Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bibliography

Is this listing in a particular order? is it worth ordering it chronologically? SolarBreeze (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is he born again?

On his personal website here: [1] he says that when he as "sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ." That sounds like it means he was born again. Am I missing something here? JoshuaZ 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I overreacted a bit to your edit. "Evangelical" seems more appropriate in describing Craig for two reasons.

1. Craig has opted to describe himself as evangelical and conservative but I've never heard him describe himself as "born again" so why would we put words in his mouth? To call Craig a "born again Christian" seems like either a guess or name-calling--neither of which are appropriate for wiki. (Well, unless you can cite Craig self-identifying as "born again", and maybe he does somewhere, but I haven't read it.)?

2. A slew of orthodox Christians down through the centuries have also "yielded their lives to Christ" and had a conversion experience, but no one describes them as "born again Christians," at least not in the contemporary understanding of that label, which, like "pentecostal," has evolved to mean something very specific, and which has a particular stigma that may or may not accurately represent Craig's brand of conservative, evangelical theology. Gilbertggoose 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ok, so would the statement "he became an evangelical Christian at age 16" seem like a reasonable description? JoshuaZ 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something along those lines sounds fine to me. That would definitely work. Thanks. Gilbertggoose 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He calls himself a 'regenerate' Christian, which means born again. Theowarner2 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I am removing the newly added Criticism section shown below--added by "Jason1901"--for the following violations of wikipedia policy:

1. 1. The section is filled with Wikipedia:weasel_words in violation of policy: i.e. "There have been suggestions that Craig..." THERE HAVE? WOW! That is not particularly helpful for an encyclopedia entry.
   2. The section is not written from a Neutral point of view as required by Wikipedia policy. It is clear that the editor has an axe to grind with Craig, rather than simply reporting the facts of his bio. This teeters on vandalism and doesn't cut it for wikipedia standards.
   3. Specific statements are not verifiable: who is criticizing Craig for his "style and approach" in public debates. Who are these "commentators" (only one is cited, and he doesn't have his own wikipedia page--and he is just a layman with a computer and personal website. What books or academic articles has he published in which he criticizes Craig???The links/citations provided need to point to a notable, relevant, and credible critic--not just Joe Nobody's personal webpage. Every public figure has a thousand individual joe-blow critics. So what? My neighbor doesn't like Obama--can I cite him on a wiki? Wikipedia articles require NOTABILITY of all information, including notable criticisms (must rise to the level of being appropriate for an encyclopedia article), before they can be included.
   4. These edits are controversial. You must first attempt to resolve it in the talk pages, do not continue to place your disputed information in. Please look into this: Wikipedia:Edit_war

I am neutral and have no axe to grind on there being a criticism section, but it has to be done right. I thought about rewording it to make it work with policy, but it is just terrible. I would welcome discussing how to do one right, and I wouldn't get in the way of a criticism section that meets wiki policy. Adlucem2 (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

==Criticism==

Craig has been criticized for the style and approach he uses in his public debates. There have been suggestions that Craig uses these forums as an opportunity to preach and evangelize. In addition, many have observed that Craig's arguments which he presents in his public debates are over simplified. Commentators have also noted that while Craig encourages rational debate, Craig himsef admits that even if the evidence went against him, he would still believe in the truth of Christianity[2].

This whole criticism section appears to be based on and is cited to what looks like some guy's blog. Its hostname, JCnot4me, doesn't sound very professional! Just who is this "Mark Smith" guy who says he is author of this "Contra Craig" site? I don't think every academic out there needs a "criticism" section that lists the allegations made by some guy who has set up a "Contra" website. Each criticism should be separately sourced, even it means citing the same website again, since each requires support. The criticisms should be sourced to newspapers, magazines, or even better yet academic journals, etc. I consider myself an inclusionist but I think this whole section has to go as it currently stands on the grounds it has too many problems satisfying WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Creationist?

I am removing the catagories and mention of Craig as a creationist and I am disputing the characterization of Craig as such but am willing to discuss the matter and see if someone knows (with citation) something that I don't. I am aware of Craig's recent posts on his website, but I do not believe that he, at any time, identifies himself as a creationist, or a "progressive creationist." He does voice skepticism of macroevolution--but he has always maintained that macroevolution is compatible with Christianity--he says that his skepticism is not required by his theological commitments. I don't think it is fair to characterize him as a creationist if he himself does not embrace that label. Is David Berlinski, for example, also a "creationist" as he voices similar skepticism (without belief in a god)? Is Francis Collins a "creationist" because he believes, as Craig does, that the big bang carries theological implications? It isn't fair, or objective by wiki standards, to slap a label on someone when that person does not embrace the label (unless Craig has and I am just unaware of it--in which case I will yield upon seeing a citation). Adlucem2 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WLC is NOT a "Young-Earth Creationist". He is a "creationist" (note the use of the lower-case "c") more along the lines of Francis Collins and he (WLC) DOES agree with modern cosmology. I heard him something to that effect (I don't remember the exact words) in a debate I found on YouTube - "Willaim Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert"

Part 11 of 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ejresKtSBg

Part 12 of 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUsMHSeWvaA

The relevent part starts around 8:35 in part 11 and continues into part 12.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Collins isn't a creationist fitting the definition of creationism. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said Collins was a Creationist. I said he was a creationist, meaning that the universe didn't pop into existence uncaused - see Theistic Evolution here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Evolution. Collins is a Christian, not an atheist.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not fitting to refer to Craig as a creationist. Theowarner2 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Analytic Philosopher?

Are there any evidences that he is an analytic philosopher? A Theologian being an analytic philosopher is very bizarre. --Arash Eb (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He has a double PHD: theology and philosophy. And Analytic Philosophy is simply a school of thought within philosophy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what analytic philosophy is but one should have certain characteristics to be within this category.It's the same school as Russell's and Searle's and many other philosophers. I have seen his debates and I can say he doesn't argue like an analytic philosopher. His arguments are like Copleston's against Russell in their famous debates.--Arash Eb (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the article on Analytic Philosophy it "...is a generic term for a style of philosophy that came to dominate English-speaking countries in the 20th century." And, the overwhelming number of philosophers in the U.S. belong to this school. See this note. I would be very surprised if WLC wasn't in this school, but if you have a source that says otherwise, please feel free to add it in. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems he can be an analytic philosophers with contemporary standards and not Russell's era standards.--Arash Eb (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean, since I'm not all that familiar with nuances of the various philosophical positions, but if you have a reliable source that is more specific, then by all means add it in. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources that's why I started this section to find out why he's called analytic.Anyhow it seems right now a much vaster number of philosophers are called analytic than in early 20th century.--Arash Eb (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discovery Institute

Is Craig a fellow of the Discovery Institute? If so, could anyone please supply the relevant evidence? There's a brief entry on him at the DI website, but no official connection between him and the institute is stated.[3] There's no mention of the DI on Craig's CV either.[4] Sir Paul 11:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=85&isFellow=true

Xerxesthepersian (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Craig is not a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Theowarner2 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But..... he is a fellow at the Center for Science and Culture, which is really just the Discovery Institute. I've added an edit.

Here's that link. I don't know how to do citations.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

Theowarner2 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Schools of Thought

The editor Tanzeel has added "Evangelical Christianity", in the infobox, for WLC's philosophical school of thought. When I click on School, "Evangelical Christianity" is not listed. And when I click on Evangelical Christianity, it takes me to a theological school of thought. Can I get a clarification on what this means?

Also, Tanzeel added "a Christian" in the lead, so that it currently reads,

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is a Christian American philosopher and theologian....

Obviously, WLC is a Christian. But I've noticed that other well-known philosophers (e.g., Daniel Clement Dennett) are not identified prominently in the lead as "atheist", "Hindu", or whatever. Is labeling WLC as a "Christian" in the first sentence in the lead necessary? I mean, it seems to place his religious affiliation above his philosophical affiliation. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I got no response, so I'm removing additions by Tanzeel. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William Lane-Craig is as much a theologian as a philosopher, in the field that would correctly be known as "philosophical theology". He clearly works within the evangelical tradition. This is important to be mentioned. Also, his religious affiliation is in this cae as, if not more, important than his philosophical affiliation. He is a Christian apologist (as he too has described himself) and his philosophical work is a manifestation of this. Where a Hindu philosopher's religious affiliation a defining characteristic of his work, it is indeed mentioned. So should this be the case here. Tanzeel (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, he is definitely a Christian theologian, so I have no problem with including that in the lead. I just don't think it is appropriate as the first sentence in the lead. The lead (at least the first sentence) should start off in a generality and then work it's way to the specific.

So, if you would like to add it somewhere near the second-to-last sentence in the lead (in order to make his theological background more specific), you won't get any objections from me. Somewhere near the end of the lead is just a suggestion, by the way, but it seems to be the most appropriate place in the lead to mention his evangelical theological background.

Regarding "school" in the info-box on the right. I'm going to ask the people over at the school page if Evangelical Christianity is also a "philosophical" school. If so, then we can add that back in. Join me over there if you like. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the discussion page of talk:List of schools of philosophy, Evangelical Christianity is not a "philosophical school of thought". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Christian

You know what I find absolutely outrageous? William Lane Craig is clearly an evangelical Christian; so much is clear from the wikipedia page itself. But you won't find any explicit reference to that, and any explicit reference to that is censored by sensitive Christians editors afraid of having the reputation of their hero tainted because of the negative connotations the word "evangelical" has. Any well-informed person can figure it out anyway (Biola University, intelligent design, Discovery Institue, "resurrection is an insdisputable historical event", blah blah blah. But nobody wants to use the word. For God's sake- this is absurd. And then, on top of everything, perhaps out of ignorance or mischief (it couldn't be anything else), they want to categorise him as a "humanist". Jesus Christ. This guy-an evangelical Christian- as a humanist? Do you have any idea what a humanist is? You'd just as well categorise the Heinrich Himmler wiki article under "Jewish pacifists". But what's the point in arguing with these guys? It's like arguing with Lane Craig himself; you'll get nowhere in the face of prejudice and unreason and an indefatigable concern to protect the reputations of their acolytes. Tanzeel (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry much? A label is just a label; the exclusion of it is not bias, but rather sticking the Wikipedia policy No Original Research unless you have a citation for it. I also dispute the notion that being an Evangelical Christian is something one would want to censor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop being outraged. :) I added it in. However, I did a quick search to get an explicit reference to his "evangelicalism" and I couldn't find one. Since it is obvious that he is an evangelical Christian, perhaps it's not necessary. But if you (Tanzeel) have one, be sure to add it (or list the reference here and I'll do it). Ok, are we cool? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just found out that he teaches a weekly class at a Baptist church in Atlanta, Georgia. Does that mean he's a Baptist? I don't know. I'm still searching for a specific reference to him being an "Evangelical Christian". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't found any reference that WLC is an "evangelical Christian". I left two messages on his web site but I got no response. If no one can find a reference, I'm going to remove the reference I added about a month ago. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed "Evangelical Christian". I can't find a reliable source for it and neither has anyone else. Please add back in if a RS can be found. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember from one of his podcasts... the one about the Manifesto... He made a lot of comments about being an Evangelical. I agree with Tanzeel. Craig is an Evangelical. It's not really a sourcable thing but it is not really about disputing it, either. I doubt we could prove that he is a man. Theowarner2 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Without a source to confirm, citing him as evangelical is inappropriate. That said:

1. He graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1974
2. His own website identifies him as an evangelical numerous times:
   • He describes Why I am a Christian as "Essays by leading evangelical thinkers explaining why they embrace Christian beliefs", and notes that it includes a chapter from him.
   • He identifies with evangelical scholars in The Case for Christ: "Lee's Strobel's best-selling evangelistic book features his interviews with evangelical scholars in various fields, including an interview with Dr. Craig"
   • He self-identifies as a respected specialist of evangelist scholars in describing Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide
3. He's an officer of The Evangelical Philosophical Society.
4. He's referenced around the web as evangelical. For example, here.

I'd love to use that talk as our source, if you can find it, Theo. However, with or without it, I don't think there's any doubt which religious label is appropriate in the article. Jess ^talk _cs 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jess. That talk is here. Theowarner2 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of Time

Here is a link that cites WLC's contributions to philosophy of time. There is also this and this and this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that he has written about the philosophy of time. What I am questioning is that he is known for it. "Known for" is not a particularly clear wording. What he is known for is debating and doing apologetics. The rest of it is stuff he does. It's part of his professional life. But, he simply doesn't have a reputation of any real importance in that field. Theowarner2 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have a reputation in the field with whom? Generally speaking, to be known for something can be applied to one's peers (i.e., other philosophers) as well as on a popular level. And he is certainly known by other philosophers as such, and I knew about it because I have heard many of his lectures. By the way, did you notice the price of that four volume set? That's not something I'm going to be buying anytime soon.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did see that price, Bill! Well... I'm afraid the burden is you here. I think it's fair to say that he has contributed to the philosophy of time. "Contributed" sort of suggests a valuable contribution, which I would dispute, but I'll leave that aside. As for his reputation... I just don't see it. Show me something. I think my edit should hold until then. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are looking for. Here's a quote from the first link above:

Edited by L. Nathan Oaklander, a leading scholar in the philosophy of time, this new Major Work from Routledge brings together in four volumes the canonical and the very best cutting-edge scholarship in the field to provide a synoptic view of all the key issues and current debates. (Underline added.)

If he didn't have a reputation among his peers, then he wouldn't have been asked to contribute multiple articles in books that represent "cutting-edge scholarship". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That's pretty unconvincing to me. Craig's work is probably pretty representative of the Evangelical theology. He's not mentioned here or here. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it unconvincing that WLC doesn't have the said reputation if he has contributed to a work entitled "The Philosophy of Time"? That is, PoT is a philosophical pursuit, not a theological one (although WLC has a doctorate in both fields). I mean, are you suggesting that his theological contributions make his philosophical contributions suspect? If so, are you then suggesting that we incorporate his contributions into the wiki article but then mention that they are suspect because of his theology?

Also, I just went to both of those links you listed above and did a search for WLC and got multiple hits. Thus I'm confused as to exactly you are you looking for? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is about emphasis. You are suggesting that when we consider WLC, we should in our first sentence recognize his contributions to the philosophy of time. I don't deny that they exist... he may even have some sort of a reputation within that field. But, the general public going to wikipedia for information, WLC is certainly not 'known for his contributions to the philosophy of time.' That is, if anything, a minor detail about his professional life. It is certainly not why his wikipedia page exists or why he matters as a public figure.

That said... you found him on the pages I listed? Really? Where? I ctrl+F and find nothing. Theowarner2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the air conditioning guy over my house right now giving me a freon fillup. Give me about an hour, and I'll respond to your comment. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Theowarner2 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, I'm cool now. :) What I'm suggesting is that we include WLC's areas of expertise in the first sentence as "summary points" which, after all, is the purpose of the lead section. In any event, how about we restructure the lead sentence so as to put the PoT at the end? Like this:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an Evangelical apologist, theologian, and philosopher known for his contributions to historical Jesus studies, Christian apologetics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of time.

Note, I added in "Christian apologetics" since on both the peer and popular level, that is one of the things he is known for. I also created wiki links to the other areas.

And for your first link (IEP), I did a search and came up with http://www.g oogle.com/cse?cx=001101905209118093242%3Arsrjvdp2op4&ie=UTF-8&q=william+lane+craig&sa=Search&siteurl=www.iep.utm.edu%2Ftime%2F. And for the second link (SEP), I came up with http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%27William+Lane+Craig%27. Therefore, with his contributions in the book(s) "The Philosophy of Time", which establishes his expertise in that area, plus his well-known work in other areas, as noted in the IEP and SEP, it seems abundantly clear that every "summary point" in the first sentence of the lead has a reliable source. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: For some reason, wiki doesn't like google. So, to get to the first link, remove the space between the "g" in goolge and the "o" in google. FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added another link that says WLC is a PoT to my first comment at the top of this section. I'll include it here also. I'll add these sources to the article in the next day or so. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I like your edit. It's still about emphasis though. I propose this:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an Evangelical apologist, theologian, and philosopher, working in the philosophy of religion, specifically historical Jesus studies and Natural Theology, and the philosophy of time.

What do you think? Theowarner2 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would also enable to remove the next sentence, which is just about economy of words to my mind. Theowarner2 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that works for me. I'm going to sleep in about 10 minutes, so go ahead and add it in to the article. If you are already asleep yourself, then I'll be happy to do it when I wake up tomorrow. I'll just do a copy/paste of your above proposal. Have a good night. ... Ok, I see that you added it in. Great. I think it looks pretty good now. Thanks for working with me on this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No... thank you! I'm going to be doing a lot of editing on this page. I hope you'll be a part of that! Theowarner2 (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted Revisions!!

I find many of the revisions on William Lane Craig's wikipedia article (mostly over the month of May 2010) to be unjustified. In particular, theowarner2's (along with his associated IP address 173.9.50.146) systematic revisions seem designed to underscore Craig's reputation by deleting certain phrases in and adding in unnecessary words. Moreover, the qualification of theowarner2 to revise this page to acceptable standards is in doubt. He has expressed on other venues (ie. YouTube) that he believes William Lane Craig is not even a philosopher, which is clearly false. A more standardized page was given for this entry a year and a half ago. I would ask knowledgeable persons to keep this page in check and prevent unnecessary revisions and abuse in the future. A full account of the changes are given below.

Evangelical Revisited

(1) The current page has Craig listed as an evangelical apologist. The word "evangelical" is an unnecessary addition. Other pages for notable Christian philosophers (Alvin Plantina, William Alston, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Robert Adams etc) don't list their denominational or divisional status in the main summary, even though some of them are considered apologists and evangelists. Likewise this shouldn't be the case here. Moreover, Craig isn't a apologist for the evangelical position, as seems to be implied here (this was also stated previously by another editor). For those reasons, the word has been removed. The above section labeled "Evangelical Christian" has a user wanting to put the term in presumably because it represents a negative aspect of the biography of Craig. This is an insufficient reason to add it. Terms should be added in, appropriately to each section, by their relative significance they have in relation to the subject in question.

I'm not convinced that "Evangelical" carries negative connotations. Perhaps it does. But, I think it is important and relevant to recognize that Craig is not an apologist for all Christianity. In fact, I would say he apologizes for a rather small segment of Christianity... that segment is best labeled as Evangelical. Craig is very active in Evangelicalism, as I'm sure you know. He's affiliated with Biola and Talbot, the EPS, the Discovery institute... These are not mainstream Christian bywords... the belong to Envangelicalism. So, I think to say "Christian" is largely distorting the picture. "Evangelical" should be in the first sentence. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is not that the word "evangelical" carries negative connotations (although given your statement above, it would seem that you do think this way). The point is that it's a trivial, unnecessary addition. We don't describe other prominent Christian philosophers of Religion or apologists in this way. For example, Alvin Plantinga isn't described as a Calvininst Christian philosopher and apologist. He's simply described as a Christian philosopher and apologist. The same is true for other biographies of Christian philosophers, both on wikipedia and off it. Likewise the same also holds for people who are not Christians. Again, as an example, consider Richard Dawkins' wikipedia entry. It doesn't describe him as a "strong atheist" in the main summary. It simply describes him as an atheist. It's needless verbiage to add these denominational descriptions of people in the main summary. Finally, your claim that Craig apologizes for the "small segment" of evangelicalism is completely false. Craig, as an apologist, goes out of his way not to argue for the specific tenets of Christianity. Indeed, he often explicitly says right in his debates that he will not argue for the particulars of Christianity (ie. see his opening remarks in his debate with Frank Zindler). His work as an apologist does not focus on Biblical inerrancy, or certain protestant doctrines. He only argues for the common beliefs accepted in each of the 3 major divisions of Christianity. It's also worth emphasizing that Craig is very prominent as a Christian apologist in general. He's not confined to the "evangelical" world of Christianity as you make him out to be. He's prominent as an apologist, period, in addition to his prominent role as a philosopher. Thus is it very misleading to define Craig in this way, since it needlessly separates him to a specific group of people. --Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is very misleading to not mention Craig's Evangelicalism. As much as you suggest that Craig goes out of his way to not argue for the specific tenets of Christianity, this is simply not true. His professional affiliations and character of his ministry are markedly not non-denominational - which is a fitting distinction between Craig and Plantinga, who you mention. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) All these ISP numbers are me. Theowarner2 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Jeremy... here's my offer: Craig is not just a philosopher of a vague form of Christianity. He has made comments against Catholicism and is professionally, philosophically, and theologically committed to a set of ideas which are not subscribed to by all Christians. To call him a "Christian apologist" is therefore omitting important information. So. However you'd like to do it, "Evangelicalism" should appear before the contents and it should appear in the infobox, too. Where do you want to mention it? Theowarner2 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A comment against Catholicism? So what? Alvin Plantinga has made comments against Catholicism too, but no ones giving him the "Calvin Christian apologist title" are they? I repeat, Craig is not an apologist for evangelism. He does not write books against other denominations, he does not publicly debate other Christians on Christian doctrines. He has repeatedly devoted himself to the core Christian doctrines. Therefore to add in the word "evangelical" is itself misleading and hypocritical (in light of the fact that we don't describe other Christian apologists/philosophers in this way). Where should it be mentioned. It shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. What you could mention is the fact that he is evangelical Christian. Mentioning that he is an evangelical apologist wrongly categorizes his work of a certain brand, which it's NOT!--Jeremy 414 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, see Evangelical Christian section. Craig refers to himself as evangelical. It is therefore pertinent. Also, see WP:EW and WP:3RR. Do not edit war. Jess ^talk _cs 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Simply carrying a designation does not license one to promote it in the main biographical sketch of an individual. Yeah, Craig is also a pizza eater. I guess we should add that too in the intro. I gave plenty of reasons why this designation is unjustified and hypocritical. Please respond to those arguments, otherwise it is you, NOT ME, who is abusing your editing power by not considering the arguments of others. And your claim of "edit warring" is not only false, it's offensive. You and theowarner2 somehow get to make massive changes to this article, but the minute I make one simple change back to its ORIGINAL CONTENT, providing plenty of arguments in support of the change, its deemed edit warring. How does that work? So it's OK for you to revert my changes back, but it's not OK for me to undo your changes? That's blatant hypocrisy. Notice that I didn't just change everything needlessly. I let virtually ALL of the changes by you and theowarner2 stay. I even supported some of the changes verbally (see below), but all of that is conveniently ignored by you.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Craig refers to himself as evangelical. No one is "promoting" any ideas. We are simply presenting the information available. If it is pertinent to list his religious affiliation, then it is pertinent to list his self-described denomination within that religion. Wikipedia is not censored, and therefore the removal of sourced and pertinent content is inappropriate. Also, please show respect and keep the discussion civil. Personal attacks are against policy, and frankly, unwarranted. Jess ^talk _cs 01:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how Craig either referring to himself as an "evangelical" or being associated with that word justifies it in the main summary. If it does, then many people, as already pointed out, could be called many things. Craig could be called a pizza eater in the main intro. The only reason I can think of in order to add it to the intro is (1) If Craig only defended evangelical Christian apologetics or (2) Was known by everyone to be simply an evangelical apologist. As I've explained above, however, Craig does not do evangelical apologetics, and he's rarely known as simply being an evangelical apologist. Again, to support this, I will use Alvin Plantinga as an example. He's a Calvinist, but he's not considered by people to be a "Calvinist" Apologist for the simple reason being that he doesn't focus much of his time doing philosophy only in support of Calvinism. For a Calvinist apologist, see James White. As for the advice of keeping the discussion respectful and civil, I absolutely agree and I apologize if I've inadvertently made the discussion get too heated. I've not used personal attacks though.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right that simply that Craig is an Evangelical does not by itself warrant inclusion in the intro or anywhere else, like the fact that he eats pizza. However, pizza does not seem relevant in understanding his entire life-long philosophical and theological project. That he is an Evangelical is very much at the heart of his work. And I think it is a distortion of the character of Craig to omit it. If you have presented an argument to exclude it, other than just asserting its irrelevance, please state it again. Thanks! Theowarner2 (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, just as pizza isn't relevant, neither is the word evangelical relevant to his apologetics. It simply does not adequately denote the kind of apologist he is. You keep saying that his evangelical attribution is at the heart of his work, but as I argued above, in virtually all of his writings and debates, you will not find him arguing for a certain slant of Christianity (ie. such as Biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, literal genesis account etc). The only thing I can think of that warrants the term evangelical is when he talks about his personal views in his "Defenders" Class on his website. But how is that any different than what other Christians do when they discuss their personal views? So just to be perfectly clear here, my main arguments against the term are (1)Craig doesn't do evangelical apologetics. He keeps his defense of theism at the level of central claims accepted by the 3 major divisions of Christianity: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. (2)Craig isn't known really as an evangelical Christian apologist, but usually just a prominent Christian apologist and philosopher. I hope my arguments are clear. Please tell me if I need to explain anything. Thanks--Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to explain anything at all. I think we simply disagree. You think that because his apologetics might be borrowed by non-Evangelicals, he's just broadly a Christian apologist. And I'm saying that when you consider his entire body of work, he is clearly an Evangelical apologist. So, when you say, "he isn't known really as an Evangelical Christian apologist," I would say: "that's all he's known for." But, out perspectives are clearly different. I don't know how to be more objective than exclude from my evaluation of his work everything that he isn't intimately associated with creating or running, like the journals that keep publishing his work, and then I see very little there to be congratulated. Theowarner2 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Theo, I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the labeling of WLC as an evangelical. However, I have a question to ask. If a particular philosopher is an atheist or an agnostic, do you think that their atheism/agnosticism should be stated in the article? I mean, there are other wiki articles on philosophers who are atheist/agnostics that don't have that label in the lead, nor even in the body of the article. That WLC is an evangelical Christian is obvious, but that is secondary to his profession (i.e., he's a philosopher). Thus, if other philosophers in wiki articles are not labeled with their world view (Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, pagan, atheist, agnostic, etc.), then I don't think it's necessary to do so in this article. What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the responses given reflect my answer. It depends. It depends entirely upon whether person in question can be understood in terms of the theological position or not. Ravi Zacharias cannot possibly be appreciated without naming his religion. Bertrand Russell cannot possibly be appreciated without naming his atheism. A philosopher like Charles Sanders Pierce, although he was a theist, can certainly be understood without mentioning his theism. In fact, the WP article on Charles Sanders Pierce doesn't mention his theism until the section on metaphysics and even then, it's not really emphasized. William Lane Craig cannot be understood without naming his Evangelicalism. It defines him very effectively - considering the body his philosophical and theological writings, considering where he works, where he publishes, the sorts of people who give him praise, the sorts of people who read his books, the way he self-identifies, and the way he views other denominations. It's pretty straight forward to my mind. Theowarner2 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If a person is, say, an art philosopher, then his being an atheist or agnostic has little to do with it. But if he's a philosopher whose primary writings are defenses of atheism or agnosticism, then it's worth mentioning. Ravi Zacharias, Tim LaHaye, and Erwin Lutzer, for instance, all use "evangelical" in the opening sentence. That said, I have no strong opinion either way. --B (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The three people you mentioned above are not trained philosophers (as far as I know). But, are you saying that if a philosopher is an atheist/agnostic, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian, then that should be mentioned? I mean, atheists/agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc., all have their own world view which would have an impact on their philosophy. Therefore, shouldn't that be mentioned? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias is a philosopher ... Lutzer is a pastor ... I'm not sure what LaHaye is. There are different branches of philosophy. If someone of one of the religions you mention is a religious philosopher, as opposed to a philosopher of art, history, biology, or some other subject who happens to be religious, then yes it should be mentioned. --B (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Do you have a source that says RZ has a PHD in philosophy? Also, is there any mention in most (if not all) wiki articles of a philosopher who is an atheist/agnostic that is labeled as such in the lead or the body of the article? Finally, there is no such thing as a accredited "religious philosopher", strictly speaking. There are, of course, philosophers of religion, but one doesn't have to believe in a particular religion to be a "philosopher of religion". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Ravi's highest earned degree is a Master's of Divinity and that he has two DD's, both of which are honorary. I don't think he has a Ph.D, earned or honorary. --B (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Has Craig made "contributions" or just "worked"?

Theowarner2 deleted the phrase "known for his contributions to the philosophy of religion...." This phrase, however, very well summarizes Craig's reputation as a philosopher, theologian etc. The current page has Craig listed as "working" in these areas. Craig is not known for simply working in these areas. He's known also for his contributions, and hence the revert made.

The only contribution that I can think of is his contribution of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Mostly, he's known for his debates. Which contributions am I missing? Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Theowarner2, that's ignorance on your part. If you can't think of any other contributions that Craig has made than I suggest you pick up a book on the philosophy of religion or head over to a philosophy engine (ie. Standford encyclopedia of philosophy) to find out. It's not that hard. Look into the philosophy of time, divine omniscience/molinism etc. I can guarantee you that Craig will be cited for his work in those areas. Look up the Molinism article here on wikipedia if you must. Guess who's cited as it's primary defender? That's right, William Lane Craig.

Your tone is drifting away from the professional here. Are you suggesting that Craig contributed Molinism? He didn't. It's had a rich tradition and has been fairly well discussed since Molina. Craig certainly advocates it. He may have even advanced it. But, that's hardly a significant contribution - I would say that it should be discussed in the Philosophy/Theology section. I hope you will dedicate some of you energies to expanding on Craig's Molinism in that section. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a few other problems with this comment. First, even if Craig wasn't known in these areas, why delete the phrase altogether? Why not keep a phrase like "known for his contribution to philosophy of religion" or "known for his work in the philosophy of religion"? Why only downplay his role to "working in so and so"? It's not fair to describe him in this way, especially when other major philosophers of religion are described for their contributions, not simply working in a certain area. Second, your criteria for inclusion is flawed. A biography isn't based simply on what's publicly known about an individual. Sure, he's known by the wider public for his debates. But as an academic he's known for his works in the philosophy of Religion, philosophy of Time, historical Jesus etc. If public knowledge was the only criteria for what gets included in the main summary then Dawkins would be only described as an atheist and scientist, deleting out references to the specifics of his contributions to evolutionary theory.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Dawkins. I do know of Dawkins' contributions to evolutionary theory outside his atheism. So, I think that your analogy is flawed or at least lacking in perspective. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Theowarner2 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Third, your criteria is inconsistent. You delete out passages showing his contribution to certain areas of philosophy, complaining that he's not known, but then conveniently add in references to which he is even less known (ie. his affiliation with the controversial Discovery Institute). By your own criteria then, you should delete references to the DI in the main summary, since Craig is most certainly not known for his role in that organization compared to his public knowledge as a philosopher. The only reason I can think of for describing him in this manner is if one had a motivation to underscore his reputation. --Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right his affiliation with DI and ID is not well known. But, it is important outside its common knowledge. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Theowarner2 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't changed the main summary for a while, but just to reinforce the notion that Craig has made CONTRIBUTIONS, rather than simply "working" in the designated areas already mentioned, consider the following noteworthy quote, and its source:

"(William Lane Craig) has made fundamental contributions in the study of God’s relation to time, traditional arguments for God’s existence (especially the Kalam cosmological argument), and divine and human freedom." --"The 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors"; CollegeCrunch (http://www.collegecrunch.org/)--Jeremy 414 (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point alludes me. CollegeCrunch also lists the University of Phoenix and Kaplan as top schools. And its source for included WLC on the 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors was... ReasonableFaith! Likewise, the word "Christian" entirely makes this a suspect list. To me this just goes to show the importance of being critical of sources. Theowarner2 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem you have here? The "Reasonable Faith" link is simply to direct visitors to a page that is officially host to the recipient's work. It's the same with the other links. They just redirect to the personal websites or pages of the individual. It has nothing to do with how they chose an individual or whether they promote it. Finally, the colleges they list as top schools are ones in the "online distant education" category. It's not listing the top colleges overall in the US. In any case, I think my point easily stands. Craig is known for his contributions, and there are a number of perfectly good sources that highlight this fact.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@Jeremy_414, you'll notice that, for each professor, the information listed is available via the reference provided. ReasonableFaith is listed as the source for the content presented. Since Craig wrote that bio, it is not a reliable source regarding... well, frankly, anything. Please see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. Thanks. Jess ^talk _cs 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if there are a number of perfectly good sources that highlight his contributions, providing them would dramatically help your case. Please refer to WP:RS, and if possible, provide sources which expand on those contributions without relying on WLC's own bio. Jess ^talk _cs 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may, part of my concern with the word contribute is that it implies that Craig's work is good. Craig obviously can't contribute bad work... so the word contribute implies that Craig's work is good. I am sure that this is not an objective position and point of view issues immediately arise. I'm sure that within in certain circles he has a great reputation, but considering his influence upon those circles, we need to be very careful in avoiding language which assumes the quality of Craig's work. I think the most we can do is list the areas of study in which Craig has published material and let the reader make up his/her mind about Craig's contribution. Theowarner2 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Space,Time, and Metaphysics...

(3) The statements about his reputable status as a philosopher of Space and Time and Metaphysics have been added back. Again, these statements (backed with sources) summarize his status well and therefore should be added to the main summary description for Craig's entry. Theowarner2 complains above that Craig is not known for this. Presumably he means this on the public level. This is an insufficient reason not to include it. Biographies of notable intellectuals almost always include what the scholar in question is known for IN THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE.

Mention of his status as a philosopher of space and time and metaphysics should be referenced later in the article. They are simply not significant enough to deserve attention in so prominent a place in his biography. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are!! The main summary is to describe his position first and foremost for his work as a philosopher.

So says you. I think Craig is more recognizable as a public figure. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Theowarner2 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Craig is more known for his work in philosophy than simply doing apologetics, contrary to what you would like to think.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. In fact, I think that's a laughable claim. Of course he's known for his debates more than he's known for his advocacy of tensed time. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, his apologetics is essentially his work in the philosophy of religion, Time, historical Jesus studies etc, whether it's defending the Kalam cosmological argument, the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom, God's relationship to metaphysical time, Resurrection of Jesus studies and so on. His apologetics is carried out on the back of his academic contributions. Therefore an accurate representation of his status as a philosopher in most certainly warranted. Lastly, his reputation in those areas were cited, a point I think you fail to appreciate. Quentin Smith, a well known philosopher who writes within the philosophy of Religion and the philosophy of time stated that Craig "is a leading philosopher of space and time". If Craig really was not "significant enough" in these areas than it would be extremely unlikely he would be given such a distinction of an esteemed colleague. Nor would he ever be given the honor to be President of the Philosophy of Time society. Additionally, his work in Metaphysics was also listed among the most discussed works in the field by Leiter. --Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jeremy_414 Your claim that he is well known for his contributions to "the philosophy of time" seem to hinge on various quotes from WLC's own resume. However, I'm having an extremely difficult time finding these quotes sourced anywhere but Craig's website. Regarding being President of the Philosophy of Time Society, besides being unsourced, it doesn't initially appear that this is a notable accomplishment. The PoTS doesn't appear to be notable in itself, and in fact doesn't even have its own webpage. Could you provide more information on why that's a notable achievement? Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I also would agree that the Philosophy of Time Society doesn't seem to have a webpage. The phrase does appear here, but there's no reference to Craig's inclusion or presidency. Theowarner2 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Molinism? and other topics

(4) Craig is also known for his work on Molinism, divine omniscience, and Jesus' Resurrection. All of this information was deleted out of the main summary, even though those statements were sourced (ie. Robert Kuhn). The statements therefore, have been added back

This aspects should be more elaborated upon in detail in the bulk of the article, not in the introductory paragraph. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, why should this be limited only to the main sections of the article? The main sections are designed to clarify in detail his contributions in these areas. The main summary, however, is designed to highlight his importance in the relevant areas for which he is known (ie. the contributions in philosophy previously described). Thus an adequate description of his contribution to these areas is warranted. --Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think because when we say: "He is known for..." he should list those things for which he is most well-known. Apologetics. I will concede that he is a philosopher and that he has working in the philosophy of time. To what extent that reputation exists is another matter. But, to list every other topic that he's written on is simply not the effort of the introductory area. Theowarner2 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the merit of this criteria for the reasons mostly explained above. Things for which one is most well known publicly doesn't necessarily mean that they should be listed in exclusion to others. Craig is well known in philosophy for his contributions to those areas. The fact that the lay public may be ignorant of those facts should not be used against writing the things for which he is known among the academic community. If so, then most biographies of scholars on wikipedia would probably be empty, since many prominent scholars aren't well known for their contributions to the wider public.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, you're right. If he is well known within the academic community for his contributions to a field, this should be included in the lead (placed based on relative notability). Can you find a source which demonstrates he's well known within the academic community for his work in these areas? Jess ^talk _cs 01:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery Institute Revisited

(5) Craig's affiliation with the discovery institute in the main page is not noteworthy enough to be in the main summary. His membership of that organization is unremarkable compared to his other works as a philosopher, theologian and Christian apologist. This affiliation was already referred to in subsequent sections, as it should be in the more detailed aspects of his work and life. Compare other members of the discovery institute with other wikipedia articles of Christian philosophers or scientists (Plantinga, Collins, Moreland, Tipler, Koons, Lennox, etc). These pages don't list there affiliation with this organization in the main section, mostly due to their unremarkable public and academic position within it. The same is with Craig.

Anyone's affiliation with the Discovery Institute is noteworthy. DI and ID are incredibly rich and vivid issues in the modern landscape. To ignore Craig's hand in that work is to not acceptable or fair to anyone curious about who Craig is. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is where you're inconsistent and apply a double standard. You embrace popularity in one instance (ie. known for debating, but not for contributions to X, Y, Z in philosophy) but then reject it in another to include the discovery institute. How convenient!

Anyone's affiliation with DI is important and worth mentioning. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Theowarner2 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, his role in this organization is extremely insignificant. Consider, for example, that he doesn't even argue for intelligent design in schools, nor does he support the notion that intelligent design in biology is science. Indeed, he has explicitly stated that he doesn't even know if intelligent design in biology is warranted as a hypothesis at all (ie. see his debate with Ayala). The DI, however, is largely known for those controversial positions. Craig is simply a member of that organization supporting research into intelligent design subject matter. The same is true for other prominent philosophers of religion like Alvin Plantinga. Is the Discovery Institute mentioned on his main summary? No, it's not. Craig's academic philosophical work by far outstrips any role he has there (which again, is only his membership). It's all to ironic that you would delete one instance on his role in philosophy and add in another, inferior role with respect to his overall reputation. A better argument for your case here would be to include both references to his contributions to the philosophy of time, historical Jesus studies etc as well as his affiliation with the DI. That at least as some merit as a consistent argument. As it stands now, however, your case for these revisions are inconsistent and is seems suggestive of anti-Craig motives. --Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the level of his involvement that the article reflects. It's the mere fact of his involvement. DI is a highly polemic and controversial thing. In academia, I don't think someone can be fairly represented if their willingness to add their name to the efforts of the DI isn't highlighted. It's a pretty telling thing. I'm not sure why you're mentioning Plantinga. He is not a fellow or an advisor of the CSC or the DI. Craig is. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, this is precisely the point I wanted to make with respect to Craig's work in philosophy of Time, metaphysics, historical Jesus studies etc. It's not whether he's well known publicly, it's his prominent role in those areas that makes it important in relation to the fact that he is a philosopher. In that sense, his prominent role in those areas makes him "known" in that sense. That point aside now, the DI is controversial, but for the following reasons I don't think its noteworthy enough to mention it in the main summary: (1) Craig's role in that organization is extremely unremarkable (he doesn't do any work for that organization. He's simply a member supporting research into intelligent design related questions). (2) Craig doesn't support the controversial things that organization is renowned for. The DI is known for its proposal to teach intelligent design in science classrooms as well as it's anti-evolutionary stance. Craig does not support either positions. He's explicitly stated that he's agnostic on evolution, and that he doesn't even know if intelligent design is warranted as a hypothesis at all, never mind the fact that it isn't science. (3)It seems hypocritical to mention it in the main summary when many other notable scholars who are also members don't have any mention of this in their main summary entries. The reason usually is because of its unimportance in relation to the individual under discussion. I fear the inclusion of the DI in the main summary just needlessly denotes an idea that Craig is actively involved in that organization and supports its membership.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments vs. Demonstration (this one is closed)

(6) Theowarner2 replaced the phrase "there are good arguments for" (theism) with (theism) "can be demonstrated". This phrase misleads and misrepresents Craig's position that theism can be plausibly regarded as true. The above phrase makes it look like Craig holds that theism can be proved true, of which he has explicitly denied is the case.

Perhaps we can find a quote from Craig which summarizes his position more authentically. I would like the article to avoid the implication that the article also believes that theism is ture or can be demonstrated or whatever. Theowarner2 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article makes no such implication. The sentence states that "Craig holds that...". It clearly explains that this is his position and not anyone else's. It couldn't get any more plain or straightforward than that. Why you made this change is beyond me. The point again here was simply to represent Craig's view on the plausibility of theism. Your revision makes it appear that Craig thinks that theism can be proved with certainty (by using the word demonstrated. The change I made has Craig holding that theism is more plausibly true than false. His position is thus less radical than the previous phraseology seems to make him out to be. As requested, here is a quote from Craig: "Some Christians might be troubled by the notion that one's apologetic case for Christianity yield's only probability rather than certainty. But the fact that Christianity can only be shown to be probably true need not be troubling..." ("Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" [third edition] p 55; Crossway Books, 2008). Another quote from Craig: "I'm not espousing absolute certainty...we need to approach these questions with caution and with humility" (William Lane Craig in his debate with Dr. DiCarlo, found in this video at 3:21--Jeremy 414 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. This particular revision can revert. Your thinking is reasonable. 98.217.223.13 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Theowarner2 (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Things not contested

Things that were not changed:

(1) All of the sections involving clarity/better reorganization of the subject matter are still together, including deletions of improper links etc. These changes are perfectly appropriate. Some of the additional information already added previously has also been restored (ie. category section: Craig's alumni status; Wheaton College).

(2) Subtext changes, grammatical rearrangements, hyperlink additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy 414 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Combining Philosophy and Theology & Works and Publications

If there is more than one section here, we need to carve them out. Let's brainstorm it here before we start fighting. Theowarner2 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to proceed with this unless I get some feedback. Theowarner2 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Content proposed for deletion

There's a lot of content in this article which isn't very important. I'm going to start listing it. After a few weeks, I'll delete it unless there really is a good reason to include it.

Craig writes an article

Why does this matter?

In the July 2008 issue of Christianity Today, Craig wrote a cover article, titled "God is Not Dead Yet." In the article, Craig celebrates what he believes is the success of natural theology to deliver arguments for the existence of God. "[New atheism] is blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy," claims Craig. "It reflects the scientism of a bygone generation rather than the contemporary intellectual scene." Theowarner2 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a response. I will delete the above section. If someone restores it, can they do me the courtesy of explain why it's important. Again, why does one article in a popular magazine merit inclusion in a biographical encyclopedia article? Theowarner2 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again theowarner2,

I don't object to the deleting of this passage, mainly because it does seem a little bit random and unimportant in its current form. That said, I think someone could make it more relevant so a citation is warranted. Perhaps you, theowarner, or other editors could make room for more material and/or discussion of Dr. Craig's views that expands the current biographical wikipedia article. Then one could possibly make room for relevant citations such as the one from the "Christianity Today" piece. Just deleting quotes and references may make the article look unnecessarily bare and empty, I fear. There isn't anything inherently wrong with quoting a popular level magazine (if that's what you were thinking) so long as it's relevant (and in this case, I tend to agree with you that it's not as it stands). --Jeremy 414 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting it. I'm not sure that "unnecessarily bare" is a standard here. I think we need to provide a summary of his philosophical/theological views, discuss his public life as an apologist and public speaker, some biographical information, bibliography. That's it. Theowarner2 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Material content does become important in a biography if you don't have enough of it. It seems your deleting a whole bunch of material while not adding in other important information. There's plenty of material to add about Craig. No need to make it dry. You could make any wikipedia entry short if you provide only a simple summary of their views, work etc.--Jeremy 414 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"No need to make it dry"? Really? Most living thinkers don't get such who pages. There's a lot of extraneous information on this page. It's undisciplined. Yes... it needs to be dry. It should be short and prove only a simply summary of their views, work, etc. You put your finger on it! Theowarner2 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bibliographic information written twice

William Lane Craig authored Hard Questions, Real Answers in 2003, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time in 2001, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics in 1994, and co-authored with J.P. Moreland Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview in 2003.

The above passage seems to simply isolate entries on Craig's bibliography and write them out as sentences. I question the importance of this sentence and will delete it if I don't get an explanation of its importance. Thanks! Theowarner2 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Professional journals?

Craig has edited, authored, or co-authored over thirty books and over a hundred articles in professional journals.[1]

As opposed to what? Theowarner2 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers or ministry newsletters would be two examples. --B (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. This particular sentence was deleted, so it's mute. Theowarner2 (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should, by way of completeness, mention that Wikipedia is somewhere that has articles and is not a professional journal. ;) --B (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Finest Christian apologist" quote

Regarding the dispute in the article over sourcing of the "finest Christian apologist" quote, Ravi Zacharias says this of him, "William Lane Craig, probably the finest Christian philosopher around today, was a classmate at graduate school."[5] I listen to Ravi's weekly program and he frequently quotes Craig. I have no opinion as to whether or not this passage should be included ... I'm just throwing this out there since the dispute is over the sourcing of it (sourcing it to Craig's own press kit). --B (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how else to put this but... that Ravi Zacharias says something about William Lane Craig does not establish anything about William Lane Craig. I'm sure that William Lane Craig has said flattery things about Ravi Zacharias, too. If Ravi Zacharias had said that William Lane Craig was the greatest philosopher... greater than Plato, ought we go edit the page on Plato? Theowarner2 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's some judgment involved in evaluating whether an opinion is a reasonable one. Also, millions of people have offered an opinion about Plato, whereas some much smaller number have offered an opinion about William Lane Craig. There are plenty of Wikipedia's articles that cover perception or critical analysis of the subject, so I don't see any particular problem with it from that standpoint. I don't know that I'd consider an opinion from his college (root beer) drinking buddy to be of very much value, unless it were corroborated. If there are multiple individuals who call Craig the finest apologist or some such thing and those quotes are published somewhere other than Craig's book jacket (everyone is the finest whatever on their own book jacket), then it may be worth including. --B (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with its removal. While one may be able to establish notability to include it within the body of the article, a testimonial from a personal friend in no way belongs in the lead. Furthermore, WP:BLP has a short section on this, and I'm not convinced the way the sentence was phrased would meet its standards for tone regardless of placement. That said, thanks for the source B. Jess ^talk _cs 03:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What should his philosophy/theology section include?

Hello -- as we bring a little discipline and order to this page, I notice that William Lane Craig's philosophy/theology section is very unorganized. I propose that we spend sometime in this section developing a short list of what major topics should be discussed and paring down the content. Really, his philosophy/theology should just be a single paragraph with no more than a sentence (two max) for each area of his writing. I can't imagine more than about 8 sentences being needed. For example, it's enough to say: "He is a Molist." We don't need to explain what Molinism is or say that he's an ethusiastic Molinist. So... that's what this section is for. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What should we include?

For the sake of keeping this organized, please simply respond with "I propose this sentence:" and write a sentence.

• Christian Apologetics

I propose this sentence: Craig is the author of Reasonable Faith, a text book of Christian Apologetics. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose this sentnece: Craig is the author of Reasonable Faith, a text book of Christian Apologetics, and maintains an organization called Reasonable Faith with more than a dozen local chapters. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The historical resurrection

I propose this sentence: Craig has published widely on the historicity of the resurrection accounts of Jesus. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Things that Craig is critical of

I propose this sentence: Craig has been critical of liberal theology, metaphysical naturalism, logical positivism, homosexuality, moral relativism, Catholicism and the ideas put forth by the Jesus Seminar. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding homosexuality and Catholicism, are they things that he actively speaking/writing/arguing/whatevering against or is he critical of them only inasmuch as all fundamentalist/evangelical/whatever term you prefer Christians disagree with them? Searching his website for homosexual returns only four hits. Obnoxiously, you have to be logged in to read one of them. One of them is this Q&A answer (one of 163 on the site). Unless there's something more somewhere, I don't know that homosexuality should be singled out for mention. Similarly, searching for Catholic doesn't seem to return anything critical of Catholicism and in one question, he defended the Catholic Church from a reader's question about whether Catholic adoration of Mary constitutes idolatry. So with both of these, unless there is something more, I don't think these should be listed. I have his book Reasonable Faith at home somewhere and can look in it to see if he speaks on either issue in there. --B (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kalam

I propose the following sentence: Craig is often credited with reviving the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. Theowarner2 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and put in whatever you think would improve the article. If there's a dispute, we can start a BRD cycle. Jess ^talk _cs 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Each of those things that you say he is critical of, will need a citation from a reliable source. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user B and user Bill the Cat 7 regarding citation. Craig is not known for his criticism of homosexuality and Catholicism (homosexuality and Catholicism do not appear in any of his major or minor philosophical scholarly works, as far as I'm aware). We need to be representative of the true criticisms that reflect his work and main interests. Moreover, some consistency should apply with the way you add in material theowarner. For example, you deleted out references to Craig's membership in certain philosophical societies claiming that they weren't referenced (I plan to add those back in later when I find credible references for them). The material here should probably be referenced, especially if one is going to add in plausibly dubious references to Craig's critical work. The consensus opinion here should probably take precedence.--99.235.221.92 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to reading those sources because I can't even verify that the Society of Time exists. As for whether he is known for his criticism of homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, I can certainly demonstrate that he has made those criticisms. I refer you to a podcast entitled "West Wing Homosexuality Episode" on 2008/09/22 and "What About Catholicism?" on 2008/11/03. The sentence, as written, isn't about his celebrity for those criticism. Merely that those criticisms exists. And it helps, I think, as a reader to know where Craig stands on more controversial issues, particularly theologically controversial issues. Theowarner (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A pattern of inconsistent, ideologically driven editing has been going on with respect to one user of this wiki page for the past month or so.

It follows the pattern of political attack ads: track down something a politician said, cite the reference (usually to avoid lawsuits), and attempt to make the impression that the statement is a prominent part of the politician's thought.

Attempts to delete or minimize information about William Lane Craig's work in phil of time or the cosmological argument, which have been his main areas of research, while at the same time insisting of referencing relatively scarce comments on homosexuality or Catholicism (but not, say, extraterrestrial life or skepticism, for which there are podcasts), illustrate that the user's edits are agenda driven. This article has gone from favorable bias to unfavorable bias; both are not in line with wiki standards. 75.64.171.153 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"His main areas of research"? Well... there's your view. And I simply find that when I observe Craig over the course of a year, most of his efforts are about apologetics. In this course of year, he puts out one maybe two papers that are debatable mainstream philosophy and maybe a dozen or so apologetic articles. And, of course, there are his 30-50 apologetic speaking engagements a year. Anyway... we're just talking. Are you proposing an edit or just engaging in a little motive speculation. Theowarner (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources / ResonableFaith.org

Per WP:BLP#RS, I've removed 4+ references to WLC's personal website, which make claims about his involvement in other organizations. This article relies heavily on sources published by WLC, which is against policy for BLPs. If new material is added, please make an effort NOT to use reasonablefaith.org, or another site copy/pasting from reasonablefaith.org as a source for the material. Jess ^talk _cs 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, we could use LOTS more sources for a lot of this content. Most claims in the article are currently unsourced. Jess ^talk _cs 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For some general biographical data (eg, where he got is degree from), a self-published source should be ok to use (assuming that there's not some legitimate question as to whether the degree was real or a diploma mill). --B (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that using his personal website as a source for his personal beliefs should be just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.25.22 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)