Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 7

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

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

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


 * All those books listed should be in the article. Whether they should be in the lede, in the body, or in both is a question of style. -- 202.124.74.155 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bald assertion, and thus worthless. (i) Whether they "should be in the article" at all is a question of WP:Verifiable third-party coverage. (ii) Including in the lead matter that isn't covered in the article (and isn't otherwise necessary for providing context to the general topic) is appallingly bad style -- no question involved. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleting it from the lede without putting it into the appropriate place in the article is appallingly bad editing . -- 202.124.74.155 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The books are all mentioned in the bibliography?Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are (now). No, deleting lists of books, lacking apparent third party coverage, from the lead, without bothering to add them anywhere other than the Bibliography, is standard editorial practice . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, however, argue that of the two books on time in the lede (Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity) probably only the most notable should be there. However, given that philosophy of time is one of his main areas of work, at least one should be. -- 202.124.74.134 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is so gosh darn notable, then why isn't there any (let alone extensive) third party coverage of these books? If you want it included in the lead then find some (preferably prominent and/or extensive) third-party coverage of them, to include in the article body, FIRST! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable Faith is, according to Craig, his "signature book" (link). Moreover it is for example mentioned in Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion : "Craig is the author of many books, incuding Reasonable Faith [...] which is an accessible defense of Christian faith". (VanArragon 2010, 127); or presented as a featured book in this article published in Veja (for the portuguese translation). Thucyd (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (i)I'm afraid I, and Wikipedia policy, cares very little for self-description. (ii) Mere "mention" really doesn't do us much good. Ideally, to be included in the lead, it should be the subject of its own section in the article body, based upon extensive third-party coverage. (iii) The portuguese article appears to be mainly a simple parroting of some of Craig's claims (which may or may not be from the book), rather than any scholarly or critical analysis of its contents. As such I would question its value as a source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to 3 of Craig's work The Kalam Cosmological Argument in their section on the Cosmological Argument, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time in their section on Eternity, and Divine for knowledge and Human Freedom in their article on Foreknowledge and Free will. If we include books by No. of Citations then, Theism, atheism, and big bang cosmology has 133 citations, Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview has 124, (Kalam Cosmological Argument has 178)Sanju87 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * No. of Citations would be a reasonable way of picking three books to highlight in the lede as an indication of the sort of thing he writes. -- 202.124.74.134 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, number of citations might be a reasonable way to pick which books might be appropriate to mention in the applicable sections. Books should not be mentioned in the lead without (non-trivial) coverage in the article body. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

I'm glad this topic came up again. Reasonable Faith is the only book that we should mention. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, perhaps. Unfortunately, while The Kalam Cosmological Argument kicked off the Kalam's popularity today, it is certainly a fairly obsure book. People don't need to read it in order to discuss Kalam. Reasonable Faith is a fairly well-read text book. I think it's reasonable to mention it. That said, none of the books besides Reasonable Faith are of any importance and should be excluded. Theowarner (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations wise "Reasonable faith" is behind all the others..his most cited being the Kalam Cosmological argument offcourse...Reasonable faith is popular..but its behind the others as far as academic citations are concernedSanju87 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * The most notable of Craig's academic work is his formulation of the Kalam Argument, 3 of the works mentioned deal with the that, the other one deals with christian theology/philosophy and then off-course there is reasonable faith, The major premise of his kalam argument is refined to a great deal in the book he co-wrote with Quentin Smith so I'm kind of iffy about dropping it. Then you have the issue of having an objective criteria to select the books...I couldnt think of anything other than citations (atleast they give you an idea of academic relevance). Arbitrarily including books in the lead I felt could lead to challenges later on, Reasonable faith is his 5th most cited work (meaning all the others mentioned have more citations)...he's getting a lot of attention due to his popular level stuff but he's notable enough in the academia, he has an h-index of 25, which is impressive in philosophy,(Grayling has 17, Plantinga has 32, Swineburn has 28) Sanju87 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that Craig's formulation of the Kalam is his most notable academic work. It's partly complicated because Kalam is also his most notable popular-level apologetic work. When we factor its popular appeal, it's entirely possible that we are exaggerating its academic importance. I'm not sure, to go on, that he co-wrote a book with Quentin Smith justifies its inclusion above the contents or even being mentioned whatsoever on the page. Citations is an objective way to measure something, but I'm not sure what... maybe you can explain why you think that those citations are noteworthy. I would say that many of the citations are themselves suspect, though, simply because there is an odd tendency for Craig and his immediate cohorts to reference one another. Beyond their own agreements, I'm not sure that anyone else is really pay attention. As a competing objective measure, Reasonable Faith is listed about 15,000 on the Amazon sellers list. His other books score range from 500,000 to 1,200,000. That is to say, his other books are not noteworth. Theowarner (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Could people please cease...
... the idiotic habit of citing books as a "source" for their own existence ! Their presence in the bibliography (with ISBN if we're really being picky) is ALL the WP:Verifiability we need of this obvious, uncontroversial & unchallenged fact. I may challenge that they belong in the lead I do not challenge that they exist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh cool!!no hard feelings then Sanju87 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87
 * Sorry, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Even worse is the faux-citation of the website of some organisation that happens to be mentioned by the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of the debates, the existence of the books was being challenged, and so the citations are appropriate. -- 202.124.75.246 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, footnoting the exact book being discussed is good academic practice. -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Given that Molinism states that "William Lane Craig is probably its best known advocate today...", I would suggest that it should probably stay in (though should perhaps have some material copied from that article in order that the lead is actually summarising something on this topic). And the claim that " God is, since Creation, subject to time" appears consistent with what the 'Philosophy of time' section states. As for the debates, they are pretty near completely insignificant -- a mere sideshow, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's funny that we can have such perfectly opposite interpretations. You would probably balk at the suggestion that almost the entirety of Craig's notoriety derives from his debates. But, when I mention Craig to people interesting in theology and religion, most haven't heard of him. And those who do say, "Oh, the guy who does debates." Now, this is obviously a matter of the circles we walk in... I'm not sure how to resolve these issues other than start comparing various "objective" measures. Perhaps we can just discuss things, though. I would suggest that a huge part of the reason why people know about Dr. Craig is because of his debates. What say you to that? Theowarner (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he really is important only for his debates, then he really isn't important. Such debates are as common as mud, and completely ephemeral. Nobody (other than Wikipedia editors who obsessively compile lists of them) remembers them, unless a participant is unfortunate enough to make a complete fool of themselves. Certainly the only coverage they tend to generate is from blogs. If he is "notable" for something I would expect him to receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for that something. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's notable, I would say, primarily for his books (which get cited) and to a lesser extent for his debates (which get news coverage). Divine foreknowledge/Molinism has about a paragraph under "Philosophy of religion" and should be in the lede, and I'd oppose removing the sentence. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he's notable only for his books, then he really isn't important. His books are remarkably obscure. Each citation only indicates that they are relevant in some isolated academic circles. I just don't see why that would alone justify a wikipedia page. But, of course, Dr. Craig does justify a wikipedia page and its entirely because of his work on the popular level: his debates, his podcast, his popular-level books. He's made himself into a minor celebrity. When we see facebook images of his hand around some similing undergraduate, it's not because of Molinism. Theowarner (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the only news coverage cited for his debates is for the one that didn't happen (against Dawkins). The rest appears mostly cited to related parties, blogs, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's a distinction with a difference. The Sam Harris debate was certainly discussed in, for example, the San Jose Examiner (let me find that reference...). Not that that matters. There are great blogs like Religion Dispatches that covered the debate. As far as I'm concerned, that's coverage. Let me retract that. I am indeed finding it hard to find coverage of William Lane Craig debates outside the blogosphere excepting the Dawkins debate (I suppose commenting on the actual difference in relevance between the two.) But, that said... I remain convinced that the mountain of chatting within the blogosphere over his debates far exceeds in terms of notoriety any of his academic. Theowarner (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * does not appear to yield much reliable independent coverage, let alone coverage of sufficient prominence that we should give much WP:WEIGHT to the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However, searching for William Lane Craig and Molinism finds a large number of reliable book sources, so the sentence should stay. -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and the debates are notable enough to stay in the body. Many of the debates exist as published books which have been cited. -- 202.124.72.47 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's a fair test. "Molinism" is, unto itself, more likely to produce reliable sources because it's a highly technical term. So, to limit that search to things which mention WLC will probably produce only reliable sources. On the other hand, if you search WLC + debate, you'll find all sorts of nonsense because it is entirely about the popular level discourse. It's worth noting that there are about twenty more times more hits when you add "debate." (40k vs 840K). For whatever that's worth. When you search only William Lane Craig, you'll note that top hits are (as to be expected) not academic hits, per se. They are his website... his university page... and pages about his debates. None of this should be surprising. It's the nature of google more than anything else. Theowarner (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, you've convinced me; put both Molinism and the debates in the lede. -- 202.124.72.238 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would point out the following:


 * It is prevalence in reliable sources that we should be giving emphasis to, not weight of google hits. If "'Molinism' is, unto itself, more likely to produce reliable sources", then it should be given its due weight. If debates don't produce such reliable sources, it shouldn't be given undue weight. And books-of-the-debate, and bare citation (or even passing mention) of them don't produce any noteworthiness either. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said the book citations were "bare"? -- 202.124.75.42 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you merely said "cited" not "discussed" (let alone "discussed at length") implied that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it didn't imply that; I was using "cite" in the scholarly sense. -- 202.124.72.170 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, are we really prepared to present an article which makes little to know mention of WLC's debates and popular level celebrity? Despite the fact that 99% of the people who know him know him for that specific reason? Won't we be divorcing ourselves from reality if we do that? Theowarner (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we should discuss the debates. Because several of debates exist in book form and are engaged with in scholarly discourse, they are more than just popular celebrity. -- 202.124.72.170 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The debates that are preserved in book form are only several and probably not that important unto themselves. I'm talking about the debates as a whole. The public persona. The 'speaking tours' for example. That's where Craig gets his celebrity. If we are going to filter the article by the standards that Hrafn is referencing, surely that information would have to go. Theowarner (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The debates that are preserved in book form are important to the extent that they are cited. The debates in general are important to the extent that they get news coverage (and they do). I believe Hrafn is completely misunderstanding the guidelines: the debates are notable enough to be discussed. I can't see a single valid reason to omit them. Certainly the fact that Craig is a "celebrity" is not a valid reason to omit anything. -- 202.124.72.219 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate, since the book (from OUP) is often cited (at least 75 times in books, plus journal citations -- it's hard to say exactly, since parts of the debate have been republished in various anthologies). Even Muslim scholar Shabbir Akhtar refers to it in The Quran and the Secular Mind: A Philosophy of Islam. It is also notable enough to be mentioned in the Walter Sinnott-Armstrong article, and if the debate with Craig is one of Sinnott-Armstrong's notable publications, it must also be notable enough to mention here. The debate with Sinnott-Armstrong also gets a special mention in Craig's biography in Raymond J. VanArragon's Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion. And this debate was just a case study; all the debates Craig has engaged in are notable, and some (like the Sinnott-Armstrong one) could quite sensibly be expanded into entire articles of their own. -- 202.124.72.219 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Quentin Smith
Does the material removed in a recent edit represent Smith's personal opinion, or an articulation of a wider rejection by the mathematical/philosophical community of Craig's argument? It's publication in what appears to be a fairly prominent peer-reviewed journal tends to argue for the latter, though not having access to the full article, I cannot tell for sure. If the latter, then it would appear to be appropriate for inclusion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only known critics I know who are physicists who take this postion is Paul Davies and Strenger..thats just two..not most..I am certain that Richard Swineburne and freeman dyson disagrees with them...on a related note...Quentin mentions his positions against craig's philosophy of religion in the book he co-wrote with craig and if i remember rightly, his arguments were largely philosophical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanju87 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the material makes no mention of "physicists", only "most mathematicians and philosophers", so your point would appear to be irrelevant. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry!! I kinda thought physicists were implied there...Let me quote Quentin's abstract

' Several contemporary philosophers, like G. J. Whitrow, argue that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite, and offer several arguments in support of this thesis. I believe their arguments are unsuccessful and aim to refute six of them in the six sections of the paper. One of my main criticisms concerns their supposition that an infinite series of past events must contain some events separated from the present event by an infinite number of intermediate events, and consequently that from one of these infinitely distant past events the present could never have been reached. I introduce several considerations to show that an infinite series of past events need not contain any events separated from the present event by an infinite number of intermediate events.' Using this particular paper of Quentin Smith we can only say that Quentin Smith, disagreed with him, the paper seems to be quentins refutation of the kalam argument (its perfectly clear in the abstract and in the first paragraph)...to go from there to stating that 51% of mathematicians and philosophers agree with him is clearly WP: Original Research, besides even the page on the Kalam cosmological argument does not make such a bold assertion (though it has an excellent critique of the argument) and from the age of the paper (it being 25 yrs old), such a wide consensual disagreement would be widespread knowledge..its clearly original researchSanju87 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What one person (Quentin Smith) believes is not evidence of any great consensus. And, in fact, most physicists do not believe in infinite space and time. -- 202.124.75.254 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quentin Smith's article on Infinity and the Past is not just his "personal opinion", and I believe it should be included in the main page. Smith does not present a case for the past being infinite but, rather, points out the mathematical inconsistencies with the arguments against an infinite past presented by theistic philosophers like William Lane Craig. As a professional pure mathematician who has published many scholarly articles on infinite set theory, I can vouch for the mathematical rigour of Smith's article (apart from one place, where he missed an opportunity to further attack one of Craig's arguments - see the article "Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past" by Ellery Eells in Philosophy of Science), and the incoherence of Craig's ideas about the infinite. Craig's objections are just about universally rejected by mathematicians, whether theistic or atheistic. While I doubt there has been an official vote on whether mathematicians agree with a certain philosopher's misunderstanding of infinite set theory, it is not a difficult matter for an interested party to visit a few university websites, and email a few pure mathematicians. Craig's arguments are not typically against an infinite past specifically but, rather, against the possibility of any kind of infinity. For example, he (correctly) observes that if there could be an infinite number of coins, then you could take away 3 coins, or 5 coins, or even infinitely many coins, yet still have the same resulting amount of coins. He says this is "absurd", and somehow concludes that an infinite past is therefore impossible. But this is simply missing the point that infinite sets behave differently to finite sets; in fact, one way to define an infinite set is as a set that can be placed in bijection with one of its proper subsets. I wonder what he makes of the final verse of "Amazing Grace". Surely the idea that after 10,000 years in Heaven, the Christian has no less time to sing God's praise does not make the notion of an infinite future logically impossible. Bozo the bear (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quentin Smith's article on Infinity and the Past is indeed his personal opinion, and the only things we can say based on it is that (1) Quentim Smith disagrees with Craig and (2) some other philosophers, like Whitrow, Huby, and Conway agree with Craig. Nor is your expert opinion relevant (per WP:OR). Personally, I agree with you: Craig's argument is weak. However, finitism is a perfectly respectable philosophical position. Craig's objections might be almost universally rejected by mathematicians, but we can't say so without a reliable source. Moreover, Craig isn't talking about mathematical objects, but physical ones. In any case, most physicists would agree with Craig's conclusion: that the Universe is finite spatially and of finite age. And, by the way, what Craig says is consistent with the universe having infinite future time, since that's a potential rather than an actual infinity. -- 202.124.73.118 (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Craig is talking about mathematical objects though, as he relies on "absurdities" with the set of natural numbers to "prove" points about things like infinite hotels or libraries. To see further rigorous mathematical refutations of Craig's arguments, the article "Craig on the actual infinite" by Wes Morriston in "Religious Studies" (vol 38, pp147--166, 2002) would be a good place to start.  My assertion that mathematicians would just about universally reject Craig's claims about infinite sets is probably as well established as your about a majority physicists rejecting the possibility of infinite space and age of this universe (and I don't doubt they do, and for good reason).  But the rejection of an infinite past spanning other previous universes and/or the multiverse requires more than just pointing to the Big Bang at a finite point in the past.  (For what it's worth, even if the time dimension does not stretch infinitely into the past, but is "only" infinitely divisible in the past, it is still possible that the Big Bang is only a limit point, and not an actual point in time, so that each stage of the universe is caused by the set of previous stages, with no stage being the first.)  The set of future days is still an infinite set.  Craig's arguments all attack infinite sets, not specifically actual infinite sets.  For example, what is the number of days left in an infinite future?  What is the number of days excluding tomorrow?  The answer to both questions is the same, and Craig would call this an absurdity (or a contradiction of what he refers to as Euclid's Maxim - the whole is greater than the part). So, if any of Craig's existing arguments are valid, they refute the possibility of an infinite future.

Bozo the bear (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I personally agree that Craig simply does not understand the mathematics involved, and would opine that anybody using the perceived "absurdity" of a thought experiment to draw conclusions about reality should be laughed out of court, that's just WP:OR until I either publish or find someone else who has published on this subject. Per WP:RS/AC, to conclude that majority of mathematicians and philosophers disagrees with Craig on this issue (the physicists would probably agree with Craig's conclusion though not necessarily with his reasoning) we need a source saying so, not just Smith, Morrison and us disagreeing with Craig. Huon (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Craig, as I understand him, is saying that potential infinities can exist (mathematically) but not actual infinities (physically). In other words, he is saying the Hilbert Hotel can exist in thought, but not in physical reality. This is an old and respectable idea (even though I don't share it) -- and it certainly allows for an infinite number of future days to exist. Also, as Huon says, we can only add things to the article which are specifically supported by reliable sources. -- 202.124.75.73 (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In particular, note WP:RS/AC. -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism of the page...
The page has been vandalised repeatedly in the last 3 days by a single user, and had to be restored to its previous state thrice..A warning has been posted on the user's talk page by User:Theroadislong but we had two more instances of vandalism after that..Sanju87 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Single purpose account User:HyperEntity is removing correctly referenced neutral material claiming he has consensus for doing so. I do not believe this to be the case.Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After discussion on the talk page, on 11th May 2012, ‪User:Huon‬ re-added a shortened well referenced sentence on Dawkins There has been no consensus since that this is not required.Theroadislong (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the recent extensive deletions of sourced material are completely inappropriate. -- 202.124.75.78 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree that a short mention of Dawkins is appropriate, and we had a reliable source. No reason to remove it, much less consensus to do so. On the other hand, I don't think a WP:COI tag is the best response. Huon (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality
CurtisNaito added a paragraph on Craig's views on homosexuality, sourced to a YouTube video which apparently is an excerpt of an episode of Craig's Reasoable Faith podcast. I'm not aware of any reliable secondary source discussing Craig's views on homosexuality. In the absence of such secondary sources, we shouldn't discuss these views either; doing so would give them undue weight. Huon (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with a primary source that supports only the fact that Craig likes to talk negatively about homosexuality. But, really, do you think you wouldn't be able to find a secondary source if you made the effort? Seriously? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite clear on what this policy encompasses. Currently, every item in the "Other views" section cites articles and book written by Craig himself or else interviews with him. As it stands, there is not one single citation under the "Other Views" which does not refer exclusivley to Craig's own works and interviews. If you don't care for Youtube I could easily switch it for a citation to a book or article by him just like everything else currently in the "Other Views" section. However, if it is necessary to cite secondary source material then as it stands nothing whatsoever in the "Other views" category (along with most of the rest of the article) is valid as it stands.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right that the rest of the "other views" section is insufficiently sourced as well, and I wouldn't mind removing everything in that section which isn't discussed in secondary sources (and for the record, my quick search found no reliable secondary sources discussing Craig's views of homosexuality - the best I found was a blog citing a comment by Craig about homosexuality and atheism). That doesn't make more content solely based on primary sources acceptable. Compare both his philosophical views and the genocide issue: Those views are discussed in secodary sources. He may have opined on many other topics, but unless secondary sources take note, neither should we. Huon (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In a biography though, it seems inappropriate to exclude something that has formed such an enormous body of his work. He mentions this topic, almost always at great length or more than one chapter, in all of his books almost without exception. He has written literally dozens of articles exclusively devoted to this topic and it is a frequent subject that comes up in interviews with him. It seems odd to turn a blind on to something he publishes on and speaks publicly on constantly just because a secondary source hasn't mentioned it. Doesn't getting entire articles published on this subject demonstrate interest about his views on it by important individuals? Perhaps the interview could constitute a secondary source because it was the interviewer who brought up the subject and not Craig himself. There are also other apologist works that cite Craig's view on this as footnotes if noting that helps.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that we can't exclude his views on homosexuality. Let's just find some secondary sources in addition to the primary ones. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources are a big deal. If we discussed everything Craig opined on in any format, with links only to primary sources, we'd have a lengthy article stuffed with non-notable content. Secondary sources are important to ensure we're not engaging in original research by cherry picking quotes, or providing undue weight to minor comments he's made. If reliable secondary sources can be found which discuss his views on homosexuality, and they warrant weight enough to justify coverage, then I'd support at least a mention. We'd have to be careful (and specific) about how it was worded, as well.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the point of this policy is to ensure that we are not "engaging in original research by cherry picking quotes, or providing undue weight to minor comments he's made" then we have absolutely nothing to fear in this case. Like I said, just tell me the number of books and articles by Craig which I need to cite in order to not be "cherry picking... minor comments" and I can do it. If I cited 4 of his books and 4 of his articles would that be sufficient? I could easily manage that. At any rate, the Youtube interview might qualify as a secondary source because he was being asked questions by another person.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I read the undue weight section of the rules and it doesn’t actually say anything about relying on secondary sources rather than published primary sources. As I said, if the purpose of the policy is to prevent "cherry picking... minor comments", then we can do that without secondary sources but rather by citing a sufficient number of primary sources to demonstrate that the first few of them were not unimportant flukes or gaffes. In this case, we can also keep his views on evolution from the same category which are likewise attested by multiple primary sources rather than a secondary source. The major problem that exists in Huon’s reasoning is that William Lane Craig’s name is not widely recorded in secondary literature outside his work in philosophical apologetics so if we are not interested in giving him a reasonably complete biographical treatment that includes mention of his views on the major subjects that he publishes on and speaks publicly on constantly then we actually should have deleted this entire article back in May and replaced it with an article entitled “Philosophical Work of William Lane Craig”. The “Other views” section is not long but I think that its existence is important and the article would be improved if we re-added my sentence on homosexuality as soon as possible.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The very first line of WP:UNDUE says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The prominence of Craig's views on homosexuality in reliable sources, compared to his philosophical work, is zero. Craig may indeed speak about homosexuality costantly - but apparently no one cares. Especially in a BLP, I find it highly dangerous to base entire sections only on primary sources. Huon (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing in that quote limits us to secondary sources. I can’t tell where you are getting this bizarre rule from. Craig’s own works are published and reliable sources on that matter. It is not dangerous in the least to base a single line of text on published, reliable primary sources provided we supply enough of them to ensure that we aren’t cherry-picking. What I would like to know is why my sentence on homosexuality was continuously deleted but the section on evolution was allowed to remain? Since Wikipedia isn’t based on precedent, I supposed it wouldn’t help to point out that virtually no other biography on the entire site, where “Other views” sections are commonplace, is subject to such a stringent standard, but so far no one is attempting to apply that rule even to this very article in question except for my one sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some quick research on Craig and found some interesting things. One of them -- which I'm not suggesting for the inclusion in the article -- is that there's much discussion over whether he's gay. Another is that he's seen by many non-Christians as an ideal example of a dishonest apologist. It's not simply that they disagree with him, which is to be expected, but that they think he's scum. Again, I don't see this fitting into the article, except perhaps in a statement attributed to a notable source, and that doesn't seem likely.

What I didn't immediately find is anything along the lines of "Craig is opposed to homosexuality". It's not that this is in any doubt -- he devoted a chapter of a book to this topic -- but it's not something people seem to find any reason to say in as many words. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You must not have been reading any credible or reliable sources. This sounds like typical vitriol you will find from inflammatory atheists on typical atheist forums and blogger sites. Craig is married, and there is no serious discussion of whether he's gay or not (this is in fact the first I've ever heard of it), and he is generally well-respected and regarded as an honest apologist. (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you what I found. You don't have to like it, and I didn't suggest putting it in the article. However, it's simply not true that he's well-respected. Perhaps he's well-respected by his base, but there's no shortage of ridicule and disrespect aimed at him by his opponents. This is a simple fact, although not necessarily one that belongs in the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, Craig is only really known for a couple things in academic communities. His view on homosexuality isn't one of them.
 * Curtis, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Consider, for a moment: if you can't find any quality secondary sources discussing this issue, how important is it? How much weight should it be assigned in our article if no secondary sources emphasize it at all? This is the crux of WP:UNDUE - one of the reasons we avoid primary sources. If you know of secondary sources discussing this topic, please list them so we can discuss it further. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding this one sentence does not violate any policy. What I wrote was not an “interpretation of primary source material” but rather it was clearly a “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.” It was not a “large passage”, but rather a single sentence. It is made abundantly clear here that this rule is meant to be applied in a sensible and not in a dogmatic manner. As I have already pointed out, if we were supposed to apply this rule dogmatically even in circumstances even where it would damage the quality of the article, then we would also delete the rest of the “other views” section and also much of (or arguably all of) the section entitled “academic background.” There has been no attempt to do this and thus even the other editors of this article are implicitly acknowledging my point for most of the article with the exception of this sole sentence. The sentence in question needs to be restored as soon as possible.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point repeating things endlessly. The existence of other poorly sourced material doesn't mean we should add more. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to content too. Your observation that "no attempt [has been made]" to trim other bad content doesn't mean we're implicitly condoning it. Simply put, there's no deadline, and we can only work on so much material at once. If you want to fix up those sourcing problems, go right ahead. In the meantime, we need secondary sources for new (and possibly contentious) content to insure we're assigning proper weight. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The primary purpose of this page to provide information about the work of a professional philosopher. A brief biography which provides some basic information as to who he is...is a secondary purpose (and is common practice in encyclopaedias the world over). However once that secondary purpose has been fulfilled the bulk of the article should be dedicated to fulfilling its main purpose and opinions which are completely irrelevant to his work as a philosopher should be excluded. This is not a trivia page. However, since you're so keen on adding on Craig's personal views to this page would you also like to include his view that London is a great city, his belief that his wife is sexy or his belief that his daughter is clever? I'm sure we could find all sorts of well sourced quotations discussing how wonderful his trip to the Netherlands was as well. Would you like to include that as well? Afterall these are all beliefs which are completely irrelevant to Craig's professional life. He is not known for any of these things but following your logic we should add them as well.--HyperEntity (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These aren't his personal views, they're his views as an apologist. He writes about these issues professionally, so it well in scope. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that Craig is known within the philosophical or theological community for his position on homosexuality? Where is your evidence for this claim? Can you provide a respectable secondary source where his views about homosexuality are discussed. Can you point me to a widely cited (or moderately cited) article by Craig which is devoted primarily towards the topic of homosexuality?--HyperEntity (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Craig has written a whole chapter on homosexuality in one of his books, Hard questions real answers. [ http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/05/william-lane-craig-on-homosexual.html]
 * One chapter in the man's vast body of work is not particularly impressive. You have failed to provide usable secondary source for this quotation and I hope you won't try to argue that Craig is known in the academic community for his views on homosexuality on the basis one blog post. If you are then following your reasoning we would have to bloat this article to bursting point with every single tiny minute thing Craig has ever said in his books or articles that catches the attention of bloggers.--HyperEntity (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, he spent a chapter of his book on the subject. That shows he has an interest in it. Do you have any counterargument at all? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He has also written a large article about homosexuality here Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We're going in circles. No one is debating that Craig has views on homosexuality, nor that he's written about it. The only question is how much weight to assign those views. If no reliable secondary sources have ever covered the topic, then we need to be very careful about covering it ourselves. If no secondary source has talked about it at all, then is it really that important? Some things are citable, but deserve no weight in our articles. If we do cover it, and we can only cite primary sources, then what we say needs to be short, uncontroversial, and absent any interpretation. If we decide to do that, then a short quote may suffice, or something like "Craig wrote X book on the topic of homosexuality." &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

“short, uncontroversial, and absent any interpretation”. It seems to me that that was exactly what it looked like before you deleted it. I have two alternative proposals. On the basis of your last sentence we could go with, “Craig has opposed homosexual acts in several of his books and articles” with appropriate citation to a few book and articles. We could also just add the one word “homosexuality” to the list which currently includes “metaphysical naturalism” and “new atheism”.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins again
I recall having a protracted debate with many people here about the Dawkins affair and (correct me if I'm wrong) we all agreed that it be best to leave it out. Now it seems that a reliable source has been found which is worthy of inclusion in this article. Since many users appear to feel comfortable using this source I recommend that we use it properly and honestly. For example, it is the height of dishonesty to tell readers that the article discusses genocide when it doesn't. It is all but misrepresentation (not to mention NPOV pushing) to state Dawkins' attack on Craig while suppressing the criticism of Dawkins' criticisms. I also noticed that before editing that paragraph it basically read 'Dawkins said he won't do a one on one debate with Craig to stop him self promoting-even though he did a group debate with him before'. That sounds like criticism to me and it suggests that you are not averse to criticising Dawkins. It suggests that you will not remove sentences purely because they are critical of Dawkins. If that is so then I'm sure you will support me in providing an accurate representation of the general thrust of the cited article.--HyperEntity (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dawkins has a general policy of not debating with creationists, apologists and the like, so this isn't a specific criticism of Craig. Moreover, the one token atheist you dragged up to criticize this policy is undue and fringe. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Craig is not a creationist. Dawkins has a policy of not debating evolution with creationists but he was not invited to debate evolution. He was invited to debate the truth of theism with an eminent philosopher. Dawkins has in fact debated the truth of evolution with creationists (just witness his many documentaries)  and he has in fact debated the truth of theism with creationists (just witness his multiple debates with ID proponent John Lennox-Dawkins considers ID to be equivalent to creationism). Daniel Came is professional philosopher from Oxford University and is not 'fringe' within academic philosophy. That honour belongs to Richard Dawkins whose philosophical reflections on the truth of theism are regarded with about as much respect by professional philosophers (including atheists) as the ruminations of Ray Comfort on molecular biology are by biologists. Finally whether Dawkins has a general policy or not is is immaterial here because he has made specific criticisms of Craig which require a response. Since the response may be derived from what you have all agreed is a reliable source I see no reason not to include it.--HyperEntity (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the new Dawkins sourcing, so I can't comment on its appropriateness. However, the assertion that if we're including content on Dawkins' refusal to debate, then we must also include criticism of Dawkins is incorrect. Criticism of Dawkins doesn't belong in this article. It belongs in Richard Dawkins. Furthermore, we can't use a quality source to back up content on the topic generally, and then use that as a basis to cite poor quality sources to "balance" our coverage. We only include only the content which is relevant and well sourced, and the 'criticism of Dawkins' doesn't appear to fit that description, whether or not other content is included.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jess that we need not discuss criticism of Dawkins in this article. Whether Dawkins is a coward or not does not tell us anythig whatsoever about Craig. On the other hand I agree with HyperEntity that while Dawkins did accuse Craig of being an "apologist for genocide", the best sources on that affair ignore that line of reasoning, and we should not cite the accusations without a secondary source to back it up. Huon (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the quote about being an apologist for genocide is not backed up by a reliable secondary source, then it should be removed immediately. I haven't looked the current revision over personally, so I can't say whether that applies here. I'll take a look now.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any mention of him being "an apologist for genocide" in the article. All that's mentioned is that Dawkins refused to debate, accusing Craig of self promotion. That seems fine, as long as it's backed up by a quality source. It looks like we're using an opinion piece in the Telegraph, which concentrates primarily on Dawkins being accused of Cowardice. That does not appear to be the quality source we're looking for. I'll see if I can track down a better one, but I don't really have time today to focus on this.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jess, the genocide comment may be found here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember the comment, but it's not in our article. I also don't see anyone proposing we add it to our article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct on both counts. It's not in the article and nobody has suggested its inclusion. I was simply trying to be helpful by digging up the reference. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yea, thanks. :) I didn't mean to be standoffish. My original post earlier today was just responding to Huon, who brought up the genocide quote as though it was relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure it is. I think Huon might be thinking of an older version of the page. Thanks for the link, anyway! All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The genocide comment was in the article until HyperEntity removed it earlier today. I have no idea how it slipped in, but apparently we all agree it shouldn't have been there. Huon (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but it's clear that nobody's in any hurry to put it back. Frankly, it doesn't seem that important. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is enough secondary source commentary on this issue to potentially merit an entire section devoted to it. The issue has been discussed by Richard Dawkins, Greta Christina, PZ Myers, Robert M. Price, Jerry Coyne, Colin Howson(see Objecting to God p.11), John W. Loftus(see Why I became an atheist p.39), and Thom Stark and John J. Collins(see The Human Faces of God p.103). Incidentally, Wikiquote includes several quotes by William Lane Craig dealing with this precise issue. I am still unconvinced by many of the arguments being brought forward about the proper use of sources in this article, but if we were to give space to each issue based on the attention it receives in secondary sources then by necessity we would have to devote a very substantial section to the Canaanite issue.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course we want reliable secondary sources. Dawkins is a primary source on the Dawkins-Craig non-debate, and Christina's, Myers', Price's and Coyne's blogs aren't considered reliable because they are self-published without any editorial oversight. Stark and Collins give Craig's opinion about God's reason to command genocide, but not in the context of the Dawkins debate, and they don't say Craig favors genocide or is an "apologist for genocide". Unfortunately Google Books doesn't give a preview of Loftus' book, the preview of Howson's doesn't include the relevant page, and my local libraray carries neither. Could you quote the relevant parts? From Stark and Collins I could see Craig's opinion on the Canaanites as a short entry in the "other views" section (finally one with a secondary source!), but not in the context of the Dawkins debate. Huon (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These blog entries deal with a specific issue and the very fact that this issue has been discussed at length by six individuals who are high-profile enough to have their own Wikipedia articles means that this is not an issue where we can say that “no one cares”. Having said that, the article by Greta Christina was published on AlterNet and was not originally a blog entry. All three of the book I cited are critical of Lane’s general views on the “slaughter” of the Canaanites but each of them refer to it only as slaughter and don’t mention Dawkins. How about something like this, “William Lane Craig has defended the Biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people on the grounds that the adults “were corrupt” and the children would “inherit eternal life". His views on this matter have been criticized by Colin Howson, Greta Christina, and John W. Loftus, and were cited by Richard Dawkins as a contributing factor to his refusal to debate publicly with Craig.”CurtisNaito (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object either. It was Craigs profoundly alarming views on the Canaanites that first bought me to this article, I find it strange that such well publicised and reported views are ignored in this article.Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The AlterNet article does not mention Dawkins so we cannot use that as a source for the statement that Craig's views were a contributing factor in Dawkins' refusal to debate him.

Huon posted: "Whether Dawkins is a coward or not does not tell us anythig whatsoever about Craig."

This reasoning also entails that the current sentence has no place in this article as it tells us nothing about Craig. It basically says 'There is a person called Richard Dawkins who refuses to debate Craig and here is what he thinks of Craig'. This tells us very little about Craig and a great deal about the behaviour of Richard Dawkins and his personal opinions. Dawkins' activities and his opinions belong on his page not here.

Secondly, the criticism of Dawkins does not occur randomly or out of the blue but within a very clear dialectical context. In the source we see Dawkins claiming that he will not debate Craig because a) he is not worthy of his attention and b) he craves attention. We also see a professional philosopher defending Craig's reputation and noting that Dawkins' behaviour smacks of cowardice.

So we have a criticism of Craig and a criticism of that criticism. This provides information about Craig insofar as it defends him from Dawkins' attacks. For the record I still agree with our previous decision not to include this stuff in the article. However, if you're determined to go ahead  with this I see no reason why we should not give a full account of Dawkins' reasons and Came's comments on them. It'll certainly be more balanced than the aspersions on Craig's character we have now (which smack of POV pushing) and a more accurate representation of the contents of our source.--HyperEntity (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this whole debacle does have something to do with Craig generally. It has more to do with Craig than Dawkins, since Craig was the one pushing for a debate, and the one to feign an 'empty chair' in his next public appearance as a publicity stunt; he's the one making a big deal out of it. If we cover it anywhere, it would be here. I don't know if it should be included here (I haven't examined the sources in depth). Regardless, @HyperEntity, I'll reiterate that we don't "balance" coverage from high quality reliable sources with criticism from low quality sources. That there's "criticism of criticism" isn't relevant. The sources are what matters.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually Craig wasn't the one pushing for this debate. He merely responded to multiple invitations from third party groups such as the Cambridge Debating Union and the Oxford Christian Union. Dawkins also responded to these invitations except in the negative. Dawkins was the one who felt the need to publicise his refusal to debate in a national newspaper and I've seen no evidence that the empty chair stunt was arranged by Craig himself. Regardless, I agree with you about the sources. That is why I suggested that our balanced version should use material drawn entirely from the source we have available. Now if the Telegraph's quality is such that we can quote Dawkins' comments about Craig can you explain to me why we cannot use Dr Came's comments (also in the article) as well?--HyperEntity (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I said above that the Telegraph source wasn't very good (for this purpose, at least). We should have something better if we decide to cover this content. I haven't tried to track down something better myself, yet. If you can do that yourself, please do.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "We should have something better if we decide to cover this content."


 * But why? Why is the Telegraph good enough for quoting Dawkins' views on Craig's character but not good enough to quote Craig's defence? I still think our original decision not to include this affair was correct but this seems like a remarkable double standard.--HyperEntity (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that. I've said repeatedly that it's not good for citing either.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. In that case you will agree with me that we should remove the source. Or at least amend the sentence as it currently stands. Right?--HyperEntity (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Single purpose account user:HyperEntity has removed the Dawkins refusal to debate sentence. I find it extraordinary that the most eminent notable atheist in the world today, refused to debate with Craig and this fact is censored from the article? Google hits for "Dawkins Craig debate" number more than one million. References abound and I see nothing wrong with the quality of this one in particular. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html My preferred neutral text would simply be "Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Craig." I can see no problem with this whatsoever unless Wikipedia is indeed censored?Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is devoted to Craig's academic activities. Dawkins' activities (such as who he chooses to debate) are not Craig's activities-they reveal no facts about Craig and thus have no place in this article. Most people discussed this issue before and a consensus was reached that this material should not be included here. So far two people have (myself and Jess) agreed that this story has no place here. If you wish, you could make this relevant to Craig by presenting it as a criticism of him. This would entail including Dawkins' reasons for his refusal to debate Craig in the article. Of course, we would then have to present a response to Dawkins' attacks on Craig for the sake of balance. I am also willing to do this.--HyperEntity (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you care to look back you will see that no such consensus was ever reached. User:Huon said "No reason to remove it, much less consensus to do so." Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @HE Please stop saying we'd have to present criticism of Dawkins for balance. I don't know how many times I've corrected that assertion. We follow the reliable sources only. We don't print criticism from low quality sources to 'balance' reliable sources. There is no obligation for us to provide such "balance" on that issue. We'd only do that if we had strong sourcing to compel coverage. Right now, we don't. Also, I didn't say the material didn't belong here (at least recently). I'm sort of divided over whether it belongs. What has failed to convince me is the sourcing. All we have is one article titled something like "Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate Craig", which is not the quality source I'd expect to back up controversial coverage in a BLP. We have an obligation to Craig, and to Dawkins, to not print such things when our sourcing is weak. Further, that article sort of tells us this all happened (meeting WP:V), but it doesn't tell us it's important (meeting WP:WEIGHT). I tend to think we could find a better source, so I wouldn't have suggested we remove the statement altogether just yet. OTOH, I haven't looked for sources myself, so I'm in no position to restore the content until one is found.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Theroadiong: I was referring to the consensus reached here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Lane_Craig/Archive_6#Dawkins_and_the_Canaanites.2C_part_2


 * @Jess: I think you're misunderstanding me. You seem to be arguing that the source we have is bad (or at least not that great) therefore we should not include criticism of Craig or Dawkins drawn from it (on pain of using a poor source). My claim was that this source ought not to be used but that IF people like Theroadiong wish to use this source THEN we will be required to tell both sides of the story. I don't think there is any contradiction between these two views.--HyperEntity (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. That's not entirely true either, but it's quite a bit closer. As I recall saying in the previous discussion, we only need to cover material here which is relevant to Craig, and criticism of Dawkins doesn't really fit that bill. If we had great sourcing for criticism of Dawkins, that should go in Richard Dawkins. If we included Dawkins' refusal here, and we had a bunch of secondary sources saying Dawkins received criticism for his decision, then mentioning it was controversial wouldn't be out of line. For instance, "Craig invited Richard Dawkins to debate in 2011, but Dawkins refused, saying that he would not aid in Craig's attempt at self promotion. Dawkins refusal generated some controversy in some community." The point, however, is that our coverage would depend on the quality, type, and content of our sources. A blanket statement that "we need to include criticism of Dawkins to balance the section" is incorrect. Even with the source we were using that statement is iffy... but see, that's the problem with not having high quality sources; it's hard to figure out what weight to assign everything. In any case, we aren't currently using that source, so the point is moot. Once we find a good source, we can look it over and decide what to cover. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I re-read that conversation you linked to, HyperEntity. Have you read it recently? It doesn't say what you claim. Consensus appears to have been to include brief mention of Dawkins' refusal and a very brief summary of his reasons, but nothing else. I'm sort of disagreeing with that consensus on the basis that our sourcing is poor. At no point that I can find was consensus to remove the material altogether.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I read it but I did come across these:


 * ‘’ ...if we put the reason why we'll have to add responses to Dawkins...I've removed the sentence all together.HyperEntity (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ‘’ I don't think there is a reason to add the Dawkins debate issue...’’ Sanju87 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2012 (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.’’ Theowarner (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

--HyperEntity (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please can you explain why you consider the sourcing to be poor? The article was by Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor of the Daily Telegraph It appears to me to be an ideal reference?.09:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is emotive, rather than high quality, factual journalism. It spends most of its time focusing on attacking Dawkins, rather than describing the exchange between him and Craig. Comments that "Dawkins may be losing his nerve", and "he now stands accused of 'cowardice'", are not helpful to our purposes here. The source is good for meeting WP:V, but not good for meeting WP:Weight. We need something to signify this is important to coverage of Craig, and right now we have just better than an opinion piece on Dawkins (not Craig), which doesn't quite cut it. I don't doubt there's something else out there. We just need to find it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You say the source is good for meeting WP:V I agree, it verifies my proposed wording "Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Craig."  the number of google hits for "Craig + Dawkins" produces 4,460,000 results surely this is the weight It would seem perverse for the article NOT to mention Dawkins? As for the Canaanites I think that is a separate issue.Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Which one of those 4,460,000 results is actually a high quality source? See WP:GHITS. We need a quality source to determine what part of this issue is worthy of coverage too. BTW, we also need to avoid things like "Prominent atheist" and other such titles. Just saying "Richard Dawkins has refused..." would be fine.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy for your preferred wording to be included "Atheist Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Craig." and the reference above verifies this. At the moment the section on debates gives the impression that he has debated with all the most important atheists, surely no one can deny that Richard Dawkins is an important atheist and he has refused to debate with Craig, it is worthy of mention I contend.Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My preferred wording is "Richard Dawkins has refused..." No titles at all. Somehow I'm still not coming across, though; we haven't met WP:WEIGHT. We can verify a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they belong in our article. If we only have one, single source which discusses this issue at all, and that source is only slightly better than an opinion piece on Dawkins, then we haven't established this warrants coverage here. To say "no one can deny that Richard dawkins is important [so] it is worthy of mention" is OR. I agree with you that this probably deserves treatment in our article, but the sources must bear that out. I'll likely be out for the rest of the day, but if you can find a quality secondary source which indicates this is worthy of mention (and pertinent to Craig), that'd be great, and I'd totally support its reintroduction.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If weight is the issue why are we mentioning ANY of the debates at all which are all referenced to only primary sources?Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the Craig/Dawkins non debate include:

and Conservapedia has a whole blooming article on the subject  yet we can't even mention it here? I despair.Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huffingtonpost.co.uk
 * Guardian.co.uk
 * Richarddawkins.net
 * Telegraph.co.uk
 * Oxfordmail.co.uk
 * Evolutionnews.org
 * Christiantoday.co.uk
 * Oxfordstudent.com
 * Bethinking.org
 * Newstatesman
 * Randal Rauser
 * Telegraph.co.uk
 * Apologeticsreview.com
 * Choiceindying.com
 * Guardian.co.uk
 * Apologetics315.com
 * Uncommondescent.com
 * Independent.co.uk
 * Christiannewswire.com
 * Tonywatkins.co.uk
 * Thinkingmatters.org

That conservapedia presents coverage of this doesn't mean we should, and any implication of that being the case is kind of silly. Conservapedia also has an article titled "Atheism and cowardice", "Atheism and suicide", and so forth. Conservapedia has very poor standards for fairly reporting sources, and we strive to a significantly higher standard. Regarding your list: Look, a bunch of poor sources don't combine together to make one good source. Almost none of these even qualify for WP:RS, much less a high quality RS that demonstrates due weight. You're arguing with the wrong guy anyway; I think a brief mention is warranted, I just also think our sourcing should be improved. None of these improve upon our sourcing. The best ones are basically just repetitions of the press release. Please read WP:BLOG (and WP:RS) when you get the chance. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huffingtonpost.co.uk: Blog, not news. See WP:BLOG
 * Guardian.co.uk: Oped, not news. See WP:BLOG
 * Richarddawkins.net: Exactly same article as above. This is not a different source.
 * Telegraph.co.uk: Blog, not news. (Rife with insults, too. "An arrogant chimp" is not the type of commentary we want here)
 * Oxfordmail.co.uk: Perhaps a reasonable source. I didn' t read the whole thing.
 * Evolutionnews.org: Blog, on an entirely unreliable site.
 * Christiantoday.co.uk: On quick glance, this appears to be a copy of other reports. Not really a new source.
 * Oxfordstudent.com: Seems like a blog, but I didn't read the whole thing and can't tell without having done so. Might be acceptable.
 * Bethinking.org: Based on Craig's press release. Not a new source.
 * Newstatesman: Blog, not news.
 * Randal Rauser: Blog, not news.
 * Telegraph.co.uk: Same article we've been discussing.
 * Apologeticsreview.com: Blog, not news.
 * Choiceindying.com: Blog (mostly quoting the Telegraph), not news.
 * Guardian.co.uk: Blog, not news.
 * Apologetics315.com : Blog (and promo advert), not news.
 * Uncommondescent.com: Blog, and unreliable source.
 * Independent.co.uk: Oped, not news.
 * Christiannewswire.com: Advert, and not news. Didn't read whole thing, but it might be ok for something, or it might not.
 * Tonywatkins.co.uk: Advert and blog, not news.
 * Thinkingmatters.org: Blog, not news.


 * I agree with Jess on this impressive list of mostly poor sources. I don't think either of the two Oxford newspapers is a blog (though a large part of the student newspaper piece is a commentary, not an article), but neither is more than routine news coverage of local events. As an aside: Conservapedia? Seriously?
 * In summary, while I see no reason to disregard the Telegraph article (and that one is not just an opinion piece), I cannot remember seeing a reliable secondary source on the Canaanites in relation to the Dawkins non-debate. Thus, a short mention (as in "Richard Dawkins refused to debate Craig, accusing him of self-promotion.") seems appropriate, but more would give undue weight to a controversy that never fully made it out of religious and atheist blogs - a storm in a teacup. Huon (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But that is even MORE than I am requesting? I would be happy with "Atheist Richard Dawkins refused to debate Craig" without a reason and if the Telegraph piece is acceptable what's the problem?Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind. The telegraph source isn't terrific, and the other sources are mostly awful... however, the basic statement ("Richard Dawkins refused to debate Craig, accusing him of self-promotion") isn't a particularly controversial statement, and I think I was misjudging the amount of coverage required to establish minimal weight for such a short mention. I think part of the problem is that the previous wording (involving the Canaanites) was very controversial, and so would require an additional level of care when evaluating the sourcing, and I was still looking for that level of coverage. Here's the wording I'd prefer: "Craig invited Richard Dawkins to a debate in 2011 over the existence of God, but Dawkins refused the invitation, accusing Craig of self promotion."  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy with that. I agree that the Canaanites bit would require a much higher level of sourcing and I don't think it belongs here. RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that wording, too. Huon (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I added it to the bottom of the Debates section. Feel free to make changes if necessary. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Three points. The current version opens by stating that Craig invited Dawkins to debate. This is factually incorrect and it is contradicted by the source you cite. Craig did not invite Dawkins-Dawkins was invited by third parties and Craig was merely a guest speaker. From the article:
 * "Several Christian societies have already dispatched open invitations to Dawkins, asking him to debate the existence of God at the event later this month.
 * Craig: 'All the events are organized and promoted in the UK.  My role is simply that of guest speaker.'"


 * Second point: Can somebody explain to me why the Oxford student is a more reliable source than the Telegraph (especially since it actually cites the Telegraph article)? Surely you don't think the former is more notable than the latter? Third point: Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig reveals more information about Dawkins' behaviour than about Craig's life. Trying make it relevant to Craig by presenting it as criticism of him requires we present a response to that criticism. --HyperEntity (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first two points; I've changed the "invitation" wording accordingly and changed the source back to the Telegraph article. I'm very skeptical about the third point, however. Could you provide a draft of what you'd consider an adequate "response to that criticism" and the sources you'd use? Huon (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Debates section
Can I appeal for better references for the debates section they ALL appear to be primary sources, it would be better if we could find some reliable third party sources, otherwise are they at all notable and worthy of mention?Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph article we use for the Dawkins non-debate says that Craig debated "leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C. Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris." Debates without secondary sources are probably less important; we could remove quite a few. Huon (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed if we are demanding secondary sources for everything as we should be.Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Other Views
Is the "other views" section even necessary? The first paragraph, minus, perhaps, the reference to his views on homosexuality, can easily be incorporated into the Apologetics section. Considering his take on the Canaanite killing has recently garnered the attention of atheists, including Dawkins, it perhaps justifies its own section. As it stands, though, his views about it are presented without context and seems to be put in the article as a Dawkins-style assault on his morality and character, to portray him as some defender of arbitrary genocide. Therefore, if reference to the killing is to be made it should be put within its proper context. For example, Tim Stanley argues "Craig’s purpose in writing this piece is to unravel the paradox of a moral Bible that also includes lashings of apparently random violence. Craig stresses that these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written – they are just as alien to us as Beowulf or the Iliad...Far from using this passage to celebrate the slaughter of heathen, Craig is making the point that the revelation of God’s justice has changed over time. The horrors of the Old Testament have been rendered unnecessary by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice." In fact, Craig explains in the Q&A write up cited in the wiki article, "since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands...God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command." Craig actually predicted the attack on him by atheists for his position on this issue and brushes them aside as irrelevant because "...ironically, many Old Testament critics are sceptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. They take these stories to be part of the legends of the founding of  Israel, akin to the myths of Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome.  For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates." As for his views on homosexuality, Craig while he does not agree with homosexual behavior, he condemns gay bashing, an important point to highlight as the article makes him out to be someone who endorses such behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.251.49 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Defence of the Biblical slaughter of the Canaanite people
"Came wrote in the ref. "as a matter of logic, Craig is probably right" This does not translate into the text added "but approved by other skeptics"Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Analytic Philosopher
There is no basis for characterizing Craig as an analytic philosopher. His background is in the philosophy of religion and theology. None of his teachers were analytic philosophers, and he has not written anything that can be characterized as being in that tradition. Propose removing that designation from the article. Roberterubin (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that Craig is an analytic philosopher of religion such as Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew, Richard Swinburne, etc. See analytic philosophy of religion. Thucyd (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree with you. "Analytic philosophy" refers specifically to a school of Anglo-American and European philosophy of the 20th century, essentially founded by Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.  It began as a reaction against the idealism of thinkers like Hegel and McTaggart.  While I agree that Antony Flew belongs to this tradition, I don't see Craig as working in it at all.   None of his writing makes any material reference to 20th Century analytic philosophy.  He writes, rather, in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, applying logic to the questions of theology, but only in the broad sense in which philosophers have been doing so since Aristotle.  It is misleading to call him an analytic philosopher on that basis, since in that weaker sense, any philosopher so qualifies. Roberterubin (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See James Harris, Analytic Philosophy of Religion, Kluwer, 2002, and for Craig and Kalam, pp. 129-133. Thucyd (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would like to call Craig an "analytic philosopher of religion", I suppose I can't object to that based on your reference, but "analytic philosophy" simpliciter and hence "analytic philosopher" both refer to a specific movement within academic philosophy, to which Craig has no connection, either professionally or through his philosophical positions. The more qualified characterization is more accurate.Roberterubin (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)