William Lane Craig on Historical Adam


(Guy Coe) #84

Didn’t change the goalpost at all. My statement was about those who claim to know that God doesn’t exist.
It seems to me that virtually everyone here has distanced themselves from taking that position.
As regards following one’s dearest passions, they do outweigh the lesser ones, though they are also good. I was asked a “what could be stronger than…” question and I answered as cogently as I could, with a few examples of my own, that could be added to by each of us individually. Not trying to distance at all, but to clarify by differentiating reasonably.

(John Harshman) #85

I think I can confidently say that nobody has any idea what you are talking about here.

(Guy Coe) #86

It was in answer to your question here, if you follow the arrow link.

(John Harshman) #87

That’s not the source of confusion. It’s about what “deadening of wonder” and “greatly reduce the possibilities” mean.

(Guy Coe) #88

So good to know I’ve been merely confusing, 'cause I didn’t want it to be insulting.
All the Best!

(John Harshman) #89

The non-insulting thing to do when someone expresses confusion would be to explain.

(Guy Coe) #90

No matter what I say, you won’t agree, and I’m okay with that.
What did it seem to mean to you?
Who says I’m trying to be “polite,” exactly?
What if I’m trying to be provocative of a new thought on yours or someone elses’ parts? It is a public forum, after all, and not a private conversation.
So when you try to turn it into a public referendum on my character, on my end that’s just ad hominem.
Sound familiar?
I have found that it’s sometimes better to give others a chance to explore an interpretation, than to simply answer what may be an insincere retort.
I’m sure that sounds familiar, too.
It is a greatly reductive position to take that God does not exist, as it deadens wonder, rather than answering it. Is that the whole answer? Obviously, not. There’s still plenty to wonder about.

(John Harshman) #91

This is the bit that nobody knows the meaning of. And apparently you refuse to explain. I don’t see anywhere to go from there.

And I’m sorry, but I found that comment to be mostly incoherent muttering, rather like Captain Queeg’s courtroom monologue in The Caine Mutiny.

(John Mercer) #92

Guy, your denial of Allen’s observation made no sense.

I think that you can be provocative without making obviously false claims, such as claiming that both creationists and evolutionary biologists are interpreting the same evidence differently, or even worse, that atheism is somehow a deadening of wonder.

The latter one is just insanely wrong, given the vast overrepresentation of atheists among scientists, people primarily motivated by their sense of wonder. It just compounds the former false statement, as you’re not interested in biology.

I think that you’re the one making it a referendum on your character. If you feel a need to misrepresent what others believe to defend your position, your position likely isn’t worth defending.

I have no idea how that explains or justifies your moving of the goalposts when challenged on a false claim, nor your false attribution of levels of wondering to others.

For the record, I don’t take that position; I predict that you will ignore that.

My point is that I find a highly negative correlation between YOUR position of evolution denialism and wonder. Academics who deny evolution produce far less new evidence–as in pretty much zero–to stoke our wonder than do those who accept it.

(Neil Rickert) #94

Maybe if you stopped trying to talk in riddles, you might communicate more effectively.

(Mikkel R.) #95

Then perhaps you should try to be clear and concise when you’re being provocative, rather than just confusing?

(Guy Coe) #96

I am being clear, but mental blocks are intervening. Nothing I can do about that.

(John Mercer) #97

Your mental blocks, or are you claiming that we have mental blocks? It would seem that you may be able to do something about the former.

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #98

This is merely anecdotal on my part but I would readily make the observation that no atheist I’ve ever met exhibited any “deadening of wonder.” (And the atheist scientists I’ve known were much like every other scientist: their wonderment and fascination and curiosity about science led them to the pursuit of that career path!)

Sadly, I have known some theists who seemed to have very little sense of wonder about science and the natural world. I would apply the word apathy to their approach. So I just don’t understand the basis of the claim that atheism [a questionable category since atheism doesn’t somehow have an official position on such things] somehow involves a “deadening of wonder.”

(John Mercer) #99

I have too, and that set pretty much overlaps with the set that deny evolution.

I don’t think that Guy is going to explain, because I don’t think he is capable of doing so.

(Mikkel R.) #100

I don’t think you’re being clear, and I don’t think there are any mental blocks intervening. This is just an excuse you invoke to avoid having to express yourself in ways that will make your assertions amenable to rational analysis.

(Guy Coe) #101

Good to know you’re clear about my supposed shortcomings of logic and expression.

(Dan Eastwood) split this topic #102

11 posts were split to a new topic: Controversial claims about consequences metaphysical choices

(Theman8469) #103

Dawkins running away when Craig came to Oxford 10/10
Dawkins competence in religion/science 2/10
Dawkins’ honesty 3/10 (still three points higher than Larry Kruass)
Dawkins getting his arse handed to back to him at the Cambridge Union 8/10.

Definitely a mixed bag.

(system) automatically bumped #104