Accidentally insightful WLC

According to Christian apologist William Lane Craig (via Apologetics 315):

If Christians could be trained to to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change. Christians would be seen as thoughtful people to be taken seriously rather than as emotional fanatics or buffoons. The gospel would be a real alternative for people to embrace.

What a beautiful quotation. I have two immediate reactions:

  1. Yes, yes, exactly! If Christians could provide solid evidence for what they believe, I would start to take them seriously instead of seeing them as “emotional fanatics or buffoons” — at least when they’re in their religious mindset, not compartmentalizing it. In the absence of that evidence (i.e., in the present world in which we live), the gospel is not a viable “alternative” to reality.
  2. Hmm… it’s interesting that (even WLC acknowledges!) there are all these Christians who don’t have evidence for what they believe, and can’t answer others’ questions or objections. Why, one might ask, do they believe it in the first place? It seriously breaks my brain trying to understand how people can believe things without having reason to think they are actually true.
Leave a comment


  1. I can’t believe I actually agree with WLC on something.

  2. Well said! I recently subscribed to NFQ and added it to my blogroll. I’m a fan.

  3. I have yet to meet an atheist who ever provided proof of his assumptions of the non-existence of the supernatural either.

    Now – that’s proving a negative and all that. I understand. But I haven’t seen a good track record from atheists on backing up the positive truth claims they regularly make either.

    Anyway – I think Craig is simply wrong. Hard evidence would not make people take Christianity any more seriously than they do already. Because it wouldn’t establish anything important for a life of faith.

  4. That cracked me up. Fantastic quote we can all agree with. And your caveat about compartmentalizing was perfect.

  5. mist42nz

     /  June 1, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Here’s a Facebook Meme that’s down your alley (sorry if you’ve heard it before).

    Gods don’t kill people; People with Gods kill people.

  6. satanfornoreason

     /  June 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    On your post about drugs, you show that you have many views about drugs that are evidenceless, and that you have simply because it’s what you’ve been told, either because you’ve heard it through the grapevine, marketing, or propaganda. Just saying, hearsay (what those around you say) and brainwashing (marketing/propaganda) are just as relevant concerning attitudes about drugs as are religious thoughts held by Christians.

  7. Why are you trying to push your validation system onto Christians? (still!!)

    Their validation system IS DIFFERENT. Do I -really- need to list the proofs for that or do you think your own observations will suffice.

    What’s more, your validation system does not hold value in their paradigm. Why would they swap from what they’re doing to something which has no or negative perceivable value in their eyes???

    Your validation criteria (examples): testable, traceable, repeatable.
    Their validation criteria (examples): makes them feel secure, is authoritarian, can be manipulated to fit their leaders desires (ie the chosen people, the demonise enemy, murder is wrong but killing evildoers is path to paradise).

    As you can see your validations will not satisfy what they want. And their validation criteria sure as heck will never satisfy you.

    Is it really that hard to observe/hypothesis…. can run case studies if you wish (…to provide funding 🙂 )

Leave a Reply