Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and other Secondary Sources

There is a rather significant and detailed treatment of some of Craig's views on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument. He's mentioned on other pages, but I haven't taken a close look at those. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This mention is fine, but it does not nearly require the in-depth coverage here. What it indicates is we should mention he is famous for Kalam and that's about it. jps (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also a rather significant entry on him in Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present.

Also, at least the intro as I left it, made no mention of him being "famous" for anything, it was a rather neutral listing of topics that he seems to have worked a lot on. I'll quote it: "Craig has defended and developed the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.[1][9][10][11][12] He has also published work on a historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus.[13] His research on divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All." (emphasis mine)

I will grant that Craig has defended Kalam, but he has developed nothing. None of the sources indicate that he has done so. Rather he has popularized a rather obscure reworking of a famous idea and tacked on some pseudoscience. jps (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the other sections "Craig has worked extensively on a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument," "Craig examines arguments aimed at showing either that God is timeless or omnitemporal." Most of the treatment of his work is like this. The main praise of him is in the Resurrection of Jesus section, which is attributed to 3rd parties, and the awards he's got (honestly the alumni one probably can go).

My honest position is that the intro is fine, the biography section is fine, but the apologetics section should be trimmed down but not eviscerated. It needs to continue to provide an accurate description of his work, since this is his biography. At least some guidance to what the level of material should be (at least for the Kalam section) can come from Craig section of the Stanford article on it. I think there's a path to that trimmed down version from where I left things, and frankly, editing is easier than writing afresh. There has been too much noise, and that's made it difficult to communicate.

I suggest a compromise position of working to increase the inline secondary sources (keeping objections reasonable and not too sharp) and collaboratively cutting down the other parts. What do you think? As a sign of good faith, I'll try to trim the Kalam section. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider that a compromise. It seems we're getting down to brass tacks, which is good, but I am very uncomfortable with this idea of relying on philosophical contortions (as interesting as they may be) in this biography. Look, we have an article on Kalam cosmological argument where the various positions can be outlined in great detail (and are). That's where philosophical matters should be handled. Here we should mention that they exist and nothing more. jps (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. He's a philosopher, and his particular version of "philosophical contortions" on a topic are relevant to and should be represented in his biography, as they are distinct from the "philosophical contortions" on a given topic generally. The Karl Marx biography article summarizes his thought, and doesn't push it off into articles about labor and capital and economics, etc. Similarly, the Bertrand Russel biography article covers his thought in addition to an entire separate article devoted his particular philosophy. It's not solely covered in articles about Analytic Philosophy and Mathematical Logic, etc. Also take a look references on the Marx and Russell pages--they both directly reference Marx and Russell's work extensively in order to describe it, which I personally think is permissible. This article is being held to a higher standard, which may be fine, but it's worth acknowledging. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Covering thought is one thing while propagandizing is quite another. I'm not going to make comparisons to other pages here. I'm going to look at this one. I am fine with summarizing what is noted about Craig. I'm not okay giving him a soapbox for ideas not thoroughly vetted (or, worse, when examined are found to be wanting such as his various claims relating to physical cosmology). jps (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no propagandizing. Do you believe that even describing his thought is propagandizing it? The thing is, the article is a biography about Craig, and it should cover what he thinks even if we think it's wrong as is WP:NOTCENSORED. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Presenting his thought as coherent is propagandizing because it is not vetted by the experts and, when it is, it is roundly rejected. We can present his thought as his beliefs, but to go further than that (as much of the proposed and extant text does) is to violate WP:FRINGE. Craig holds fringe beliefs about physical cosmology. It is not appropriate to present them as fact without attribution. jps (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but avoiding communicating his ideas because some group that you favor as "the experts" has rejected them is censorship, and WP:NOTCENSORED. It's also important to note there is not one group of "the experts" that we're following. We should cover them all: himself, those that support his ideas, those that reject his ideas, secular philosophers, and Christian theologians. However, this being his biography, it's important to put the focus on his ideas, and keep a neutral POV. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not I who favor the group. Physical cosmology is done by cosmologists. It is not done by theologians. That is the place we need to begin from if we are going to talk about physical cosmology at all. To the extent that Craig has talked about cosmology he has not been identified as doing so correctly by experts in the subject. Because of that, we absolutely must couch his claims as beliefs when we find that they are noticed by outside sources. If his beliefs are completely ignored by the relevant epistemic communities they do not belong in Wikipedia. See WP:WEIGHT. jps (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

He's not a physical cosmologist, he's a philosopher and a theologian. If a reliable source says he gets some bit of physical cosmology wrong, we should note it, but the fact that he's cited some physical cosmology doesn't make physical cosmology experts are the only ones that matter here. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but when philosophers/theologians start to comment on physical cosmology, they do so at their own peril. He doesn't just get some of it wrong, he gets it essentially all wrong since he bases his understanding on a relatively nascent development of Big Bang theory which is no longer accepted by anyone in the field. That's neither here nor there, but the point is that we cannot just march through his arguments and declare that there are problems with ideas such as eternal inflation on Craig's say-so. There are, indeed, problems with eternal inflation but Craig, not being a cosmologist, is really unable to deal with the claims on their own terms. Instead, he uses it to propagandize in favor of his beliefs which is totally his right, but we have an obligation to be honest about this to the reader (which is why I proposed sources below that deal with this issue). jps (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering this I tried to look for sources in case WP:PSCI application applied, but other than skeptic blog posts failed to find a serious treatment assessing these unequivocally as pseudoscience (but there are in relation to the topics, if excluding mention of the author). —PaleoNeonate – 16:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Completely unsurprising. What self-respecting scientist would waste their time with such a takedown? This is a very typical scenario. When an idea is not noticed by the relevant epistemic communities, Wikipedia is not supposed to spend time on it. jps (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes —PaleoNeonate – 16:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Divine Omniscience

JPS paired down quite a bit of it "per talk."[1] I might have missed that section, but wanted to codify editors' opinions on that set of proposed edits just so we and future editors have it.

I am fine with the pairing down. The additional paragraphs do go into a bit too much detail on the particulars of the discussion without adding any new information or insight into Craig's position, imo. So, assuming consensus, that section can get a pin in it as done as well. Squatch347 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some more work to be done here (and on the Kalam section, TBH). In particular, I'm not seeing a lot of secondary sources. Can you help identify some? jps (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Object Lesson The First: The Vacuum is not nothing

We've run into our first problem with both Craig and the SEP. The claim is that Craig has (successfully?) identified an untenable counterpoint to those who point out that a universe could emerge from an eternal backgroud of vacuum fluctuations without having a point-of-fact origin. Presumably, the reference that pins this is the following:

We can easily be misled by the language of there being nothing at all, leading to the notion that nothing has being or existence. Heil suggests that nothing might be a precursor to the Big Bang. But this too is a misconception—though one widely held by those who think that the universe arose out of nothing, e.g., a vacuum fluctuation. A vacuum fluctuation is itself not nothing “but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws” (Craig and Sinclair 2009: 183, 191).

Problem here is that definitions of "nothing" are ones that are handled quite cleanly in quantum field theories and general relativity besides. In fact, the famous de Sitter universe solution to the Friedmann Equations posits a type of eternal universe that is static for the very reason that it is "nothing" in a meaningful physical sense. Whether it is metaphysically meaningful is irrelevant since Craig makes his point based on specific physical models and not based on any vague arguments about denotation or the Platonic ideal "nothing". That Craig and the SEP don't understand this is neither here nor there, but it is highly irresponsible for us to report that Craig has successfully offered a rejoinder.

Please let's not push this misconception into Wikipedia. Students have a hard enough understanding the vacuum as it is.

jps (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the point there is the definitions of nothing that "that are handled quite cleanly in quantum field theories and general relativity" are not the same as the philosophical definition.

Regarding "Please let's not push this misconception into Wikipedia. Students have a hard enough understanding the vacuum as it is.": even accepting that you are right (which I don't necessarily), how is that goal relevant to writing the present biography? This is not a science article about the vacuum. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The text as it was written was commenting on vacuum fluctuations as a model feature for certain cosmogonies. The text that said such were rejected by Craig as counters referenced the SEP article which began (but did not elaborate) upon a philosophical and metaphysical question about the definition of nothing. But our text did not explain this and, as far as I can see, neither does Craig. If you can come up with text that shows that Craig explains that he does not believe that physics adequately has a delineation of "nothing" owing to the presence of energy density in the vacuum, for example, I would be happy to include this kind of aside as that ignores the physics. But reading through the sources I see that Craig simply does not care to do this and instead immediately declares that the vacuum is not nothing, which is a scientific claim insofar as it rejects the substance of how quantum field theory plays out in the context of creation and annihilation operators, for example. jps (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Secondary Sourcing

I have attempted to add secondary sourcing to the article, but those sources are immediately being challenged. I have reverted some of those edits for these reasons:

• [2] - This was tagged unreliable source with the edit description "Christian Post is notoriously bad at fact checking" The source is an announcement that the subject joined a university that also lists his other academic affiliations. If there is any evidence that information is incorrect, please provide it. It seems to me that a Christian newspaper would be reliable source for events within that community.
• [3] - This was tagged failed verification with the edit description "There is no indication that he developed this in that source." However, the source says:

Yes and no. On the one hand, the dissertation Craig produced in Birmingham was a retrieval of the "Kalam cosmological argument"—a way of reasoning about the cause of the universe developed by Muslims and Jews between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. On the other, he updated the argument with more recent scientific notions, such as the Big Bang and the laws of thermodynamics. The dissertation was soon published in the form of not one but two books, which went on to become influential and widely discussed in the philosophical literature.

I believe that passage adequately supports the article's claim that "Craig has defended and developed the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God." (developed as in "updated/improved/moved forward"). In my previous edit I reworded the claim to make it less likely someone would confuse "developed" as "originated/created."

- GretLomborg (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not. There is no indication that he "developed" anything except his own machinations. No third-party independent source that isn't a fawning Christian apologist says otherwise. jps (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The article specifically uses the word update and gives two examples. Clearly the medieval Kalam didn't include defense via the Big Bang or Thermodynamics. What, specifically would you expect it to say? Squatch347 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that the addition of modern physics is an "update" or a "development" is the problem here. That's editorializing. Craig appended his haphazard understanding of these points, I don't think there is any disagreement that he places this idea adjacent to Kalam. It's just not a development of such (the original argument is intact). jps (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The source literally says "he updated the argument with more recent scientific notions," so I will change the language to "updated." - GretLomborg (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• [4] This added two "primary source inline" tags and one "unreliable source tag, with no edit description.

The "unreliable source" was to a secondary-source review article of the book "God Over All" in a Christian Theological journal meant to support the article's claim that "His research on divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All." I see no indication that the source is in fact unreliable as a Christian Theological Journal. In any case, the cite was only meant to support the claim that he's done work in on those topics and they're present in his book. There appear to be other reviews of it available, but the one I cited was the easiest to fine online.

They publish incorrect statements a lot. There is no reason to think that they honestly reported any research done by Craig. jps (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this? Squatch347 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just the tone of "His research on divine aseity and Platonism culminated" seems promotional. Also interesting is that in the whole Wikipedia I find no reference to that site (and no article about that particular journal), only on this article. In its own description: "JBTS seeks to provide high-level scholarship and research to both scholars and students, which results in original scholarship that is readable and accessible. As an inter-denominational journal, JBTS is broadly evangelical." It seems to distinguish itself from more mainstream academic journals. —PaleoNeonate – 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It does seem to have a low impact factor, even among journals of that category (0.1 vs 0.3-0.5), so you are certainly right that it isn't in the same category as more mainstream journals. I'm not sure that means it is wrong though or that it publishes incorrect material. I'm not sure the language seems that promotional in light of it being a book review. In that setting it is a bit more neutral as most of the article is describing how the book came about. If you read the last two paragraphs of the review it is, while professionally polite, definitely not promotional. Perhaps some of that summary should be included to provide balance? Squatch347 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The word "culminated" isn't promotional, it means "to end or arrive at a final stage (usually followed by in)" example "The argument culminated in a fistfight." [5]. The current article text of "His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated" isn't promotional, it's a statement his work on the topic reached its final stage with that book. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Describing research that culminated in a result is usually reserved for summarizing empirical rather than opinion-based conclusions. Surely there is a way to put this which would not suffer from such connotations. jps (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a poor source. Let's use better ones. There are hundreds of sources that are better than this. jps (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the source misrepresents Craig's views or the content of his book? That's what the source is being used to support. I think we should leave it in, because it's a particularly accessible review of the book (being available online), but I would welcome to adding references to other reviews of it. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that such sources can be used with attribution to the author about their impression (this is usually done if they are notable). —PaleoNeonate – 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The source is presenting an inflated and WP:PEACOCK version of Craig's statements. Here is the issue: Craig publishes in isolation and while he engages with a certain segment of the philosophical community and on a pop lecture circuit, his work is completely unvetted by Platonists and mainstream academia. I would compare him to the other fellows of the Discovery Institute who suffer from similar marginalization. To claim that they are "researching" or that they have culminations of work is to adopt in Wikipedia's voice a claim of mainstream thought that is simply not correct. jps (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Related to this review, I'm not sure it presents an overly rosy review of Craig's work here at all (see my note above about the last two paragraphs). Again, culminated is not a praise term, it just means end. I think the idea that that term only applies to empirical research is incorrect, or at best anecdotal. If we are going to apply it that way here some kind of editing or style guideline would be warranted for clarity's sake.

I think we also need to discuss the underlying assumption jps is bringing to this discussion; that Craig is marginalized within his field. I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that that is the case. His average number of citations per published paper seems to indicate that his work is actively engaged with and it isn't substantively different than other philosophers of religion. His books are published Edwin Mellen, Oxford University Press, KLuwer, Springer, and others. These are pretty reputable academic publishers. To the extent they reference other fields, that is why publishers have reviewers and editors. Obviously there will be different interpretations of that application and we should include them as well when appropriate, but we shouldn't approach any discussion of any non-philosophic topic as verboten when its reference is a reputable publisher.

The problem here, as I see it, is that the view that Craig is to be treated as de facto WP:Fringe unless shown otherwise is both unsupported, and makes any discussion of the biography essentially impossible. This isn't a wiki page where the sources are Biblioteca Pleyades and Coast to Coast AM; they are Oxford University Press, Springer, and Blackwell Publishers. I propose we should treat those sources as a bit more respectable and, at least, give them some benefit of the doubt. If the presumption of Fringe is to be continued, I think it either needs to be directly addressed here or moved to the mediation discussion for resolution. It has been the underlying viewpoint difference that has caused the majority of issues in this discussion and resolution of how, as editors, we should approach this topic would be productive to moving it forward. Squatch347 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Craig is not marginalized among Evangelical theologians. The problem is that Craig strays from evangelical theology into areas where he is marginalized. We can perfectly well describe the "orthodoxy" of Craig's theology when it comes to Evangelical theology, but we absolutely must not make it seem like his claims regarding scientific points are anything but his interpretation, and, even then, we must only include those claims about scientific points which have been evaluated by actual scientists. This is the universal standard on Wikipedia. To do anything else would be a violation of our rules on WP:V and WP:RS for starters. jps (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is out place to do the fact checking for reliable sources though. I don't think you are arguing that we shouldn't defer to academic journals to do their due diligence, so in what sense are we supposed to be applying our own critique of his work here? Squatch347 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the primary sources is to the actual book that's being mentioned in the sentence, and the other was to other work of his in this area. I have removed the latter cite in my revert.

A cite to a book cannot speak to its import. jps (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

However, it can clarify the book we're speaking about, among other things. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it says nothing about whether the book is important which is what the text that it is being used to support is saying. jps (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

He's worked on "divine aseity and Platonism" and I see no reason not to mention that in the lede. The only reason I'd see not to mention the book would be for space reasons. Like I said in a previous comment "culminated" isn't so much a statement of importance than one of position in the context of his own work. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any indication that anyone other than Craig cares about this book? What sources indicate that it is so important to his biography that it belongs in the lede? jps (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Divine Eternity

I think this section reads a bit wonky and can be paired down a bit. I will take a stab at consolidating the last three paragraphs, which read more like a list than a coherent explanation. This should also remove some reliance on primary sources. Squatch347 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Paring down this article is the Lord's work. Go for it. jps (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is my proposed text: Craig has examined arguments aimed at showing either that God is timeless or omnitemporal. He defends the coherence of a timeless and personal being, but holds that the arguments for divine timelessness are unsound or inconclusive. In response, he gives two arguments in favor of divine temporality. First, he argues that if a temporal world exists, then in virtue of his real relations to that world, God cannot remain untouched by its temporality. Second, Craig says that if a temporal world exists, then in virtue of his omniscience, God must know tensed facts about the world, such as what is happening 'now,' which Craig argues is sufficient for his being temporally located.

Craig notes that acceptance of a B-theory of time would moot these arguments, Craig concludes that one's theory of time is a watershed issue for one's doctrine of divine eternity.

Craig defends his adoption of A-Theory of time in The Tensed Theory of Time (2000) by examining arguments for and against a tensed understanding of time. In The Tenseless Theory of Time (2000), Craig conducts a similar review of arguments for a tenseless construct or B-Theory of time. In these works, Craig espouses a philosophy of time that differentiates between time itself and our measures of it (a classical Newtonian theme); including an analysis of spatial "tenses" to the location of the "I-now", a defense of presentism, and an analysis of McTaggart's paradox as an instance of the problem of temporary intrinsics.

References

I have edited it to the point with which I am comfortable. I am not happy with any of the sources. jps (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that edit is a sound one. Not only does it seem incoherent (since it references mooting an argument, but has removed the argument at play, seeming like it is mooting itself), but it removes discussion of two published works by Springer and Kluwer. Craig's arguments on theories of time and their application to theological issues would seem prima facia worthy of inclusion. I'm not comfortable really paring it down below what is above absent any detailed reason why those additional sections should be removed. Can you add some detail as to why there are problems with that text? Squatch347 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources that indicate that Craig's approach is novel/noteworthy? It doesn't look like that to me. jps (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, as for noteworthy we can start with the article containing four secondary sources already (40% of the sources in the section) that are referencing Craig's approach, we could add any of the below that are citing this work as well if you think it would help. We can add that Oxford University Press thought it noteworthy enough for publication as did several journals that include the associated working papers used to develop the books. Perhaps you can link the wikipedia policy you are basing this request off of? Just want to make sure I understand your request.

As for the references:

Being included in a summary work on the current state of the field usually indicates noteworthiness and novelty of approach [6]

Significant citations of both works which indicates strong interest and involvement with the subject. [7] [8]

Analysis, a leading analytic philosophy journal published a paper that gave rise to these books. Papers, generally, don't publish non-novel works unless they are replication. [9]

Hope this helps clarify. Squatch347 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:PSTS and WP:Independent sources for starters. The only secondary sources you mentioned here was a list: [10]. Which one of these sources do you think we should use? jps (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

What specifically in those policies is being missed here? I'm not sure your comment accurately reflects my response, unless you are using a very different definition of secondary source than is generally used. The first link is a secondary source for the question you are invoking because the compilation editor is not Craig. The second and third links were indeed searches. But every result is a secondary source relating to notability. The last is not a secondary source for sure, but if we have questions about the approach's novelty, its publication is relevant here. Squatch347 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to focus on secondary sources that discuss Craig in order to establish what is most relevant and prominent about Craig's ideas. The issue is not notability. See WP:Notability vs. prominence. The issue, rather, is trying to figure out how to properly weight Craig's ideas. jps (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision of edits

It looks like jps reverted my edits, but then made some additional changes.

Related to the KCA:

No issues with the final status of the changes. I'm not sure how a formal argument isn't an "argument," but the final proposed language is close enough.

Related to the Resurrection:

Could you elaborate on how that is not a better addition? The underlying primary reference relies primarily on that point and the secondary reference supports it. Curious as to your thinking on why clarifying the point and adding a secondary source didn't help.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the claim "the acceptance by the majority of New Testament scholars" is precious. It doesn't deal with the substantive points of fact/historicity which New Testament scholars are loathe to deal with lest they fall into rabbit holes. Rightly so, but this is incidental to our biography. It's as though we said on the biography of Linus Pauling that the majority of orthomoloecular medicine advocates believe vitamin C cures cancer. A true statement, but one that misleads the reader into thinking that there is an acceptance of points of fact in the WP:MAINSTREAM which simply is not there. jps (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your focus has been on fringe science and pseudoscientific theories, but I don't think the sensibilities that you've developed there are as appropriate for philosophy or theology topics. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Craig makes claims about empirical reality which are 100% relevant here and if philosophy/theology is uncomfortable with this it's too bad because that's the playing field Craig has decided to enter. If we wish to deal with Craig's claims, we have to deal with WP:ASF. jps (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes WP:ASF: "When a statement is an opinion ... it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." There's going to be a lot of "Craig says X." here, and there's going to be a lot of "Y says Z about Craig's idea X" too. We're not writing an article about cosmology, we're writing one about William Lane Craig. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement that attribution will go back to Craig generally. To get back to the issue at hand, the idea that we think that there is a straightforward way to bring in "the majority of New Testament scholars" in here is the problem. If we can find some place where this is shown to be relevant to Craig's ideas, I would not object to some sort of framing, but as it is we just have what looks to be an argument from popularity without any context. jps (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a phrasing that would address these issues is something along the lines of:

"Craig's discussion of the evidence for each of these events includes the summary of the field by Dean of Trinity College, John A. T. Robinson that the majority of New Testament scholars accept the traditions of Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea... (Source)

I don't understand "discussion of the evidence". I think instead Craig is discussing what he thinks is evidence. It is not universally accepted as evidence. That's even more awkward, however. I am also not convinced that the dean of Trinity College is a reliable source for surveying all New Testament scholars. jps (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

When you say you don't understand "discussion of the evidence," do you mean what is meant by that term? Generally, I think that term is used to reference a point where an author presents evidence in support of her argument and elaborates on its credibility, applicability, etc.

I would argue a leading New Testament scholar, lecturer and later fellow at Cambridge is a pretty reputable source. Certainly, if its Wiki page is to be believed, he was accepted by his peers as such. Squatch347 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

But Craig does not do a "discussion of evidence". He does an argumentative selection of points in his favor. The problem here is with the word "evidence". It means different things to different people in historiographical contexts and so it is ambiguous here. What's more, just because we have a fellow at Cambridge does not mean we have a reliable source for identifying a consensus. This is especially true when the source is ideologically compromised as this one is. jps (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This also seems to disagree with the source as I read it. In the section cited Craig definitely makes an argument as you point out and supports it with what he sees as good evidence, but he is also referencing dissenting viewpoints and their arguments. That would seem to be a discussion of the evidence by an objective reading, addressing both sides of a point and their relative merits. As for Robinson, I think you'll have to provide a bit more meat to your objection. He was a noted professor at a major university specializing in the exact subject we are talking about. He is noted in the field by other New Testament scholars and his work is heavily cited according to Microsoft Academic. Squatch347 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think we can describe Craig's work as "objective". Even he does not go that far. As far as what you are claiming, I don't think Robinson has done a survey of New Testament Scholars, but I could be wrong. Academics tend to think that everyone agrees with them, and that kind of opinion is not really a good thing to state plainly in Wikipedia especially with regards to argumentative statements about people who are claimed to come from towns that don't have any geographical identity. jps (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Good sources on Craig and Kalam

More sources (1)

I am going to start a new search for biographical sources of William Lane Craig:

• [11] p. 62-63 mentions Craig as famous for popularizing Kalam.
• [12] Chapter 4 contains mention of Craig
• [13] Paper treats Craig as an object lesson in a constellation of thinkers.

These are pretty good sources. They paint an entirely different picture than what our article paints, but they are arguably all better sources than those used in our article.

jps (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think those sources could be useful. The main thing we need now are outlines of Craig's thought on various topics, and such outlines may be able to be found in them. Given the level of contention here, a good result is going to cite quite a number of different sources, including the ones we already have, and paint at least a few different pictures. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No. The main thing we need is an acknowledgement of which of Craig's ideas are noticed by third parties who are not conflicted (e.g., not engaging in propaganda or apologetics but instead are looking critically at his proposals). We only summarize thought when it is universally acknowledged that a person's thoughts are worthy of summary. In our scenarios, we have a controversial figure who is ignored in some venues, derided in others, praised in others. That's the sense in which his thought needs to be described. Trying to republish his oeuvre is unacceptable. jps (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I know you don't like Craig's ideas or and some of the fields he's active in. What I'm asking is basically summed up (from your perspective) in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent, WP:OPPONENT, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES. I should note, I've been trying very hard to work with you, and have lodged no objections to you including opposing viewpoints to give context to Craig's. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We are starting from a fundamental difference of opinion as to how to organize our article as I see it. I think you are arguing that we should summarize Craig's arguments without reference to whether these arguments are noticed by independent third parties. If that is not what you are saying, please clarify. jps (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not my position. My position is that "independent third parties" include third parties in many fields, which includes theology and related areas. I'm interpreting your comments as artificially narrowing the pool of acceptable third parties to exclude those, and excessively raising the bar further in a way that would make the article a poor resource for understanding Craig. "We only summarize thought when it is universally acknowledged that a person's thoughts are worthy of summary" is trivially shown to be a bad criteria for inclusion of them in a biography, because I could use it to excise Marx's thought from his by objecting to its summary and labeling his supporters biased propagandists, making the acknowledgement of its worthiness non-universal. And before you object and say I'm a nobody whose opinion doesn't matter, I'm sure I could find many notable people who think Marx's thought is dangerous to support a similar argument.

I think your exclusionary arguments may be more appropriate for other types of articles, but not a biography of a philosopher or theologian.

Note: I recently had an AFC submission accepted, which may help convince you that my intentions are with the encyclopedia (since you seem to have an interest in astronomy): [14]. Also, you're probably in a better position to expand the article than I am. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If the only commentators who have noticed Craig's positions about scientific points were theologians, I would object to a flat presentation of his beliefs (a problematic direction this article has been going in for some time, it seems). In contrast, if/when his beliefs point to theological points (like, for example, Craig's view on the problem of evil), the notice of a third party theologian would be a reasonable argument that Craig's belief is prominent enough for inclusion in the article. Do you object to that standard? jps (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that there's a distinction between a "general-topic" article and a biography article. Your standard is quite correct for an article on some scientific topic like cosmology, and it would be inappropriate per WP:PROMINENCE aka WP:UNDUE to feature Craig's views in such an article. However, a biography of Craig must take a different perspective, as Craig himself is the topic. This perspective finds support in the actual WP:UNDUE policy: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth) [emphasis mine]." You can think of Craig as a "tiny minority" of one and this is the article "devoted to [the] views" of that minority. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but that means that WP:FRINGE applies and, that being the case, notice of the opinions of the "tiny minority" absolutely have to be had by independent sources from the relevant epistemic community in order for Wikipedia to mention them. See WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean WP:FRINGE applies in any sense. It's just support for the right way forward that is found in the policy you cited, given what seem to be your opinions. That philosophy and theology are not science does not mean they're pseudoscience (and it's a mistake to treat them that way), they're just not science. Also "gets the science wrong" is not pseudoscience, it's most often a mistake. As far as I know Craig makes no claim to be a scientist or that he is doing science, what he's doing is philosophy and theology.

To get to the core issue: what is the purpose of a biography? It's to explain the person to someone who wants to learn about them. Any interpretation of a policy that thwarts that is counterproductive to the purpose of the encyclopedia, and is therefore highly suspect. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter whether philosophy and theology are pseudoscience or just "not science". When Craig says something about a specific science, such as cosmology, and only other laymen comment on it, it is not relevant and should not be quoted. Laymen do not confer relevance to the words of other laymen on a subject where both are laymen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for us to plainly report the points that Craig makes that are in the realm of science without regard to their vetting simply because he "doesn't claim to be a scientist". When Craig talks about scientific results or points to scientific evidence, it becomes necessary for an accurate reference work to verify that his understanding comports with what the scientific evidence is. If there has been no scientifically reliable source that has evaluated Craig's commentary, it then becomes impossible for us to write an article that comports with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR simultaneously. We cannot verify Craig's claim as reasonable/unreasonable without engaging in original research, but to avoid such couching is surely not neutral because it is taking Craig's word for it that he has done the evaluation correctly (as well as the word of other non-experts, I suppose). The goal of a biography is to document the important facts as they pertain to a person as straightforwardly as possible. I think we have some good sources which indicate that Craig's Kalam treatment has become somewhat famous. What we do not have is a consistent evaluation of the scientific claims within the argument. Fortunately, we do not need to go into depth into those to explain his argument, and so that seems the reasonable way forward -- omitting any detail scientific claims that have not been vetted by relevant experts. jps (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "plainly reporting the points that Craig makes," nor am I talking about holding him out as a scientific authority. I'm talking about reporting them in the form of "Craig says X." Again, again, again: this is Craig's biography, the subject is Craig and Craig's thoughts, correct or incorrect. The argument that you're appearing to make, is that we should treat Craig as a scientist (which he's not and no one claims) because he's referenced and talked about science, but excise biographically-relevant content because some Wikipedian may have the opinion that he's incorrect but feel they cannot say so without doing WP:OR. That's the wrong track because what he actually appears to be doing is taking scientific observations (or at least his understanding of them) and using them as input to philosophical arguments in not-science domains.

Honestly, the better approach is to find WP:RS that make the appropriate corrections to his premises, and then present them in a biographically-appropriate way. He appears famous enough that they probably actually exist. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that "Craig says X about the big bang" quite a bit. More than a few of these statements Craig says are incorrect from a basic fact-checking standpoint (though, I will admit, the fact checking when it comes to cosmology can be a bit difficult to do well). If you couple this with the issue that a lot of what Craig says about the Big Bang has been evaluated (as far as I can tell) by no one, it makes it very irresponsible for us to simply say, "Craig says X about the big bang..." and then go on to say what he said without commentary. The problem actually isn't even whether the claims or correct or incorrect. The problem is that they simply haven't been evaluated properly. This means that the best we can do is verify that Craig said them, but as he is not an expert in cosmology, his positions on the subject, having been subject to no editorial attention, do not belong in Wikipedia. It's a delicate balance, of course, because I do agree that we should mention that he popularized the Kalam. I just don't think we can go much beyond that because Craig has been unsuccessful in getting the scientists who deal with the subjects he tries to include in his argument to look at his stuff. That's the sense in which we need to WP:WEIGHT the statements and excise the ones that are unvetted from Wikipedia. I see no alternative. I am happy to say that the best we can do is look for sources that evaluate Craig's statements on science, but such sources must be WP:SCIRS and, if we cannot locate such things, it's not something we can fix. jps (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Accepting your premise that "[Craig's statements about the Big Bang] simply haven't been evaluated properly," there good arguments for keeping what he says about it out of the Big Bang article. It's not a good argument for keeping it out of the William Lane Craig biography article. The bar for including things in his biography article should be closer to "we can ... verify that Craig said them."

The essay WP:SCIRS that you cited lends support for this position. It's first sentence is: "Wikipedia's science articles are not intended to provide formal instruction, but they are nonetheless an important and widely used resource [emphasis mine]." William Lane Craig is not a science article, full stop. It's a mistake to treat it like it's one.

Perhaps a compromise is to preface his statements about the Big Bang, etc. with "Philosopher and theologian Craig says..." to emphasize to the reader that he's not an expert on that, and wiki-link to the appropriate topics so they can find out more. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we simply should not serve to have this article proselytize Craig's beliefs about science. What should not be in this article is any substantive claim about science which has not been noted by scientists. I think that is a very fair standard. We can certainly include claims about philosophy and theology which have been noted by other philosophers and theologians. jps (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just not WP:SOAP to cover the arguments of the philosopher and theologian in his biography, especially ones that have gotten coverage from reliable secondary sources. For instance, the passage that you recently removed [15] was partially secondarily sourced and references him making the rather obvious philosophical observation that the idea that the universe began out of nothing with a vacuum fluctuation is false because to have vacuum fluctuation you need quantum mechanics, which is something: "though one widely held by those who think that the universe arose out of nothing, e.g., a vacuum fluctuation. A vacuum fluctuation is itself not nothing “but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws” (Craig and Sinclair 2009: 183, 191).""

It seems there may be some confusion about what is science and what is philosophy, here, so I've reverted that removal. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not following developments more steadily. Hmm I see a contestable sentence there with a citation needed tag, though. This also raises the parallel question: how did God come out of nothing? —PaleoNeonate – 16:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Craig made a rather obvious philosophical observation that the idea that the universe began out of nothing with a vacuum fluctuation is false because to have vacuum fluctuation you need quantum mechanics, which is something is startlingly awful in the sense that it repeats a common misconception about what is meant by "nothing", "something", and "vacuum". I have outlined the issue below, but, suffice to say, this argument is not even wrong in the sense of physical cosmology and physics generally. It does not deserve inclusion here, polluting Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Like the irreducible complexity argument against evolution of complex biological structures. There's no problem to say that someone believes or promotes it, but it's impossible to start pushing the details without WP:CLAIM everywhere... —PaleoNeonate – 22:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

More sources (2)

Proposing additional sources:

• Carroll, Sean (2016). The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Why does the universe exist?: Penguin. pp. 199–201. ISBN 9780698409767.
• Bradley, Raymond Dynevor (2009). Birx, H. James (ed.). Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, & Culture. Cosmological Arguments - The Kalam Cosmological Argument: SAGE. pp. 220–223. ISBN 9781412941648.

—PaleoNeonate – 20:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There are more but I may not be able to check/post them until tomorrow. —PaleoNeonate – 21:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

More potential sources:

• Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. Bukupedia. 2003. ISBN 9780028657042. - Collection of essays. The Miracle entry at p. 575 is primary as authored by Craig. It presents philosophical apologetics to allow the possibility of miracles and validate pseudohistory (traditional texts and myths). There are passing mentions in other sections authored by third parties: "Cosmology, physical aspects" p. 172, "Time: religious and philosophical aspects" p. 900.

These are more in-context mentions:

• Shermer, Michael (2002). Linse, Pat (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1. Big Bangs, Anthropic Principles, and Christian Apologetics: ABC-CLIO. p. 446. ISBN 9781576076538.
• Young, Matt; Edis, Taner, eds. (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. pp. 13, 129. ISBN 9780813538723.

—PaleoNeonate – 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More:

• Le Poidevin, Robin (2003). Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Must the universe have a cause? Further reading: Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 9781134871117.
• Coyne, Jerry A. (2015). Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. Penguin. ISBN 9780698195516. - Mentions: "What's incompatible?" p. 73, "Faith strikes back" p. 165-166
• Schick, Theodore (2007). Eisen, Arri; Laderman, Gary (eds.). Science, religion, and society: an encyclopedia of history, culture, and controversy. Vol. 1. God and the Big Bang: M.E. Sharpe. p. 373, 376-377. ISBN 9780765680648.

—PaleoNeonate – 16:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lack of consensus and some theses about this biography article

1. William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist.
2. Philosophy and theology are not pseudoscience.
3. The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories.
4. The article William Lane Craig is not a science article.
5. The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work. Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers.
6. The article William Lane Craig is a biography.
7. It is right and proper to directly attribute William Lane Craig's thoughts to himself in his biography.
8. As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article William Lane Craig should cover his thought. Examining the list of featured and good articles from the Philosophers [Biography] Task Force, this is common practice (e.g. Søren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology, Bertrand_Russell#Views, and Karl_Popper#Philosophy).
9. None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, in his biography because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong.
10. The standard of inclusion of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be attributed to him based on WP:RS, keeping in mind WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the William Lane Craig article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support.
11. It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of William Lane Craig in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis.

I think these should be pretty uncontroversial positions, and I'm tired of reiterating them. For the purposes of consensus, any edit that conflicts with them that isn't clearly called for by straightforward and uncreative readings of Wikipedia policy, including redactions that reduce article scope, can be presumed to have my opposition unless otherwise noted.

- GretLomborg (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If William Lane Craig is not a scientist, he should stop talking about science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.50.130 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it encouraging that we are in 80% agreement according to your list. However, the last 20% of disagreement seems to me to be the difference between an article that fawns over Craig's arguments and one that simply notes that they happened and only goes into details where there is documented notice by the relevant epistemic community. To wit:

3 is completely incorrect and I think it is pretty clear that the consensus on Wikipedia has always been that when someone critically comments on a scientific theory it should be included if it has been noticed by relevant experts in the scientific theory (those experts being scientists).

10 is not a good standard. The standard should be: Has Craig's idea been noticed by the experts from the relevant field upon which he is commenting? If this has not occurred, such ideas do not belong explicated in Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm also encouraged that we are generally in agreement about the list, I think it is a helpful baseline for productive discussion. I'd like to explore your understanding of 3. If an author, say an economist, used statistics in their journal article, should we not include that they applied statistical analysis? After all, they aren't statisticians, right? I'm trying to get to a point with 3 where we aren't being the arbiters of what we feel is a good scientific point or not. It would be hard to have us making that call and maintain a WP:NPOV. My concern with your approach is that I think it might be overly restrictive. If a philosopher uses any associated field, they are out of bounds for inclusion. That isn't a warranted limit, i think, there is a reason there are philosophy of science journals for example.

Similar concern with your review of 10. The relevant criteria shouldn't be the underlying experts (say physicists) unless the point being raised is a physics assertion. For example, if Craig were to make a novel interpretation of a physical model not based on a physics paper (ie "looking at the math, I think it does in fact, say X"), then yes, your standard makes sense. However, if he is simply referencing someone else's point to support his own argument, why would we then expect to see physicists going into detail about it? What's more, I think your standard provides the same problem the opposite way. You are looking for physicists to essentially bless off on the philosophic implications of their work, something they are, presumably, not trained for. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's say an economist makes a claim such as "Bayesian statistics proves that supply side economics is correct." If no statistician took notice of this claim, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Wikipedia to simply report this WP:REDFLAG declaration. Philosophers pull from a variety of fields, but when they start to make claims about those fields we have to take a step back and see if the epistemic community has taken note. If not, it's a situation where WP:WEIGHT takes over necessarily. When Craig says that vacuum fluctuations cannot explain the origin of the universe because the vacuum is something rather than nothing, he is making a novel interpretation of a physical model not based on any physics paper that I've seen. jps (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, my point 7 should be interpreted as advocating that Craigs statements should not be "simply reported." An appropriate editorial distance should be kept from them, marking them as things Craig has said, believed, etc.

"When Craig says that vacuum fluctuations cannot explain the origin of the universe because the vacuum is something rather than nothing, he is making a novel interpretation of a physical model not based on any physics paper that I've seen." This is where we disagree. It would be plainly unscientific for a physics paper to comment on philosophical nothingness, because it's not a scientific concept. In order to be science, science needs a physical "something" to study, which a philosophical nothing is not. Science may have invented physical concepts that it labels nothing, but those are different than a philosophical nothingness (and are in fact "somethings" in a philosophical sense). An imperfect analogy that I just thought of is the difference between a powered off computer and a computer running an instance of Conway's Game of Life where all the cells are in the "dead state." The former is actually executing nothing, while the the latter most certainly is executing something (the Game of Life program). You don't need to be a computer scientist to point that out, even if some computer scientist has defined "not executing" as a state in the game with no live cells, and even if that definition is the prevalent one in some local epistemic community.

Craig is operating on one of the boundaries of philosophy and physics, and appears to be remarking on the difference with these comments of his. The philosophical epistemic community has taken note of them ([16]). Furthermore, one could make the argument that the physics epistemic community is overstepping its bounds if it attempts to erase the concept of philosophical nothingness (which admittedly seems to be a difficult one) by attempting to redefine it as one or several physical concepts and expecting that redefinition to take priority.

This is a boundary area, and I would not object to explicitly marking the comments as a philosophical observation to clearly place them on one side of that boundary, but I continue to object to their exclusion on the grounds that they require recognition from the physics community, as that compromises the biography and inappropriately privileges physics over philosophy at the boundaries. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If Craig were commenting on the difference between different ontologies with respect to what we mean by "nothing" (or, as Hawking famously put it, "not even nothing"), that would be one thing. But he's not. Craig specifically and erroneously calls out vacuum fluctuation models as violating singularity theorems in cosmology because of his confusion. Now, it is apparent that Craig does not really understand why quantum gravity models are needed at the earliest time (he is an orthodox relativist in his arguments as I point out above), but, even if you ignore this fundamental mistake, the bigger problem is that he is claiming that a phenomenon cannot exist due to his understanding of the Big Bang singularity when, in fact, the phenomenon exists regardless of your position on the Big Bang singularity. See the issue? In trying to bolster his side of an argument that could have happened in the context of certain philosophical debates about ontology, he ends up making a scientific claim that, as far as I can tell, is completely ignored by scientists. So...

If I had to make a compromise here I would say that it would be fine if you could identify some place in Craig's work where he dealt with the definitional problem of nothing. However, I do not see him doing that. I'm not sure he even understands that's the arena he could operate in -- in much the same way that, for example, metaphor is a perfectly legitimate sidestepping way of avoiding empirical stickiness when it comes to historical claims of a god-human rising from the dead, but Craig is loath to even briefly entertain the possibility that that might be the sense of the story.

jps (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That is an odd comparison though. Let's say an economist did make such a broad claim and it was published in a reputable journal. Is it the wiki editor's role to remove it? After all, we aren't peer reviewers and would expect that the journal is reviewing the content published in it. The problem, imo, with your approach here is that it simply sends wiki down a pov edit hole. It is just as easy to wander over to the quantum vacuum page and strip a peer reviewed physics articles because it "probably didn't consult a philosophy of science" reviewer and it is fundamentally relying on a philosophic interpretation to make meaningful statements. Rather, we can rely on the professionals who run the journals to do the basic due diligence on whether or not a use of an external field is properly sourced and considered.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not required for Wikipedia to report everything someone said. WP:V is not a suicide pact. If we see a problem we are, as editors, empowered not to include it. jps (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be possible to meet your compromise position. A quick perusal of two related to standard quantum vacuum objections revealed a host of cited references. Craig also seems to make the exact definitional point in both of those papers (and you can find it is central to his position every time he argues it on his site it would seem). It is also a similar distinction to the one I encountered in year three of my physics degree or which is offered on the stack exchange explanation [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30973/what-is-meant-by-nothing-in-physics-quantum-physics ;that a vacuum is the lowest energy state of an observed region, or field set not that a vacuum is the lack of all structure, order, and existence. Craig seems to put forward a very different definition for nothing, the state of universal negation, literally ~thing. He points out Prior's argument that to say "nothing exists" is incoherent from a philosophical point of view.

Those would seem to be two very different statements ontologically. Would referencing this clarification in that section meet your compromise criteria?

Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess? But it is somewhat removed from the context of the current text. I would need to see how we would set this up to see if it would fit in the section still. Craig rejecting the vacuum definition of "nothing" is interesting, but it is irrelevant to general relativity which is where he bases his argument in the first place. jps (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no problem with context or relevance, provided that the author is clear on terminology and doesn't equivocate between the ontological and vacuum definitions of 'nothing'. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Using one idea doesn't conceptually negate the other.

A scientific theory constructed from the ground up to define 'vacuuumness' as its minimal state can still be discussed, exposited, refuted or supported using arguments that refer to ontological 'nothingness'. The reason for this is that 'vacuumness' is an observational (a posteriori) construct whereas ontological 'nothingness' is an axiomatic (a priori) truth. The latter enjoys higher epistemological status than the former, and can be applied to any empirical construct irrespective of how exclusively or stringently the empirical minimal state is defined.

The astute will point out that the very concept of 'vacuumness' would be meaningless without the idea of ontological 'nothingness' as part of its underpinning conceptual framework. Watchman21 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

For the references mentioned, I see:

Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman)

Bernulf Kanitscheider. "Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?" Studies on Mario Bunge's Treatise

A.D. Linde. "The Inflationary Universe." Reports on Progress in Physics 47

Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these references are for. They don't seem to be about Craig. jps (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As an aside: replying in the middle of someone's comment makes the discussion harder to follow. If you need to reference what they said, could you just quote who you're replying to instead? I've tried to re-tag the segments of Squatch347's comments and fix some indentation issues so things read as less schizophrenically. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Large compound posts are also very difficult to follow as well. I really don't like the quote/reply technique as it seems cumbersome and harder to follow the flow of the conversation. IF we could all keep our commentary on point and, if we need to start a new discussion start a new section, I would appreciate that accommodation. jps (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In reference to GretLomborg's original proposal, I think this is a good list and support all points.

Points 3 and 10 are valid on their own merit and the objections to them are unsubstantive.

Scientists untrained in philosophy are not qualified as authorities on metaphysical ideas (such as the ontology of nothing). That also applies to cosmological inductions from metaphysical ideas, given that an inductive process spanning the metaphysics-physics boundary requires training in epistemology to interpret correctly. Even if Craig's scientific conclusions happen to be wrong, or at odds with the consensus, training in philosophy is required to exposit why that inductive process is wrong. As inconvenient as this is, it is due to a quirk of knowledge theory stemming from inadequacies in Popper's falsifiability criterion.

Also note WP:NOTFORUM. Some of jps's comments appear to disqualify Craig's cosmological views, not through policy/epistemic analysis of their relevance in the article, but by appealing to personal scientific expertise alone. This isn't really suitable for the talk page. Watchman21 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A couple of points for our Novice editor Watchman21 Read WP:NPA and stop yattacking jps, an experienced editor with orders of magnitude more experience than you. Unlike you, he knows what he is doing. If Craig believes and espouses nonsense, nothing you can say to disqualify criticism, will prevent wikipedia from noting such nonsense. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm sorry if you think my criticism isn't constructive, but it looks like your issue is with Craig himself rather than anything I've written, or my experience as an editor (or jps's for that matter). Please keep things civil and abide by NPA if you're going to cite it within your own comment. Thanks. Watchman21 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Woof, you are in no position to cite WP:NPA and expect other editors to take you seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Detailed Kalam argument

The sources I recently included (some tertiary) also detailed the argument, but included criticism. As such, it seems acceptable to do the same instead of reducing it to a one or two sentence mention, afterall. —PaleoNeonate – 02:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think using those sources makes the most sense, but how to incorporate it is the question. Would we like to try workshopping it here? jps (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why including his formulation of the Kalam argument in the section on his work on the Kalam argument, sourced to the SEP, is supposed to be a pov push. Can you please explain? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The formulation isn't well-couched in terms of notice. This is remediable, however. For example, we can start from Sean Carroll's critique as a guide. jps (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: why is what I wrote a pov push? What does "isn't well-couched in terms of notice" mean? Also, why would we refer to a lower-quality popular-level source when we have a blind-reviewed, scholarly, NEH/NSF-funded source available to us? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I answered your question. I think it is clear that we have momentum to find sources that are written by experts in cosmology rather than the philosopher who does not know a lot about things such as causality as it pertains to cosmological models. I eagerly await an accounting of this idea as it pertains to the scientific claims where relevant. jps (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I still do not know what you mean by "well-couched in terms of notice"--it is unintelligible. Please offer an intelligible reason for your rude POV-push claim. Your opinion of Reichenbach is irrelevant; if you can find RS that discredits either Reichenbach or his SEP article, that would perhaps be relevant. Otherwise, the SEP piece was blind reviewed, it was written by a respected scholar, and the SEP itself is funded by the national science foundation and the national endowment for the humanities. None of these things are true of the very brief popular-level discussion that you found in Carroll's book. If Carroll has written a serious scholarly piece, then we can certainly include it. As it stands, we have Morriston's excellent and thorough critique already cited; that's the kind of quality discussion we should be citing for critique. Finally, although my opinion not really relevant, I will state for the record that I don't think Craig's argument is successful, and I generally disagree with most of Craig's views. This isn't POV push; it's an attempt to improve the article and use the best available sources, just like a real-live encyclopedia author would do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems you lack the competence to understand why we are interested in scientific evaluation. As it is, we have some great sources provided above by User:PaleoNeonate. I encourage you to find some you think are decent to help us workshop here. jps (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Again being nonresponsive. Again, you haven't given an intelligible reason for your rude pov-push claim. Now you've added a personal attack on me. As stated, I'm all for adding high-quality, scholarly sources written by scientists. As stated, the popular-level, very brief Carroll discussion is not such a source. The fact that you would like to add such sources is commendable, but the fact that we should add such sources obviously does not entail that there was anything wrong with my use of the SEP for the statement of the argument. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not been following this talk page since the dispute resolution started, but for the record I want to clarify that your statement that "I think it is clear that we have momentum to find sources that are written by experts in cosmology rather than the philosopher" is mistaken. It is not at all clear: there is a dispute about that very thing. Some people think that sources from philosophy are quite acceptable and preferred to source such things as the formulation of a particular philosophical argument. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to what GretLomborg says, I think jps's response is multiply confused. It's simply untrue that philosophical discussion of a scientific topic counts as a pov push. Furthermore, it counts as original research to claim the philosopher does not know a lot about things like causation in cosmological models, and it's not in line with Wikipedia policies to conclude that therefore the philosopher's work should not be included in the article. In addition, there is absolutely no need for any Wikipedia user to offer an "accounting of" causation to justify their wikipedia entry. Also, the phrase "well-couched in terms of notice" is indeed unintelligible. Not to mention, jps' claim that Shinealittlelight "lacks competence" to understand why we are interested in scientific evaluation borders on insulting, and even if it is not, it is irrelevant to an encyclopedic section on a philosophical argument embedded in a wikipedia biography- we are not doing science here, and the subject of this section is not science. I genuinely see no merit to JPS' concerns where they are even comprehensible. I recommend JPS workshop his explanation for the undo here first, before reverting edits in the article. —Approaching (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

When I opened this section, DRN resolution had closed and editing resumed at this article. This should probably be suspended temporarily since the DRN process resumed. —PaleoNeonate – 20:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hi all, I have opened up a discussion page to conduct the informal mediation. It is located at /Mediation. Your input is appreciated. Steven Crossin 16:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

one of the 50 most influential living philosophers in the world?

The trumpery "and is considered by The Best Schools to be one of the 50 most influential living philosophers in the world" is primary sourced and not notable enough for inclusion here. If it was reported on by secondary sources there might be a case for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two questions here imo that are relevant to inclusion. Is the subject worthy of inclusion here and is the source reliable. The former seems an obvious yes, if we had a source everyone was happy with a subject's influence would certainly be a good inclusion. Notability doesn't apply to the body of an article if I recall correctly, and a subject's influence on their field of expertise is certainly a notable topic.

So the question is source. This is a primary source in the weakest possible manner in that it is an inference made by "The Best Schools" and "Academic Influence" based on impact factor, SEM data, and other citation like material. Per WP:Primary, this source should be fine if we aren't doing any interpretation or inference from it, and I think the quoted section clearly isn't doing that. Nor does this inclusion raise any obvious flags to me based on WP:BLPPRIMARY; it isn't a self-published or blog site nor does it seem to be salacious or unreputable in any way. It seems to meet the standards of WP:PRIMARYCARE in that a general lay person could access the source and validate the statement made here.

I'm not really sure pushing this to a secondary source such as [17] and [18] really get us anything much better.

Side note, if included I think it should be moved out of the lede and to the reception section as it seems to fit more there and isn't a summary of other discussed material.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It striked me as a very promotional sentence, despite Craig's indubitable popularity. —PaleoNeonate – 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Path of Science

Path of Science is a predatory source from Slovakia, and should not be used to support anything on Wikipedia because it fails WP:RS. Please do not restore it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, is there a finding or a source for Path of Science as a predatory journal? Squatch347 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The best freely available sources are https://beallslist.net/ (search both publisher and individual journal) and WP:UPSD. If you have access to Cabell's blacklist, that's also a resource. See also WP:VANPRED (and this section in particular). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the great response. Agreed with your assessment. Thank you for taking the time. Squatch347 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass edit

An IP just added a huge chunk of text [19] "Famous debate against Sean M. Carroll". I am seeing some unreliable blogs that have been cited here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hellom Psychologist Guy. I do know Blog sites are to be generally dismissed, as per WP:RS. But they can be [considered] reliable when they are being cited to attribute something said to the person that is shown as author on wiki. We are not giving info about Aron Wall and citing his blog, rather we are just re-describing what he said and citing his blog. All are like that, Luke Barnes is quoted from his blog site, Sean Carroll is similarly quoted from his blogsite and all are cited for the things that are shown here to have been said by them.

Now, if we were giving info about them, like their height and citing their blog site, then those sources would not qualify to be a Reliable source but that is not the case. I hope I made it understood. Have a good day, --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

When we were discussing this during the arbitration session there was a general consensus against adding specific debate details. I'm not sure adding this contributes significantly to the biography in a way that doesn't include a large volume of other debate run downs.

I think the key, in my mind, is to remember this is an entry not an exhaustive account. Squatch347 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347 Something that makes this debate unique is the way it was met. Even a book has been published about this debate, containing trascripts of the Q&A session. A Christian Radio described both sides to be leading in their respective fields they were representing. Notable-as-per-wiki people like Robin Collins and Don Page wrote reviews about this debate. Richard Carrier, a regular debator with his own Wikipage, commentated on the debate. The others quoted here do not have Wiki page [yet] but they all qualified experts in the area the debate revolved around: Cosmology, theoretical physics and physics. Also quoted was direct speeches by the participants on each other, from their own websites.--81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I can say something about Craig on my blog. For example, I have analyzed his Kalam cosmological argument, destroying each point made from a scientist's point of view. Would you quote that too? I don't think so, and I think you know why.

Blog writers are not equal. Sean M. Carroll is a notable scientist. If he debated Craig and has something to say about it on his blog, it's worth including. If Craig debates non-notable people who happen to write about it on their a blogs, that doesn't really matter and need not be included. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist I agree with you. I quoted Robin Collins, who was Craig's partner in the same debate, he is a philosopher with a degree in math and physics. I quoted Luke Barnes, who himself debated Sean M. Carroll and is a regular host in such events. All the quoted ones, IMO, qualify to be here. Read my comment I said to Squatch347. Here I reproduce it: "Something that makes this debate unique is the way it was met. Even a book has been published about this debate, containing trascripts of the Q&A session. A Christian Radio described both sides to be leading in their respective fields they were representing. Notable-as-per-wiki people like Robin Collins and Don Page wrote reviews about this debate. Richard Carrier, a regular debator with his own Wikipage, commentated on the debate. The others quoted here do not have Wiki page [yet] but they all qualified experts in the area the debate revolved around: Cosmology, theoretical physics and physics. Also quoted was direct speeches by the participants on each other, from their own websites." If interest on this debate rises a bit more, then this debate may even qualify to have a wiki page on it is own. This debate is certainly worthy to have its section here, IMO. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Robin Collins, Richard Carrier, and Don Page (physicist) are all notable, and if they had something to say about debating Craig, it's probably fair game to include. I can't say the same for Luke Barnes, however. Being a debate participant and an event host doesn't make one notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem IP, in my view, is that it isn't the only debate Craig has been part of that was published into a book (this is actually a fairly standard practice) or that was covered on the media sites. I think a (much) shorter summary would be a fine inclusion, but it would need to be coupled with a summary of other notable debates so that it isn't [WP:UNDUE]. It would, at a minimum, need to be significantly shortened, the current version gives the impression that this single instance is something like 50% of Craig's work. Squatch347 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Then, Squatch347 and Anachronist, which debates you think are worthy? I think his debates against Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman and Cristopher Hitchens were as widely met with interest as his debate against Sean Carroll. His debate against Shelly Kagan also generated public interest. Craig pursuing Richard Dawkins was also met with wide interest. Craig is, arguably, best known for his deployment of Kalam Cosmological Arguement and his debating career. Brief list of his debates would have been good. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a brief list would be a great add. The bigger question, imo, is format. Is this a table? (If so, what data points are we putting in there) Or a summary, bullet list? (Which might be harder as it would have text we'd need to format for each debate). We need to be aware that a discussion of this type has occurred in the past [20].

Perhaps the best next step is to agree what format it should take then we throw some names up on the list and see if we have the relevant sources for them. Squatch347 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to reception section

"In September, 2021 Craig was ranked as the 10th most influential person in philosophy and 3rd in Theology since 1990 by Academic Influence which uses artificial intelligence to measure impact by academics and institutions."

References

Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: Does AcademicInfluence.com carry weight? I've personally never heard of it, but if it's something that's widely understood to have importance in its area (such as the U.S. News and World Report rankings for undergraduate institutions), then it might. Otherwise, I'd prefer to omit it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it either (but then neither do I particularly pay attention to that area), but it is notable enough to have been mentioned by Forbes. Squatch347 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to Divine aseity section

I admit I have no degree in philosophy or religion but recent edits to this section seem to have left it unintelligible, "defends a deflationary theory of reference based on the intentionality of agents, so that a person can successfully refer to something even in the absence of some extra-mental thing" makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it isn't nonsense, but it is super technical jargon. It might not be a value add from that sense. Squatch347 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)