Eminent Philosopher With Bad Reading Comprehension.
An observably arrogant Stephen Law accuses the world’s foremost apologist, William Lane Craig, of calling atheists ‘liars’ while saying ‘reason’ leads to atheism or agnosticism anyway. Of course, the competent chap would have already noticed the contradiction in the two: how can anyone who gets to his conclusions using reason be called a liar with regards to them? Ask Stephen. Needless to say, anyone can peruse the actual article where Stephen alleges Dr. Craig to have said those things and see for themselves the disparity between what’s actually been said and how it’s been encapsulated.
What Craig did in fact say was that ‘reason’, as it is currently being defined by a modern intelligentsia that’s slanted towards naturalism and materialism, will inevitably be ruling out natural theology as a means to ascertaining truth. Therefore, ‘reason’, so defined, leads one to atheism or agnosticism. This hardly seems like a concession on Craig’s part that ‘reason’ is on the side of Stephen and his ilk, but Stephen nevertheless gives himself pats on the back as though it were, giving us not the slightest confidence in his reading and comprehension skills.
I’m not saying Stephen had unruefully violated some principle of charity here, I’m saying he acted outright dishonestly or incompetently –or both.
You would think claptrap like this –quoting people out of context– would be beneath someone of Stephen Law’s stature, but such is to be expected of someone who’s motivated by hostility and not an actual desire for truth.
(Update, 5/20/2012 : I’m honored Stephen Law thought it important to reply to my post above in the combox below (assuming that’s really him). I think it’s only fair that I share his response (at his own blog), for which I may offer a rebuttal soon –or not.)