Our man Vlastimil puts a question to Bill Craig and receives a thorough answer which excellently concludes:
The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. [. . .]
Quite right. Richard Dawkins may be a good biologist but he is an ignoramus in natural theology as he amply demonstrates in writings which are accorded more respect than they deserve by the uneducated and the half-educated.
You may want to compare Craig's response to my Russell's Teapot: Does It Hold Water?
John,
Part of the problem is that atheists for the most part simply lack the spiritual depth to understand religion. I am quite sure this is the case with Dennett, who is quite clever but spiritually empty. And given that he is a qualia-denier, he may even be a zombie as philosophers use this term.
It is something like this. You and I don't feel any need to familiarize ourselves with the writings of the Flat Earth Society: we know that what they maintain is pure buncombe. To your typical contemporary atheist, especially the militant ones, a theist is on a par with a flat earther.
Thanks for your earlier cat remarks which I didn't have time to answer. How's your cat doing? Last time I checked his 'catitude' was in need of adjustment . . . .
1. Craig himself is not a natural theologian as such (a natural theologian being one who depends on a notion of God that is not derived from authority such as the Bible).
2. His arguments depend on the soundness of existence arguments such as the Kalam. This has still to be demonstrated.
Thanks for the head's up. Now that really rankles me! Why the hell don't they use permalinks?
Thanks to David's comment I see that they have permalinks, but they don't appear where they ought to, on the top of the current page. And there is nothing on the page that says 'permalink' unless I missed it. Now that is crappy site design if you want my humble opinion, or even if you don't want it.
Craig has disussed the Kalam argument thoroughly in many, many places. As for your first point, if someone is not only a natural theologian it doesn't follow that he is not a natural theologian.
Or take Aquinas. He thinks that the existence of God can be proven by unaided human reason operating upon uncontroversial facts. Quinque Viae. Now in those pages of the ST, Aquinas has his nat'l theologian's hat on. But he is not just a natural theologian. Still, he is one.
By the way, I deny that the existence of God can be PROVEN, but it depends on what exactly one means by 'proof.' Nevertheless, good arguments can be given that render reasonable belief in the existence of God. Do you buy that?
I know that, but I said it had yet to be 'demonstrated'.
>>good arguments can be given that render reasonable belief in the existence of God. Do you buy that?
No we logicians believe only in deductive proof.
That sounds right. I think Daniel Dennett is a good example of someone who puts belief in God on a par with belief in the tooth fairy.
Shadow has mellowed a bit with the winter weather. He just wants a warm lap to curl up on most of the time.
Dave