drcraigvideos wrote: Quote from: DigitalosI commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum. There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time. I've never heard Dr. William Lane Craig act disrespectfully towards his opponents ever. I had respect for Krauss. But after reading his response my respect for him goes straight out the door.
I commented on that blog, I'm shocked and appalled at how Dr Krauss handled this, he has lost all credibility through posting his childish tantrum. There is just no excuse, if you stand up and shake the hand of your opponent and depart in good faith, then go on to have a big cry about it like a coward, you deserve no respect and none of my time.
Well we aren't really going anywhere with this, I mean you know what I think about it, whether I use strong language or subtle language is only of consequence to convey the degree at which I am appalled and disappointed. I'm going to beat around the bush with that, I think he genuinely had a little hissy fit and is acting like a child, I'm not alone, so clearly others see it too. Anyhow that's that.
It's obvious who's side your on. The fact that you think you're unbiased makes as much sense as 2+2=5.
noseeum wrote: I never said I wasn't biased. I know I am. All the better.
Yes, you're biased for a man who says 2+2=5. Of course that's the mentality of a fair-minded individual such as yourself.
noseeum wrote: Actually I think the degree is important. Not all things are black or white. The shades of grey are important. I think your judgement is too harsh.
drcraigvideos wrote: Quote from: noseeumI never said I wasn't biased. I know I am. All the better. Yes, you're biased for a man who says 2+2=5. Of course that's the mentality of a fair-minded individual such as yourself.
I never said I wasn't biased. I know I am. All the better.
Wow. Let me bold what I find beautiful here.It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn't, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week when the real world may show no evidence of God, goodness, fairness, or purpose.Reflect on Krauss being surprised at "religious devotees" reinforcing their beliefs in the company of like-minded individuals... in a letter sent to Richard Dawkins, which is then immediately posted for discussion/cheerleading in the comments sections of Pharyngula and RichardDawkins.net.
I don't think Craig would have any trouble setting Krauss straight on the straw men he presents, nor do I see how a chance for further reflection and a written response really improves the quality of Krauss' argumentation.
Having read Krauss' comments, I have to admit I'm disappointed. It does look a lot like sour grapes. In his defense, though: (1) I do think he conducted himself with dignity during the debate. (2) Probably he was smarting a bit afterwards; one can understand a bit of post mortem spin. (3) Craig's critique after the fact was pretty dismissive. (4) Hanging with barbarians like PZ Myers probably doesn't put anyone in a cheery mood.
That was painful for me to read. Too many ad hominems, begged questions, and misrepresentations of Craig's positions.
This blog by Krauss is painful. Here is my running response:
It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn't, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week when the real world may show no evidence of God, goodness, fairness, or purpose.
PZ Myers Blog is just what Krauss condemned: “the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals.” He participates in this very action by posting on the blog.
I will break another rule and write this blog-like note on my own perspectives, in the hope that it may circulate and counter some of the nonsense that has propagated in the fundamentalist and religious blogs of late. Perhaps Craig will post this on his blog and send it out as well.
Krauss seemingly loves to break his rules. He seems to do it so often that they become meaningless to call them rules.
I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be.
Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig's continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God.
High school syllogism? I thought syllogisms were discovered and developed by Aristotle. In fact this statement by Krauss is a “high school syllogism” and thus, by his measurement, no good.
Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted. I was very disappointed because I had heard that Craig was more of a philosopher than a proselytizer, but that was not evident the other evening.
It is hard to think of a grander claim than evidence for a divine being who creates the universe without apparent purpose, dominated by dark matter and dark energy and containing hundreds of billions of galaxies, lets it evolve untouched for billions of years, and then roughly a million years into human evolution decides to intervene at a time before Youtube or any other objective recording and archiving tool was available.)
What’s hard to think is he thinks this is a grander claim than modern quantum mechanics which he called irrational and illogical but still legitimate, but this claim is illegitimate, what a double standard.
Wait, Youtube is an objective recording and archiving tool. I guess 9/11 was an inside governmental job because Youtube reported it. How ludicrous, the early Hebrews had an advanced language and written system as well as the New Testament era with a highly developed Greek language.
Happily it is precisely this progress in our natural philosophy that ended such religious atrocities as the burning of witches.
Wait, wait. Did he really write this? Science literally ended witch burnings? Speaking of disingenuous distortions, simpl ifications, and outright lies that Krauss blames Craig having committed, this is one is one of the biggest distortions of church history. Who ended the witch burnings? The church, not science.
The resurrection of Jesus, and that fact that the followers of Jesus were willing to die for their beliefs provides evidence of God
Craig NEVER claimed this. This is another example of Krauss’s distortion of the Craig’s argument. The claim is that the disciples obviously believed Christ rose from the dead because they were willing to die for it, they might be wrong, but they were obviously sincere about their belief given that they were willing to die for it. But this isn’t the reason to believe in the resurrection. It’s this point along with the empty tomb and the appearance of the post-mortem appearance which are also established through the modern historical method that gives reason that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Craig argued that most New Testament scholars believe in the resurrection.
Again, Craig did not say this. Most NT scholars believe three facts: empty tomb, appearances of Christ, and radical transformation of the disciple’s belief in the resurrection. Many of these NT scholars actually don’t believe in the resurrection but they do accept these three facts. Krauss, you need to accurately represent, not distort.
there are historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus himself.
Yes, and there are historians who deny the holocaust. How do we respond: we ignore them because that is a ridiculous position. There is more evidence (secular testimony) for the historicity of Jesus than for Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus: ten non-Christian sources for Jesus within 150 years of his life and nine non-Christian sources for Tiberius within 150 years of his life. That doesn’t even include the multiple sources of the New Testament for the historicity of Jesus.
this in a hackneyed way that recreated previous resurrection myths, down to the number of days before being raised from the dead, of several previous, and now long-gone religious cults
This claim is a hundred years out of date. The history-of-religions school of thought that promoted this claim in the early 20th century completely abandoned this position because all the supposed resurrection stories in other myths and cults are dated after the resurrection of Jesus. T. N. D. Mettinger, a senior Swedish scholar, professor at Lund University, and a member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm, wrote in his definitive work on the supposed “borrowed” resurrection stories The Riddle of the Resurrection, that “There is, as far as I am aware, no pima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.” (221) Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at Free Univ. of Berlin claimed in The Roman Cult of Mithras that it doesn’t make sense to interpret the Mithraic mysteries “as a fore-runner of Christianity.” L. Patterson, in his book Mithraism and Christianity (Cambridge Univ. Press) concludes there is “no direct connection between the two religions [Christianity and Mithraism] either in origin or development.” Krauss needs to stop watching Zeitgeist videos on Youtube and catch up to the research. Oh wait, I forgot, Youtube is an objective recording and archiving tool according to Krauss.
Finally, the remarkable, and completely trite claim that the fact the Christians were willing to die for their beliefs demonstrates the validity of these beliefs would be laughable, if it weren't so pitiful.
What’s pitiful is the Krauss actually wrote this. Craig did not claim that because they were willing to die for their beliefs demonstrated the validity of their beliefs, only that their beliefs were sincere. That coupled with the other established historical facts beg for an adequate explanation that explains all of the facts. God raising Jesus from the dead explains all of them. Other explanations are inadequate because they don’t have the explanatory scope needed to be the best explanation.
I found and still find Craig's statement [that the disciples were willing to die for the belief of the resurrection] not only facile, and not even worthy of a high school debater, but I find the claim offensive.
The only thing shallow here is Krauss’s inability to follow Craig’s argument as evidenced by this gross misrepresentation of Craig’s position. Who cares if you find it offensive. You being upset by a claim is not the best avenue in determining truth. Follow the argument and put your feeling aside.
OK, I can’t handle any more of this. Someone else can respond to the rest of his blog.
Thank you for that, semiomniscience.
Thank you all for your kind comments on the debate and for your prayers for the event! It was quite a show, wasn’t it? Here are a few of my impressions from an insider’s perspective:
1. The debate illustrates once again the power of a praying wife.
2. Some people have commented on the music played before the debate. That was not part of the event planning—it was music from Dr. Krauss’s own laptop that he was playing as he was testing his powerpoint! I rather enjoyed it myself.
3. I was troubled that the moderator’s remarks prior to the debate (which I believe were provided to him, so this is no fault of the judge) seriously misrepresented the topic under debate that evening. The question was “Is There Evidence for God?” But the moderator’s statement repeatedly stated the topic as “Is There Sufficient Evidence for God?” That is a vastly different topic! By sneaking in the word “sufficient,” you immediately raise the question, “Sufficient for what?” Sufficient to compel belief in God? Sufficient to justify belief in God? Sufficient to make belief in God rational? What exactly are you talking about? By contrast, as I explained, when one asks, “Is There Evidence for God?” all that means is “Is the probability of God’s existence greater given certain facts than it is just on one’s background information alone?” That question makes the debate a cakewalk for me (contrary to Krauss’s assertion that I was brave or foolhardy). In a court of law, of course there is evidence for the guilt of the accused, even if that evidence isn’t sufficient to convict. So here, to say there is evidence for God isn’t to say that that evidence is sufficient to show God exists. In order to determine that, one would need to discuss as well the probability of God’s existence on the background information alone. That’s why, as Krauss stated, this wasn’t a debate on the existence of God. It was merely on whether there is any evidence for God’s existence. For that reason, I actually toyed with idea of not presenting the deductive formulations of my arguments as usual, since that went far beyond the topic. After hearing the moderator’s statement, I was so glad that I had decided to present the arguments deductively as well as inductively, thereby proving more than the topic demanded.
4. I was frankly flabbergasted by Krauss’s opening salvo attacking logic and the probability calculus. Can you imagine what people would think if, in order to defend a Christian worldview, the believer had to reject logic and probability theory? This was the worst of several outrageous claims Krauss made in the course of the debate.
5. I spent a lot of time preparing for this debate. I had briefs prepared on every possible exception to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Jim Sinclair actually took a day off work to help me deal with models involving topological changes of spacetime, models he hadn’t discussed in our Blackwell Companion piece. Robin Collins provided me with extensive excerpts from his forthcoming book on fine-tuning and exchanged numerous emails on the subject. Almost none of this material surfaced in the debate because Krauss’s responses to the kalam cosmological argument and to the fine-tuning argument (supposedly his areas of expertise) were so superficial. Still I’m glad for all the extra work I put in because it really brought me up to speed on current work on these topics and was a great refresher course. I’m grateful to Robin and Jim for all their help.
6. Krauss had actually prepared for this debate. He told me prior to the debate that he had watched some of my debates on YouTube, and he even commented that the necktie I was wearing was the one I wore at the Hitchens debate! But I think he had not bothered to read any of my written work and so found himself ill-equipped to handle the arguments.
lionofjudah wrote: Krauss didn't even do that poorly during the debate. In fact the way many Christians are acting it seems like they the ones doing the damage control.
Nothing gets passed you, PuttyCatfromYoda.
What more do you want?