Here’s a fine example of why he’s not worth any serious thinkers frittering away their time on him:
If we insist on a historical, evidential foundation for faith, then we consign most of the world’s population to unbelief and thus deny them the privilege and joy of knowing God in Christ. To me this is unconscionable.
Translation: I don’t have any historical, evidential foundation for the things I’m saying, but it’s unfair for you not to just believe me anyway. It’s unconscionable, in fact, that you prevent people from knowing God, by pointing out the lack of evidence for the particular kind of God that I want them to know.
This is the most explicit abandonment of reason in the name of blind dogma that I’ve seen in some time.
Also, John Loftus is totally up for the debate that Craig seems to have his heart set on, but has repeatedly been refused. Is this an act of cowardice on Craig’s part? Or is nobody obliged to defend themselves in such a specific, rhetoric-based public forum chosen by their opponents if they don’t want to? Pick a side, Will.