Earlier this week I searched Reasonable Faith and chanced upon this concession from William Lane Craig in a “Question of the Week” response when speaking of how some atheists don’t put forth very good cases:
I agree with you, Arash, that atheism is not an implausible worldview and that therefore the poverty of atheist argumentation cannot be written off to the bankruptcy of atheism itself.
You read that right, Craig conceding that atheism is not an implausible worldview. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of atheism of course, but admitting that atheism is not implausible seems notable enough considering the decades of time and effort he’s put forth into arguing against it.
Craig is also (unfortunately) right about some atheists putting forth an intellectually destitute case for atheism, as I illustrated in Rosenberg’s numerous failures in debating William Lane Craig. The good news of course is that much better arguments and rebuttals are available (and in my series on Rosenberg versus William Lane Craig, I give details on how Rosenberg could have done much better), and there have been some atheists who do a decent job in defending atheism in front of Craig. At any rate, it’s nice to know that one thing atheists and Craig can agree on is that atheism is not an implausible worldview.
No comments:
Post a Comment