Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 6

Rebuttals
So, how come there are no rebuttals or critique against Craig's ideas posted here, or are they just supposed to be posted on the specific pages for the ideas themselves? DukeTwicep (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some critique of Craig's ideas, for example Helm's critique in the last paragraph of the Philosophy of time section. But this article is mainly about Craig and his ideas, only indirectly about what other people think of them. Unless they arey rejected in a notable way (which would probably require more than a single disagreeing philosopher), we don't need a rebuttal for each of his positions; we only need to report that he holds them. A more detailed discussion on the ideas, their supporters and critics would probably indeed be better suited for the article on the ideas themselves. Huon (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any rebuttals are appropriate. This is not a debate page.Theowarner (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins and the Canaanites
There's a slow-moving edit war involving Dawkins and the Canaanites. For all I can tell, the relevant sentence is supposed to bei either:
 * Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", with reference to Craig's comments defending the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and of "efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him".

or:
 * Evolutionary ethologist and anti-theistic author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, has refused to debate William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide," with reference to Craig's comments defending the Old Testament account of the Israelites killing the Canaanites who refused to leave the Promised Land, and of "efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him."

I prefer the first version. Firstly, while (evolutionary) ethology seems to be Dawkins' specialty, that seems overly specialized. None of the sources mentioning Dawkins and Craig describe Dawkins as an ethologist. Similarly, none of them describe him as an antitheist, and neither does our own article. The Guardian's author profile says he's a "scientist and writer", Fox describes him as "one of the Four Horseman [sic] of the new Atheist movement", and the New Statesman describes him as a "new atheist" and a "biologist". Secondly, the details of the slaughter of the Canaanites are utterly off-topic for this part of the article. If we were to explain in detail Craig's position, it might be reasonable to include the fact that the Canaanites refused to leave the "Promised Land" (though, unless I'm missing something, Craig actually argues that they had to be killed for their sins, not for their reluctance to leave). But in the context of Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig, it suffices to note that Craig has defended the killing of the Canaanites and Dawkins strongly disapproves. A link to the Biblical Canaanites may be helpful, but then again, that article does not discuss the genocide in any depth anyway. Thirdly, as I wrote above, I'd greatly appreciate if 98.91.44.60 wouldn't break unrelated references while reverting that sentence to his preferred version. Huon (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Huon, agreed. Unnecessary details are unnecessary. Joycey17 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. The second version is inappropriate. There were other discussion elsewhere on this page about this sentence, but most have trailed off. I'm not 100% sold on what label to use for Dawkins (is "atheist" properly summing up the reliable sources, or is it attempting to discredit his opinions?), but until we have a strong reason for or against it, there's no reason for a change. If another editor wants to make a change to the second version, they need to come to the talk page and discuss it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say Dawkins' atheism is highly relevant; that's why Craig wants to debate him in the first place, isn't it? It's mentioned in two of our sources, and I'd say it's adequately describing his opinions, not discrediting them. Huon (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted a number sources where Richard's excuses were examined. Let me repeat a few of those:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-god-knows-why-dawkins-wont-show-2374659.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/10/27/lets-face-it-dawkins-is-chicken/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.html

So are we to believe none of none of the responses I've posted so far deserve to be mentioned? That Dawkins should be allowed to get away with declaring Craig a genocidal maniac?--HyperEntity (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @HyperEntity, I responded to that criticism above about a week ago, but you never got back to me. Feel free to read my response there.
 * @Huon, That's not necessarily why Craig wants to debate. He debates theists too. In academic literature, I'm not sure Dawkins is simply referred to as "an atheist". Then again, as I said above, I'm okay with it for now, so there's no real need for discussion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the specific reason why Craig wanted to debate Dawkins is related to Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, which outlines Dawkins' atheistic views. That and also because Dawkins is one of the vice-presidents of the British Humanist Association. Surely you know who Richard Dawkins is and what his views are? Maiorem (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable secondary source to that effect? If we ignore the wide selection of primary sources and opinion pieces (including all of HyperEntity's new links), the Fox News piece is the only secondary source we currently use to cover that episode. It certainly describes Dawkins as an atheist, so we should probably follow its lead. Another secondary source for the entire affair, including Dawkins' refusal, is this Christian Post article, and I'd suggest using it instead of Dawkins himself. Let us remember, this is the Craig article and not the Dawkins article, and we need not engage in any discussion as to whether Dawkins was right or wrong in his criticism. Craig asked Dawkins to debate him, Dawkins refused. More seems unnecessary and irrelevant to Craig. Huon (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the title of Craig's lecture (in light of the absence of Dawkins) speaks for itself: Is God a Delusion? A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion. Maiorem (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a source. That's OR. Quite obviously, we can't make decisions about Craig's mindset based on observations of event titles.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't make decisions about a person's mindset based on observations of event titles? Well, Huon, I've got a source here:
 * http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.html
 * Maiorem (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we can't. That's called original research. When I try to check your link, I just get a blank page with a sidebar of links. I can't judge the article content, but I will note that whatever it is, it's from Peter Hitchens' Blog. Without the content, it's hard to say, but blogs are not typically reliable sources.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can read that blog entry, and it does say Craig intended to debate Dawkins about his book. But is the proposed subject of a debate which didn't happen really significant enough for our article? I doubt that, especially given the absence of reliable secondary sources covering that detail. We're suffering an attack of recentism; we don't mention the subject of any of Craig's other debates (rightly so). Huon (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jess, please refer to WP:NEWSBLOG. Maiorem (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, note especially the part about opinion pieces and editorial control. Also note RSN's general opinion on the daily mail, particularly regarding the opinion pieces it publishes. I still can't comment on the article content, but regardless of that, this doesn't seem to be a particularly high quality source, even as a primary one. I also agree with Huon that it isn't relevant.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins says: “This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him”. N.B. Dawkins says "share a platform with him" and not "debate with him". That is a little puzzling as we can see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8.

And Dawkins admits: "Actually I HAVE debated against Craig, at a large, televised event in Mexico.": http://richarddawkins.net/comments/613905

Should we add the BHA controversy?
It’s pretty notable in the UK. Members of the British Humanist Association (Dawkins, Grayling, Toynbee) have all refused to debate Craig despite dozens of invitations to do so. There’ll even be adverts on buses around Oxford stating ‘’There’s probably no Richard Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy the Sheldonian theatre) : http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/theres-probably-no-dawkins.htm

Toynbee was going to but got cold feet when she saw his previous debates. We already have sources for this from PCR, Newstatesman, Daily Telegraph, and Christian News. Shouldn’t we mention it in the debate section?--HyperEntity (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not especially important in my opinion. Theowarner (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me add... it may be interesting right now, but that's because there are lot of people spilling a lot of ink on it. In January, it won't be worth mentioning here on Wikipedia. There's no reason to mention it now. Theowarner (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with theo. It's another case of something interesting, relevant and sourced, where there is no good reason not to put it in. Joycey17 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, disagree with Theowarner. The noteworthiness of an event is determined by its coverage at the time of its occurrence, not coverage at a future date. The fact alone that "there are lot of people spilling a lot of ink on it", especially by multiple reliable third-party secondary sources, means that it is definitely worth mentioning. Maiorem (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The noteworthiness of an event is determined by its coverage at the time of its occurrence, not coverage at a future date? See WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:INDEPTH. I disagree with your reasoning, Maiorem. That it is being discussed 'now' is not enough to justify its mention. While Joycey17 is right that these declined debates are "interesting, relevant and sourced," I disagree that they are noteworthy or important. They are trivial, sensation and fleeting. (I'm reversing my opinion below.) Theowarner (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those you cited even mentions anything about coverage at a future date. I will cite back to you WP:EFFECT and WP:INDEPTH:
 * With regards to WP:EFFECT, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
 * With regards to WP:INDEPTH, "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)."
 * For source, here's one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html Maiorem (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That article isn't going to establish that the coverage is significant. But, we still need to weigh the amount of coverage against some thought about how much that coverage is about trying to create coverage. Theowarner (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Can you or someone else please rephrase your sentence, e.g. "coverage trying to create coverage"? Maiorem (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am referring to deliberate attempts to create controversy. With Dawkins not debating Craig, for example, some people took out an advertisement on buses. Then, that advertisement became the source of news coverage. It seems to me like an attempt to create controversy or to compound the news cycle. My point is only that we need to make sure that we buying into hype. Our job should be see through hype. Theowarner (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the Atheist Bus Campaign that ran two years ago? This is a parody of it, and it is not a deliberate attempt to create controversy, as you suggested. Advertisements do not become the source of news coverage for no reason other than being advertisements, especially not for reliable sources. Maiorem (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am indeed aware of the Atheist Bus Campaign. I recognize that it is a parody of it. I'm not sure why you think it's not an attempt to create controversy. The original Atheist Bus Campaign was an attempt to create controversy and this advertisement seems in the same spirit. I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your last sentence. Theowarner (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why you think it is an attempt to create controversy; what's the controversy? Yes, the original campaign was indeed an attempt at generating controversy, but how is this recent campaign an attempt at generating controversy? How is it "in the same spirit"? What I said in the last sentence basically means that nobody, especially not for reliable news sources, writes news about advertisements unless those advertisements are linked to something more notable. Thus, these advertisements are not being reported about simply by virtue of them being advertisements as you have suggested by saying "that advertisement became the source of news coverage" which is untrue and misleading. Maiorem (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You ask a great many questions. Are you sure you're following the coverage closely? If you don't know what the controversy is, I doubt you're following it at all. Theowarner (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain to us what the controversy is. Assume that I am not following the coverage. How are you going to explain the controversy? Do you think every reader of this article would have followed such coverage? I doubt even you are following, nor do you know what the controversy is. Maiorem (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up, there are fairly straightforward descriptions of the controversy. You can google the terms fairly easily. Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, the "controversy" is non-existent. I said to explain the controversy, not redirect us to Google. Telling us to Google something isn't an explanation; that's avoidance. I can also tell you to Google why there's no "controversy" either. Oh, and be sure to differentiate between the 2009 Christian bus campaign and the recent one too. Maiorem (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just saw Huon's complaint that bethinking was the only source we had for this story. Here are more the sources we have available to us on this story:

Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

Oxford Times: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9294923.Christians____bus_challenge_to_atheist

New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/god-dawkins-atheist-craig

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/11/hugh-muir-diary-liam-fox?newsfeed=true

Daily Mail: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/so-there-is-a-plan-b-after-all-saving-the-reckless-at-the-expense-of-the-thrifty-.html

Christian News: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9901617876.html

Christian Post: http://global.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-continues-to-refuse-debate-with-christian-apologist-william-craig-56780/

PCR: Unbelievable? 10 Sep 2011 - William Lane Craig Q&A

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101

Now Marojem has already pointed out that the Atheist Bus Campaign met the criteria for notability and I have yet to see Theo give a convincing response. So I think we should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperEntity (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to add the BHA issue. We currently have three people who favour adding it. Four if we count Huon. I've already responded to his question regarding sourcing and Marojem has responded to Theo's objections. If no one has a problem I'll add it within the next few days.--HyperEntity (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While notability is not just determined by coverage at the time of the occurrence (per WP:NOTNEWS), I don't think mentioning those who refused to debate Craig is out of line. What's the best source? The New Statesman article we already cite is an opinion piece, not a news item; the bethinking link HyperEntity gave above is just a reprint of a press release. Huon (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, well if you're just going to list them with the others he has debated, I'm okay with that. Many of the sources, by the way, are actually just versions of Craig's press release on the same issue. He put out releases on Dawkins and Toynbee. So, make sure you aren't simply point back to something Craig's people wrote. Theowarner (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: I felt that we should give Craig a chance to respond (or show what others who have responded on his behalf have said) rather than simply saying that he is an apologist for genocide. I see your point about weight and I agree that it can be shortened. We can work something out.--HyperEntity (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not we "give Craig a chance to respond", 4 paragraphs covering how Dawkins turned down a debate is way too much. This article isn't about Dawkins. If this gets integrated at all, it needs to be within a few short sentences, and no more. I'd be happy to discuss alternatives to the current version, but please don't edit war over the current proposal. Per WP:BRD, it needs to be discussed here before it's reintroduced. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. I sggest we change it to the following:

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", referring to Craig's comments on the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and claimed that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name’’.

In response, a Christian bus campaign was launched around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan 'There’s probably no Dawkins' in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University has commented: ‘’Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist...Using William Lane Craig's remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is typical of New Atheist polemic.’’ Dr Tim Stanley, a historian at Oxford University, has argued that Dawkins misrepresents Craig’s views of the Cannanite massacre and has stated that "Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly."

The Christian bus campaign is important, well sourced and deserves to be mentioned. Obviously we need to include the comments by Came and Stanley in the interests of neutrality. Thoughts?--HyperEntity (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Even that is quite long. Perhaps this trimmed version would suffice, which includes the bus campaign alongside wording similar to the current version:
 * Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling have turned down invitations to debate with William Lane Craig, with Dawkins accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", referring to Craig's comments on the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and accusing him of "self-promotion". In response, a Christian bus campaign was launched around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan "There's probably no Dawkins" in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign.
 * Let me know what you'd think. I'd be happy to explain the reasons for my changes if you'd like to discuss it further.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is OK (though I'd prefer to see Polly Toynbee replace Grayling-we've already said he debated Grayling). However, I feel that we need to mention Came's and Stanley's comments or at least this article in the Independent. Dawkins states that none of the philosophers he spoke to had heard of Craig (This is clearly a lie-Came sent Dawkins a letter encouraging him to debate Craig and I can't take seriously the idea that Dawkins was not aware of Craig's debates with Grayling, Dennett and Flew) and that he was apologist for genocide.


 * Came notes that the second statement is irrelevant and the first is false. Stanley notes that Dawkins has misrepresented Craig's position. These rebuttals deserve to be mentioned. We can't simply allow Dawkins to talk nonsense without giving Craig a chance to respond (or someone to respond on his behalf).--HyperEntity (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm probably okay with using Toynbee instead of Grayling (or in addition to Grayling), but I don't recall him in the sources. Do we have a good source indicating he's notably turned down a debate? Regarding 'rebuttals', all the sources presented thus far are opinion pieces in blogs (or similar), and I'm not sure they deserve any weight in the article. Frankly, I don't think Dawkins' opinion that Craig is "an apologist for genocide" is worthy of attention either, given that it has received little traction elsewhere, but it's currently serving the purpose of indicating why Dawkins has turned down the invitations. Basically, this section isn't out to make a statement about Craig (or Dawkins, or anyone else); the section is intended to cover a public controversy which received some small amount of coverage. Therefore, we need to present: that there was a controversy regarding the debates; why there was a controversy (Dawkins turned down the debates due to X, and Craig responded with the Bus campaign which received coverage). Opinions on the controversy aren't innately relevant unless the opinions themselves are - such as by receiving independent coverage themselves. There may be a way we can present "why there was a controversy" without including the bit about the Canaanites. I don't know how to do that while still presenting that Dawkins turned down the invitations due to his negative opinion about Craig, but perhaps you have a suggestion. Would that work?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:33, 24

October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I’m back. I’ve been a bit busy during the last few days (and I still am) but I should be able to respond more often. Now then:

Given the number of media outlets which have covered this I think it meets wikipedia’s notability criteria. Now since we’ve decided to mention it we ought to adhere to wikipedia’s guidelines regarding POVs and neutrality.

‘’ Opinions on the controversy aren't innately relevant unless the opinions themselves are - such as by receiving independent coverage themselves.’’

Where is the evidence for this? The Guardian and Independent pieces were not blogs. Further, wikipedia does not prevent the citation of blogs or opinion pieces in all cases. There are many cases where blog pieces were cited when they were written by notable individuals and I believe Peter Hitchens qualifies as a notable person.

‘’ There may be a way we can present "why there was a controversy" without including the bit about the Canaanites.’’

I can’t see how to do that. How about this:

''Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling have turned down invitations to debate with William Lane Craig, with Dawkins accusing him of being a "deplorable apologist for genocide", referring to Craig's comments on the Old Testament account of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and claiming that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name’’

His refusal has been widely criticised. Many Christian groups launched a bus campaign around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan "There's probably no Dawkins" in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent. Dr Tim Stanley, a historian at Oxford University, has argued that Dawkins misrepresents Craig’s views of the Cannanite massacre.'' HyperEntity (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, I don't think adding content about criticism of Dawkins is an improvement. This article is about Craig, not Dawkins, so it is only immediately relevant that he interacted with Craig by turning down the debate (if anything), not that he subsequently received criticism in the blogosphere.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is not to criticise Dawkins but to present a balanced account of this controversy. It is not balanced to have Dawkins describing Craig as a genocidal maniac without including a response.HyperEntity (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, I'm not really a fan of the Canaanites thing at all, and I think coming up with a way to cover Dawkins' decline without criticizing the parties involved is best. However, just because we're mentioning the Canaanites to indicate why Dawkins declined, that doesn't then imply we need to spend a lot of time expanding on rebuttals to the Canaanite comment. Criticism of Dawkins' decisions to debate are not relevant to WLC, and including them (in your proposal, within two whole paragraphs) is undue weight. If you can come up with a way to avoid the Canaanites comment altogether, I would be fine with that. (Also, please indent your posts. Thanks.)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We’re not criticizing Dawkins for the sake of it. We are not inserting random quotes like ‘Most philosophers do not take Dawkins seriously’. We are presenting a response to criticisms of Craig Dawkins has made. This is done in the interests of balance* and not to present such responses raises issues under Wiki:NPOV information suppression.*


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

Now the dilemma facing us seems to be how we can maintain neutrality without raising issues of undue weight. How about we shorten the paragraph to the following:

Richard Dawkins and journalist Polly Toynbee have both refused to debate with William Lane Craig, with Dawkins claiming among other things that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name.’’ His refusal has been widely criticized. Many Christian groups launched a bus campaign around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan "There's probably no Dawkins" in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent.

Alternatively: In October 2011, a Christian bus campaign was launched around Oxford with buses bearing the slogan "There's probably no Dawkins" in parody of the Atheist Bus Campaign and in referene to evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins’s controversial refusal to debate Craig. What do you think? HyperEntity (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think both those drafts focus too much on Dawkins and too little on Craig. Does the bus campaign tell us anything about Craig? Unless he was personally involved in that campaign's design (which we would need a source for), I don't think so. The Daniel Came quote about "engaging with a serious opponent" might be worthwhile because that's actually about Craig; is there a reliable source for that quote? Huon (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It’s no different from what we currently use except that we’ve presented a response to Dawkins. The whole point is that Dawkins criticised Craig and people responded to him.

The Daniel Came quote about "engaging with a serious opponent" might be worthwhile because that's actually about Craig; is there a reliable source for that quote?

Dr Came: Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with 'an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487HyperEntity (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Presenting a response to Dawkins is off-topic unless it tells us anything about Craig. This is not the Dawkins article. And apparently the Came quote is from an opinion piece by Came, not from a secondary source writing about what Came said. I don't think that's significant enough to add to this article. Huon (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Presenting a response to Dawkins is off-topic unless it tells us anything about Craig. This is not the Dawkins article.


 * I see. No doubt you also think the responses to Quentin Smith's attacks on Saul Kripke's credibility should not be mentioned since this is not the Smith article.


 * And apparently the Came quote is from an opinion piece by Came, not from a secondary source writing about what Came said.


 * The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it. If Wikipedia has guidelines preventing the use of opinion pieces I'd like to see them.HyperEntity (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Please start indenting your posts. Seriously. It makes your comments hard to read when they're scattered all over the place with odd spacing and indentation. 2) That Dawkins turned down an invitation to debate is not "an attack on Craig", nor has Craig been "vindicated in Newspapers". I've pointed this out repeatedly. You are insisting that Dawkins' opinion that Craig "is an apologist for genocide" is essential to the paragraph - an opinion I disagree with - which is the only reason it's included. If you are now saying the source supporting Dawkins' refusal to debate is "only an opinion piece" and not suitable for inclusion, the correct avenue is to remove it altogether... not to add more opinion pieces talking more about Dawkins.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an opinion on the Saul Kripke article; bringing it up here is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But apparently Neale argues that Kripke did not commit plagiarism, which would indeed tell us something about Kripke. So at a cursory glance Neale's reply to Smith's criticism seems relevant.
 * One of Wikipedia's guidelines on opinion pieces can be found at WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. So we could cite Came as saying that Craig is "an intellectually rigorous theist", but is Came's opinion on Craig really relevant enough for this article? I just did a search for "opinion piece" in the Wikipedia namespace, and consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard archives seems to be that it's better to avoid opinion pieces whenever possible. Thus, I just got rid of Dawkins' article in favor of a secondary source, a Christian Post article covering Dawkins' genocide claims. Huon (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That Dawkins turned down an invitation to debate is not "an attack on Craig", nor has Craig been "vindicated in Newspapers".


 * Stating that a professional philosopher is not a philosopher but a genocidal lunatic is not an attack?


 * You are insisting that Dawkins' opinion that Craig "is an apologist for genocide" is essential to the paragraph.


 * Actually, I’ve just drafted two alternatives eliminating the genocide slur. The only reason I haven’t used one of them yet is because Huon insists that they are somehow off topic.


 * If you are now saying the source supporting Dawkins' refusal to debate is "only an opinion piece" and not suitable for inclusion, the correct avenue is to remove it altogether...


 * You must have me confused with Huon because I ‘ve claimed nothing of the sort.


 * Wikipedia's guidelines on opinion pieces can be found at WP:RSOPINION...


 * Well, turning to WP:RSOPINION we finds nothing against the use of opinion pieces. However, we do find this: When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.


 * Given that Daniel Came (unlike Richard Dawkins) is a professional philosopher, his views on Craig’s creditionals and the God debate automatically carry more weight. That said, I don’t actually have a problem with replacing the opinion pieces where necessary.


 * But apparently Neale argues that Kripke did not commit plagiarism, which would indeed tell us something about Kripke. So at a cursory glance Neale's reply to Smith's criticism seems relevant.


 * Well in this case we have Dawkins saying 'I won't debate Craig because he isn't worth debating and he is morally repulsive because he supports genocide.' We have responses which say 'He is worth debating, he is not morally repulsive, you've misrepresented his views (and your argument irrelevant anyway).' Seems pretty relevant to me.HyperEntity (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @HE, I'm going to have difficulty responding to your posts if you don't start indenting them properly. This section is turning into a jumbled mess of text. Please look at how other users do it, and copy that. As for the content of your post, I most certainly don't have you confused with Huon. You responded to the assertion that the "response to Dawkins" refs were opinion pieces by saying "The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it." If we have a problem with including new material, and that problem is shared by existing material, the correct course of action is to remove it all... not to add more to counterbalance an existing problem. As multiple users have pointed out repeatedly, this article is about Craig, not Dawkins, so devoting multiple paragraphs to Dawkins is undue. We simply can't do it. I think it's about time to move on to a new topic.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jess. While Came says Craig is a worthy opponent, we have (for a lack of good secondary sources) gotten rid of that point of Dawkins' critique anyway. Came doesn't say that Dawkins has either misrepresented Came or that Craig's position on infanticide is defensible; quite the contrary. Do you really want us to cite Came to the effect that Craig, in order to be logically consistent, would have to commit infanticide? That's what Came actually says about Craig. Huon (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the content of your post, I most certainly don't have you confused with Huon. You responded to the assertion that the "response to Dawkins" refs were opinion pieces by saying "The Dawkins article is also an opinion piece. We have used it."


 * I also asked Huon to show me any Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting the use of opinion pieces and clarified my position in the post you just responded to by pointing out that such guidelines do not exist. As for the point about indentation…I apologise for that. I'll try to indent my posts from now on.


 * Came doesn't say that 'Dawkins has either misrepresented Came' or that Craig's position…


 * I think you mean to say: Came doesn't say that Dawkins has either misrepresented Craig or that Craig's position…. Of course, Came is not the only source I've posted here.HyperEntity (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I did mix up Craig and Came there. And indeed you have posted quite a lot of sources; I have happily incorporated some of them in the article. Thanks for that. But I still don't see what we would add to the debate section that would both be on-topic and tell us anything about Craig. The bus campaign, for example, is utterly irrelevant to Craig. Or are we supposed to learn something about his sense of humor from it? Came's quote about Craig being an intellectually rigorous theist does not really fit into the debate section unless we turn it into a critique of Dawkins, for which this is the wrong article. Besides, considering the breadth of Craig's work, I doubt Dawkins' refusal to debate him really is significant enough to him to warrant more than the two lines we currently have. Huon (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @HE, thanks for the indentation. According to guideline and RSN, opinion pieces are generally avoided. That doesn't mean they're excluded always, as indeed some notable pieces do receive coverage and warrant some placement in our articles. However, just because it's not forbidden to add the material, that isn't justification to add it. As of this time, there isn't consensus for the addition. I think a big part of that is the undue issue I mentioned above, and the sourcing for it really isn't great. My point before was that if you're arguing that our current sourcing is as bad as the new sourcing, then we should be discussing what material to remove, not adding more. I think we just fundamentally disagree - it happens - so I don't know there's much more to discuss. Obviously consensus can change, so we may be able to revisit the issue in the future, but for right now there doesn't appear to be much more to add. If you're really tied to this, then maybe WP:DR, but I honestly think the best thing right now is to focus our attention on other areas in need.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with having Dawkins state that Craig supports genocide without any adding any responses. I feel that it's just NPOV. Now, the objections as far as I understand them, are that we can't spend multiple paragraphs on something like this and we should only add responses that are relevant. I agree. So here are some relevant sources:


 * Came rebuts Dawkins's claim that Craig isn't worth debating


 * The Independent rebuts Dawkins's claim that Craig isn't worth debating


 * Stanley argues that Dawkins misrepresents Craig's position in the Daily Telegraph

And here's an alternative:

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with William Lane Craig, claiming among other things that "none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name.’’ His refusal has been widely criticized. Dr Daniel Came, a philosopher and atheist at Oxford University accused Dawkins of using ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with a serious opponent. I just can't see the problem wirth adding a few extra lines.HyperEntity (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just tried to get rid of primary sources. The draft you present above would have to be sourced to Dawkins and Came directly, not to secondary sources, wouldn't it? That does not seem an improvement to me. Furthermore, choosing to focus on something else because we're not comfortable with what the best available sources say strikes me as the very essence of POV-pushing. Huon (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

''I have just tried to get rid of primary sources. The draft you present above would have to be sourced to Dawkins and Came directly, not to secondary sources, wouldn't it? That does not seem an improvement to me.''

If it makes you happy, we can leave it as it is and add the last two sentences. But yes, those two would probably have to be sourced by Came directly (and I've already explained why I see no problem with citing Came). Perhaps we could use this quote from Came (it is quite obvious that Dawkins is opportunistically using these remarks as a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for his refusal to debate with Craig.) found here:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/10/27/lets-face-it-dawkins-is-chicken/

Furthermore, choosing to focus on something else because we're not comfortable with what the best available sources say

Nope. That's not why I'm uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable because I think that we're engaging in information suppression* by giving including Dawkins's attacks on Craig and ignoring his critics.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

HyperEntity (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Algemeiner piece is another opinion piece. Including Dawkins' attacks and ignoring his critics happens to be what the secondary sources do. As long as we follow their lead, I do not see how we can violate WP:NPOV. Picking and choosing which (parts) of the primary sources to use for "balance" seems a much trickier approach. I'm tempted to prove my point by providing a draft based on primary sources which completely contradicts yours. Besides, those like Came and Averick who, basically, accuse Dawkins of being chicken speak more about Dawkins and not about Craig. Whether Dawkins is chicken or not is utterly irrelevant to Craig. Huon (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Algemeiner piece is another opinion piece. Including Dawkins' attacks and ignoring his critics happens to be what the secondary sources do. As long as we follow their lead, I do not see how we can violate WP:NPOV.


 * I don’t have a problem with secondary sources. I’m sayimg that primary sources are also reliable and ought to be added for the sake of balance.


 * Picking and choosing which (parts) of the primary sources to use for "balance" seems a much trickier approach. I'm tempted to prove my point by providing a draft based on primary sources which completely contradicts yours.


 * If you can draft a short piece (using reliable sources) which critiques Craig and presents responses to those criticism, you have my blessing.HyperEntity (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of place sentence
I think that the second sentence (Craig maintains that science and faith are connected and that the physical sciences are more open to the idea of a creator than they have been in recent history.) is out of place. Doesn't that seem to be about his views rather than his debates? Perhaps someone can change the sentence to make it relevant. Or it should be deleted. The other sentences list who Dr. Craig has debated, a comment made at a debate about Dr. Craig's debate performances, and a reason why Dr. Dawkins won't debate Dr. Craig. So, I'm questioning the second sentence's relevance. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag
I just removed the COI tag Theroadislong placed on the article. Firstly, I have no idea which editor is supposed to have this conflict of interest (as opposed to strong opinions, which many of us have), and secondly, none of us is significant enough a contributor to the article to justify tagging it. If you see problems with the article (and I'd probably agree that it's hardly perfect, though imo it improved quite a bit over the past few months), please be specific and raise the concerns here on the talk page. Huon (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:HyperEntity is a single purpose account removing unfavourable content, Dawkins refusal to debate with Graig is a major reason for his notability?Theroadislong (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, being a single-purpose account is not on its own an indication of a conflict of interest. Secondly, HyperEntity has done more to provide reliable secondary sources for the article than any other single editor, myself included. Thirdly, I agree with the removal of the refused Dawkins debate, and unless I misinterpret him badly, so did User:Theowarner. So apparently there's something of a consensus that that detail should be removed, and HyperEntity was just the one who did the deed. Are you now going to claim that Theowarner and I also "remove unfavourable content"? Huon (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see no consensus or even discussion about removing the content completely?Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I see as Theowarner's agreement: Admittedly I did not state my explicit agreement before now, but I did remove the reason why Dawkins refused. Anyway, if HyperEntity and I misjudged Thoewarner's position, this still is not a conflict of interest, wouldn't you agree? Huon (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 326,000 google hits for "William Lane Craig Dawkins" and there clearly is NO consensus for removing correctly referenced neutral content about the refusal to debate, it is a large part of what makes Craig notable.Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try to agree on one thing at a time: The supposed conflict of interest. Do you still say that HyperEntity (or any other editor) has a conflict of interest? If so, why? Huon (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there might be a conflict of interest based on their edit history of content blanking, edit warring and incivility on articles connected with Craig. Perhaps I am wrong. All good wishesTheroadislong (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen no one on this page who has a conflict of interest. We are all passionate individuals with strong opinions, but that's the precise reason why we ought to be wikipedia editors. That said: the only people who really should be a concern for us are those people who don't have the slightest clue how wikipedia works. The administrators have been pretty good at blocking them, however. Theowarner (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The work section seems...
The work section as it reads right now concerns me. It seems to delve below the line of giving a brief description of his work so that the uninformed reader can quickly get a sense of who Dr. Craig is and what his work is. What it offers right now seems like actual presentation of his work. For example, it is enough to say that Kalam is a cosmological argument based on the impossibility of infinities. Instead we seem to be actually reconstructing the arguments themselves in considerable detail: "Although he recognizes that axiomatized infinite set theory is logically consistent he maintains that the existence of actual infinities in the real world would lead to absurdities. For example, David Hilbert's famous "Hilbert's Hotel" thought experiment demonstrates how a fully occupied hotel would still be able to accommodate an infinite number of guests. Craig modifies the thought experiment by introducing operations such as subtraction and shows that subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities would have non-identical remainders.[7] Since we have no evidence of such things in the actual world, Craig maintains that actual infinities are, for all intents and purposes, metaphysically impossible. Craig also argues that the thermodynamic properties of the universe and its expansion provide more evidence in support of premise 2.[8]" That seems like a lot of unnecessary language... is it really all necessary? Did we work all this out a while ago? Theowarner (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a succinct summary followed by the more detailed analysis? That way you get clarity for those who want clarity and detail for those who want detail. Joycey17 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right that it currently is a version from a while back? Theowarner (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not "prolific" but "major contributions"?
An editor recently removed the word "prolific" from the debate section, claiming that "Craig is a prolific debater" contains a POV issue. I've made the same claim with the phrase "major contributions" in the first paragraph.

Can we instate both? Or delete both?

Theowarner (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Craig has indeed made "major" contributions to the ‪Philosophy of religion‬ I would expect that article to mention him? The article makes no mention of him, so we need a reliable third party reference before replacing it.Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You can find Craig's articles on kalam for example in Pojman, Rea, Philosophy of religion : An Anthology, 6th edition, 2011, p. 160-172 and in Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, Prentice Hall, 7th edition, 2009.
 * And if the kalam cosmological argument "is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy" (before Plantinga!), well, imho you can easily say that Craig has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion... Thucyd (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming the weight of his contributions based on where they're presented is WP:OR; we need a source to say they're major before we can. It's not appropriate unless that's the prominent opinion within the field. It's also unnecessary. Our articles should be written in a dispassionate tone, and saying "Craig has made major contributions" does more to pay homage to Craig than to cover the views of notable academics in his field. "Craig has made contributions" is fine, and reflects our current sourcing well.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 08:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennett debate
There is some contention on whether or not Craig debated Dennett, and whether the sources we have for that debate are good enough. The latest incarnation of the source is The Institute for Christian Apologetics. I don't think what happened is correctly called a "debate". For all I can tell, Dennett and Craig were speakers at the same conference, and Dennett commented on Craig's talk (or, according to the source, on Craig's paper), but it is not a formal debate like those with, say, Harris or Hitchens. The given source does not call it a debate, and Craig's own list of debates does not mention it. Thus we should not include Dennett among the people Craig has debated. Huon (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is basically what I mentioned on your (HyperEntity's) talk page the last time the source was inserted. When we say we need a source to back up "X", that means we need a source which explicitly says "X". We can't, as has been suggested here, use a source that says "Dennet commented on Craig" to back up the assertion that "Dennet and Craig debated". As I asked on your talk page, please use the quote parameter when citing sources, since this isn't the first time we've encountered this sort of a problem, and that would make it much easier to verify what the source has said. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that Craig presented his case and Dennett gave a rebuttal it seems reasonable to label it a debate. On the other hand I can see how someone could argue that it was really more a series of lectures or a meeting than a formal debate. However, I've been unable to find a respectable source which calls it a debate. Because of this, I've decided to remove Dennett from the debate section. --HyperEntity (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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


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


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

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

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

It seems like blatant censorship to NOT include this?Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William Lane Craig because of Craig's views on genocide
 * This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.
 * it would look good on Craig’s CV but would not look good on his own.

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

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


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

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


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

I feel VERY strongly that this article is being censored.Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate "the existence of fairies and water-nymphs".
 * This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him
 * Dawkins Refuses God-Debate "Apt to be interpreted as cowardice", says Oxford academic.
 * William Lane Craig refutes Dawkins genocide claim
 * The high priest of atheism has been invited there to debate with America's leading Christian apologist, the analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig.
 * William Lane Craig has said that Richard Dawkins's "argument for atheism is a failure
 * New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate
 * Richard Dawkins is wrong to call William Lane Craig morally repulsive.
 * Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig.
 * William Lane Craig vs. Chair of Dawkins.
 * Dawkins defends decision not to debate apologist William Lane Craig.

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

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


 * (ec) To Theroadislong: If you can write a short entry on Dawkins' debate rejection based on reliable secondary sources - that is, not opinion pieces, not Craig's own website, not Dawkins' website, definitely not Conservapedia! - I, for one, wouldn't object.
 * To 91.89.69.192: Craig is notable as the main proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument. References 7 to 11 and 13 are all third-party papers in scholarly journals or entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussing Craig and his views. I'm no expert on the relative importance of those journals, but in combination he seems notable enough. Huon (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


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

And that is the most cited author? Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Belief it or not, even Richard Dawkins has more entries/citations: http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22Richard+Dawkins%22 a total of 20 Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Also, the article predates the Dawkins kerfluffle which currently isn't even mentioned. So apparently editors felt he was notable before that. I have listed some of our references to philosophical journals above. I believe there's just a single source even mentioning Dawkins right now, and we don't cite it for that. Also, "notability isn't temporary" contradicts "he had his 15 minutes of fame", and the first one is policy. Huon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think craigs field is philosophy? Not the field of the "cosmological argument" and 5 times? A joke? Ok maybe that is enough for the eng. wikipedia. But then we should a least give a reliable source who says that he is the most cited on his "cosmological field". Is William cited in a biological field?? We cant rely on wikipedia users. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm ok i think i would be better if we meantion him in the articel to the cosmological argument? What about that? And dawkins is mentioned in the Standord encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY not biology. Philosophy is not dawkins field and he got more citations in it. And i dont think that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Philosophical_Quarterly counts more that the Stanford encycl. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


 * Dawkins' ideas are discussed whenever the premises of new atheism are discussed,since existance of God is a question vexing a lot of philosophers, its obvious his name will come up. Hardly any of those works were discussing an original philosophical idea by Dawkins, the references were mostly peripheral. A large no. of the papers on Craig were a discussion of Craig's ideas. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a 1000 years old, but the modern version of the argument was formulated in 1979 by William Lane Craig. There is no rationale behind the deletion request, he meets all the criteria for notability WP:PROF .Sanju87 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * @Huon: You should type his name like this into the search bar "William Lane Craig" otherwise you get all the people with the name "William" or "Craig" and again, why should we prefer this "International Philosophical Quarterly" over the Standford encycl.? And why talks everybody about how much entries he has in this Internationl PC ? What about his 11 entries in Stanford encycl.? Ok @Sanju87: You have a reliable source wich states that Craig was the first guy who formulated the modern version of this argument in 1979? And maybe that should be mentioned in the article. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you even check out the results, those were a result of a search of William Lane Craig in the Philosophy Documentation Center, which is an archive of prominent peer reviewed journals, its not just the international Philosophical Quarterly..there are quite a lot of journals in there...There are 11 entries which refered to him in the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia, which concern the philosophical positions he's maintains like Molinism, A series of Time etc..they are not citations citations are in an article when the author of the encyclopedia refers to someone else's ideas..the entry on The Cosmological argument has 5 citations of Craig meaning the author refered to Craig's premise on the Kalam Cosmological Argument 5 times, meaning that the author of the stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy refered to Craig's position in 5 separate instances, (fyi in scientific literature citation means a reference to a persons work, the author theeby stating that the idea is not his own)..Stanford Encyclopedia is not a peer reviewed journal its an encylopedia, journals provide info on a persons work in current research, Encylopedia is a scholarly work by a single author in the case of the cosmological argument's case Edward N. Zalta wrote the article here's the article mentioned http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4 I if you go through the refered section it shows Craig's role in reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument Sanju87 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * Ok then why did it never appear in the article? If this is his great thing that he did, just write it in and everything is fine. Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article uses the Cambridge Companion to Atheism's reference, which is equally noteworthy.Sanju87 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87

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


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


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

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

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

Dawkins and the Canaanites, part 2
We seem to have the next war about our coverage of Dawkins and Craig's Canaanites remarks. I believe Damiens.rf's preferred version is better, for the following reasons: Firstly, the "debates" section is hardly the right place to discuss Craig's position on the Canaanites. We only mention it there because Dawkins used it to justify his refusal to debate Craig. Whether Dawkins is right or not is irrelevant to that issue. Secondly, we should avoid primary sources in favor of secondary sources, especially when matters are contentious. This includes Dawkins and Craig themselves. I don't see how we can argue that Dawkins is either right or wrong about the genocide apology claims without violating WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. Huon (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? The content is referenced to reliable secondary sources NOT primary soources? It's verifiable that Dawkins said what he said, it's not for us to decide whether this is right or wrong...THAT would be WP:ORTheroadislong (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition, Dawkins is a primary source on what Dawkins says, and Craig is a primary source on what Craig says. Of course we can say that Dawkins accused Craig of genocide apologetics - we do so, and the Christian Post is a secondary source which shows that Dawkins not only did so, but that it's relevant to Craig. What we cannot say - and I believe you and I agree here - is either that Dawkins' accusations are well-founded or that they are wrong. Huon (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * In general, we need to say that Dawkins refused to debate Craig because of X. We do not need to evaluate whether X is coherent or not and frankly, aside from a single situation, we don't need to substantiate with quotes or evidence or anything more than a single link to a single article. The Guardian oped piece is fine. Let's remember that this is a very small bio page and we don't need to belabor any point beyond a brief sentence. Theowarner (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say a secondary source like the Christian Post is better than a primary source like Dawkins' own op-ed piece. Other than that, I agree. Huon (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I don't prefer the last, actually. I think it's needlessly confrontational; it may be relevant that Dawkins turned down Craig's invitation, but Dawkins' views on Craig are not, except insofar as they address his refusal. That first quote is a good one - do we have a solid source for it?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In September Dawkins says: “I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy.”. Again: no Canaanite question.--Domics (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I'm sorry HyperEntity, but consensus is against you. We cannot add Craig's criticism of Dawkins in the way you propose. putting your foot down isn't going to change consensus.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Theowarner; only a brief note; otherwise we must explain the whole affair with the various phases and write also Lane Craig's rejoinder to Dawkins.--Domics (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We have two people who think that either the whole affair be explained or not at all (myself and Theo) and another person who disputes whether the Caananites quote be included in the first place (Domics). Secondly, consensus can be wrong. The only reason presented in favour of not adding responses to Dawkins is that the Dawkins quote is mentioned in secondary sources and the responses are all primary sources. I have repeatedly pointed out that the use primary sources is in no way contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and that we should include responses for the sake of balance. In fact, Wiki:NPOV states that weight must be given to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence and that equal validity must not be given to every minority viewpoint.* The claims that Craig is not worth debating, that his views on Old Testament are good reason not to debate him and that he has attempted to ‘bully, cajole or harrass’ Dawkins into debating him are minority view points. The first claim is rejected by most professional philosophers, the second claim was attacked by almost everybody who commented on it (incluing a number of philosophers) and the third claim is factually and demonstrably false. Presenting these statements without a response a bit like writing William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher but this claim is seriously contested by biologist Richard Dawkins who states that none of the philosophers he consulted had heard of him...and claiming it to be a neutral sentence. Further more, there is still the issue raised Domics: Even if we include ‘Dawkins refused to debate Craig’ which version should we include? Dawkins has given us many excuses to choose from. Consider the following:

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

This is relevant to Craig in that it refutes Dawkins’s assertion that he is not worth debating and uses secondary sources. Why not use it?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22HyperEntity (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to let HyperEntity and Theroadislong battle it out whether we should use primary sources to make Dawkins look craven or to make Craig look like advocating infanticide. We could even use the same primary source for both purposes! Again, whether Dawkins is a coward or not is irrelevant to Craig. We all seem to agree that shortening that sentence is an option; I have thus removed Dawkins' reasons altogether. Huon (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like censorship? We state that Dawkins has refused to debate Craig but we can't say why? Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why did he? Can you agree with HyperEntity on a reason? Preferably without turning the article into a coatrack for an off-topic discussion? Huon (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * I've already demonstrated that secondary sources can back up my preferred version. Still, Theroad is right. We can't state that Dawkins has refused to debate Craig without putting the reason why. And if we put the reason why we'll have to add responses to Dawkins. I'm not in the mood for an edit war. Which is why I've removed the sentence all together.HyperEntity (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the sentence all together is appropriate. The Craig/Dawkins thing is such a petty little fuss... I really think it has absolutely no place on wikipedia. It's not relevant whatsoever to the argument that Craig is an "analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist." If we want to go back and define Craig as a sort of actor in the culture war, a sort of public figure with a press machine and so on... then this Dawkins thing might be more relevant. As it is... depicting him as an academic who does debate is absolutely fine... and we really don't want to muddy that with this petty 'empty chair' gimmick. Theowarner (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 326,000 google hits for "William Lane Craig Dawkins" and there clearly is NO consensus for removing correctly referenced neutral content about the refusal to debate, it is a very LARGE part of what makes Craig notable (in the UK at least).Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Google hits are a bad indication of notability. I got even more Google hits for a combination of "William Lane Craig" and "Dawkins" than Theroadislong, but still more for Craig without Dawkins. And Craig is not notable for not being debated by Dawkins. If that were his largest claim to fame, no one would have bothered with Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig in the first place. While I'm not sure whether his philosophical works make him prominent, his apologetics (see the Came quote about Craig being the "foremost apologist for evangelical Christianity") surely does. Anyway, what would you consider "correctly referenced neutral content" about the refusal; could you provide a draft? Surely this version violates WP:SYN by combining primary sources to make a point which is not itself supported by secondary sources. (As an aside, the "reliable secondary sources" you gave a little earlier were an opinion piece, another opinion piece written by Dawkins himself, and an article based on a Reasonable Faith Tour press release. I have severe doubts about using such sources for controversial claims.) Huon (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reason to add the Dawkins debate issue as we don't have an section on any of the William Lane Craig debates..and I f i remember rightly he has debated countless atheists..If anything not debating Dawkins is as relevant was including an article on him debating hitchens or Shremer or any other atheists..It was a peripheral incident..and if it is to be mentioned anywhere it is to be included in Dawkins page...I disagree with the deletion request..a page on william lane craig is relevant..in the serious philosophy circles he is known as the guy who brought back the kalam Argument..and the only info that i can considered biased are his personal info for which we use his biodata and his C.V from talbot school of theology...most of the other info are largely legitimate sources...you can't argue about not using dreams from my father as a source on obama's childhood Sanju87 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * The most eminent, prominent, notable atheist in the world refuses to debate with Craig and you don't consider it worth mentioning in the article? I am left speechless!Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Dawkins quote. We rightly do not give the Harris quote about Craig being "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of [his] fellow atheists" (which is mentioned in the article used as a source by User:Theroadislong). Similarly we should not present Dawkins' opinion of Craig at length. I have tried to capture the gist of Dawkins' reason in the shortest possible manner. Huon (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're familiar with the issue you know that Dawkins has provided several seemingly unrelated reasons as to why he won't debate Craig. Out of all of them, why does the current one deserve visibility? 96.234.40.76 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the one reported by a reliable secondary source. Huon (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have replaced what he actually said "Craig was not a worthy opponent." and "I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters" with original research, namely "accusing him of self-promotion" which is not in the reference?Theroadislong (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in the source: Dawkins told The Daily Telegraph that he had "no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion." I'd say Craig's lack of worth as an opponent is inherent in that accusation, and per WP:DUE I really don't think we should spend more than a minimum of effort in explaining Dawkins' reasons. Huon (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be pedantic but the reference is the Christian post reference which does not mention "self-promotion". Can we add the telegraph reference too please. I'm not sure why we need to expend minimum effort in explaining Dawkins' reasons, he is possibly the most notable atheist in the world and his comments are certainly pertinent to the article given the amount of coverage they received. Theroadislong (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Christian Post reports what Dawkins said to the Telegraph: third paragraph from the bottom. The Telegraph article itself is here; I wouldn't mind substituting it for the Christian Post since the Telegraph seems to use more neutral language and is a higher-profile source. Regarding minimum effort: This non-debate is a rather trivial matter which made the news once, and it's comparatively insignificant to Craig why Dawkins refused. If we go into detail, WP:NPOV would require us spending even more effort to add that others disputed Dawkins' claims about Craig and accused Dawkins of cowardice, and we'd basically have to cover that entire debate, which is far too much coverage. For comparison, we'd spend as much effort on Dawkins' rationale as on one of Craig's areas of philosophical work, and that's certainly undue. Huon (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)