Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Author of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

I was doing a reading about the Kalam Argument and revising WLC bio here. I think this particular sentence: "In 1979, Craig authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is today the most published-on contemporary argument for theism in the philosophy of religion.”, is completly true, but is misleading. WLC wasn’t the author of the argument; he published a book in defense of that particular argument, that happens to be titled “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”. There have been many proponents of that argument as: James Sinclair(which is a co-author with Craig in some articles), John Philoponus, Al-Ghazali , Al-Kindi, Saadia, Juan de Fidanza(Bonaventure), etc.

I do know, that he is indeed the author of the book titled that way. I can see the intentions (and benefits) of the publisher or the author in naming it such (that is more exposure). I always objected the book title for not having a subtitle, but nevertheless such is copyright law.

I think that should be corrected to something like this: In 1979, Craig authored the book The Kalam Cosmological Argument(<-actual internal link for the BOOK if any) , which is a contemporary defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument (<-actual internal link to the ARGUMENT) today his book is the most published-on contemporary defense for the argument for theism in the philosophy of religion”.

Any ideas, corrections, objections? Efiiamagus (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you see that as misleading. There is a wiki link in the sentence, and a reference at the end of the sentence. I mean, if Craig had come up with the argument himself, it would be called The William Lane Craig Cosmological Argument. See also Kalām. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response Bill! Yes there is an internal link for the Kalam Cosmological Argument; I did check the correspondent links (Kalam Cosmological Argument, Kalām, Cosmological Argument, etc.). I think it is minor correction for the sake of clarity. Maybe we could add a page or link to the publication itself (the book). In the sentence that I mentioned it seems to point that he authored the argument ("In 1979, Craig authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument[...]), not the book in defense of the argument. For the people that already know the subject and discussion of Craig’s contemporary proposal of the Kalam Argument, it maybe something apparent, but maybe not so clear for others. That will make the article more self-contained, accurate and explicit. I know from experience that Craig and his argument is a controversial subject. But there is no challenge here on his ideas, his work or its value and not any challenge to the author of the page, nor previous editors. It is just a calrification. Thank you.Efiiamagus (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how does my last edit seem to you? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good. I already started a new article on the book itself. I may need some help, I am lacking some privileges. Thank you. Efiiamagus (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Most published-on?

I have removed the phrase "most published-on" and reference to Quentin Smith for the following reasons:

• "most published-on" carries connotations which are not factual, such as "it is important" or "it is a good argument."
• The Smith citation itself interprets "most published-on" in glowing terms. Smith thinks that the fact that so many people write about Kalam must mean that Kalam is a really great argument, which is hardly a fair interpretation. The fact that Smith himself writes about Kalam suggests that he might be more eager to make the Kalam out to be a rich philosophical topic. How could he justify spending so much time on an argument that hardly anyone else cares about?
• Who are the people publishing on Kalam? Craig himself publishes about it endlessly. And countless comments about Kalam that I've read are merely repeating Kalam itself. So, I'm not sure that "published-on" is really a measure of its quality at all. If we remove Craig and his followers from the count, does it remain the most "published-on"? This is an important question and the status of the reference as factual comes into question, in my mind.
• Does it matter that its the most "published-on"?
• Isn't it "published-about"? Sorry, my English prepositions aren't always correct.

I would appreciate the discussion! Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

This article is far from neutral. Craig beliefs can be characterized as outrageous. For instance, there are several references (a simple Google search will lead to several articles and interviews) to Craig's belief that the annihilation of the Canaanites was justified. Going as far as claiming the true victims were the Hebrew soldiers committing the atrocities. Craig is also a vivacious self promoter. Craig has been carrying on a "bitch slap" style sparring match with Dr. Richard Dawkins. Craig also has directly said (there is video evidence) that no matter if he had the evidence or not, nothing will change his mind on the validity of Christianity. To put this article in proper perspective, the editors who have gone out of their way to delete any criticisms need to write a criticism paragraph. Try starting with his classroom lectures which can be seen on You Tube. It's clear he uses these lectures as practice for his main job- the professional debate.Berringerfan (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't editorialize in that way. We have to represent what the sources tell us, and nothing more. That means that whether any one of us finds Craigs ideas to be silly is irrelevant to what sorts of content we include in the article. It's up to the reader to decide how they feel about the subject, not us.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are kidding, yes? Like I said, regarding Craig's insistence to believe something irregardless of evidence has the greatest source citation. First person! Craig's ideas on suffering and atrocities are easy to find for all to see. A great source is Craig's own site, Reasonable Faith. I'm not suggesting that we tell the readers what to think. Simply stating in a Criticisms section what Craig himself has put out on the public record is not leading at all. I.E. I would not state "Craig believes that any atrocity is acceptable as long as it is done or ordered by God". Although that is his belief and it can be cited. I would want something stated like: "Craig has beliefs that are considered controversial. He has stated (insert Craig quote of acceptance of biblical atrocities)" and quote source. Again, Reasonable Faith is a great source. One can use any number of sources to state Craig's stand on never letting go of Christianity in spite of a lack of evidence. If Craig were simply another academic, no problem on not stating his beliefs. Craig may be a philosopher and he may be a theological apologist, but you are being naive and stubborn to the fact that Craig is BEST known as a professional debating celebrity. His celebrity and his well known criticisms against him must be included in this article. To not do so would be no less than fraudulent. 174.71.115.16 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

His beliefs are considered controversial by whom? To say that, we have to have a source which says "Craig has beliefs which are considered controversial". We can't, ourselves, decide they are controversial and state so in wikipedia's voice. Also, please don't call me names. WP:AGF and WP:PA would be good for you to read. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not call you names! Of course, I need to keep in mind you may not know of William Lane Craig outside of this wikipedia page. I cited a source for Craigs beliefs- REASONABLE FAITH WEBSITE! Are you a supporter/follower of Craig? Berringerfan (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments like "you are being naive and stubborn" fall into the category of inappropriate name calling. Furthermore, I've told you repeatedly now, on this article and on others, that accusing editors who disagree with you of belonging to a particular religious community is not acceptable. My personal religious and philosophical convictions are irrelevant to whether we can include unsourced editorializing of the article subject. What happened to your apology from a few weeks ago for making these sorts of remarks? Please abide by WP:PA and WP:CIVIL and keep the discussion on article improvement. Take a look at my last response again, and provide a source for the content you wish to include. Then, we can go from there.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep your over sensitivity in mind when I make comments. It's Wikipedia's job to add and improve this article since I'm not a professional writer. Check the grade on this article. It has a low rating. Why? Check out the grading system to find out. Perhaps then you might understand why this article is far from complete. Berringerfan (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Debated on, edit war

Twice now, I've reverted a change in wording to the "Public Activities" section by Berringerfan, here as an ip, and here. Such changes have also been reverted by other editors, including here, when the para was initially moved, and so on. First of all, please don't edit war. Per WP:BRD, the very next step when you've been reverted is to discuss your proposal on the talk page. Sidestepping that issue, however, I see three problems with the variety of proposals you've made. Primarily, the wording of the rest of the sentence supports our current wording, and the clarification we have in place now is helpful to establish context. Secondly, this is Craig's primary subject, and stating that is appropriate. Thirdly, the proposed wording (in each case) have needed a bit of work to fit with the flow and content of the paragraph. I think it makes sense to keep the current wording until we can establish with reliable sources that Craig notably debates other subjects, and has been doing so for 20 odd years. If we can do that a little bit, then something like "Craig has been debating primarily on the existence of god" would be ok. If we can show that he's been debating largely about other topics, then an entire change of wording would be acceptable. For now, please propose those changes on the talk page first, and establish consensus. I'm not necessarily opposed to such changes, but edit warring isn't the way to bring them about. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to stop edit warring Jess!!!Berringerfan (talk) 8:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Did you even read what I wrote? How about the policy pages I've repeatedly linked you to? Let's start by doing that, and then go from there...   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is unnecessary since I already told "you" when I have the time, I will (at least attempt) list all of Craig's debates and "you" will see that the existence of god is not even close to a majority of the subjects of his debates. Here is a sample list: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927. Loosely interpreted, about 16 out of over 50 debates listed is over the existence of god. Plus, listing Bart Erhman and Dr. Robert Price as support of the existence of god debate claim in the article section is fraudulent. Craig debated them on the Historicity of Jesus (even the citation section of the article confirms this). That is not the same as the existence of god. Not even close. Berringerfan (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop changing the past discussion. If you wish to take back prior comments you've made, striking them out is appropriate. Refactoring talk page comments is against policy. Craig's own site lists 11 debates spanning to 1991, 9 of which concern the existence of god (strictly interpreted). His first is one of the 9, making the statement "Craig has been debating the existence of god for 20 years" an accurate one. I'd also welcome you to reread the QS you posted above, as your numbers aren't accurate, even strictly interpreted. Lastly, if one of the debates listed concerns something else, you're of course more than welcome to fix that part. Adding a sentence to the end like "Craig has also debated concerning the Historicity of Jesus with XYZ" might be ok.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In over 50 debates in the list of the link I provided, loosely interpreted (in WLC's favor) only 1/3 of the debates are on the existence of god. That means the majority of debates are a topic other than the existence of god. Word! Erhman's and Dr. Price's reference in regards to WLC debates on the existence of god is just plain WRONG! Check the citation section of the article. Craig will debate anyone anywhere on any topic and he has. Well, almost. Craig won't debate Dr. John Loftus, Matt Dillahunty or Aronra. The fact that he debates on such myriad of topics needs to be included in this article. That is if one want to be neutral and objective.Berringerfan (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you reading my responses to you? I feel like I could copy/paste my last response and have it be entirely pertinent; If some of the debates are listed incorrectly, then fix them. You can even use my suggestion above if you'd like. Your numbers from your own link are still incorrect, however. The whole first table is devoted to debates concerning the existence of God, as well as the ones mentioned individually above it, as well as some of the ones below. Furthermore, it's a QS, not a reliable one. Everything else I said in my last response still stands.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

There is some incorrect information in this article. First, Craig has never debated Bart Earhman on the existence of God, but on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Also, he does not argue against homosexuality, but homosexual behavior (which are two very different things). He does not hold that homosexuality (understood as the propensity to find members of the same sex attractive) is a sin, but only homosexual behavior. Furthermore, he does not hold to progressive creationism. He has been clear that he is undecided on this topic but open to where the evidence leads. Finally, Crossan is not a Christian theist; he is either an agnostic or atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.98.139 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! If there's something wrong in the article, you are -of course- welcome to fix it. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I addressed the concerns of 76.243.98.139. However, whether or not Crossan is a Christian theist, I don't know, since he puts a different spin on the meaning of various NT passages then mainline Christians. Therefore, I left that subject alone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Formost/finest Christian Apologist

Hello Hrafn, I see that you reverted my last edit and I'm curious as to why you did it. According to the article:

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

Then,

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

This qualifies as a reliable source. That some atheists would disagree is not the point. That some atheists DO agree IS the point. Therefore, I propose the following rephrasing:

"He is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism, even among some atheists."

What do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he has been described as "the foremost apologist for Christian theism" by one, single, not particularly prominent atheist. It is inaccurate WP:WEASELing to say "some atheists" on the basis of a single opinion and WP:UNDUE weight to mention Came's non-prominent opinion at all, and particularly in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. The Telegraph is a reliable source and as such, it says, "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed." (Italics added.) The reliable source (i.e., The Telegraph) then goes on to give an example in the case of Dr Daniel Came, who even as a single individual is a reliable source. For this reason, it is not WP:WEASELing, unless reliable sources are subject to other reliable sources (which obviously it doesn't, since that would require a retreat to an argument ad infinitum). Also, please be aware that I modified my previous edit to my above proposal, "...even among some atheists." (Italics added.)

Now, we both know (I think) that there are examples of atheists who believe that WLC is in the top of his field. One example is this. Just Google-ing (is that a word?) various search terms can return more results that say the same thing. Also note that its placement in the lead just seems to be the most logical place for it. It's not a big article and is not a statement, as far as I can tell, that can justify a whole, new section. Your thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop wittering on and on that "the Telegraph is a reliable source" -- a point I have not contested! My point is that this source does not verify the claims you are attributing to it! "Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries"≠"atheists", "not impressed"≠"[Craig] is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism". That one example of this is an "atheist" and considers Craig to be "the foremost apologist for Christian theism" does not imply that all "Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries" are or do. Unless and until you can WP:Verify that a significant number of prominent atheists hold this view, you cannot attribute this view to "atheists" generally (with or without the WP:WEASEL of "some"). And it is grossly WP:UNDUE to do so on the basis of the opinion of a single person who, as far as I can tell, has no prominence as an atheist whatsoever outside the context of Dawkins&Craig.

Please assume good faith. I am neither your enemy nor am I trying to yank your chain. Let's discuss our differences politely. At any rate, the sentence I would like to add is

He is considered the foremost apologist for Christian theism, even among some atheists.

The source is reliable, as we both agree, and the source quotes a public letter that Dr Daniel Came sent to Dr Richard Dawkins. It clearly establishes that indeed, among some atheists, WLC is "the foremost apologist for Christian theism":

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. (Bold added.)

Also,

Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig. (Bold added.)

So, we have a reliable source (The Telegraph) quoting Dr Came who has excellent credentials (i.e., Dr. Came is not simply some guy with a Web site and an opinion) who teaches at a well known university (Oxford), and is himself an atheist. Therefore, it seems to me that the sentence I would like to add should not pose any problems. Your thoughts? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"It clearly establishes that indeed, among some atheists to one single completely non-prominent atheist, WLC is 'the foremost apologist for Christian theism'" "Dr Came who has excellent credentials no credentials as an atheist whatsoever -- so should not be cited for what 'atheists' think." -- I corrected the glaring errors in your comments. Oh, and I'm not failing to assume good faith on your part -- I'm simply refusing to assume WP:COMPETENCE (and an ability to competently apply relevant policy). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "even among some atheists" adds too much baggage. Why are atheists an appropriate audience to judge this topic? Why not a Muslim, or another theologian? At worst, this is a violation of WP:SYN, and potentially also WP:WEASEL due to the use of "some". Further, I'm not happy with "is considered", since we have only one source attributing the view to one individual. If we're going to add this, we should attribute it to Dr Cane, and drop the atheism bit. That's what we have explicitly sourced, so that's what we should go with.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The point of the "atheism bit" was to make it clear that it's not only theists who have this opinion of WLC. I mean, there are many people who don't/won't accept any statement from sources who are theists because of perceived bias. So, as long as it's made clear that Dr Crane is an atheist who represents the "other side" (and thus provides balance) then I'm ok with your suggestion that that is what we should go with. Is that fair?

By the way, can you please provide a suggestion on how the thought should be expressed? And thank you for your insight. It is very much appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with " the 'atheism bit'" is that we have no evidence whatsoever that "this opinion of WLC" has any prominence outside theism. All we have is a single opinion of somebody who isn't particularly prominent as an academic philosopher, and appears to have no prominence whatsoever in atheist circles. It "should be expressed" by not mentioning it all until evidence that this viewpoint has more prominence within atheism than simply Came's own view, per WP:DUE ("Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another way of looking at the prominence angle and WP:DUE is to ask yourself how many prominent people have expressed an opinion about Craig? How many of those opinions are featured in the article? Is Daniel Came really more prominent than all those we haven't included? If not, then what is the rationale for including his opinion rather than a more prominent one? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"critiques of evolution via natural selection"

Could somebody explain to me:

1. How participation in a debate on "Is Intelligent Design Viable" verifies that the participant engages in "critiques of evolution via natural selection"?
2. How somebody, apparently lacking any scientific qualifications or experience, is qualified to "critique" the science of evolutionary biology, or how it is any more NPOV to describe it as 'critiquing' as opposed to an opposing (and arguably far more accurate) POV description of 'bloviating ignorantly'?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary from this edit made the claim that "ID ~ Neocreationism ~ Creationism. WLC does not promote it because he doesn't believe it." I would point out:

1. The citation for the disputed characterisation is a debate on "Is Intelligent Design Viable" -- where Craig took the affirmative.
2. He's a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture whose purpose is the promotion of ID.
3. He is also a fellow of the (now moribund) International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design "a non-profit professional society that promoted intelligent design".

It is therefore very hard to see how Craig is not involved in the promotion of ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)

1. Because he's said, in a debate vs Wolpert (sp?) I think, that he is convinced of micro evolution but not convinced of macro evolution, although he is open-minded about it. Also, he is not a creationist, which is essentially how ID is defined and interpreted on Wikipedia as well as in the general public, so to say he "promotes" ID is not accurate.

2. Careful, that could go both ways. Dawkins knows relatively nothing about philosophy or theology yet that doesn't seem to stop him and others from making philosophical/theological claims. At any rate, WLC is qualified to critique any science because when he does so, he quotes eminent scientists (and stays within mainline science) and then approaches it philosophically. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:Complete bollocks -- "convinced of micro evolution but not convinced of macro evolution" = absolutely a creationist claim. See Claim CB902: Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, TalkOrigins Archive Index to Creationist claims. The ID movement is full of "evolution but..." claims that always end with an equivocation that guts the Theory of Evolution.
2. Dawkins could be legitimately be characterised as a 'critic of religion' as one can reasonably gain reasonable knowledge of religion without expert training. He could not legitimately be considered to be a critic of (or write critiques of) theology or philosophy of religion -- as he is clearly unstudied (and it would appear disinterested) in these fields. Craig likewise is unstudied (and appears uninterested in) the field of evolutionary biology (as opposed to superficial religious criticisms of it), so likewise cannot be considered to legitimately "critique" the field.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only tell you what I've heard for myself. Watch the last 25 seconds of this (for context) and then the first three minutes of this. WLC clearly states exactly what he believes with regards to creationism and evolution. If you want to sum that up in the article, then I have no problem with it, as long as WLCs "creationism" belief is not interpreted as meaning a fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources stating that Craig is a proponent of ID

• Forrest, Barbara (2007). Creationism's Trojan Horse. City: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 191. ISBN 0195319737.
• Young, Matt (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. p. 13. ISBN 0813538726.
• Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653.
• Woodward, Thomas; Dembski, William (2006). Darwin Strikes Back. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 201. ISBN 0801065631.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the quotes from the references above? I'd like to see the context, as well as how "a proponent of ID" is defined. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Forrest(2006): "...alongside design proponents such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig..."
• Young(2006): "Indeed the movement has attracted a number of philosophers and theologians wuth conservative religious commitments: ... William Lane Craig..."
• Giberson(2002): "CRSC's fellows, directors and advisors include virtually all of the leaders in the intelligent design movement, including ...William Lane Craig..."
• Woodward(2006): "ID theorist William Lane Craig attended a national philosophical meeting and heard emphatic acceptance of this criticism of Behe's analogy as a refutation."

If you want more, look it up on Google Books or Amazon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I don't have a problem adding him as a proponent of ID as long as it's made clear what he means by it. This can be seen here (from 0:25 to about 1:00). Also from 3:00 to about 3:59, which also answers your question #1 in your second posting in the above section. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, typical dishonest ID WP:complete bollocks -- claiming that it is "Intelligent Design Theory", when even some ID proponents are on record as admitting that ID has no theory (a theory is an explanation, not merely an assertion), claiming that there is "misunderstanding" of what ID is (when the correct word is "rejection"), claiming as part of the definition that it makes "justifiable" inferences (begging the question, anybody?), etc, etc. Basically the whole ID party line. This is not some neutral party describing it -- it is a 'drunk the koolaid' partisan advocating it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he presents no "critiques of evolution via natural selection" in that passage -- he merely asserts that (scientific) critiques of ID are inconclusive or fallacious. I do not agree with his assertion, but regardless this assertion is not a critique of evolution via natural selection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And in any case, we should be relying on what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say about him -- not performing WP:Synthesis on a WP:PRIMARY source (which a video of a debate clearly is). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and suggest (here on the talk page) how you would phrase what you would like to add (including references and links). Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources (both favourable towards, and critical, of ID) stating that he's an 'intelligent design proponent' (as well as fellowships in two very-prominently ID organisations), corroborated by many descriptions of his position that use the word "design" as part of the description -- so why not 'advocacy of intelligent design' or similar? I get the strong feeling (though no hard citations) that he's also an advocate of theistic science/opponent of naturalistic science (a position widely taken in ID circles, to an extent that its pretty much a tenet of ID), so if a source for that can be found, it might also bne worth mentioning. Craig isn't known for any original or prominent criticisms-of/arguments-against evolution (in fact I'd be very surprised if there is any specific criticism that is more closely associated with him than any other IDer or other creationist), so it would seem hard to justify (let alone source) a claim that he is known for that specifically (as opposed to more generalised support of ID's views). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is linking WLC with the Creationism article on WP (he's used terminology that would make him more in line with theistic evolution). He advocates ID and certainly is a "creationist", as any theist would have to be. So, if you would like to add a statement that doesn't portray WLCs "creationism" belief as a fundamentalist-ic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, then I'd be ok with that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hrafn about the original revert; if he has supported ID as his sole (notable) criticism of evolution, then it is more specific to say so. It should be included in the article in either case. BTW, Bill, not every theist is a creationist. Deists are not, as well as a good number of theists who believe their god had a more distant role in the history of the Earth. Craig is in any case, but this is so because our sources say so, not because he's a theist generally.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, I too agree with Hrafn about the original revert! For some reason (I think it was due to fatigue), I clicked on "rollback" rather than "undo" which didn't enable me to provide a reason for the revert. My apologies.

In any case, let's include the fact that he is a proponent of ID yet not link it to the WP article because that article basically says that ID = Creationism, which means that he holds to a fundamentalist, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, which he does not. From his writings and speeches/debates, he holds to Theistic evolution as described in the WP article—especially both second paragraph of the lead:

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.

as well as from the Terminology section:

The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.

Ok, guys/gals, I think we're getting close to a consensus here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Deists are creationists, but they are NOT Creationists (note the use of the lower and upper case "C" respectively), in that Creationists hold to a literalist interpretation of scripture while Deists do not. This is the sort of distinction I'm trying to maintain with regards to the WLC article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind:

1. The distinction between Creationism generally, and Young Earth creationism. It is only the latter that "holds to a fundamentalist, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis". Old Earth creationism, including Progressive creationism and Intelligent design, does not. Misapprehension of this seems to be frequently promoted by prominent ID proponents attempting to distance themselves from the "creationist" label, so I'm not particularly surprised that Bill has fallen prey to it.
2. Also (as can be seen from these articles), the term "creationism"/"creationist" (big or little c) is currently used ubiquitously to describe some form of religious objection to the scientific consensus on the history of life/the Earth/the Universe (ubiquitously including an objection to the Theory of Evolution). I would therefore suggest that we have been presented with no evidence that Craig is not a creationist (capitalised or not). Therefore although I would agree that (as we have no source for it) we should certainly not explicitly describe him as a "creationist" nor link his article directly to the creationism article, I see no reason not to link him to intelligent design (a linkage we have multiple sources supporting), due to the fact that "that article basically says that ID = Creationism".
3. Theistic evolution fully accepts the scientific consensus on evolution (and adapts their theology to accommodate it), Craig does not. Lacking a cast iron source for this claim (per WP:REDFLAG), we should not accept such a description of him.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, especially number 3. So, go ahead and make a proposal on the wording/sentence structure. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion remains the same as above "advocacy of intelligent design" or similar -- but with the explicit priviso that there's no good reason not to link it to the article on intelligent design. I would also point out that this fits more comfortably with the theme of Christian apologetics -- as there are many theists (and indeed Christians) on both sides of the evolution-by-natural-selection/not-evolution-by-natural-selection debate, whereas there are virtually no atheist or agnostic advocates of ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have the sources, and you do, then I'm ok with it. Go ahead and add that in. Good job. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

POV -- referencing FOX News....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/

This article is referenced in two citations. I'd just like to point out that the article draws heavily on a press release from Dr. Craig.

Here: http://www.pr.com/press-release/348093 Also... the quote it contains (" “I think we are living in a time in human history where physical science is more open to the existence of a creator and designer of the universe than at any time in recent memory.”") is unknown to me. I'm not sure where it comes from but if you google it, it appears no where except for the FOX News story and articles that clearly derive from it.

I guess I'm a little concerned that it isn't just part of the promotion for Craig's UK tour.

And, it's worth adding.... This one quote is hardly useful in summing up Craig's work. His comment that the goal of apologetics is to turn back the Enlightenment is more of a summary, to my mind.

Theowarner (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This was also removed, per the above discussion. I don't personally see how the quote is relevant to Craig's bio, except to promote his views; This quote is about the state of apologetics, not about Craig, and the dubious nature of its origin is even further reason it should be left out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we reduce the bio section even further?

The bio section contains a list of where Dr. Craig went to school. Personally, I'd like to remove the BA from Wheaton College. That seems pretty insignificant. My proposal, though, is that the MAs in Church History and Philosophy of Religion as well as the PhD and ThD be moved to the grey box off to the side there.... And just be listed as data and not as complete sentences. As for where he taught, I propose we eliminate all of that and state in the grey box that he currently is a Research Professor at Talbot. So....

Craig received a BA in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois in 1971 and two MA degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinoisin 1975, in philosophy of religion and church history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.^[1] From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Since 1996 he has been a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California.^[1]

↑We do that.

Theowarner (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sam Harris quote...

What is doing in this article? Considering how far we've trimmed this down.... it seems out of place to include that particular sentence. I propose its deletion. Theowarner (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a recent addition that slipped in under the cover of another, already-reverted, edit. I've removed it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

cool. And future editors should, I think, feel free to excise it should it reappear. Theowarner (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal dislike of a reliable source, especially a prominent one, is not adequate justification for removal of it and the material it supports. If you believe that such a view is supported by the community as a whole, take it to WP:RSN and see if it results in strong consensus supporting your view. I have restored the material and its references. Drrll (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition. If consensus shifts in favor of the quote, it can be reintroduced at that time. For now, I agree that the quote is out of place and of dubious origin. It appears to only be presented in the article in order to make some kind of point about "WLC beating atheists", which is undue given it isn't notably represented in that form elsewhere.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Drrll: for somebody who spends so much time whining piteously on WP:WQA, your mud-slinging is contemptibly WP:POT. Likewise WP:POT is your "personal dislike" claim, given your previous conniptions over Barbara Forrest (who unlike Fox News is a WP:RS). There is in fact nothing "personal" about my impeachment of FN. Fox News does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as can be seen from the 'Accusations of misrepresentation of facts' section of that article. Further, nothing on Lauren Green suggests that she gives any extra weight to the piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is a straight news story by a straight news reporter and not an opinion piece. Whether a source is not reliable or "dubious" is not determined by the consensus of a few editors at a particular article. From what I've repeatedly seen in the archives of RSN, Fox News is a reliable source for news content, just like sources with a reputation for being slanted to the left are (such as MSNBC, The CBS Evening News, and NPR). This has been brought up numerous times at RSN, but if you want, it can be brought up yet again. Drrll (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is somewhat of a stretch to call Green "a straight news reporter" -- she has no background in journalism and her previous engagements, Fox & Friends & Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld are hardly "straight news". And I would disagree that WP:RSN has in any way unambiguously defended FN's reliability -- in fact the consensus seems to be rather more against reliability than for it -- particularly as one thread turned up the fact that FN has actually argued in court for their legal right to lie to their viewers (and won,on First Amendment grounds). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out that my objections to it were not based on the reliability of the source, nor were Theo's. Whether or not FN is reliable, this quote doesn't belong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fine to say it's straight news. I'm not sure what that means, though. The quote is certainly true in that Dr. Harris really did say it. Of course, Ms. Green got the quote from Dr. Craig's press release. But, my point was that the quote doesn't really seem to be doing very much in the article. A short paragraph on Craig's accomplishments certainly doesn't need a Sam Harris quote. Theowarner (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If I assumed correctly, this is concerning Sam Harris' quote about how William Lane Craig is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists". Quite obviously none of you three did any proper or even basic research into this matter, as the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate", has been made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011 in case for some reason the video is inaudible (the quote is at 27:45), yet as of this writing the video is still available and very much audible, thus there is really no excuse for the above arguments about news reports. And if you are honestly concerned about WP:V, rest assured that the uploader of the video is the University of Notre Dame, which would fit adequately into "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the debate has been "made available to the public in some form". All the above exchange does is reveal to us a form of self-inflation between three individuals who are largely dismissive of such obvious and widely available facts in favor of ignorance. In light of the above facts, the three of you should be barred from further edits on this article, as the three of you are obviously not editing this article in good faith. Maiorem (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend you read WP:AGF. Youtube is not a reliable source, so cannot be used for the claim. See WP:RS. That said, the reason it was removed was not because of sourcing. We don't simply publish everything that's ever said anywhere. The quote has not received notable third party coverage to warrant receiving WP:Weight in the article. If you can provide notable third party coverage of the quote, then we can discuss including it again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, in light of the above facts which I have stated, there is no good faith in such edits by the three of you. Obviously I was not talking about YouTube as a reliable source, but do consider that this was an actual debate held at the University of Notre Dame, and I have already given the reasons why citing WP:RS would be ignoring the issue altogether. In fact, it doesn't even address the reliability of YouTube, since YouTube cannot be judged reliable or not on its own; it is the uploader that needs to be judged, since different uploaders on YouTube obviously have different reliability, e.g. "Loose Change" vs. "University of Notre Dame". Regarding WP:Weight, the quote does not require any "notable third party coverage" in order to receive due weight as its weight is given by the prominence of the utterer in its context, i.e. Sam Harris in a debate held by the University of Notre Dame. This is neither a dispute nor a minority viewpoint and is significant to the extent of William Lane Craig's influence upon the atheist community.

Here I reiterate Jimmy Wales' points about weight:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So, which category of the above do you place Sam Harris' quote? Maiorem (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, I referenced AGF because it will be beneficial to you, not to me; If you can't assume good faith of the editors you're working with, then we can't work collaboratively, and this conversation will inevitably be futile. Please understand that we're all here to improve the article, just as I've assumed for you. You stated above, "Obviously I was not talking about YouTube as a reliable source", but you then go on to justify why it can be used as one. We can't simply disregard WP:RS or other policies, as they represent the broad, site-wide, community consensus on what is acceptable. As for the rest, please understand this isn't a "view" we're talking about, it's the opinion of one individual, for which we don't even have a reliable source. Placing it in the article gives improper weight to the statement, as it necessarily assigns a significance which cannot be backed up by notable coverage elsewhere. Does all that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So you mean to tell me that videos uploaded by the White House official YouTube channel are not considered reliable sources? If you do hold that view, you'd have been a laughing stock in all journalism circles. I already said in detail previously how the reliability of YouTube as a source cannot be generalized to all YouTube channels. Furthermore, you're trying to tell me that a video of the entire debate as recorded by the University of Notre Dame doesn't qualify as a reliable source? Don't you think you're not making any sense here? I do. In addition to that, you did not answer my last question in my previous response. This is the opinion of one individual, no doubt, but it is the opinion of a prominent individual with impact on a (majority/minority?) group. First, you need to establish if the atheist community is a majority or a minority group, then consider the weight of Sam Harris' statement about William Lane Craig's influence on the group. The weight should come from both Sam Harris' prominence as well as its impact on the group, regardless of "notable coverage". Maiorem (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos can be used sometimes, in very rare cases, but they are discouraged in all cases for a wide variety of reasons. For one, it is a primary source, which puts us in the category of WP:SPS (or more specifically WP:BLPSPS). Two, verifying the identity of a youtube user is tricky, videos can be doctored or edited, and they are are typically more volatile, and so may change or be removed more readily than elsewhere, so youtube is almost always less useful for reliably verifying the content than other published mediums. Three, there are copyright issues we have to be concerned about, also making youtube less useful than other published mediums. Four, there is an issue of weight, which I will point out is the issue here; if a youtube video is the only reference presented for a claim, then the claim is almost certainly not prominent enough to warrant coverage. Consider, if this view is important, why hasn't it been covered elsewhere? For further information on the reliability of youtube as a source, I'd suggest searching the archives of WP:RSN, and/or posting a query to the noticeboard yourself.

However, as I mentioned above (and above that, and at the beginning of the discussion too), the issue is really weight rather than reliability. This does, indeed, tie in to the nature of youtube, but we'd have the same issue even if we had some other primary source. This quote hasn't received coverage anywhere, and it hasn't been demonstrated to have had any effect on, or have been held by, any group (minority or majority). We could grab a whole bunch of primary sources mentioning WLC in some context on youtube and post quotes, but those would be equally undue. Unless and until we have notably third party coverage of this quote, it just simply doesn't belong in the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's a past discussion about youtube on RSN which explains these issues in more detail. Once again, this is really a weight concern, but you may find that discussion useful anyway. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, primary sources are discouraged on the basis of original research. Secondly, direct quotes of a living person must always come from a primary source. Next, verifying the identity of a YouTube channel (not user) is easy in the case of official channels, such as the one I linked above as The Official of the White House. The claim that a particular video is doctored or edited must be backed by evidence, and in this case, it is absolutely difficult to see how it has been doctored or edited, especially when uploaded and hosted by the University of Notre Dame. In addition to that, the argument that YouTube videos are "typically more volatile" does not change the reliability or veracity of its contents. On the issue about copyright, that is moot as long as it is hosted publicly on YouTube by an official source, which, in this case, is the University of Notre Dame. The archives of WP:RSN has absolutely nothing on YouTube.

I have already put forth my points about weight in my previous two posts here, which you have so far successfully ignored. As for the question as to why the quote hasn't been covered elsewhere, I'd simply point to the Fox News article that has been much discussed about here. So, we've established that the debate itself is the primary source, and the secondary source would be the Fox News article. In addition to that, the Fox News article also serves as notable third party coverage. Continuing along the lines of reliability, my questions still remain. Is the atheist community a minority or majority? Following that, is Sam Harris a prominent person in this community? Next, does Sam Harris' quote reference William Lane Craig's impact on the community? Maiorem (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

One quote from that discussion:"It isn't original research as long as one treats it appropriately as a primary source, which is to say that it's used only for objective, descriptive, and uncontroversial claims." I'd say the fact that Sam Harris said a particular sentence is objective and descriptive. Most people interested in William Lane Craig will have heard of Sam Harris, I'd venture. So it's relevant and interesting. Why controversial? Joycey17 (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, the archives of RSN do, indeed, contain discussions of youtube. [I linked to this one above, which highlights some of the points I addressed in my reply. The broad community consensus is that youtube is discouraged, and is most often used to give undue weight to a claim. That is the case here. I did not ignore your comments on weight. What we have is a single offhanded comment that Harris made about Craig once, which was clearly intended as a joke. He hasn't repeated it, and no one besides FN seemed to deem it noteworthy enough to cover it. It is a single opinion, not demonstrably held by any group (or even seriously held by Harris). Putting it in the article is, indeed, a weight concern, since it implies statements about other atheist writers that they have denied, and serves only to boast the image of WLC. Why is this particular quote so important to include? Consensus seems to be set on this issue, but perhaps we could find some other content to include which serves the same role and doesn't share these same concerns. Would that work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It highlights some of the points you addressed in your reply? Really? Well, I couldn't see how four out of eleven users would count as a "broad community consensus". That was not an offhanded comment either, and now you are forcing your own interpretation of Sam Harris' quote about William Lane Craig. Would people need to repeat their words even once for it to have weight or even consideration? No. Regardless, Fox News has covered it, and thus it would satisfy third party coverage. How do you judge or determine if it was "seriously held" by Harris? We are simply citing him word-for-word and not including any interpretation of his statement, but apparently you cannot resist interpreting his quote in a biased way that is in no way backed by any evidence. I now ask you to clarify what you mean by saying that it "implies statements about other atheist writers" since there is no mention of "atheist writers" to begin with. It does not serve to boast William Lane Craig's image so much as to cite a view of William Lane Craig by a prominent figure (unless you disagree with the notion that Sam Harris is a prominent figure, in which case I must ask why he gets his own page, and even much more detailed than this one). I am not saying that this quote is important to include, but the way that you three have handled even this minor issue has revealed that these edits are not done in good faith. If by "consensus" you mean the upholding of the views of three users, then you wouldn't be lying. My concern is not with this quote, actually, but it is with the "good faith" that the three of you so obviously lack. Thus, when I am asked to assume good faith, I will say that you three have lost that with regards to such absurd reasoning and total unwillingness to properly investigate even one simple quote. Maiorem (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can't assume good faith, that unfortunately means we can't have a productive conversation. If you feel the discussion I linked you to is insufficiently decisive about using youtube as a reliable source, then you're welcome to search the RSN archives for the multitude of other discussions regarding it, or to post your own thread on RSN to get a further opinion. If your purpose in this discussion is not to argue that the quote should be included, then there isn't anything else to say. Testing the good faith of other contributors is not a valid use of an article talk page, per the talk page guidelines. If you'd like to bring new sources or content to the article, then I'd be happy to discuss those with you further. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the burden of proof is on you to show that YouTube as a reliable source is disagreed by "broad community consensus". So, if this is what it takes to continue pressing the issue, then I would argue for the inclusion of the quote. If all you can do is cite WP:THIS or WP:THAT without even knowing its contents then I am afraid you should not even be allowed to edit anything. I am not testing the good faith of other contributors; I am showing that there is a lack of good faith in the three of you. Discussing this here in the article's talk page is acceptable under WP:DR. And here's what it says too: "Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not." Before I started commenting here, I did assume good faith, until I saw the disastrous handling of such an issue by the three of you, as well as an excessive citation of WPs to the point of abuse. Would you like to take this to WP:BLPN?Maiorem (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've invited you to post about this issue on a noticeboard repeatedly; by all means, take it to BLPN. However, you've made it clear that you're not interested in including the quote as much as "demonstrating bad faith", so as far as I can tell, the discussion on article content is already over. If you'd like to bring new sources or content to the article, then I'd be happy to discuss those with you. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you've invited me to post about this issue on the wrong noticeboards. I'm not the one having issues with citing a direct quote from a YouTube video. Also, "demonstrating bad faith", you say? Even if I do allow you to have some sort of "good faith", it only goes to show your gross incompetency at objective editing, which is one of the requirements of editing articles on Wikipedia. As far as you are concerned, you are nobody to say whether discussion on article content is already over. Assuming good faith is an ideal, but the actual situation here is quite shameful.Maiorem (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem, I think you should read Wikipedia:BATTLEground, and take note. @Everyone else, I think you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Quotations. The quote can be included using YouTube as the source, or a debate transcript if one can be found. I don't think any proper reason for leaving it out has been shown.Joycey17 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Joycey17, for that. However, if you do find any part of my response is objectionable, do point out the specific parts to me, as to me, I am strictly putting forth an objective analysis of the information handling process by the "regular editors" here. Indeed, in all my comments, I did not "hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Neither did I "insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom [I] have a disagreement." Maiorem (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joycey. The quote was removed because it has not received any traction anywhere, and therefore, including it would be giving undue weight to a position which may not be held by anyone at all, or at absolute best by a single individual. That doesn't qualify as a "significant minority" view, which is the bare minimum for nearly all content on wikipedia. It would be great to expand on Craig's image in the academic, atheistic, apologetics (etc) communities, but to do so we need a good, reliable, secondary source... not a joking remark in a debate found on youtube. It would be great if we could get new sources discussing Craig, and then we could base our article content on those. Are you aware of any sources we're not already using?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent conversation. I'll just chime in and say that the primary reason I think that the Sam Harris quote has no place in article is that it seems to be about establishing Craig as an prominent and effective opponent to atheists, neither of which are our place to assert. We can produce quotes from equally prominent persons that suggest Craig is a nobody and ineffective. So, selecting any one quote presumes a position and becomes bias. I think this point has already been made, even though the conversation seems to have continued. Theowarner (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained earlier, this is a quote by a prominent member of the atheist community. It is not your place, jess, to interpret it as a "joking remark" where Sam Harris has never claimed it to be. Furthermore, it is not merely a debate found on YouTube; it is a debate hosted by the University of Notre Dame at their faculty, covered by the University of Notre Dame, covered by Fox News, and for which there is a transcript made available by a third party. You should be aware of how misleading it would be to label this simply as "a debate found on youtube" rather than state it as it is. I have listed seven sources on the William Lane Craig section of WP:BLPN which contribute to much of the removed content over the past 16 months, and where there is no mention as to why they are considered unreliable sources. As have been mentioned, WP:SELFPUB allows the use of self-published sources. And to address your concern, Theowarner, Sam Harris is in a position to make such a claim as a prominent member of the atheist community, and thus the inclusion of that quote would be justified by the position of the speaker. Or why don't we quote Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling on William Lane Craig as well? For someone who is not a prominent and effective opponent to atheists, these guys sure have a lot to say about William Lane Craig. Maiorem (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem, I'm just saying, keep it in mind. @Jess and Theo, thanks for the feedback.. I'll go mining for sources when I have time. I'm a little bit confused by your response in particular though, theo. If it were the case that WLC were a prominent and effective opponent to atheists, wouldn't that be grounds for reporting it on a wiki page? And if some people say he is, and some people say he isn't, shouldn't we be reporting both instead of neither? I actually think the controversy Craig seems to generate is a fascinating thing on its own, and perhaps worthy of some content.Joycey17 (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Joycey17 -- I personally doubt that "prominent and effective opponent to atheists" is something that we could demonstrate using the ordinary techniques of research that available to us here on wikipedia. Again, this is part of my objection to using the Harris quote whatsoever. It doesn't substantiate very much if anything. But, again, the real and most important reason not to use the Harris quote is that it opens a tube of biased toothpaste... and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. In this case, the Harris quote is absurdly biased. Dawkins and Grayling also have plenty to say about Craig as was mentioned above, but so do other prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers have comment on Craig, as well. I think I could probably put together a list of fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig, all of which would only serve to indicate a wide variety of opinions about Craig. And none of those opinions are really factual claims. Most are just congratulatory or dismissive. The tone would almost certainly not survive and, more to the point, a litany of opinions seems to me to be the opposite of what wikipedia is about -- so, neither rather than both. We're only interested in reliable, third party information --- not the rhetoric of cultural debate. The most I can offer here is that we include the word "controversial" somewhere in the article, but frankly... that seems a little be too loaded, too. Theowarner (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how the quote is "absurdly biased". It's just one atheist's observations about how other atheists seem to have reacted to Craig. I think that it could serve as support for another point, something along the lines of "Craig is a controversial figure amongst atheists. Sam Harris described Craig as (insert harris quote), while other atheists, such as (someone representative of this view), dismiss Craig as irrelevant (or whatever they say that makes you think the harris quote is unrepresentative)." I understand your concerns about putting opinions in an article, but I think you're going down the wrong track here. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view" (WP:NPOV). Personally I think if you stopped describing disputes it wouldn't just not be "what wikipedia is about", it'd make wikipedia just about disappear altogether.. Joycey17 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, if you knew well enough that there are about fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig by prominent atheists, prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers, do you not think that William Lane Craig is notable enough to receive comments from this many individuals? Furthermore, how do you judge that Richard Dawkins is even notable enough to receive his own page in that sense? Even Sam Harris. Regardless if they are factual claims, the quotes reflect what others view of Craig, and if we use them as direct quotes without interpreting them as jess did as a "joking remark" or some other, they would be perfectly in line with what Wikipedia is about. And, in case you have not read my response above, Theo, third party information is not the only source of information required for a BLP, and indeed, we're not talking about rhetoric of cultural debate either. And I second Joycey17's suggestion to include a quote by some other prominent atheist which dismisses Craig as a counter-point of the Harris quote if you are that concerned with neutrality, rather than throw the baby with the bath water. Maiorem (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Joycey, I think that suggestion would be a good one, provided we can find two quotes which appropriately represent a notable community view about Craig, and can source the statement that he is "controversial". I don't necessarily think that would be too hard, but our current sources don't yet back up that he is controversial, at least any more than any other public figure. The best way to do this would be to find sources, and then discuss how we should present the ones we have. @Maiorem, our content policies are different than our article inclusion policies. If you don't think Dawkins is notable, you can take the page to AfD, but his page meeting WP:N has no bearing on this content discussion. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean your content policies and your article inclusion policies. I would suggest you take time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies and article inclusion policies and not place your own restrictions. Also, I want to know how you came about judging Sam Harri's quote as a "joking remark". Maiorem (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maiorem, please see the last paragraph in the lead of WP:N. It's stated elsewhere too. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jess. If "controversial" is too loaded, perhaps "Atheists have deferring views" would be less so? I went looking for some support for a quote to contrast with harris, and the best I could come up with on short notice was Laurence Kraus's view that WLC is more of a "proselytizer" than a "philosopher", which can be found here. Is this ok, or does anyone know of anything better? On a side note I came across this. Given we are proposing talking about atheistic opinion of Craig, should this source be used and if so, how? Joycey17 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and? You're not answering my question, Jess. Maiorem (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The "atheistic opinion"? I feel like the following problems emerge when we do this 'Atheists think [insert Sam Harris quote] and [insert some other quote.]' The problem is this: Sam Harris' quote probably doesn't represent about half the atheistic response to Craig. 'Atheist think X and Sam Harris is a rare exception' might be more accurate. I'm not sure. And, also... we just don't know what the quote means. Sam Harris may have be evaluating his fan mail rather than describing his own opinion. 'Sam Harris' fans think [insert Sam Harris quote] but Sam Harris thinks [insert some other Sam Harris quote.]' Theowarner (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Maiorem You asked me some questions that I didn't understand. "Theo, if you knew well enough that there are about fifty to a hundred quotations about Craig by prominent atheists, prominent apologists and a few minor philosophers, do you not think that William Lane Craig is notable enough to receive comments from this many individuals? Furthermore, how do you judge that Richard Dawkins is even notable enough to receive his own page in that sense?" I think that Craig is notable enough to deserve a wikipedia page. Is that what you're asking me? Dawkins is notable, as well. The number of quotes we can root up about people isn't really the point. But, I feel like I'm not getting your question. Theowarner (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok Theo, so we have 3 sources: The harris quote, the Krauss essay and the Muehlhauser reviews. The Harris quote is more or less supported by the Muehlhauser reviews, while the Krauss essay states a different opinion. If these three sources are what we are going off, I'd say that constitutes at least enough evidence to say that "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater", or simply to state the Harris quote as at least partially representative. If "probably doesn't represent" is still your concern, it's on you to back that up with sources. Joycey17 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, we seem to be trying to do something here that seems somehow to introduce bias. What's the point of saying that "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater"? Effective is the word that I have an issue with. That may be a fact and, in fact, I have no doubt that it is. But, why should we mention that? We've already mentioned that he's a debater.... why do we need to express some comment evaluating his effectiveness? That seems like a judgement that we aren't supposed to represent. He's a debater. End of comment. Theowarner (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is here that I agree with you that it is not necessary to state "some atheists regard Craig as an effective debater". However, we should include quotes by prominent atheists such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling, etc. about Craig to indicate that Craig is indeed notable among the atheist community, or at least among the academic atheists community. Maiorem (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree about whether Craig is actually notable among the atheist community and/or the academic atheists community or to what extent that notability exists. But, more to the point -- I'm not sure that demonstrating his notability in that way is as important as our description of what makes him notable. There's a quote which I provided about Craig's notability within apologetics. It's not saying that he is notable per se but does speak about his influence on Christian apologetics. I'm only just realizing this by Craig's relationship to atheism is a little bit difficult to talk about because it's not like he's made any inroads in the atheistic community like he has in Christian apologetics. Kalam is a great example of a lasting contribution that he's made. There's nothing in his critique of atheism except that he has actually made a critique of atheism... but, there's no real reason why Craig's criticism is weightier than anyone else's. Theowarner (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That disagreement is unfounded in light of the amount of quotes we do have concerning Craig by many atheist academicians. Craig's notability within apologetics is a separate issue from Craig's notability among atheists, thus one does not supersede the other. Regardless of Craig's influence on Christian apologetics, Craig's notability among atheists is the issue at hand. Once again, you are in no position to talk about Craig's work among the atheistic community; your personal ignorance of Craig's work cannot be used to justify the impact of his work; this should be left to appropriate representatives of the atheistic community to decide, but as a matter of fact, they have a lot to say about Craig. Kalam is not the only contribution that he's made even though that's what he is most prominent for. William Lane Craig has contributed a section titled "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism and here he has provided for us the unabridged version. Consider that his critique has been published by a reliable and notable third party, that places some real weight to his criticism. Of course, there are many other critiques he has offered of atheism that can be found on his website, and they are weighted in that they are offered by one who holds a PhD in Philosophy and one who holds a Doctor of Theology. Maiorem (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That, by the way, would be an excellent source for a line like "Craig has criticized atheism." Returning to this whole "personal ignorance" of mine, as your put it, you're right that simply because I don't have specific knowledge that Craig is notable among atheists, then it does not follow that Craig is not notable. Nor, of course, does it follow that simply because we can find atheists talking about Craig that he is in fact notable among atheists. "Notable" doesn't mean "has been noted." It's a judgement about relative importance. And, again, we're not actually discussing right now whether Craig is notable or whether Craig is notable among atheists. That's an interesting topic and I'm sure we've touched on it. What seems to be the issue is whether the Harris quote is appropriate for use in the wikipedia page whatsoever and then, whether what it does in the article is appropriate. I would prefer we locate a quote that is plagued by so many issues. Theowarner (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That line does not do justice to Craig's critique on atheism. It would be more accurate to state, as I did, that "William Lane Craig has contributed a section titled "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism." with reference to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Actually, we are still discussing as to whether Craig is notable among atheists, hence the argument as to whether we should include references to Craig by other notable atheists. These issues appear to be manufactured and not inherent, and would not serve to impede its inclusion in Wikipedia. Maiorem (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Theo, have you ever watched the debate where the quote originated from, or at least read through the transcript of the debate? From the context of utterance we can determine what Sam Harris meant when he said that "I just want to say, it’s an honor to be here at Notre Dame, and I’m very happy to be debating Dr. Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists. I’ve actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, “Brother, please, don’t blow this.” So, you will be the judge." How is 'Atheist think X and Sam Harris is a rare exception' more accurate? Of course you are not sure, because you do not have sources to back any of your assertions. Direct quotes do not offer an interpretation or original research, Theo. Allow me to clarify my previous question; I was referring to Craig's notability among atheists, which you disagree with. Maiorem (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that debate and read the transcript and especially the parts in question. As I read the quote, I see many ways that the sentences can relate to each other. I would say that the "fear of God" phrase is a reference a coy reference to the e-mails he received. And that he's asking the audience to judge whether that fear should exist. He's not at all suggesting that that is his own opinion on Craig. Likewise, he's using "atheist" to refer to his e-mails, not to the broader atheistic community. Anyway... You seem to be rebuking me for not have my own sources. I'm not sure what sources you're asking me to provide. We're discussing a single quote. What will other sources do for us? Theowarner (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You see many ways that the sentences can relate to each other, but those are your views and are thus unimportant. "I would say that the..." is also your own personal opinion and is thus irrelevant. "He's not at all suggesting..." is your personal interpretation/opinion and not derived from any explanation offered by Sam Harris regarding his statement and thus requires no consideration. "Likewise, he's using..." what? Are you serious here? That Sam Harris specifically said "many of my fellow atheists" is actually referring to his e-mails, which would mean his intention was to say "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow e-mails"? I must urge you to please seriously consider what you are saying as an editor before coming up with excuses for this quote. Indeed, we are discussing a single quote, and I'm asking for sources which would validate your personal opinions regarding the meaning of the quote or the intention of its utterance, where you completely ignore the context of utterance. Maiorem (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that my interpretations, while being my own, are not irrelevant. Frankly, any interpretation about the quote is worth considering since we are offering the quote and endorsing the quote. We're lending it weight relative to other quotes and relative to the page. When I said that the quote referred to the e-mails, did you really think I meant the e-mails and not the persons who wrote the e-mails? I can't believe that you're being charitable or proceeding in good faith if you understand me in that way. Again, quote-selection is an act of interpretation and I'm concerned that this quote leads to inflammatory and biased interpretations. And, finally, I'm not ignoring the context of its utterance. I am in fact insisting that it's context be respected. It matters a great deal and complicates, especially considering that we will be divorcing it from its context. Theowarner (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretations are irrelevant because you are not a representative of any community. If a non-English speaker were to misinterpret a particular quote which could lead to misunderstandings, would that be enough reason to exclude a quote? No. As far as I see it, your interpretation of this quote is far from valid, and does include a personal bias in the quote. We do not lend it weight; the context of utterance, i.e. the person speaking it, the location at which it was spoken, as well as the event in which it was spoken, are the ones lending weight to the quote. Not you, not me, not our interpretations. Furthermore, you need to be careful with your language, as going by what you said, "he's using "atheist" to refer to his e-mails", when applied to his quote, it would have to mean exactly as I have interpreted it. I am interpreting it as it appears, without making additional assumptions that are not available. What you believe concerning me is not of my concern, nor is it the concern of anyone else. As I have shown, the context of utterance gave this particular quote considerable weight. Thus, quote-selection in this instance does not give it undue weight, but the reason why this quote was selected was due to the inherent weight. Your concern is unfounded and is based on a poor interpretation of the quote. If you respected its context then perhaps you would not have interpreted it the way you did. How we are going to divorce the quote by mentioning the context of the quote baffles me; please explain. Maiorem (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to arrange for a dispute resolution. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethics?

I would like something about WLC's view of ethics, as expressed here [1], that if God orders genocide, because God is good, that genocide is morally acceptable. That certainly solves the Euthyphro dilemma - good is whatever God says it is. (It just makes a mockery of good and evil as we understand them.) --Hugh7 (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source which has noted Craig's view on ethics? Otherwise it's probably not notable enough for a discussion in this article. Huon (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the notability issue but I think that a summary of his beliefs is appropriate. It's interesting because a lot of people think he's just a philosopher and apologist. But, he has a lot of views that seem to get lost in the mix. The one above is one. His views of sexuality are interesting, too. Theowarner (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this article does not need to misrepresent Craig's ethical views. He has never identified himself as a divine command theorist. Although he believes God's commands are always good, they are good only because God commands only that which is consistent with his own nature. The divine nature is the objective standard that gives definition to good and evil, not divine commands. Second, I get the impression that the only reason you would want his views on biblical ethics mentioned is in order to depict him as pro-genocide. And on a side note, he has publicly endorsed fellow Christian philosopher Paul Copan's book, Is God a Moral Monster?, which attempts to acquit God of the charge of genocide on the basis of ancient historical and literary arguments. Theo, Craig's particular views on sexuality are no more pertinent to his Wiki article than his views on illegal immigration. He is most well known as a apologetical author and debater, as an analytic philosopher, and as a philosophical theologian, so his positions on those subjects are more to the point. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree that the article does not need to represent his ethical views, much like his views on sexuality or illegal immigration. You're right that he's known as an author and debator. I'm not sure he's known as an analytic philosopher, however. But, I agree with the sentiment that we should definitely focus this article on the areas where Craig is competent. Theowarner (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis based upon Craig's own book

98.91.11.166 keeps insisting on reinserting the following material:

Craig has worked extensively on the philosophy of time and defends the presentist or A theory of time over and against the eternalist or B theory. With respect to free will, Craig is a metaphysical libertarian and advocates the Molinist solution to the problem of human freedom and divine predestination. In 1979, he authored The Kalam Cosmological Argument, a defense of the argument of the same name.

Given that the source for this is Craig's own book (Craig, William Lane; Sinclair, James D. (2009). "The Kalam Cosmological Argument": 101–201. doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch3. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)), this is mostly blatant WP:Synthesis, as well as inappropriate given the extent to which the article is already cited to Craig-affiliated material (particularly his Talbott CV, to which the bulk of the article is sourced). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd consider a philosopher/theologian's published works to be authoritative sources for his own views. If biographical information can be cited from third-party sources, provided those sources are scholarly enough to understand the nuances of his positions and are not antagonistic toward William Lane Craig (so as to avoid straw men), then sure—diversification of references is important. But for a list of someone's professional views in a biographical entry, it seems eminently reasonable to cite the person expressing those views as the most authoritative source concerning them. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I consider YOUR own interpretation of Craig's book to be YOUR "own views", and thus blatant WP:Synthesis. Please state where in his book he states "I worked extensively on the philosophy of time and defended the presentist or A theory of time over and against the eternalist or B theory." Please state where in his book he states "With respect to free will, I am a metaphysical libertarian and advocate the Molinist solution to the problem of human freedom and divine predestination." This is your interpretation. Please provide WP:SECONDARY sources supporting this interpretation. While you're at it please provide evidence that anybody other than Craig (and his friends) could care less about this book. "To cite the person expressing those views" (even assuming that they weren't heavily filtered through your own interpretation of them), without ANY third-party commentary is blatantly POV and unbalanced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with inserting "philosophy of time" into a list of Craig's areas of interest. But, "worked extensively" is a problem for me. Aside from Craig himself, I'm not aware of any third-party source to substantiate this claim. He's published a few articles on time here and there... a book... From what I can tell, he's a small fish in the field of time. Theowarner (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, someone has to interpret the sources as saying something. So, yes, those are my (reasonable) interpretations of his own words. You are unfamiliar with the person over whose article you've lorded, and for some reason you seem hyper-skeptical about every single claim that has been made concerning his beliefs. Craig is relatively unconcerned with the case for meta-biological "intelligent design" in his books, articles, lectures, or debate presentations, yet it dominates the "Views" section mainly because third-party sources have jumped on him for his weak endorsement of ID. The citations are skewed in an ID direction at the moment and consequently are misleading. It suggests to the reader that creationism is the focus of Craig's philosophy or apologetics; he is not a creationist. I agree secondary source citations should be provided, but wanting to strip a biographical entry of its primary source content is ridiculous, especially considering the subject is alive and a controversial figure. Craig defends Molinism in Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (New York, E.J. Brill; 1991), The Only Wise God (Eugene, Wipf and Stock; 1999), "The Middle Knowledge View" (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), and "Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the Grounding Objection" (Faith and Philosophy 18 (2001): 337-52)—all according to the Wiki entry for Molinism, which names Craig as one of the view's most prominent defenders. Molinism, furthermore, is a proposed way to maintain both libertarianism and individual predestination, so his position on free will is clarified by his advocacy of Molinism. His endorsement of the A theory of time is fully explained in The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2010), The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2010), as well as in Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time (Wheaton: Crossway; 2001), "Timelessness and Omnitemporality" (God & Time: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), and elsewhere in other works. This is why I could claim he has "worked extensively" in the philosophy of time, but if you still feel this language is too generous or exaggerated, then remove it and replace it with something you believe is more suitable. The fact is, there is an abundance of primary source material stating his philosophical and theological views (Obviously these are not merely my private and unsubstantiated interpretations; if you still doubt it, then the Molinism article must need your correction, too.), and it is not inappropriate to cite his books and articles for information concerning his own beliefs. 98.91.11.166 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll jump in here and say that I don't think the quote above can possibly be used in our article. It contains, at least, the following assumption: Craig's work on the philosophy of time is extensive. Personally, I doubt that extensive is true. I've mentioned this before. I think that, ultimately, we will need to substantiate Craig's views by observing those views represented in third party, reliable resources. I think that 98.91.11.166 has done a good job of demonstrated that Craig works in the field of the philosophy of time. This means that the phrase "philosophy of time" deserves some place in the article. That's about it. I see no reason to mention Molinism yet. Oh, and let me say that 'philosophy of time' is already listed as one of Craig's interests. And, finally... Craig doesn't really seem to be notable when it comes to the philosophy of time. Maybe he is. We'd need a source for that, though. Theowarner (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No reason to mention Molinism despite having at least four separate sources where Craig has argued for it, not including his own website where he has presented numerous articles on Molinism? And please allow me to remind you here that self-published works are allowed per WP:SELFPUB. Maiorem (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Relative to Craig's body of work, Molinism may or may not be notable. But, relative to Craig's notability in general, it doesn't strike me as especially notable. What I mean is: Craig get's a wikipedia page because of XYZ. I have difficulty imagining that Molinism is the X,Y, or Z. But, I think this depends on what we going to include as his views. Just a general description of the areas of his publication? In a sense, I'm okay with that. But, when it come to understanding that entire person and what he's doing in the world, his published works aren't entirely representative. His debates are a big part of that and so are some of his other opinions, like his opinions of homosexuality, on the place of religion in public life, his perceptions about Christian persecution, his view of apologetics in the life of Christians and so on. But, all of these views make the article rather incendiary. My inclination is to just keep the article very brief and only mention the most major and most significant ares of his professional life. Debates. And the most general description of his academic life. He's an analytic philosopher and leave it at that. Interested persons can do off-wikipedia research if they want more than that. Theowarner (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)