has made useful contributions to analytic philosophy itself, or for that matter to formal logic' are just posturing. As a person whose completed academic study is in the field of philosophy, I am aware of plenty of plausible academics who think Craig has made useful contributions to philosophy. I would not have had to study William Lane Craig as extensively as I have during my secular higher education in philosophy if he had not made any useful contributions to philosophy. Col8lok8 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@100.43.29.68: Please stop edit warring and establish consensus here before making further changes to the article. I thought your claim was that WLC was established as an analytic philosopher, rather than as a Christian philosopher. The Kalam cosmological argument is WLC's rehash of an argument used in medieval Islamic scholasticism. It is used today in Christian theology as a part of Christian apologetics, and has nothing to do with analytic philosophy. I understand from your user page Col8lok8, that you recently completed a bachelor of arts which included some Christian philosophy. Well done, but that does not make your opinions authoritative. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The Kalam argument is mostly used today in Philosophy of Religion which is a part of Philosophy. William Lane Craig is well established as Christian philosopher of religion, and Christian philosophers of religion are philosophers. It seems then the only contentious word is 'analytic'. Also: why do you and others keep making the claim that the Kalam argument is primarily discussed and used in apologetics/theology? It isn't - this is just posturing in an attempt to discredit the argument. Most theology is concerned with special revelation, not general revelation. Theologians would agree that the God they discuss has most fully revealed himself in Scriptures and through miracles, and they are focused primarily on those. The bulk of their focus is not on the traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence from which they should say only a limited amount of information about God can be learned. Presuppositional apologetics, as a major form of Christian apologetics, always seeks to turns the focus of discussion on the Bible. Presuppositional apologetics "always find[s] a way to get to the gospel ... [and] refuses to leave the Bible behind" (Voddie Baucham Jr. 2015, Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word, IL:Crossway, pp. 65-66). Most discussions of the Kalam argument in contrast don't talk about the Bible but rather about the truth of the premises, and the philosophical and scientific support for the premises.Col8lok8 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a different person from Col8lok8. I'm currently going to school for Computer Science. :) 100.43.29.68 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that WLC is referred to as a philosopher too. The problem is not in calling WLC a philosopher. The problem is in removing that he is a Christian apologist, when that is his primary claim to notability, and claiming he is only a philosopher. I've copied the same bulleted post about 4 times now, and no one has yet responded to it in any depth. Every one of my bullets is a solid reason, on its own, to support the current ordering which has been in place for years. For example, we need to follow the manual of style, and the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The body is entirely focused on Craig's apologetics. If you want the lead to say prominently that he's a philosopher, you would first need to rework the article so the weight of our coverage reflected that.   — Jess· Δ 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
And please try to keep responses short. We all have limited time, and 3,000 - 4,000 character responses (much less a series of them) will very quickly become unmanageable.   — Jess· Δ 22:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
RE "we need to follow the manual of style, and the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The body is entirely focused on Craig's apologetics."
I agree with the first sentence. I disagree with the second sentence. Yes, the lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. The problem is that the bulk of the article's body is focused on his personal life, his education/studies (in philosophy and theology), and his thought/work as a philosopher of religion and as a theologian. You are classifying too much Christian apologetics. There is one paragraph about his debates, there is one sentence about his apologetics site, and one paragraph about his 'other views' some of which may be classified as part of his apologetics. The rest is about his philosophy and theology (education/studies in philosophy and theology - philosophy and theology; Kalam cosmological argument - philosophy; attributes of God [aseity, eternity and omniscience] - philosophy and theology).
I am not removing the idea of Dr Craig as a Christian apologist from (someone who employs his knowledge and skills in service of Christian apologetics) from the entire article. However, since the article is primarily focused on his philosophy and theology it is more appropriate to put the idea that he employs his knowledge and skills in service of Christian apologetics next to the sentence introducing people to William Lane Craig's public debating, and to preface that next sentence with 'for example'.
Re: your four points
1. I have addressed the first one (the bulk of the body is focused on his philosophy as well as his theology, not his apologetics, and the lead should reflect that).
2. Dr Craig's own works focus on philosophy and theology, not apologetics.
Philosophy: 'About 16,200 results' [9]
Theology 'About 11,700 results' [10]
Christian apologetics 'About 4,440 results' [11].
3. I am not arguing for Dr Craig as an analytic philosopher. As far as I rememmber, I was not the one who introduced the term 'analytic' - someone else did in the article's long history.
4. If Craig is best known for his work on the Kalam argument, he is best known as a philosopher. The argument is mainly discussed today in philosophy as part of philosophy of religion, not in apologetics or theology. Christian apologetics and Christian theology mostly focus on special revelation in Scriptures and miracles, not traditional philosophical arguments for a god of the philosophers such as cosmological arguments which are properly classified under the term 'philosophy'. There is a wide chasm between the 'God of philosophers/philosophy' (as from the title of Roy Jackson's book 'The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion') and the God who is presented in Christian apologetics and Christian theology. Here is a quote from Hans Schwarz (2011, The God Who Is: The Christian God in a Pluralistic World, OR:Cascade Books, p. 61):
"Both Plato and Aristotle talked about a first unmoved mover. Later on one focused on a world architect or at the most a creator and perfecter of the world. But the world architect or the first unmoved mover can at best push the button to get everything started or lay out the initial conditions according to which the world runs its course. This kind of God the French scientist and lay theologian Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) called the God of philosophers who is vastly different from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
I invite you to stop confusing the Kalam Cosmological Argument with Christian Apologetics. Christian Apologetics and Christian Theology: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Kalam Cosmological Argument: the god of philosophers/philosophy. They are vastly different (as the literature acknowledges).Col8lok8 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, please try to keep things short. You think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not apologetics? The sources appear to disagree. For example: carm lists it under apologetics and even reasonablefaith.org says "The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics". Our article has 3 main sections. "Life and career" aside, the other two ("Thought" and "Bibliography") are almost exclusively apologetics.   — Jess· Δ 04:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
“You think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not apologetics?”

Let’s try to be more precise, Jess. You’re asking if the Kalam can be used in Christian apologetics. The answer to that question is yes. However, it could also be used in Muslim apologetics (more about that at the end). WLC also uses the standard big bang model of the universe (and other scientific evidence) in his Christian apologetics as well. That doesn’t mean the standard big bang model of the universe is Christian apologetics. There’s a difference between something being used in Christian apologetics and something that is Christian apologetics (for an example of the latter look at the arguments used for the death and resurrection of Jesus). Moreover, the Kalam in itself says nothing about the truth of Christianity. If the Kalam is successful then it demonstrates that the universe had a cause; and once the cause is conceptually analyzed, the result may bring a person to believe the cause is supernatural. However, that doesn’t necessarily bring the person to the Christian God. In fact, the Kalam was created by Al-Ghazali, a Muslim; and some of the framework for the Kalam can be traced back to Aristotle who was also not a Christian apologist. I feel as though the aforementioned has completely demolished your stance and I wonder if you’ll even respond. Looking over the discussion thread you seem to ignore most of the arguments laid out in front of you. How can one have a discussion with you and reach consensus when you’re ignoring everything that is inconvenient to your position? You still haven't given good reasons why the sources I've cited are unreliable and you ignored my rebuttal in regards to Peter Millican's blog being used as a source. Then there are the other sources that Col8lok8 has mentioned...

100.43.29.68 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You're doing a lot of original research here. Kalam isn't apologetics because I am arguing that it is. Kalam is apologetics because the sources identify it that way. Whether Craig "uses it" in Christian apologetics or it "is" apologetics is irrelevant to the point that Craig is engaging in apologetics when he uses it, and that is what he is most well known for.   — Jess· Δ 22:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you've seemed to have skipped most of what I've written and you've ignored my challenge to rebut what I've written about Peter Millican. Look, if you're not interested in having an honest discussion about this article, then step aside.

As I said before, there's a difference between the Kalam being Christian apologetics and it being merely used in Christian apologetics. But before I repeat myself, what I'm stating here is logical and a reiteration of information that I've garnered from Wikipedia and its sources. That being said, many things can be used in Christian apologetics, but that doesn't mean those things were created for Christian apologetics or that they are Christian apologetics. I illustrated this by bringing up how Craig uses scientific evidence, namely the big bang, in Christian apologetics. But that doesn't make the big bang Christian apologetics, now does it? The Kalam is an argument that demonstrates that the universe had a cause, without going into a detail about what the cause was or is; once the cause is conceptually analyzed, one may come to the conclusion that the cause is super natural. However, that doesn't bring you to Christianity. Far from it. This argument could be used by a deist, theist, Muslim, a Christian, or anyone that wants to argue in favor of a monotheistic God. But that's all the argument can accomplish. It tells us nothing about the personality of God, the point of human beings, their future, or if God has made a special revelation. Finally, the argument was developed by a Muslim, Al-Ghazali; and Al-Ghazali didn't develop the argument as a Christian apologetic. How can you ignore all these facts and logic? By the way, the information about Al-Ghazali can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Form_of_the_argument

Also, I looked at your two sources and I don't see what the fuss is about. Where in the reasonablefaith.org source does it say the Kalam is Christian apologetics--or that it isn't a philosophical argument first and foremost? And where did you get the idea that whenever WLC discusses the Kalam he is doing so in the context of Christianity? And do you believe that is true for every philoslopher who talks about the Kalam? Here's a book about the Kalam written by Craig (http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456731570&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=kalam+cosmoglocai+argument). Look at the table of contents or read the synopsis. Do you see anything about Christianity or Christian apologetics in there? And your other source has the teleological argument listed under apologetics, but the teleological argument, like the Kalam, doesn't bring you to a Christian God. In fact, it doesn't even bring you to a God, necessarily. The designer doesn't have to be "God." I think the issue is you're getting confused when people use Philosophical arguments in Christian apologetics. Yes, in Christian apologetics many kinds of Philosophical arguments are used. Another one would be the ontological argument. But when a person does so, that doesn't magically make the arguments Christian-only or Christian apologetics. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the ontological, teleological, and Kalam cosmological argument can all be used by deists, Muslims, etc.; and let's say a Muslim did use the Kalam (they have, obviously) or ontological argument. According to you, wouldn't that magically turn the arguments into Muslim-only arguments or Muslim apologetics? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they're philosophical arguments that are being used in Muslim apologetics? I just don't get you, man. Are you purposely trying to mislead people? Don't you want the article to be accurate? You've been policing this article for how many years? What is your deal with WLC 100.43.29.68 (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Craig is of course an analytic philosopher of religion. Look for example at the description of his forthcoming book at Oxford University Press on divine aseity: God over all, based on classical theism (i.e. not only christianity), is described as "a synoptic work in analytic philosophy of religion". link God over all Thucyd (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Once again, Craig is a Christian apologist and a Christian philosopher. He is not an analytic philosopher. He merely uses some techniques and styles he takes from analytic philosophy to give his arguments about Christianity an appearance of contemporary respectability. He is no more an analytic philosopher than someone who uses mathematics to support arguments in astrology is a mathematician. If you think he is an analytic philosopher, you need to show where he has made significant contributions to analytic philosophy itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
100.43, I can't say this every time. Please shorten your replies. It is impossible to trudge through 4,000 character blocks of text multiple times a day. Briefly, your points about Christian vs Muslim are not relevant; we're talking about Craig being recognized as an apologist and/or a philosopher, not a Christian vs a Muslim. Do we all understand that apologetics uses philosophy to provide a rational basis for belief? Again, Kalam is not apologetics because I say so. It is apologetics because that's what the sources say. The same is true of Craig.
@Thucyd I have never disagreed that Craig is a philosopher. I have defended that Craig is a philosopher and an apologist. Yes, Craig often describes himself as "a philosopher" foremost, but he is described as an apologist independently. On wikipedia, we prefer independent sources.   — Jess· Δ 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It's really not difficult to find a reliable source that describes the kalam cosmological argument as a work in analytic philosophy of religion: James F. Harris, Analytic philosophy of religion, Kluwer Academic publishers, 2002, pp. 129-131. It's just an example. Thucyd (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
...which does not mean it is not apologetics. Again, apologetics often employs philosophy to provide a reasonable basis for belief. Craig is described as an apologist independently. Kalam, the thing Craig is most notable for, is described as apologetics independently. Finding sources that also describe Kalam as philosophy doesn't make Craig not an apologist.   — Jess· Δ 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jess, I don't care if you want shorter responses. My responses are as long as they need to be. And, evidently, you're not interested in interacting with any of the very relevant points I've made (numerous points) nor are you interested in interacting with the point I made about Peter Millican's blog being reliable, according to the standards set by Wikipedia. There are independent sources that call Craig a philospher first and foremost and there are sources that discuss the Kalam without mentioning Christianity or Christian apologetics. The sources are in this very thread. Jess, one of your main issues is you're confusing Christian apologetics with what is used in Christian apologetics. Again, the Kalam is first and foremost a philosophical argument that argues in favor of a first cause of the universe. It has nothing to do with Christianity per se. However, it has been used in Christian aplogetics, Muslim apologetics, or by theists in general. At this point I'm beginning to question your intellectual honesty... 100.43.29.68 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

100.43.29.68, against all the evidence you have yet again removed the principal defining characteristic of Craig's work from the lead sentence, namely that he is a Christian apologist. Jesse has already set out some of the overwhelming evidence for this above. The screeds of unfocused attempts at rebuttal above do not provide any counter. Craig is not primarily the philosopher you seem to think he is, because the thrust of his philosophising is nearly always in the service of something else, Christian apologetics. Philosophy for Craig is largely a tool he uses to further his central interest, which is propping up Christian apologetics. Craig is not someone who allows philosophical thinking to lead where it will, as a true philosopher does. Instead he wields a metaphysical crowbar to bend philosophical reasoning in the direction of Christian apologetics, which is what he really about. You questioned Jess's intellectual honesty above. I now invite you to demonstrate some intellectual honesty yourself and undo your reversion. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Jess in this conversations keeps switching between 'apologetics' and 'Christian apologetics'. Epipelagic, the principal defining feature of Craig's work is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The question is whether this argument, taken as an individual argument, is Christian apologetics, or whether it is more properly seen as an argument in philosophy for what is commonly described as the god of philosophers.
In philosophy, apologetics is a general term in relating to, as Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach & David Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) states: "the defense of a position or point of view". Philosophers who defend a position or point of view engage in apologetics for that point of view, and if they are best known for doing that they are best known as philosophers (albeit ones who defend specific positions or point of view). Apologetics is part of the work of every philosopher who defends a specific position or point of view that is not ubiquitously accepted against critics of that view. There is no need to add apologist when you have philosopher. It adds no new information.
(A) Positive forms of apologetics, and
(B) negative forms of apologetics
as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) state, are
(A) attempts to "show that the position is reasonable or credible", and
(B) attempts to "show criticisms of a specific ... position fail".
Any point of view or position that needs to be defended against critics (not ubiquitously accepted) comes with apologetics when it is defended.
The question before us is whether the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as an individual argument, is Christian apologetics (apologetics for a distinctly Christian conception of God involving a God who most fully reveals himself in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth).
Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue for a distinctly Christian conception of God? No, in fact as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86) state: "the kalam argument often presented by Craig actually says nothing identifying the cause of the universe".
Using these points we can say this
1. An individual argument is in and of itself a Christian apologetics argument when the individual argument, when defended by a defender, defends a distinctly Christian point of view against critics of Christianity.
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument "says nothing identifying the cause of the universe" (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger 2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86). It has more in common with arguments for a unidentified uncaused first cause and arguments for the god of the philosophers than with a God who most fully reveals himself in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.
3. Therefore the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, as an individual argument, not Christian apologetics.
4. William Lane Craig is best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
5. Therefore, William Lane Craig is not best known for Christian apologetics.
Intellectual honesty demands that we describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher and theologian first foremost. William Lane Craig is best known for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He certainly defends (engages in apologetics for) it, yes. However if that is what he is best known for, he is not best known for anything distinctly Christian because the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as an individual argument, is not distinctly Christian. While it is philosophy and philosophers can engage in apologetics for it, it is not Christian apologetics. Moreoever, simply adding 'apologist' adds no new information, as apologetics (without the word 'Christian' in front of it) is part of the work of any philosopher defending as specific hotly debated position against critics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This is all original research. Kalam is described as apologetics, and Craig is described as an apologist by the best sources we have. The idea that Kalam can also be used in Muslim apologetics is irrelevant. Craig doesn't use it that way, which is why he's not a "Muslim apologist". The "Chistian" or "Muslim" is an adjective describing the type of apologetics. If we have a green apple, I'm saying we should call it a "green apple", and you're saying "apples can also be red, plus saying it's just 'an apple' doesn't say much, so we should just call it a fruit." While it is also a fruit, that doesn't make it not a green apple, and we need to represent our sources that describe it in that way.   — Jess· Δ 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what Jess isn't getting. The Kalam is first and foremost a philosophical argument. **Maybe** a Muslim apologetic (since it was developed by Al-Ghazali, a Muslim). The fact that it is sometimes used in Christian apologetics doesn't magically turn it into a Christian apologetic whereas anyone who talks about the Kalam is magically turned into a Christian apologist (first and foremost). Moreover, Craig has talked about the Kalam outside of a Christian context with the following book: http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456871349&sr=8-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+kalam. I'm just at a loss of words here. This isn't "original research", lol. This is common sense mixed with reliable sources. William Lane Craig has a PhD in Philosophy, has published work in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, has had his work published in books, and he has other philosophers calling him a philosopher first and foremost. Craig is a Philosopher who defends Christianity. His Christian apologetics flows from his expertise in Philosophy and some of the arguments he uses in his Christian apologetics are intrinsically philosophical. Finally, the Kalam doesn't even get you to Christianity! It's just an argument in favor of a first cause of the universe! Lol, this is just getting ridiculous. I don't know what to write anymore. Clearly, Jess is outside of his comfort zone or he's being intellectually dishonest.

100.43.29.68 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100.43.29.68. Would you agree that the general public is aware that taking a debated position in philosophy and defending it against critics (apologetics, with no adjectives) is part of the normal work of every philosopher who doesn't simply sit on the fence for every debated philosophical issue? Would you agree that it adds no new information that isn't already present with the general public's understanding of the word 'philosopher'?
Jess, you are the one doing original research. Apologetics, in philosophy, is simply when a philosopher defends a specific view in philosophy. It adds no new information that we don't already have when we say 'philosopher'. Every philosopher who defends specific hotly debated views in philosophy from critics of that view engages in what Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger (2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 9) call "apologetics". The general public's understanding of what a philosopher does includes among other things defending positions in philosophy against their critics (engaging in apologetics). Apologetics, as Peterson, Hasker, Reichenback & Basinger (2013) says nothing to disagree that it is part of the normal work every philosopher does who defends a specific position or point of view. We need to represent our sources. The Kalam Cosmological Argument "says nothing identifying the cause of the universe" (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach & Basinger 2013, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 5 edn, NY:Oxford University Press, p. 86). It is not proper to describe the Kalam Cosmological Argument first and foremost as Christian apologetics when it has nothing distinctly Christian in content as that quote demonstrates - the cause of the universe is not identified as Christian. The sources do not identify it as Christian apologetics. The sources describe it as apologetics. You want to add something unsupported by the sources as far as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is concerned.
Comparing
(A) "the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Christian apologetics" with
(B) "the Kalam Cosmological Argument in philosophy"
via Google Books:
(A) "1 result" [12]
(B) "About 80 results" [13]
On the other hand James Franklin Harris in his book Analytic Philosophy of Religion (2002, Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 129) stated: "Perhaps the best known and most clearly formulated version of the cosmological argument that incorporates the fundamental concepts of big bang theory is found in the work of William Lane Craig. Craig seizes upon the fact that before the big bang nothing can be said to exist and that all matter and energy as well as space-time itself began with the big bang to construct an updated version of what is called the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God". Similarly, William L. Rowe, in his book Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (2007, CA:Thomson Wadsworth, p. 33), stated "A version of the Cosmological Argument that has its origins in Arabic philosphy is also receiving attention in contemporary philosophy of religion". Everything suggests the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument in philosophy, and if that is what William Lane Craig is best known for then he is best known as a philosopher. Putting anything before 'philosopher' is intellectually dishonest as far as the Kalam Comological Argument, which William Lane Craig is best known for, is concerned.
Jess, you yourself said: "For example: carm lists it under apologetics and even reasonablefaith.org says "The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics"". These sources do not use the 'Christian' adjective because they know it is just philosophy, and when a philosopher defends a view in philosophy they engage in apologetics (and unqualified without any adjectives it adds no new information that we don't already get with 'philosopher'). The sources you provided do not support the claim that the Kalam argument is 'Christian apologetics', only 'apologetics'. In philosophy, that means a philosopher defending a point of view in philosophy. This is something, as I have already said, the general public already knows philosophers do. The general public doesn't think that most philosophers simply stand on the fence on every hotly debated point of view in philosophy. They are aware of the process in philosophy of taking a position and defending it.
Jess, I too will not heed your advice of keeping responses short. That is an unreasonable request for the topic being discussed.Col8lok8 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's the deal. The sources are clear. The article has represented the sources correctly for the last several years. Your proposal has been reverted by 6 different editors over the last 2 weeks. None of those editors appear to have an interest in discussing this in detail, in part I'd imagine because neither of you is willing to be concise, and this section has turned into a massive essay of IDHT which gets enormously bigger every day. Your refusal to work with others and abide by reasonable requests (like briefly answering questions instead of posting 4,000 character off-topic replies), and repeated battleground behavior makes this conversation essentially impossible to continue. Your option right now is to pursue dispute resolution, such as starting an RfC with your proposal. I don't really know what else to recommend... but outright refusing to work with others is not going to get you farther on a collaborative project.   — Jess· Δ 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the deal. The sources are clear. They do not support your view that the Kalam Cosmological Argument taken as an individual argument, an argument which you acknowledge William Lane Craig is best known for, is Christian apologetics. It is clearly philosophy, and when philosophers defend specific views by providing point in support of its reasonableness and highlighting how criticisms of it fail, they are doing the ordinary work of philosophers known as apologetics. Adding the word apologist adds no new information that the words 'philosopher' and 'theologian' do not already contain. Such people not sitting on the fence for every debated issue but defending specific positions are understood to be apologists for their positions. But all of this comes into the public understanding of the word 'philosopher' and 'theologian' already. The article has represented sources about William Lane Craig incorrectly for the last several years (a clear example would be in using the word 'analytic' when no provided sources use it when directly referring to Craig), and I have provided sources to back this up. You and Epipelagic, as editors, appear to be intent on engaging in or provoking in others edit warring behaviour.
You and Epipelagic's refusal to be intellectually honest as well as refusal to work with others and abide by reasonable requests (like providing sources which say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Christian apologetics, a claim you have repeatedly made without sufficient backing), and repeated battleground behavior makes this conversation difficult. One option you have right now is to pursue dispute resolution, such as starting an RfC with your proposal. I don't really know what else to recommend... but outright refusing to work with others is not going to get you farther on a collaborative project. I on the other hand have demonstrated my willingness to be collaborative by removing the word 'analytic', based on suggestions which the article has used without a source for years. I will acknowledge that 'boldy' too may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia (even though that description matches a word, 'boldest', used in the title of a source), and will remove it.Col8lok8 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Where is the abundant number of sources clearly stating words to the effect that 'the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument of Christian apologetics' or 'the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to show that it is reasonable to believe in a distinctly Christian conception of theism'? If none, you have failed to show that the Kalam Cosmological argument, an argument for which Craig is best known, is at its heart Christian apologetics. The lead of an article should reflect the body (and the body suggests that what William Lane Craig is best known for is this very argument).Col8lok8 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Col8lok8, except when he says that Craig is not an analytic philosopher. The kalam argument is a work in analytic philosophy of religion. I have already provided a highly reliable ref.: James F. Harris, Analytic philosophy of religion, Kluwer Academic publishers, 2002, pp. 129-131. Thucyd (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Thucyd, that William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher. I have never denied the fact that he is an analytic philosopher. I just don't think it is widely sourced, and so I have never made an argument for putting it in the article or keeping it in the article before I removed it. But the discussion about the nature of and differences between analytic philosophy (such as that of Rawls) and continental philosophy (such as that of Kierkegaard) don't get much air time at a popular level so I am not suprised that William Lane Craig is referred to as a philosopher more than analytic philosopher. I agree with you that the JF Harris source is a reliable source of information about William Lane Craig. However, while the JF Harris source is certainly titled 'analytic philosophy of religion', is there a quote in that book which explicitly refers to him as an analytic philosopher? For example is there the words "the analytic philosopher William Lane Craig". I am meticulous about making sure claims made about people are sourced. In this case I would prefer a direct quotation rather than rely on both the book title, and the fact that William Lane Craig is demonstrably [14] mentioned in the book over a number of pages. Am I being too fastidious by asking for a direct quotation in this instance? Col8lok8 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All editors, do we all agree on this statement (see sources I have listed on the entire Talk page for the construction of this statement):

“The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as it is presented by William Lane Craig who is best known for using it and defending it, is first and foremost a piece of philosophy that represents no particular (or single) world religion and over which there is intense debate.”

If so, it is clear for the following reasons, that whatever else William Lane Craig is, he is best known as a philosopher.

  1. We can't use the adjective Christian because the argument itself does not represent any single world religion.
  2. Apologist, without the word Christian, just means that William Lane Craig defends the concluding position of the Kalam argument (that the universe has a cause of its existence) in philosophy. That tells people nothing new as they already know philosophers often do that with specific positions in intense debates over various philosophical arguments.
  3. The idea that the universe has a cause of its existence is clearly one, first and more foremost belonging to philosophy, not Christian apologetics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that that is reasonable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as it goes I would have to agree. Pleonic (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. 100.43.29.68 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Prominence of theologian, philosopher[edit]

This edit by an ip is attempting to change the order of our lead, suggesting that WLC is more prominently known as a philosopher than a theologian. This is territory we've been over extensively in the past, so I'd like to discuss it again here before changing the article. The IP says that sources support his claim, so I'd like to see them to assess. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He identifies himself as, "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University." (Emphasis added.) Nothing about "apologist" in there (no Phd's in "apologetics") It seems to me that the vast majority of his work, therefore, is in philosophy, not apologetics, although he occasionally does that too. To label him as an "apologist" first and foremost is really to denigrate him (since any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be an apologist, without any formal training) and misleading to the average reader, which I'm sure is your liking but not fair or accurate in a WP article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife Jan and their two teenage children Charity and John. At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until 1994."

http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/

"Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

D. Theol., Ludwig-Maximilliéns-Universität München, Germany; Ph.D., University of Birmingham, England; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Dr. Craig is one of the world's leading philosophers of religion and holds the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the university of Birmingham, England, and a D.Theol. from the University of Munich, Germany. He is the author or editor of numerous cutting-edge works in philosophy, theology, and apologetics, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology. Find him on the web at www.reasonablefaith.org."

http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/faculty/

"Houston Baptist University is pleased to announce that Dr. William Lane Craig will join the faculty as a Professor of Philosophy in the Fall of 2014. Dr. Craig is an internationally known philosopher and theologian. He has authored or edited more than 40 books and over 150 journal articles, including his signature book Reasonable Faith. Recognized for his groundbreaking work in philosophy of time and in philosophy of religion, Dr. Craig is also well known as a teacher and debater. He has successfully debated prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens."

https://www.hbu.edu/About-HBU/General-Information/HBU-in-the-News/Press-Releases/2014/January/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-to-Join-HBU-Faculty.aspx

Jess, can you provide at least three sources that are equally reliable as Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and Houston Baptist University that support your idea that WLC should be labeled a theologian first and a philosopher second?

2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

Thanks for providing a source. Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher. However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian. Here's what I wrote about this last April, including several sources:
  1. MOS: The lead is intended to summarize the body. In the body, we have excruciating detail covering Craig's apologetics, but not one single section devoted to analytic philosophy or the philosophy of time outside of theology.
  2. His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.
  3. Sources: This article has a problem with using craig's promotional literature to describe and document him, instead of independent sources. The only sources which describe him foremost as an analytic philosopher are sourced to his autobiography. Independent sources describe him primarily as a Christian apologist. The source used to back up the label "analytic philosopher", in fact, never calls him that, and repeatedly refers to him as a theologian. Here are several independent sources: "a prominent Christian academic and apologist", "Chrisian apologist", "Apologist", "noted Christian apologist", "Christian Apologist", "Christian apologist...Many professional philosophers" (outside of theology) "know about him only vaguely", "Christian theologian", "Theologian", "American theologian". These are literally the first results you find when searching for Craig online which give him any label. Not one calls him an "analytic philosopher".
  4. Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.
I'm glad we're talking about this now. Per BRD, I'm going to revert back to the state the article has been in for some time, and we can figure out the details here and make whatever change is best. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears you edited your post after I responded to it to add a few more sources. Biola and Talbot are both very likely to have been written by Craig (that's how those blurbs usually work), but even still, Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb. Again, it is our job foremost to reflect independent sources, not press releases closely tied to the subject.   — Jess· Δ 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when Craig speaks of himself, he often refers to himself foremost as a philosopher.

Which is important, unless you presume Craig is a liar, or that his perspective is distorted in some way.

However, independent sources most often refer to him as a theologian.

That's indeed your claim.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that is true. Does that mean he is in fact a theologian first and foremost? And isn't the primary job of an encyclopedia to disseminate facts and not mere popular opinion? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If I could find 10 independent sources that claimed Craig is a duck, then would that mean we should refer to him as a duck in his Wikipedia article? Let's use some common sense here.

I'd take the WLC profiles written by Biola.edu, HBU.edu, and Talbot.edu over sources like “Sabrina Dougall" from redbrick.me. You say that the profiles from Biola and Talbot were most likely written by Craig. Prove it. What do you mean "that's how it usually works"? That's pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to grant you "that's how it usually works," that doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened here. And what about HBU.edu? Is that a puff piece too? Those profiles appear to be written by Biola.edu and Talbot.edu, not Craig, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders here. In regard to the redbrick.me article, it didn't even call Craig a theologian, nor did it state that he teaches theology. It did, however, talk about how he teaches philosophy, and although the article did mention him as a "prominent Christian academic and apologist," please note the order and the question it raises: an academic in what? Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist academic, but he is a biologist. Is he not? And should we speculate on who exactly wrote that article? Maybe we should speculate that Richard Dawkins was over her shoulder whispering into her ear.

His Works: Craig's own works primarily cover apologetics. See here; the first mentioned are "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", "On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision", and so on. All theological works, specifically pertaining to Christian apologetics.

Your link is a Google Book search of “William Lane Craig” and your claim is that because the books at the top of the list are Christian apologetics (so you believe), then therefore most of Craig's works are Christian apologetics. Well, obviously, that doesn't hold water. All you've shown is that his most popular books (according to Google) are Christian apologetic in nature--not that his body of work as a whole is mainly Christian apologetics. Using your logic, Richard Dawkins body of work is mainly atheistic because his most popular book (according to Google) is the God Delusion. Secondly, I'm going to need you to define for me what you believe Christian apologetics, theology, philosophy, and natural theology mean, because I get the impression that you may not know what they mean (no offense).You seem to think that if somebody presents arguments in favor of a god's existence or in particular, the Christian God, then that automatically means it is theology regardless of whether or not it comes from a philosophical context. If a group of renowned scientists came forward with a piece of unequivocal evidence in favor of the existence of God, would you call that science or theology? You do realize natural theology is a branch of philosophy, correct? Before that's resolved, it makes little sense to evaluate books like “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” as philosophy, theology, christian apologetics, etc. 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

Biola lists him prominently under "Apologetics Faculty", and first lists "philosopher of religion" in his blurb

That doesn't surprise me since Craig is, after all, a Christian apologist, among other things. The question is should he be labeled an apologist first, a theologian second, and then a philosopher last. Additionally, Biola.edu, HMU.edu, and Talbot.edu, are all credible sources. That being said, let's say what they've written is untrue like you've claimed. Do you think these three fine institutions would publish lies or half-truths? If Craig asked them to write about how he once went to wizard school and how he has the power to cast fireballs, would they publish that too? Or would they check the facts? 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

"Leading philosopher Professor William Lane Craig is to give this year’s Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham." http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/02/2015-cadbury-lectures-24-02-15.aspx

Peter Millican, an atheist philosopher whom Craig once debated even labels Craig a philosopher first on his website.

"In 2011, William Lane Craig, the prominent American philosopher of religion and Christian evangelist, toured a number of British universities debating with atheists and sceptics. Richard Dawkins' refusal to engage with Craig at an event in the Sheldonian Theatre that I was invited to chair caused quite a stir, provoking a suggestion of cowardice from an Oxford colleague in The Guardian, and various jokes from Christian sources including a campaign of advertisements on Oxford buses, a couple of Hitler Downfall parodies, and some cartoons, one of which had me in the firing line." http://www.millican.org/other.htm

"William Lane Craig is a Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. He is an evangelical Christian, having committed his life to Christ while an undergraduate at Wheaton College...Craig is best known for his extensive work on the kalam cosmological argument, and has also published material on the philosophy of time and on divine foreknowledge. His publications also include some more accessible works on Christian apologetics. A selection of his essays is available on-line at his Virtual Office." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/whos-who/modern-authors/william-lane-craig/#more-119

"William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich." http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/02/01/william-lane-craig-interview/ 2601:901:8000:1169:D99F:313E:3717:FC26 (talk)

4.Weight: The weight presented to each label in the lead should reflect the the weight presented in the article. Quoting from the body: "Craig is best known for his resuscitation of a version of the cosmological argument." If that's what he is best known for, then he is best known as a Christian apologist.

The cosmological argument isn't limited to Christian apologetics. Theoretically, an atheist, agnostic, or somebody who believes in purely a generic kind of god could defend or publish work on the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument doesn't even call for the Christian God. Using your own logic, should we then say that because Alvin Plantinga is well known or even best known for his work on the problem of evil, then therefore he should be described as being best known as a Christian apologist in his Wikipedia bio? 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are we nearly unanimously saying that he should be called a philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist (in whatever order)? After all, isn't apologetics a subset of theology? Why not just call him a philosopher and theologian (in whatever order), and then say that he is more specifically a Christian apologist, metaphysician, philosophical theologian, or whatever? Would that make sense, or am I missing something? By the way, it seems like there is a box around see words. Can somebody help remove that please? I'm kind of new, so... Thunder4231Rush (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some other sources that label William Lane Craig a philosopher first before calling him an apologist, theologian, etc.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-william-lane-craig-calls-atheist-hotline-a-wrong-number-98182/

http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/william-craig/profile

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

http://michaelgleghorn.com/artReasonableFaith.php

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/craig-kalam-and-quantum-mechanics-has-craig-defeated-the-quantum-mechanics-objection-to-the-causal-principle-870.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/leading-apologist-william-lane-craig-to-join-houston-baptist-us-school-of-christian-thought-faculty-114001/ 2601:901:8000:1169:2C99:4A9E:793B:9469 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you don't know of William Lane Craig's work as a philosopher major student, then you probably need to ask for a refund on your University degree... His work on the Kalam cosmological argument appears in most basic undergraduate textbooks. I'm sorry to emphasize the bleeding the obvious, but sometimes it is just necessary to say it, rather than let people who are coming in from other fields (for example computing) to make remarks that are just obviously rubbish 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of times that people refer to William Lane Craig mentioning his educational achievement or mentioning the terms 'Professor of Philosophy' or 'Philosophy Professor' should be noted in making decisions about what to put first in terms of philosopher, apologist, or theologian.

Moreover, along with the academic book references I have already contributed to the main Wikipedia page for William Lane Craig, two additional non-news sources are listed below which describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher and do not mention the words 'apologist', 'Christian apologist', 'theologian' nor 'Christian theologian'. The person responsible for the first source is an atheist. The person responsible for the second source is a Muslim. The only career title given to William Lane Craig in these two sources are as a philosopher.

A blog entry by an atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll states that William Lane Craig is a philosopher and theologian (the word 'apologist' only appears once and only in user comments, and not by Sean Carroll himself, further down the page):

Similarly, Peter S. Williams, author of A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (2013; Milton Keynes: Paternoster; ISBN: 9781842278116), states in multiple blog entries that William Lane Craig is a 'Christian philosopher, theologian and apologist':

Many links to Graham Oppy's work have been provided, here is another work by Graham Oppy, who only uses philosopher to describe William Lane Craig here, justifying the placement of philosopher, or Christian philosopher, as first among the words philosopher, apologist and theologian: "In Theism, Atheism And Big Bang Cosmology, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith--two philosophers ...-- claim to have begun philosophical debate about Big Bang cosmology" (Oppy, Graham [1996], n.p., 'Book Review: Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology', The Secular Web / Internet Infidels, electronic version from 1998. Retrieved 11 August 2015.).

All the sources that have been listed in this post do more than justify placing philosopher, or in this case Christian philosopher, ahead of apologist or theologian for the official William Lane Craig article on Wikipedia.

I suspect that most academic in-text citations of William Lane Craig are similar to the format Craig (year) or Craig (year, page number) without any describing words. When published, particularly by philosophers other than William Lane Craig himself, in academic books on topics within philosophy and academic philosophy journals, the principle of charity could suggest that it is best to interpret that author as thinking of William Lane Craig in terms of being a philosopher first unless that philosopher has used another word to describe William Lane Craig in the journal article when first mentioning him, or unless the philosopher is using William Lane Craig's work to make a point unrelated to William Lane Craig's work in philosophy of religion, or perhaps unless that philosopher states that - in citing William Lane Craig - they are attempting to be interdisciplinary in their approach to writing the philosophy article/book and that they believe that William Lane Craig represents a different discipline to philosophy.

In short: the sources describing William Lane Craig as an apologist do not take into account all the in-text citations of William Lane Craig in philosophy books and articles with only something like 'Craig (year)' or 'Craig (year, page number)' to describe who William Lane Craig is, many perhaps even most of which should be interpreted as suggesting that Craig is a philosopher for the purposes of the author's (philosopher's) citation.

Col8lok8 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an absurd amount of text to go through. Can we try to keep future responses a little shorter? That will make having a discussion about this considerably easier. I read through your recent reply. Every source you provided is a blog post, and we try to avoid using blog posts as sources, especially in a BLP. Our lead is intended to reflect the article content, and the article content is focused almost exclusively on Craig's work in apologetics (since that is what our sources cover most), and so our lead should reflect that. If you have sources which discuss other work from Craig in depth, we could possibly include that content as well, and that would shift our weight for the lead.   — Jess· Δ 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I provided several news sources above, but here are several book sources. The funny thing is, the difficulty isn't in finding book sources generally; it is in finding sources about WLC that aren't written by WLC.
  • Chris Sandoval: William Lane Craig of Biola University, the brightest and best apologist of our times...
  • Brian Morley: Classical Apologetics... One of the most prolific and respected scholars in the classical camp is William Lane Craig
  • Clifford McManis William Lane Craig, who many claim to be the premiere Christian apologist of our time
  • Alex McFarland: Moreland and Craig are two top contemporary apologists
Our primary interest should be reflecting our own article in the lead, but these sources give some indication of weight.   — Jess· Δ 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
First, according to BLP, there is nothing wrong with using blogs per se. They are perfectly acceptable within certain guidelines. Second, sources written by WLC himself are also ok. Third, regarding your four references above, those are in the context of apologetics (being books about apologetics). WLC certainly does do apologetics, but that's not how he is primarily identified or self-identifies. The vast number of sources given above by Col8lok8, on the other hand, clearly state his qualifications and vocation as a philosopher. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Jess, as Bill the Cat says, you are citing the wrong kind of books in searching for William Lane Craig as a philosopher. For that you need philosophy and philosophical theology books. When writing about Christian apologetics in response to Christian apologetics of course one expects that authors may want to appeal to someone's career as an Christian apologist.
I have given five philosophers who describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher: Peter S. Williams (blog links, but he is an author of a philosophy book and uses William Lane Craig in it), Steven B. Cowan (book), Chad V. Meister (book), Graham Oppy (web link), James S. Spiegel (book). I could add to that list one or both of Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan - Copan is a philosopher, Flannagan is a theologian with education credentials in philosophy. In their book Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (2014), they use the words 'the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig' (pp. 21, 81) and 'Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig' (p. 23). This particular book could be described as an apologetics book, and so the Christian apologetics literature is mixed on how they describe William Lane Craig, but you have cited no philosophy books.
Furthermore the philosopher William Hasker's entry titled 'Analytic Philosophy of Religion' in the 'Approaches' section of the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (edited by William J. Wainwright) mentions William Lane Craig in the same paragraph alongside both William L. Rowe and Richard Swinburne. The lack of differentiating between the two and William Lane Craig suggests to me that Hasker takes William Lane Craig to be as much as a philosopher of religion as the other two people he mentions. This is confirmed in Hasker's book Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (2013, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p. 139) where he states 'In William Lane Craig we encounter for the first time a philosopher who explicitly identifies himself as a Social trinitarian'.
It is a mistake to think that the bulk of the article reflects on William Lane Craig's work as an apologist. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, divine command theory and reformed epistemology are philosophy, and eternity, omniscience and aseity all involve philosophy, critiquing Quine's epistemology involves engaging in philosophy, talking about A and B theory of time involves talking about philosophy, discussions about free will are philosophical discussions, etc. His apologetics work is done first and foremost as a Christian philosopher due to the fact that he is first and foremost a Christian philosopher. Col8lok8 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Craig is most famous for his apologetics and debates, and not for his "work" in philosophy.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course searching for books on "philosophy" will contain the word "philosopher" more frequently. The fact that Craig appears in numerous works on apologetics supports the idea that he's known as a Christian apologist, it doesn't disqualify those works just because they are apologetics. "Christian philosophy" and "Christian apologetics" are largely overlapping (in fact, I have some trouble distinguishing the two at all). The issue at hand is that Craig often tries to represent himself as simply a philosopher, which sources largely do not support, and we should not reproduce. His notability comes almost exclusively from his work on apologetics (sometimes referred to as "Christian philosophy"), not from his work as a "philosopher".   — Jess· Δ 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is, unfortunately, not a discussion with people who have extensively studied philosophy of religion at tertiary education instutitions. I find it very hard to find any academic philosophy books covering contemporary philosophy of religion which describe William Lane Craig, when going into greater detail about his career, as anything other than a philosopher. I have added, from my study of philosophy as a philosopher, another superb academic philosophy book which only describes William Lane Craig as a philosopher with none of other terms, apologist or theologian, being used. Here is the Google Books link Roy Jackson's, 2014, The God of Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Routledge: Oxon and New York. Hopefully the link works, otherwise see the article page for the quote. Most of what you have called 'Christian apologetics', which I have called 'Christian philosophy', is seen in university philosophy departments all around the world as either metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of space and time.

I am not arguing that we should only describe William Lane Craig as a philosopher but if one cuts out or remove everything that is studied by philosophy students who are studying at universities around the world then one is left with much less than half of William Lane Craig's work. Col8lok8 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this even an issue? Craig is first and foremost an academic philosopher. Daniel Dennett is as much of an atheist apologist as Craig is a Christian apologist, yet his lead doesn't read "American atheist apologist, atheist philosopher, writer, etc." Regardless of one's opinion of Craig, only the dishonest or ignorant can deny his primacy as an analytic philosopher. C7S (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this question still seriously a matter of debate? The reasons provided for refusing Craig the primary title of philosopher are very poor.

First, one's biographical details ought not to be weighted primarily by Googling, since Google doesn't capture many aspects of one's academic work and importance. A better source is academic materials, which affirms that Craig is first and foremost a philosopher.
Second, we should not base editorial choices on unevidenced speculation. The claims that Craig may possibly have written all the bios where he is described as a philosopher is not supported by any evidence. This level of suspicion is also not the norm for Wikipedia biographies. This makes it seem like a personal editorial bias uniquely against Craig.
The choice seems clear to me: accord with the rest of the academia, and move 'philosopher' to the top. BabyJonas (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BabyJonas. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion[edit]

I've opened a new thread because the discussions above have become scattered and out of control. The contribution histories of the editors currently trying to change this article show they are mainly special purpose accounts dedicated to Christian apologetics. Craig, the most prominent living Christian apologist, is a kindred soul. This perhaps explains the repetitive and confused original research we see on this page, insisting unconvincingly that Craig's primarily notability is as a mainstream philosopher and masking the importance of his role as a Christian apologist.

Col8lok8, you describe yourself on your user page as an "Australian philosopher". Apparently you have recently received a B.A. in philosophy. If you think that is an appropriate standard for someone to be described as a philosopher, then it is no wonder you think Craig qualifies as a mainstream philosopher. Craig teaches in a theological college and describes himself as a philosopher, yet according to Richard Dawkins, "he parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name...". You also claim Craig is primarily known for reintroducing the "kalam cosmological argument" used in medieval Islamic theology. Google counts are approximate and can be misleading, but if used sensibly they can indicate relative significance. That particularly applies to Google Scholar, where the sources are more reliable and the counts more accurate. The following table shows various Google page counts for "William Lane Craig" using different additional search criteria:

Additional search criteria Google App Comment
Google Scholar Google Books Google Web Google News
-"kalam cosmological argument" -"kalām cosmological argument" 4,030 30,500 457,000 1,740 pages which do not mention the kalam cosmological argument
"kalam cosmological argument" OR "kalām cosmological argument" 592 2,100 28,400 22 pages which do mention the kalam cosmological argument
theologian OR theology 2,790 7,940 157,000 539 pages which mention "theologian" OR "theology" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
Christian apologist" OR "Christian apologetics" 648 3,220 63,500 194 pages which mention "Christian apologist" or "Christian apologetics" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
evangelist OR evangelism 533 1,710 78,500 67 pages which mention "evangelist" or evangelism (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
"philosophical theologian" OR "philosophical theology" 517 1,519 25,000 5 etc...
"Christian philosopher" OR "Christian philosophy" 492 1430 19,100 49
"analytic philosopher" OR "analytic philosophy" 370 1,110 6,440 7
"theistic philosopher" OR "theistic philosophy" 47 234 97 2

The results are fairly consistent across the various apps. They speak for themselves and support the status quo. Other supporting material for the status quo are in the sources provided by Jess further up this page, and by Jess and many others in the archives. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I'm speechless... Richard Dawkins is not at all a reliable and neutral source in philosophy, and google counts do not speak for themselves. I guess you know all that.
My special advice, try to read what thinks a reliable source already mentioned in the in lead of the article: "Well-publicized atheists like Dawkins and Harris are closer to being household names than William Lane Craig is, but within the subculture of evangelical Christians interested in defending their faith rationally, he has had a devoted following for decades. Many professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, his books and articles are among the most cited. " Nathan Schneider, "The New Theist: How William Lane Craig became Christian philosophy's boldest apostle", Chronicle of higher education, article. Thucyd (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Dawkins is not a reliable source? Why is that, exactly? We don't bar atheists from commenting on matters of religion, and we don't require our sources to be "neutral". We require our content to be neutral, by reflecting all the sources with due weight.   — Jess· Δ 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Dawkins is a "well-publicized atheist" (Schneider), and certainly not a professional philosopher.
For example if I had to choose between Dawkins who declares "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name" and atheist philosopher Quentin Smith who writes: "a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence. Surprisingly, this even holds for Plantinga’s argument for the rational acceptability of the ontological argument and Plantinga’s argument that theism is a rationally acceptable basic belief.", I would prefer Smith (Quentin Smith, Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism, in Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 183). Thucyd (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You are arguing that we represent Craig as a philosopher, and also arguing that we only consult philosophers to make that determination. That's not how wikipedia works. The two quotes you provided are not in conflict (i.e. Smith does not contradict Dawkins), and neither indicates that Craig is not a Christian apologist.   — Jess· Δ 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Trying to minimize WLC's credentials is what this is all about. Putting "Christian" in front on anything he has earned, or using Dawkins as a source for how well known he is. If what Dawkins said was true, that none of the philosophers he has spoken with knew him, then he is either a liar or those philosophers are living under a rock. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Another ref. by an atheist philosopher: "Other notable analytic theists have included (in no particular order): William Lane Craig [...]. The above lists [...], though very far from comprehensive, indicate that the analytic philosophy of religion has been an extremely active area of philosophical inquiry for the last forty years." Keith M. Parsons, "Perspectives on natural theology from analytic philosophy" in Russell Re Manning (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, OUP, 2013, p. 249. Thucyd (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional search criteria Google App Comment
Google Scholar Google Books Google Web Google News
"Christian apologist" 281 944 20,200 109 pages which mention "Christian apologist" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)
"philosopher" 1,890 2,620 70,300 253 pages which mention "philosopher" (though not necessarily in relation to WLC)

Looking like philosopher comes up more than Christian apologist. By your own methodology, Epipelagic. Looks like Google settles it then. Any objections? BabyJonas (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Craig's main claim to be a "philosopher", and specifically to be an "analytic philosopher", revolves round his attempt to revitalise the Kalam argument. His attempt has received little interest or endorsement from mainstream analytic philosophers. Established philosophers who have examined the argument usually roundly reject it. The handful who have not rejected it, like Alvin Plantinga, are themselves Christian apologists. Even some theists, like "Wes Morriston", reject the kalam argument.[15]. You clearly have not read properly what I said in the earlier threads on this page. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, but as clearly set out above there is no case for characterising him as a "analytic philosopher". If you think there is a case, then you need to find a body of reputable analytic philosophers who regard his arguments as valid. There is perhaps a minimal case for referring to him more generally as a "philosopher". In the interest of compromise and to bring this tedious matter to an close, let us agree to refer to him in the lead sentence as a "philosopher". I have amended the lead accordingly. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your openness to compromise on this contentious issue. However, the disagreement was never over the difference between "philosopher" and "analytical philosopher". Rather, the disagreement was over how this particular biography prioritized aspects of the person's life and work. Your rigorous and comprehensive methodology, when put to use in this dispute, depicted his association with the term "philosopher" far more prominently than his association with the term "Christian apologist". I assume you stand by your methodology and have verified the data. I'll assume, then, that you are on board with these findings, quite aside from your other concerns listed above? BabyJonas (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It is rare something someone says or writes shocks me, but you've succeeded handsomely by referring to my table of Google page views as a "rigorous and comprehensive methodology". It is nothing of the sort. I posted the table merely to set the counts out clearly as an antidote to the sloppy and careless manner Google page views were being used above by another editor. In the light of your subsequent absurd edit to the article, claiming the page views proves Craig functions primarily as a "philosopher", I withdraw my offer of a compromise. That is clearly not possible in the face of behaviour like that. Let us stick to the reality that Craig, first, foremost, and then pretty much all the way to the end, is a Christian apologist. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Google hits are not the way we determine weight, for a very large number of reasons. For one, the number is almost meaningless. For another, it doesn't take into account the reliability, quality or independent nature of the sources. And importantly, it takes the sources entirely out of context; "William lane craig philosopher" would match every source saying "Craig is not a philosopher". We determine weight by looking at the reliable, independent sources we're using and attempt to reflect the significant opinions in those sources accordingly, not from google hits.
The thing you must understand about these labels is that they are overlapping; philosophy, theology and apologetics all overlap one another, so references to one doesn't invalidate the other labels. This isn't a "he's black... no, he's white" thing. This is a "his first name is John, his last name is Smith" thing... both can be true, and to some degree, they apparently are. The problem, which I've laid out repeatedly on this talk page, is that Craig most often refers to himself differently than independent sources refer to him, and we have policies explicitly designed to address that issue, which tell us to favor the independent sources.
It is also relevant that his philosophical contributions are almost exclusively picked up by religious apologists, and often roundly rejected by non-religious philosophers. For instance, Craig's contributions to the philosophy of time are hardly talked about anywhere besides by Craig himself... his contributions to the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God is discussed heavily in Christian and Muslim apologetics, but rarely in non-religious literature. I know that Craig wants to be seen as a non-religious philosopher that sometimes delves into religious matters, but that's just simply not how independent sources see him, and it simply isn't reflective of the body of his work.   — Jess· Δ 22:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Jess, I respect your bias, but your personal opinion is of no interest for us here. Wikipedia is all about neutrality and reliable sources. You have never given us top quality reliable sources from professional philosophers who contradict, for example, Quentin Smith :" a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig’s defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of an argument for God’s existence. Surprisingly, this even holds for Plantinga’s argument for the rational acceptability of the ontological argument and Plantinga’s argument that theism is a rationally acceptable basic belief." (see above for the complete ref.) Thucyd (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I gather your concern is that Craig usually refers to himself as a "philosopher" while independent sources call him "apologist" (and policies tell us to favor the independent sources). However, your claim doesn't seem true. I'm finding numerous, reliable, independent sources characterizing him as a philosopher.
  • He is even referred to as "Philosopher William Lane Craig" in academic peer-reviewed publications [16],[17], [18]
  • Philpapers shows he has authored or co-authored 170 or so articles in academic philosophy. [philpapers.org/search Philpapers Search]
None of your sources meet this level of quality, Jess. Most of your sources: Christianity Today, Christian Daily, The Christian Post are religious publications.
Your four book sources: Sandoval, Morley, McManis, and McFarland are all solidly sources from within the religion/atheism debate subcommunity. None of these sources you cite carry the weight of academic peer-reviewed literature. See WP:BESTSOURCES. Per WP:RELIABLE, our best, most authoritative academic sources characterize him as a philosopher.
Wikipedia's audience is not a religion/atheism debate community. Opinionated sources from within these subcommunities should not be given weight over authoritative academic publications. This applies especially to your assertion that his primary claim to notability is that he is a Christian apologist. This is a view characteristic of the religion/atheism debate community. Wikipedia is not said community. See WP:BIAS.
If you want to want to press the issue, you need more reliable, unbiased sources. The weight of the sources clearly justifies him being first and foremost, a philosopher.
PS- You also said his philosophical contributions are almost exclusively picked up by religious apologists, and you say his views are often roundly rejected by non-religious philosophers. Both these claims sound WP:ORIGINAL. Find reliable sources for them, then we'll move forward. BabyJonas (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Unambiguously, Craig behaviour is that of a Christian apologist. Just about everything he writes or says is directed towards propping up some form of contemporary Christian dogma. That is what a "Christian apologist" does. That he attempts to use rational inquiry to do this does not make him a "philosopher" any more than using rational inquiry makes Dawkins a "philosopher". Look for example at Wikipedia's own article on philosopher, which says in its lead sentence, "A philosopher is someone who is skilled or engaged in rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theological dogma or science". The lead to the article on Craig already amply recognizes the philosophical aspects of Craig's work when it says, "Craig's theological interests are in historical Jesus studies and philosophical theology, and his philosophical work focuses primarily on philosophy of religion, but also on metaphysics and philosophy of time. What we are seeing here is a (not uncommon) attempt by Christian apologists to introduce Christian apology under some other name as a Trojan horse. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And what is your best reliable for this (very) personal opinion, that contradicts atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Keith Parsons, or specialized journalist Nathan Schneider in the chronicle of the higher education (for the complete refs. see above)? Thucyd (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@BJ "Respect my bias"? Keep things civil, please. None of what I said is my opinion, and almost all of this is territory we've been over repeatedly. That you found sources calling him a "philosopher" does not make him not an apologist, as I explained in my very last reply... and citing faculty blurbs are generally not particularly compelling, since those are very unlikely to be independent of the subject. And nowhere in any of our policies are "religious publications" excluded from being considered reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jess I didn't say anything about your bias, that was Thucyd Nobody is denying that some people, particularly those in atheist/theist subcommunities, call him a "Christian apologist". The point is this view is niche (as your own sources illustrate). This BLP article is written for a wider audience than this niche, however, and needs to reflect the interests of the broader audience: His occupation and academic work comes first (including his academic qualifications), and his role in the niche of theism/atheism subcommunities needs to come second. Nobody here is denying he is a Christian apologist in the eyes of these subcommunities. What is being rejected is the attempt to write this BLP primarily for a Christian or atheist audience.
And by the way, I agree with you that we need to accept religious publications seriously. But they are secondary to peer-reviewed, high quality academic publications where Wikipedia is concerned. Academic publications come first, niche religious and atheist books and websites come second. BabyJonas (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Epipelagic, I respect your opinion. You clearly have strong views about this person. You say Craig's behavior is "that of a Christian apologist", "everything he writes or says is directed towards propping up some form of contemporary Christian dogma". And you think "this doesn't make him a philosopher". I respect that, but we go by WP:EOR. A Wikipedia BLP is not the place for an editor's opinions or original research. Wikipedia articles are not to reflect your personal views on philosophical methodology, your views on what someone's work is directed towards, or your suspicions that this or that group is attempting to bring something in as a trojan horse.
We go by the sources. Our best, peer-reviewed, academic sources overwhelmingly characterize him as a philosopher. His academic degrees are in philosophy and theology. His academic publications are primarily in philosophy. He is employed as a professor of philosophy, as he has been at multiple posts. And finally, certain members of atheist and Christian communities (no doubt including you) consider him a Christian apologist. This is what our sources spell out, and the article should say no more than this about his occupation.
I want to emphasize this: I respect your personal opinions towards this person. But Wikipedia BLPs are not for opinion or original research. Per WP:EOR, since your views have no sources behind them (Wikipedia is not a source per WP:WINARS), they are best left out of the article for now. BabyJonas (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Also the issue regards one who is academically qualified and employed working studying or teaching the subject in question. So - is a college lecturer in philosophy a philospher, is a professor of philosphy a philosopher or is only someone who establishes a "new" philosophy the only person who can claim to be a philosopher. Note a very similar arguement can be made for the disciline of theology and 'a theologian'. Also who is acceptable to carry the label changes over time. I know this won't settle the arguement but hopefully could bring some context. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There's been another attempt to change the order of the lead to list philosopher first. Given that even including philosopher at all is currently under discussion, I don't think that move is wise at this time. I'm also not sure what else to say in this discussion... the contention in an edit summary is that Craig's involvement with Kalam makes him a philosopher foremost, as if to ignore the fact that his contributions in Kalam are heavily identified as Christian apologetics in our sources. Several editors seem to be ignoring that philosophy and apologetics overlap; they are not mutually exclusive. Saying Craig is simply a "philosopher" is less specific for no apparent reason, and appears to have the goal of representing Craig as primarily focusing on non-religious philosophy, when that is clearly not the case. Consensus should be established before introducing this change, not after. I have no stake in whether we should include philosopher at all (though I lean toward including it, despite being somewhat redundant). I'm also fine compromising to leave theologian first (although that is also a shift in the order, and seems to suffer from the same problem).   — Jess· Δ 11:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A large body of data produced on this talk page point to Craig being, first and foremost, a philosopher. You haven't really addressed these issues or refuted them so far. So I'm struggling to see any reasons on your part for an apparent lack of consensus.
You argue that "his contributions in Kalam are heavily identified as "Christian apologetics" in our sources." But (i) if true, it still doesn't mean he isn't, first and foremost, a philosopher, (ii) you agree "Christian apologetics" and philosophy are not mutually exclusive, and (iii) the sources claiming this are not our best sources, being immersed in the Christian/atheist debate community, which, being a niche audience, ought not to dominate the article. The best sources we have don't make such a claim. We've gone over this before. This is not adequate basis for your conclusion.
It's also worth pointing out that the motivation is NOT to represent Craig as primarily focusing on non-religious philosophy. This attempt to analyze motivations is worrying close to assuming bad faith. Rather, the goal is to represent who this person is, as reflected by their academic training and expertise, their occupation, and their academic research, all of which univocally call him a philosopher. Trying to underplay this is misleading, and trying to fold it into "Christian apologist" turns this into a Christian article.
Part of your concern, you say, is that you don't want to suggest he is primarily focused on non-religious philosophy. But this is not a distinction drawn in contemporary philosophy. You'll be hard-pressed to find any sources to support your distinction (which is probably why you didn't provide any sources). Original research and personal speculation on your part is not an adequate basis for your view.
If you can't provide any good reasons for your claims, let it go. Don't let your original research and speculations carry more weight than the sources on hand, Jess. BabyJonas (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I haven't provided any sources? Nonsense. I've provided numerous sources, and indeed was the first one to do so. I'm simply not interested in repeating myself every time I'm prompted to. I've been considering what method of dispute resolution is likely to be most effective for the last couple weeks, but haven't yet fully made up my mind.   — Jess· Δ 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Part of the challenge seems to be a very diverse and quickfire smattering of ad hoc objections to "philosopher". Most of the ones I've seen are obviously implausible, and are made light work of (at least in my opinion). And nevertheless, the vast number of them makes it difficult for one to keep track of which ones are still relevant and which ones have been dispensed with. I've tried to be conscientious, in going over everything you've said in favor of your position, and tried to address everything. If there is something in particular you feel is still unaddressed, look over my responses, and let me know. I'd like to see some specifics, particularly since you say you've provided numerous sources. What are you relying on, for instance, for your view that "philosophy" somehow signals (primarily) "non-religious philosophy"? Who even draws this kind of distinction in the field? Someone in the field would know, for instance, how irrelevant and problematic such a distinction would be- how would you ascertain whether Spinoza or Kant was doing primarily religious or non-religious philosophy? Was Aristotle primarily non-religious or was he religious? Reflecting on these questions would make it obvious why nobody operates on the assumptions you invoke. And this is just touching on one of the issues you argue for without citing sources. BabyJonas (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jess and Epipelagic: Just tagging you guys to my last comment in an effort to forge a consensus. To both of you guys, is there something in particular that you feel has not been addressed so far as reasons not to identify the person in this BLP, foremost by his academic and occupational designation, while leaving his religious activities to the end? BabyJonas (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
It is quite wrong, in my view, to characterise Craig as an "analytic philosopher". It is easy to demonstrate that the small number of recognised analytic philosophers who have bothered to respond to Craig's position have overwhelmingly rejected Craig's arguments. There is an analytic philosophy task force at Wikiproject Philosophy. I asked there for opinions on the matter, but it seems the task force is either inactive or its members lack enough interest to respond (the former I think). In addition, Jess has indicated he does not support my position. I accepted the situation some time ago and removed Craig's article from my watchlist. That means there is now no resistance coming from me to the pretence that Craig is foremost a professional philosopher, and not foremost a Wesleyan theologian and Christian apologist. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It's bittersweet to see you depart. If you do decide to change your mind and continue on in this conversation, I hope we can continue to go over the disagreements and try and find a meeting point. I've appreciated your input. BabyJonas (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: just to be clear, the only position I haven't supported is the notion that Craig is not a philosopher at all. I can't remember if that is a position you advanced, or someone else... but it doesn't really matter. On the question of whether he is specifically an "analytic" philosopher, I don't really have a position. Analytic philosophy isn't an area of interest for me, and I haven't really looked into it. I've tried to stay out of that conversation as best I can because it would require research on my part that I, frankly, just haven't done. I think you likely have a strong argument, based on what I've seen, but I don't really know. I just wanted to comment to clarify that my lack of participation on that particular topic shouldn't be construed as opposition to it. My only knowledge in this debate pertains to the prevalence of Craig's work being religious or nonreligious in nature, so I've focused on that. Anyway, best of luck to you wherever you wind up! :)   — Jess· Δ 21:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of the Issues involved in this Argument[edit]

These are the questions that need to be addressed:

1. Is Craig a philosopher? Yes, his works have about as many citations as any of my philosophy professors do according to philpapers which is reliable for sorting wheat from chaff, and far more than some that are definitely philosophers (albeit of dubious quality) such as Peter Kreeft who is appropriately labelled a philosopher despite having only one published philosophy paper and a lot of pop apologetics.

2. Is Craig primarily an Analytic or Christian philosopher? He's involved with both traditions, he's cited by analytic philosophers and he's indicated as influenced by analytic philosophy, he primarily a Christian philosopher but he only appears to engage analytic Christian philosophy rather than Thomism or Continental philosophy of religion, and the Christian bit is already gotten across by "Christian apologist". Analytic philosopher is acceptable, though there is probably some room for argument over that. He also has work on metaphysics of time which is more cited than a lot of his publications on the Kalam argument.

3. Is he primarily an apologist or a philosopher? Apologist without a doubt. I'm having a hard time believing this is up for argument. For one, if philosopher was put first I'd say we'd be negligent to put him as an analytic philosopher because that leaves out the most publicized and popular aspect of his work as a Christian philosopher. As well, if the person that he did his masters in philosophy of religion under can teach philosophy as a professor and still be primarily labelled a theologian, then Craig who hasn't taught philosophy in decades and runs an apologetics ministry should definitely not be primarily labelled a philosopher first and foremost. For those saying he's educated in philosophy, he's also done a doctorate of theology so that puts his purely theological interests on approximately equal footing with his philosophical ones.

He's an analytic philosopher. He's not primarily an analytic philosopher though. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ollyoxenfree. I agree with (1), though I want to comment on (2) and (3):
2. I'm not sure there is a tradition called the "Christian philosophy" tradition. I see nobody who categorize prototypically Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga or Peter van Inwagen as working in the "Christian philosophy" tradition. Rather my understanding of "Christian philosopher" is that it means "philosophers who are Christian", just as a philosopher who is atheist might be called an "atheist philosopher" without one assuming they work within an "atheist philosophy tradition". If I'm right, then this question becomes moot. Craig would be an analytical philosopher who is a Christian, just like, perhaps, Daniel Dennett would be would be an analytical philosopher who is an atheist.
3. I have some concerns here too. I don't question that his popular work is primarily in apologetics. Rather, what I question is whether in a BLP this ought to come before his academic qualifications and professional career. In addition to his academic qualifications and publications, he is also employed by and teaches at at least two universities. His website's calendar lists him as having taught at "Talbot School of Theology" in Biola University in January 2016, and at Houston Baptist University in February 2016. [19]. Their websites list him as a faculty member. So he is by no means inactive in philosophy as you suggest (at least no more than Richard Dawkins is in biology- and look at whether his lede mentions his atheist activism first).
The other concern is the term "Christian apologist" is a buzzword in the atheist-theist debating scene, and these buzzwords should not be incorporated into articles for a broader audience. Some editors here are obviously very deeply involved in these debates, and take this term to be normal. But the norms of these subcultures shouldn't dictate the language on a Wikipedia BLP, especially in emphasis over ordinary biographical considerations.
By the way, this is how it works with other articles on similar personalities. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins are all described by their professional and academic qualifications first. Their prolific work in atheist activism follows after that. This is also the case with Noam Chomsky, whose political activism comes after his academic and professional qualifications. So precedence also falls in favor of listing his professional and academic qualifications before his religious involvements.
So while I can see why you might come to your conclusion given certain things, I think the considerations for listing his academic and professional qualifications first carry too much weight. So I'd like to suggest is that we mention his religious involvement in the lede, but after his professional and academic qualifications as BLP precedence dictates above. We can certainly make note of Craig's heavy involvement in the religious community in the rest of the article. This way we can keep to the BLP standard, keep the article's emphasis for the broader audience, and maintain mention of Craig's heavy involvement in the religious community. Does this cover everything? BabyJonas (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised by the Dawkins article's lede since it seems very incomplete, I think the Sam Harris lede should omit him being a philosopher entirely (which has been a point of contention on that article's talk page before), and unlike Craig, Dennett is first and foremost a philosopher unlike Craig. Note also that Sam Harris is listed first as an author, because of his popular works related to atheism. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. What would you say makes Dennett foremost a philosopher, and then an activist (while for Craig he is foremost an activist/apologist, and then a philosopher)? Are we presuming, somehow, that philosophy is, by its nature a non-religious institution, and only if ones foundational beliefs are non-religious do they qualify as being philosophers? Because we've established by all other counts they are philosophers: They both have substantive bodies of work published in philosophy (including peer-reviewed journals), they both hold academic positions as professors in philosophy departments, and they both teach. So I suppose I'm wondering what you think the difference is between the two.
Also, what about your claim about Craig works in the "Christian philosophy tradition"? Do we have any reasons to hold to that, given that we can find no "Christian philosophy tradition", and the alternative interpretation as "Christian philosopher" being merely a philosopher who is a Christian? BabyJonas (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the reason Dennett is foremost a philosopher is because he is employed and has been employed as a philosopher for decades, and his works in compatibilism, and philosophy of mind are regularly taught and lectured upon in undergraduate philosophy courses. As someone in philosophy, Dennett is a regular topic of conversation, not for his paper thin philosophy of religion, but for his beliefs in the aforementioned areas. This wikipedia disagreement is the first time I've ever talked about Craig specifically in the context of philosophy, and this is coming from someone who has taken classes who have touched upon the metaphysics of time with esteemed professors in the field, and yet we still did not talk about Craig.
The tradition of Christian philosophy is so clear, if anarchic, that I'm surprised you're doubtful of its existence. It has a wikipedia page, it starts with the Christian Neo-Platonists, and continues through St Augustine, Thomism (still alive today and conceding to neither analytic or continental philosophy entirely), Calvinism, etc and includes modern movements such as Analytic Thomism and Reformed Epistemology. It's existence is quite sociologically clear as well, in late antiquity there were Christian philosophers who held similar ideas to major traditions such as Neo-Platonism and yet they did not associate with their contemporary non-Christian Neo-Platonists very much at all, this continues up to the present day when Plantinga talks about Craig's arguments despite coming from very different backgrounds (one reformed and interested in epistemology, one evangelical and interested in metaphysics). There are also other philosophers primarily listed as being involved in Christian Philosophy, and rightly so, such as Peter Kreeft mentioned previously.
Despite that I've previously stated that I agree for the most part that Craig should be labelled as an analytic philosopher, just that he should be listed as a Christian apologist first. You seem to want to misrepresent me on this matter because I thought I'd made myself clear on this point. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The university of Birmingham does not offer a degree in "Christian philosophy". Just plain philosophy. So, claiming that he is a Christian Philosopher says nothing about his credentials, but only about some of his activities. It is therefore redundant to refer to him as a both a "Christian philosopher" as well as a "Christian apologist" because those are just two ways of saying the same thing. In order to be neutral, the lead should state his credentials in the order he got them in (Philosophy, theology), and then what he does in a general sense (Christian apologetics). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If we were listing his credentials in the order he got them, his credentials would be communications, philosophy, theology. Obviously there needs to be a little discernment beyond chronological order. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to misrepresent you, Ollyoxenfree. I accept that you want him labelled as an analytic philosopher, but you do underweight it relative to Dennett's identity as a philosopher. It wasn't clear to me why Dennett would be labelled first and foremost a philosopher and Craig not the same. So far as employment, Craig seems to have been employed for decades as well, as his CV reports:
  • Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1980-1986
  • Associate Professor of Religious Studies Westmont College 1986-1987
  • Visiting Researcher Université Catholique de Louvain 1987-1994
  • Research Professor of Philosophy Talbot School of Theology 1996-
  • Professor of Philosophy Houston Baptist University 2014-
Your reasoning is also that Dennett comes up in undergraduate or graduate discussion often, likely because of his relevance to a broad survey of some aspect of philosophy of mind, or free will. Craig, on the other hand, doesn't come up as often, if at all. Is that what you're pointing to? I study at an extremely secular institution, and Craig is not just discussed, he comes up often, and is read in reading groups related to the metaphysics of time relevant to philosophy of religion. But since the metaphysics of time in the context of analytical PoR is not as popular as free will and PoMind, Craig's name wouldn't come up as often. I can grant that. I just can't get from this fact to underweighting his identity as a philosopher relative to Dennett, such that Dennett is firstly a philosopher, but Craig is not. Maybe you can explain more precisely how you get there. BabyJonas (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
HBU doesn't even list him as a member of their faculty (taking away from the value of the CV as a source of what he actually does, I believe), the second and third aren't even in philosophy, at least not from that information. The first is long ago and while in the modern era academia is a necessary condition to be a philosopher, 6 years in the 80s is not a sufficient condition. His position at Talbot is a research position, involving no teaching, presumably to allow him more time to do his work with his ministry, Reasonable Faith. Which lends more support to my assertion I believe. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
He's on the master's program faculty list. 404-errors suggests the site is being upgraded. We know he's been working in philosophy since 1980. 20yrs between 1996-2016. 6yrs between 1980-1986. 1yr in a religious studies department. 7yrs as a researcher. In that time he's been published prolifically, as you yourself note. So what exactly takes away from his primary identity as a philosopher? The fact that he was doing research and publishing for 7 years, but not in a classroom? That can't be it. The fact that for one year in the 80s he was a professor of religious studies? That seems weak. The guy has done 26 years as a faculty member, and 7 years as a visiting researcher. Occupationally, he's done no less than Dennett, barring the fact that Dennett has more years under his belt.
As for his research position allowing him time to work on his religious ministry, we don't have grounds to make these kind of assumptions. I don't know how much hands-on time he needs for his ministry. I don't know if he's just comfortable not teaching. It would be inappropriate to speculate. Unless we have some real reasons to underweight his identity as a philosopher, we can't underweight it in the OP. Keep in mind, this isn't to erase his religious work-- it's to relegate it to its proper place in a BLP. That's something we can find consensus on, right? BabyJonas (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Baby Jonas. Craig is now a faculty member of HBU. No doubt about that.
Moreover, don't forget he has focused in his published work on abstract objects, a topic at the intersection of analytic philosophy of religion and metaphysics. He published in 2015 a review in Philosophia Mathematica (as a member of the department of philosophy of the HBU, see here). His next book will be published on this topic, by Oxford University Press, see here. Thucyd (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not clear which of this shows that Craig isn't most known for his apologetics. This link was provided, but it shows Craig listed under the heading "Master of Arts in Apologetics", while Craig is not listed at this link for the Dept of Philosophy. Frankly, that doesn't mean anything... his appearance in the preponderance of sources, and our coverage of him hear should dictate the weight of the lead, but it certainly doesn't go to show he is most well known as a philosopher, as is being stated above.

Please keep in mind as well, the question is not what Craig is doing or has done with his time (though I'd venture to guess this would heavily point in the direction of apologetics if weighted)... the question is what he's received coverage for. Listing his published papers doesn't tell us that... and again, even so, looking at the totality of his papers paints a clear picture of focus on apologetics. No one is claiming he doesn't do philosophy too... but his one paper on abstract objects that has no coverage in secondary sources I can see doesn't shift our weight in any meaningful way.   — Jess· Δ 09:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

He's best known for a philosophical argument in favor of the existence of God.
He doesn't have just published one article on abstract objects: see Paul Gould (ed.), Beyond the Control of God?: Six Views on The Problem of God and Abstract Objects, Bloomsbury Studies in the study of the philosophy of religion, 2014 ; you could read also his dialogue with Peter van Inwagen and J. Thomas Bridges in the last issue of Philosophia Christi (17, 2, 267-312); not to speak here of his forthcoming book at Oxford University Press, already mentioned above. Thucyd (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems I have to repeat this a lot... philosophy and apologetics overlap. Kalam is philosophy broadly, but apologetics specifically. Craig is best known for Kalam, and Kalam is apologetics. I don't know what you're getting at with the abstract objects. If you're claiming that Craig is well known for his publications on abstract objects, I'd have to see some evidence of that. We only discuss it in a single sentence in this article, and only in the context of theology.   — Jess· Δ 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a cumulative case : world famous for a philosophical argument for theism + works on philosophy of time + philosophy of religion.
I think there is no reason to introduce a difference of treatment between the leads of Plantinga, Inwagen, Dennett or Oppy, and Craig. Analytic philosopher should be first.
I think enough has been said. Let's have a vote on it to see where the consensus is.
I am in favor of "William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher, Christian theologian and Christian apologist" in the lead. Who is for or against?Thucyd (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jess your point has been responded to before. It is not our job as editors to assume that the Kalam is more apologetics than philosophy. First, it is WP:OR. Second, as someone who knows something about both, it is bad philosophy. Trying to draw a such a conclusion is confused. Was Descartes' epistemic appeal to God in his First Meditations apologetics? Or does Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason make him a Christian apologist? Attempts to draw such boundaries in philosophical ideas are totally misguided. You're welcome to do so, but not in a Wikipedia article. If you have substantive reasons for objecting, I hope they are something other than this.
PS-- his magnum opus on the Kalam was published by MacMillan, and is a characteristically philosophical treatment of the argument with almost no indication of apologetics in it.
@Thucyd I appreciate the desire to get this over with. However, you're going to run into WP:DEM BabyJonas (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Who is assuming Kalam is apologetics? I provided sources. I was, in fact, the first to do so, and many of them have been left entirely unaddressed for months. What you've said may indicate Kalam is philosophy, but it in no way indicates it is not apologetics; Kalam is used almost exclusively in apologetics, particularly in WLC's treatment of it, and the reliable independent sources that cover him and Kalam.   — Jess· Δ 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Much of this has been addressed before. That many religious individuals or groups (including Craig) use the Kalam argument in an apologetic context does not take away from its status as fundamentally (and importantly to the general reader) a work of philosophy. As an analogy, the use of multiplication in accounting is significant, but in a Wikipedia article, multiplication is fundamentally a mathematical notion first, and an accounting practice second. Likewise here, the use of Kalam in apologetics may be common, but the Kalam is still philosophy first, apologetics second (if at all).
I have also responded to your sources-claim before. I pointed out that your sources were not of the highest quality, though they were undoubtedly notable. They were, however, primarily religious publications, or sources from within the theist-atheist debating community (Sandoval, Morley, McManis, and McFarland), and did not represent the highest quality sources (see WP:BESTSOURCES). Per WP:RELIABLE, our best, most authoritative academic sources characterize him as a philosopher. I have provided the sources to this effect earlier up in the talk page.
Keep in mind your audience here. The readership of Wikipedia is not a niche of theist-atheist debaters. They are a general readership, and the article has to reflect the general interests of the public, where the person's academic training and occupation comes first, and their activities come second.
Given that the matter of the Kalam being apologetics is immaterial to Craig's career and training and sizable list of publications in philosophy (and him being employed as a professor, and taking part in conferences, etc). Do we have any reasons left NOT to list him first and foremost as a philosopher? BabyJonas (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Your analogy isn't a good one. Multiplication is used in fundamentally different contexts, and identifying a single one to the exclusion of others would be improper. Kalam is philosophy and apologetics at the same time. It is used almost exclusively as apologetics, and Craig is cited using Kalam exhaustively in that single context alone. Kalam is not used in discussing ethics or eugenics philosophically; it is fundamentally an argument for the existence of a god, and fundamentally falls under the scope of apologetics. Your claim about my sources being "religious publications" is both untrue and irrelevant. If it were true, which it is not, you would be dismissing sources on their face solely because they discussed the topic from a different viewpoint than your preference... and that's not how we source things on wikipedia.   — Jess· Δ 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Tired of this endless discussion... Baby Jonas and I agree, Jess disagrees. I think we can change the first sentence of the lead. Thucyd (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Descartes uses God for a thought experiment in his first Meditation in a single paragraph, if that's your point of comparison then it is a very poor analogy, and not at all helpful for making your point. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're strangely discounting other editors who have participated in this very discussion, including Ollyoxenfree and Epipelagic. Either way, vote counting is not how consensus works. Involving outside input, like an RfC, might be useful... but frankly, I'm a little tired of going over the same territory and I'd prefer to move on with my life, so I haven't gotten around to writing anything up.   — Jess· Δ 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing many inconsistent claims about the Kalam and apologetics here. Let me try and clear some up.
Notice I'm not excluding the use of the Kalam in apologetics. I'm merely saying its identity is fundamentally as a philosophical argument first. This is the context in which it was originally developed, it takes the form of a philosophical argument, is defended philosophically, and is discussed extensively in the philosophy of religion community as a philosophical argument. This ought to be undeniable. We don't ignore it's role in apologetics, but rather respect the philosophical foundation first, and prioritize it. That's all I'm arguing for. Even if the Kalam is heavily used in apologetics, it doesn't change the fact that at its core, it's a philosophical argument. The philosophical and apologetic aspects of the Kalam are not in competition. They are different categories.
(2) it's worth noting that your notion of 'apologetic' seems vague and inconsistent. For one, nobody is denying the Kalam's use in apologetics. Your argument, if it makes sense, must argue not that the Kalam is used in apologetics, but that it is more characterizable as apologetics rather than philosophy. Ie, apologetics should take more priority than philosophy. You've failed to give us any reasons for this simply by insisting on apologetics. Your arguments simply don't lead to this conclusion. (3) On one hand, you argue that Craig is involved in Christian apologetics specifically, but the Kalam says not one word about Christianity. So there's absolutely no way to infer "Christian apologist" from the Kalam. This is another problem with your argument. (4) You suggest an argument for the existence of a god is fundamentally under the scope of apologetics, but this makes the same mistake above: God is not necessarily the Christian God. Your above claim does great damage to philosophy. It miscategorizes most of philosophy of religion as not PoR, but apologetics. This is a really problematic move for philosophy on Wikipedia. And it's terrible philosophy. I can't overestimate just how much philosophy of religion your move sweeps away into apologetics.
And finally, I'm not dismissing sources because they are religious. I'm saying that certain religious (and atheist) people form a social niche in which apologetics is a big deal. This article cannot make that niche more important than the general audience.
Frankly, Jess, you know I respect your opinion, but a lot of what you're saying about apologetics and the Kalam is monumentally wrong, as shown above. Why can't you just see that your arguments are inadequate and have absolutely no precedent of any kind, philosophical or otherwise? We can work on this further, but I'd like to request that you don't let an attempt at consensus be held hostage by such a self-evidently problematic position. BabyJonas (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, you are rejecting sources because they are religious. You are even rejecting non-religious sources "because they are religious", based on your criteria that sources should be based on philosophy in order to determine if this is a philosophical or religious topic area. That's outright nonsense. There is no such policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia, and we unequivocally do not and can not dismiss or downplay a source just because its author is an atheist. Your entire criteria for determining reliability is fundamentally departed from wikipedia procedure, and your original research above is no additional help. What little I've said about Kalam is not wrong... at least as far as the sources are concerned... and that's what matters here.   — Jess· Δ 12:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Oy vey. Let me be explicit. I take it that a niche of people (people active in atheist-theist advocacy and debating) have a unique perspective ("apologist") which is not reflected in outside sources. Is this niche the main audience of Wikipedia? No. Are these sources the best available sources describing this LP's life and occupation? No. As a result, we relegate this view as secondary to our best available sources (peer reviewed and other academic sources), and secondary to the broader readership of Wikipedia. That's my view.
It should be clear now that I don't reject religious sources. I prioritize them, based on their quality (per WP:BESTSOURCES), and based on audience perspective (per WP:POV).
Edit: What you've said about the Kalam does not make it not primarily a philosophical argument, and secondly apologetic in nature. It's fully consistent with your argument that Craig is primarily a philosopher, and his main contribution is in fact a philosophical argument that is heavily used in apologetics. Best as I can tell, your argument sits fine with calling Craig a philosopher. So why aren't we approaching consensus on this issue? BabyJonas (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In other words:
  • You mention three groups of sources.
    • One of them disagrees with you. You want them marginalized because you personally think they are not "the best available sources".
    • One of them, "peer reviewed and other academic sources", does not get much of a mention.
    • One of them agrees with you (religious sources). You want those sources prioritized.
  • You give as a reason for this type of bias that "the main audience of Wikipedia" is not the first group. So you want Wikipedia not to quote reliable sources, you want it to tell people what they want to hear.
In yet other words: you proudly proclaim you are a POV warrior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Hob Gadling. I don't think the sources disagree with me. That this person is involved in Christian apologetics, both the sources and I are in unison on. Where I fall away is when we want to represent him first as a "Christian apologist" rather than his educational/academic background and profession. But none of the sources say this either, so as far as I am concerned, my view is consistent with what the sources say.
That being said, they are not the best available sources. That's not me saying it, that's WP:SOURCES saying it. So I'm not marginalizing anyone here, I'm simply following appropriate protocol.
The peer-reviewed and academic sources are too numerous to list. But they certainly exist, and I can pull them up from philpapers, jstor and other places if need be.
I don't recall prioritizing any religious sources. I take to be priority what Wikipedia takes to be priority, and that is academic, peer-reviewed scholarly sources.
Hope this gives you a clearer picture of my position. I'm arguing to prioritize the most reliable sources here, and I want the article to reflect the best sources. If you need any further clarifications, feel free to let me know. BabyJonas (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I edited and had been reverted - First the general profession[edit]

Hello, I have no intention to discuss this (No time or desire) but I do want to say that in my opinion its more objective to first start with anyone's general profession(s) instead of his or hers Religions stances/beliefs and roles.

Thus I just want to say I support writing: "Craig is a Analytic philosopher" and only after that writing something like "And a Christian theologian, a Christian apologist or a Christian whatever".

Please from now and long count me as one who supports starting with the professional title "Analytic philosopher" even if I won't take active part in discussions about this. That's the man's general profession and anything specific should come after this I think. I would say the very same for an Atheist/Agnostic/Deist/Pantheist/Ignostic or whatever. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree Ben-Yeudith. I've provided several reasons for making this change that have not been adequately addressed. I'm hoping some engagement is forthcoming. BabyJonas (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I too agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Thucyd (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Also agree, and note, in going thru this wiki-list of modern theologians, that for those who are both philosophers, theologians, or some other profession and Christian apologists, their profession is listed first in their articles and the fact that they are apologists is listed near the rear (e.g., Alister McGrath, "theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist"). Pleonic (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I firstly apologise for intruding into the discussion. Though i have been a user of wikipedia for a long time (but an editor for only a short while, on an account that has been currently lost) i feel that i could perhaps provide some aid in the form of my layman third opinion. Now the way i see it, the major problem is the fact that Craig, though having an education in philosophy (among other subjects) has been heavily invested in religious matters or apologetics. In light of this it becomes a point of contention o weather these activities can supercede upon him as an (analytic) philosopher and thus make him primarily an Christian apologist. My view is that, though quite heavily involved in philosophy of religion, it is still philosophy, and since Craig also employs analytic philosophy it is analytic philosophy (of religion, among other things). To me, a philosopher who is involved in religious topics, no matter how heavily or lightly, is still primarily a philosopher and in Craig's case - an analytic philosopher. So, for whatever it counts, my vote/voice is also for Analytic philosopher first. I will not be engaging in any further discussion as i have neither time nor energy to do so, and these types of debates can be quite draining. I wish you all well and a successful resolution of this dilemma. Popokatpetl