Monday, October 18, 2010

William Lane Craig = King of Bullshit

Most of what comes out of William Lane Craig's mouth is purely fantasy invented by William Lane Craig. When a person engages in serious discussions of heavy philosophical topics to boldly say whatever fantastically inspired puerile nonsense which he can conjure up without a moments thought, he is practicing  the Philosophy of Nonsense, which is just another way of saying: bullshit. William Lane Craig is the king of the bullshitters. He even has a degree in Theology Bullshit. 

And that's why I don't care about anything Craig has to say. Half the time what he says is painfully incoherent, the other half it is simply mad ravings of a delusional bullshitter. But you don't have to take my word for it.

Now that we know William Lane Craig is a compulsive liar, consider this following quote by Craig:

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.”  (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994, p. 36.)

Translation: I know for a fact that there are fairies in my garden and a leprechaun living in my anus, but (BUT!) nothing you can say or show me will ever change my mind that I'm wrong, or even a little bit mistaken, because my brain waves are tuned into the divine frequency of--I'm right and you're wrong--neener neener. Suck it God-deniers!”

All this goes to show is that William Lane Craig is not a serious philosopher, rather, he is a Propagandist. He wants to spin the truth, to make it his truth, and then he wants you to take his truth--preferably bending over backwards with a sordid sort of smile on your face that says--no--but really--yes

So why won't I cut the guy some slack? Well, other than Craig's winning pearly white smile, he doesn't really have much else going for him. He constantly lies to bolster his arguments, he confuses terms which even an amateur philosopher is clear on, he misrepresents others--including experts he contends with, but worse, neglects to make amends for deliberately misconstruing the truth when called on his bullshit. Other than immense intellectual dishonesty, which makes me dislike him as a philosopher, and his smug confidence in knowing how infallibly right he is (because he has the little voice in his head Holy Spirit telling him as much), while he adheres to a theology which claims all those who disagree with him will burn in hell, I can't seem to find a single redeeming trait for why I shouldn't despise him as a person. 

As an advocate for science, reason, and intellectual integrity I simply am not going to cut the man any slack. He can ship up or take a good drilling for being a hack. Until then, I feel we all have an obligation to keep calling him on his bullshit.

Advocatus Atheist

Advocatus Atheist