Eastwooding Richard Dawkins

I’m not posting this one for you. I’m posting it for me. I’m selfish like that.

It’s a video of the greatest Christian apologist to ever debate as he takes on a chair. Mr. Doctor. William … Lane … CRAIG!!!

And that chair represents Richard Dawkins.

As William Lane Craig proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, he can prove the existence of Richard Dawkins as he sat on stage with him in the video above, just not in person, but in deified spirit.

Who else would believe that someone who isn’t there … is there … unless they already had a foundation of believing in something or someone who wasn’t there.

So don’t watch this video.

I have to post it here, so I can remember to watch it later.

 

 

26 thoughts on “Eastwooding Richard Dawkins

  1. God, Jake, you are so right. I’ve been looking for someone with as much awesome input as you my whole life.

    Please, tell me more.

    1. I watched the video. And I’ve seen Craig deliver this same material with other people on a couple stages.

      If you think it’s effective, you’ve set your bar for quality argument too low.

      Craig — as seen here in this video — is a failure.

      1. Since you make no argument am I supposed to take your assessment on faith? Is there something about being some random dude with a blog that would make you an authority that I should trust?

        You see my delimna right? Craig is a PhD published in countless peer reviewed journals and you’re asking me to place my faith in you instead?

      2. “Countless peer reviewed journals” – could you please name them? I very much doubt this to be the case.

      3. In Jakey-Pooh’s defense, W.L. Craig has published in peer reviewed journals. That’s not a dubious claim, whether or not his work has any sort of academic impact is! And as you can see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZlovxLZUM) W.L Craig is indeed an academic midget. Based on the lack of substance of Craig’s arguments and his total absence of relevance in any academic field, I see no reason Dawkins nor any other respectable scientist should even grant Craig one second of his or their time.

      4. Wait, I asked you to have faith … in little old me?

        See how unfulfilling it is to take matters on faith? I’m glad I take it on faith that you have some knowledge about Craig. You haven’t exhibited since you showed up. But I take it on faith that you are loaded with it.

        I made pithy commentary and a judgement about you for considering WLC an acceptable resource.

        If you respond that I needed to bullet point his failures so you could respond whilst stroking yourself because you find his arguments masturbatory enough to invest your precious time on, I feel badly for letting you down.

        You have every right to defend Craig. Give it to me. By all means, use what awesome knowledge you have and tell me why I should change my mind about Craig.

        Use small words that my small-level of intelligence can understand.

        Let’s give you something to start on. Say Craig’s Cosmological argument is correct and it unequivocally proves “God’s” existence.

        Please, by all means, how does that indicate that “God” is the god of Judeo-Christianity, he authored a book riddled with ignorance and contradiction, a book that tells us the most about him, his mystery is still kept secret, and that same god, within a bizarre triune, intervenes in human affairs and subjects his dominion to a thought crime so clever that it becomes a rationale for worshiping this unseen being?

        Answer with as many non-answer answers as you want. I’m used to it.

        GO!

  2. Hey luisv91,

    Do you know what peer-reviewed means? It doesn’t mean every internet-kook who puts together a youtube video or comments on a blog needs to attest to its quality. It means that other highly trained individuals in the subject matter need to attest to its quality.

    So your unsubstantiated opinion doesn’t matter. Your insults don’t matter. Come up with an argument and I’ll be happy to discuss.

    Good luck!

    1. Right, Jake.

      A professor of neuroscience has no idea what “peer-reviewed” means.

      Unsubstantiated is Luis’s middle name.

      Good one!

    2. Jake – To answer your question, yes I do know what peer-reviewed means. I have gone through the process myself on quite a few occasions as I have published in a couple of top tier Neuroscience journals.

      Now my question to you is, did you even watch the video? Because based on the flimsy response here I’d say either you didn’t or you totally suck at comprehending facts.

      Let me explain. The creator of the video I linked to is named Dr. Phil Mason, he’s a university professor and a well published researcher. Had you watched the video you would’ve seen that no one was questioning whether or not W.L.Craig is a published author in peer reviewed journals. That much is fact. What Dr. Mason was pointing out in the video you so carelessly dismissed is the fact that Dr. Craig himself as well as his followers constantly tout Craig’s supposed academic credentials, professionalism, and his importance in the philosophical sciences. To verify this claim, Dr. Mason showed Dr. Craig’s publication record and his citation index. You see Jake, in academia if you claim to be a big shot you have to have the credentials to back it up and the way you do that is by having an excellent impact factor based on your publications in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Mason shows, quite elegantly, that Craig’s citation index is a paltry 2.8. That means that about 2-3 scholars /year cite his work. Then Dr. Mason who, by your own admission, is a kook who puts up youtube videos, shows how he has an impact factor close to 10X that of Dr. Craig’s.

      So you were right about one thing Jake, highly trained individuals have attested to the quality of Dr. Craig’s work. Dr. Craig’s own peers in the field of philosophy, not me, not Dr. Mason, not anyone else, the people in his own discipline have spoken and have found his work to be unimportant and not worthy of discussion as evidenced by his pathetic citation index. Those are the facts!

      You want to know why Craig has to talk to an empty chair? It’s because nobody with more than two brain cells doing actual meaningful research wants to devote time to a hapless, clueless, blathering, oh and ever so unoriginal idiot!

      1. OK, i confess I didn’t watch the video. Well, i watched the first 15 seconds until it seemed clearly biased, fallacious and unuseful and hardly worth comment.

        But based upon your apparently damning argument on Craig’s credentials, I had to do some diligence. Thank you for pressing me, this was a great learning experience.

        Now after watching the whole video, I still think it is biased, and fallacious, but worth 2 comments:

        1. H-index scores should not be compared across disciplines. This is the first thought that came to mind and it was substantiated upon investigation. Certain subjects such as mathematics are not as commonly cited as medicine. By H-index comparison only, a top cited mathematician would have the same impact of a very mediocre cited medical doctor. Similarly, it is misleading to say that the 39,152nd most cited chemist by 2007 H-index (Phil Mason) has more impact in his field that the 14th most cited philosopher of religion (Craig).

        Therefore your conclusion on Craig’s impact is based upon very misleading framing of the data. I’ll give you the benefit the doubt that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. A mistake like this would make you look really stupid had you made it in your field of expertise.

        2. Dr. Mason makes a very similar gaff with his other conclusions on Craig’s methods. He uses a 1 minute clip of Craig on popular television to accuse him of fallacious reasoning in general. This 1 minute clip was not meant as a rigorous refutation of the God Delusion, it was a quick summary of his assessment of Dawkins arguments (not ad hominem). Fortunately, you can the actual point by point refutation in the video fanboy Jer linked and various other public videos that the good doctor has not framed out of context.

        And a final comment, not on the video. Dawkins has actually already debated Craig. So has Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Christopher HItchens, Peter Millican, Stephen Law, Richard Carrier, etc. Apparently none of these people “have more than two brain cells”.

      2. It must be tiring to flex your flabby failure muscles so willingly.

        You find bias and you avoid it? You admit openly that you remain willfully ignorant?

        While most of us sit through videos like the one above, in their entirety so that we can know our opposition better.

        This, Jake, is why you aren’t effective.

    3. Jake,
      As to your point 1. Craig’s H-index is the index WITHIN his own field. It’s calculated by tracking how many people cite Craig within the field of philosophy. It’s not calculated by comparisons against other fields. No matter how you slice it, a 2.8 H-index is a poor H-index by any standard in any field. And while comparing H-indexes across disciplines might not be fair they were meant as a rhetorical device to put Craig’s grandiose claims into perspective. Fact is Craig is nothing special within the Philosophical Sciences despite his claims to the contrary. His publication record is quite clear about this fact therefore my and Dr. Mason’s assessment of Dr. Craig’s impact within the field of Philosophy stand. So you see the data is not misleadingly displayed, it’s your understanding of this data and how it is presented that is faulty.
      As to point 2. I’ve seen short reviews of serious talks and books and none of them use the language Craig used in his clips to provide an unfavorable review. Regardless, I never talked about whether Craig was or was not engaging in ad hom attacks. Whether he did or not is irrelevant to his publication record or his citation impact.
      Also, not once did I say that Dawkins, or anyone else you mentioned, has never debated Craig before or did I? No, what I said is that none of them will debate him which is why he has to talk to an empty chair. There’s only so many times you can refute old and tired arguments before it feels like you’re talking to a wall. These people gave him an opportunity, found him lacking and now ignore him. I know you hate it, but it really is that simple.

      1. 1. I understand that citations are within your own field. That’s irrelevant. As is pointed out in the video, Craig was the 14th highest cited philosopher of religion in 2007. No matter how you slice it, that is a statistic that would support that he does have a high impact on his field.

        Dr. Mason comparing his H-score to Craig’s does anything but put Craig’s score into perspective. It blows it way out of perspective. You must see this. If we were doing this instead on the 14th most cited mathematician (who would also be destroyed by Mason on this poor comparison) you would be quick to concede this point I’m sure.

        2. My comments were on the video. Only relevant to the extent you want to make Dr. Mason an expert assessor of logic. He’s clearly not based upon this video alone. Maybe it was a bad day.

        3. You said “nobody with more than two brain cells doing actual meaningful research wants to devote time…”. My examples should show you that many people with more than 2 braincells have devoted the time to Craig. I don’t care who does or doesn’t debate Craig. I thought the idea of the Eastwooding was funny (thought I’ll admit the execution was lacking). i think Dawkins cowardice is hilarious.

      2. My examples should show you that many people with more than 2 braincells have devoted the time to Craig.

        Dawkins has shared the stage with religious academics as recently as 2011. Dawkins is a snob, apparently, toward non-academics like Craig.

        I don’t care who does or doesn’t debate Craig.

        Your apathy has a funny way of expressing itself with great verbosity.

        I thought the idea of the Eastwooding was funny (thought I’ll admit the execution was lacking).

        Executed well, parodies can be funny. Leave comedy to comedians.

        i think Dawkins cowardice is hilarious.

        So hilarious that you kvetched about it like only a whiny child can.

  3. Jer,

    Re: The cosmological argument

    Is a hammer useless because it doesn’t drive screws?

    Re: The rest of your 4th grade response.

    I’m rubber and you’re glue…

    1. To answer your question about the hammer, Yes.

      Re: 4th grade argument. You’re putting me four grade levels above Craig’s entire conglomerate of arguments.

      I feel … satisfaction. Glory. Honor.

      Your final quip puts you at above the level you’re performing.

      You should feel proud of yourself. You must have a teacher with a big heart for big-time brainwashing.

      1. Re: hammer

        Like the hammer, the cosmological argument is not the only tool in the toolbox to understanding God. So we can put your silly objection to bed.

        Re: ad hominem attacks and non-sequitors

        You really show how weak your position is by responding like this.

      2. I’ll give it to you, Jake. Let’s say that I responded to just one of the tools.

        Bravo. You got me.

        Touch down.

        Jake = 1, Jeremy = 0.

        However, someone who isn’t dumb as rocks (ad hominem!) would know that Craig’s entire argument argues for “God’s” existence, and lacks strength connecting god to the Christian god.

        You may think differently? By all means, that’s your cue to pipe up and school me, us, them.

        If that were the case, the rest of my question is legitimate. It might be fourth grade, juvenile legitimate (according to you), but your perception also doubts that a neuroscientist understands peer-reviewed journals.

        Here’s where you’re a stereotypical troll, Jake. You want to engage and you were arrogant enough to waltz in and write, “The chair did a better job than Dawkins could.” But you added nothing. But you expected more from me. You haven’t shown one iota of understanding. Not to mention, your hammer cliché was hilariously pathetic, especially because you came back and explained it. Priceless.

        Then you came back a second time and superciliously wrote: “Why don’t you watch the video and I can field questions. Craig’s got it down pretty solid.”

        Yes, Craig’s got his arguments down solid, and he’s got you convinced that he’s got them down solid. Yay, for you. You should become Craig’s ambassador on the internet and defend him where ever possible.

        When you run into antagonism — you claim you’ve been crucified, martyred, and downplay your intentions. You hide behind claiming you’ve been attacked and that the opposition is juvenile. You lay down new ground rules as you become defeated, much like a 5 year old on a playground.

        Here’s what is true:

        You aren’t smart.

        You aren’t intelligent.

        You suck at what you came here to do.

        We are giving you a warm round of applause for predictably achieving what everyone like you accomplishes when they wonder onto this blog and pompously say they’re the savior that will make headway by adding nuance to drivel.

        You are like the first 1,000, and 1,000 of your robot clones will represent the next 1,000.

      3. Jer,

        Re: Craig’s argument for a Christian God

        That’s what the moral argument and the argument from the historicity of the resurrection are for. It’s a cummulative case.

        Re: everything else

        You really waste a lot of time saying nothing. Louis is dead wrong, but at least his comments attempt an argument.

      4. You’re a master debater.

        You should pat yourself on your back, your front, where ever the spirit moves you.

  4. Hey Jake,

    I see that you live outside of Chicago. That’s awesome.

    If you ever get to the city, drop me a line. I would love to bend a taco or tipple a beer with you and talk about these matters face to face.

    I don’t bite. And it’ll give you chance to get out of the sticks for a while and see what the big kids are doing. Toughen up that thin skin of yours.

    I’ve got several open dates in late November and early December.

    What do you say? Let’s make a date.

    Sincerely,

    Jeremy

      1. Wow, using an appropriate verb for a situation is reason for sarcasm?

        You come off as a real humdinger.

        My sponsor says I’ll have more time outside my straight jacket late November early December.

        You’re around daily? Great. We’ll get it on the books.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s