Christopher Hallquist recently finished a series of blog posts about William Lane Craig. In addition to providing objections to Craig’s various arguments, Hallquist also accuses Craig of dishonesty in his work. In this post, I want to review Hallquist’s evidence for that accusation and figure out if the accusation is justified.
Here is an outline of my basic plan.
- Review the definitions of honest, honesty, dishonesty, misrepresent, lie.
- Summarize Hallquist’s allegations of dishonesty.
- Assess Hallquist’s evidence for those allegations.
Let’s start with honest. According to Dictionary.com, honest means:
1.honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair: an honest person.2.showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings.3.gained or obtained fairly: honest wealth.4.sincere; frank: an honest face.
5.genuine or unadulterated: honest commodities.
Here is honesty.
noun, plural hon·es·ties.1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness.2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.3. freedom from deceit or fraud.4. Botany . a plant, Lunaria annua, of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent, satiny pods.5.Obsolete . chastity.
[dis-on–uh-stee] Show IPA
noun, plural dis·hon·es·ties.1.lack of honesty; a disposition to lie, cheat, or steal.
2.a dishonest act; fraud.
verb (used with object)
Finally, here is lie.
noun1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.3.an inaccurate or false statement.
4.the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
1.1. Example: Daniel Dennett
Hallquist claims that Craig misrepresents Daniel Dennett regarding the kalam cosmological argument. Craig claims that Dennett misstated and caricatured the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument. According to Hallquist, however, this is not so. “Dennett never says he was talking about Kalam–I suspect the argument was, rather, a version Dennett frequently encounters from his undergraduates.”
1.2. Example: Sam Harris
Let us next turn to another ‘new atheist,’ Sam Harris. Hallquist quotes the following exchange between Craig and Harris during the Q&A; period:
Harris: This is the kind of morality that you get out of divine command theory that, again, offers no retort to the Jihadist other than, “Sorry buster, you happen to have the wrong god.”
Craig: But that’s exactly your retort, Sam, that God has not issued such a command, and therefore, you’re not morally obligated to do it.
According to Hallquist, Craig told a “falsehood” about Harris’ retort. Hallquist explains.
I can’t see anything Harris said to suggest that, and Harris’ actual response (“if God is issuing that command, he’s an evil bastard”) is fairly predictable given Harris’ other views. So it’s not clear Craig was lying, but I think at minimum he was guilty of making stuff up about Harris.
Let’s return to the Harris-Craig exchange during the Q&A; period.
Harris: No, if God did, he would be evil. So I can get behind that God, if God is issuing that command, he’s an evil bastard.
Craig: The problem is that you see, on atheism, you don’t have any basis for making that kind of moral judgment.
Harris: I’ve tried to give you a basis, sorry.
Commenting on this, Hallquist explains:
Craig’s second response (“The problem is that…”) may have been Craig’s honest opinion, though I think stating your opinion as if it constituted some kind of rebuttal and as if your opponent had not previously tried to argue against that claim should be frowned upon. But it isn’t as bad as flat-out making stuff up about your opponent.
2.1. Example: Dale Allison
Hallquist discusses the case of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Paul. As Hallquist points out, “we know that hallucinations, false memories, and so on seem to be an important source of religious and paranormal beliefs.” According to Hallquist, Dale Allison makes a similar point in his book, Resurrecting Jesus. In his review of Allison, Craig wrote, “Allison’s discussion reminded me of literature I’ve read on UFO sightings, in which the serious is mixed with the ridiculous, leaving one in great uncertainty about what to make of such experiences.” Hallquist interprets Craig to be (falsely) “insinuating that Allison is just like UFOologists,” when in fact Allison was merely noting parallels between UFO sightings and other reports. On the basis of this insinuation, Hallquist concludes that Craig has “lied” about Allison’s views.
3. Allegation: Craig cannot be trusted to accurately describe what is a fact.
3.1. Example: Craig’s “
Four Facts” and the Resurrection
Craig says there are four established historical facts: Jesus’ burial, empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. According to Hallquist, however, none of these four things can be proven. In his words, “I’m confident that there’s no proof of any of Craig’s four facts.” But, according to fellow Evangelical scholar Gary Habermas, only 75% of New Testament scholars accept the first two of those facts. The same percentage of professional philosophers are atheists, but Craig would hardly agree that atheism is a fact. So why should we believe that Craig’s first two alleged facts are real facts? According to Hallquist, Craig’s claim these four facts are facts is a “big lie.”
4.1. Example: Opponents of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
Regarding the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, Craig inaccurately claims that atheists agree with its second premise, that “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.”
4.2. Example: Richard Carrier
In his debate with Richard Carrier on the resurrection of Jesus, Carrier brought up the historical reliability of the New Testament. In response, Craig denied that the historical reliability of the NT is relevant to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Hallquist concludes that Craig was dishonest for doing so.
4.3. Example: Bart Ehrman
Craig claims that Bart Ehrman is an example of a skeptical scholar who accepts all four of Craig’s facts. Craig bases this on something Ehrman said in 2003. Ehrman changed his mind on the empty tomb, however, in 2006, which Ehrman told Craig about in their 2006 debate. According to Hallquist, this is an example of Craig lying “about what another scholar believes to support his [Craig’s] claims.”
4.4. Example: Stephen Law
In his debate with William Lane Craig, Stephen Law presented the evidential argument from goodness, arguing that it’s arbitrary to believe an all-good God exists rather than a perfectly evil supernatural being (“evil God”). In the debate, Craig announced that Law had “conceded” the kalam cosmological argument. When Law denied that he had conceded the argument, Craig argued that since Law had failed to refute the argument, he had conceded it. Hallquist claims that Craig is using the word “concede” in a misleading way and says that Craig is being “dishonest” in so doing.
In reply to an earlier version of this post, Hallquist clarifies,
I don’t think all the things I cite above are equally bad. Craig claiming Ehrman’s support would be hard to excuse even in isolation, but other things are only really bad in context. For example, Craig’s claiming that the historical reliability of the New Testament doesn’t matter could just be a bad argument sincerely made, but in context of Craig’s other behavior, it looks like part of a strategy of being hyper-selective about what facts he lets his audience be exposed to.
In a post entitled, “Why is Craig so Dishonest?”, Hallquist states that he has “thoroughly documented Craig’s dishonesty.” Thus, it seems clear that Hallquist believes he has shown that Craig is, in fact, guilty of dishonesty.
Now that I have summarized all of Hallquist’s accusations and supporting examples, I am going to stop here so that Hallquist can have a chance to review this post and let me know if I’ve accurately and fairly summarized his position. My next step will be to assess Hallquist’s arguments.
“In Defense of William Lane Craig“: A rebuttal to claims that Craig is not a good philosopher and that he is dishonest.
“More Defense of William Lane Craig“: A rebuttal to HW’s criticisms of Craig’s education