Five Arguments for God

William Lane Craig does a great job arguing for the existence of God in the face of Richard Dawkins’ attacks in The God Delusion. Quite accessible, and highly recommended. A portion:

… the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy. They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for God’s existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God. He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Read the article to find Craig’s answer.

HT: Andy Naselli

Advertisements

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Greg Esres on May 29, 2011 - 12:39 am

    cutting-edge work

    Cutting-edge work in philosophy is a bit of an oxymoron. 😉

    All of Craig’s arguments are silly. Take, for instance, his first one. His argument is valid, but unsound, because premise 2 is false. His only defense of it rests on what he says that atheists normally say “If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.” He uses that false statement to claim that by their own admission, an atheist must agree that his converse statement in premise 2 is correct.

    First, an atheist wouldn’t say that if there is no God, then there is no explanation of the universe. An scientifically literate atheist would point out that the universe came into being via the Big Bang; therefore, he would agree that the Universe had a cause. That leaves the atheist free to point out that premise 2 is an unwarranted assumption and Craig’s argument collapses.

    All of his arguments are similarly flawed and he merely uses other tricks to make them seem plausible to his audiences. If Craig is at all intelligent, he knows he’s deceiving his audience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: