Brilliant mind, but flawed content
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“It's plain that Dr. Craig is brilliant, but I have to offer an honest critique of the podcast and acknowledge that there are some faults that really frustrate me.
First, there are a few basic quibbles I have with the podcast itself, as a product. A few episodes in, they add a "Question of the Week" feature. Two issues with this: first, they recycle the same questions and answers repeatedly (I mean, they literally paste in the exact same audio..."Why doesn't God perform big miracles like the parting of the Red Sea anymore?" Hmmm...let's use this one three times.). Second, they introduce the "QOTW" with loud, jarring music--drum hits and cheesy 80's synth-pop. Beware, you poor car driver, who is startled by this the first time it erupts without warning on your stereo! And frankly, Christians have a problem appearing "dated" and cliche in the media anyways, and using that 80's synth soundtrack just plays into the stereotype.
Second, I don't think Craig is wholly honest about the adversaries whose views he presents in their behalf in order to counter them. Another review mentions that opposing viewpoints are "evaluated in a non-combative tone." Well, sure, you don't HAVE to be combative when you misrepresent them in the first place, making them easier to refute! For example, Craig claims that in "The God Delusion," Dr. Richard Dawkins admits he regards Intelligent Design as science, worthy of being evaluated as such. Craig concludes from this that Dawkins AGREES to include ID as a science, thus supporting the core tenet of the ID movement! But it's not true. Dawkins does NOT regard ID as science, and never has, and never will. What he said is that IF the ID proponents want their views to be acknowledged as science, they deserve to be evaluated scientifically. Dawkins isn't inviting ID into the realm of scientific theory, he's mocking the notion, with a tone of "Oh, you want to be a science, eh? Well, then let's use science to investigate you!" And Dawkins does, and concludes that ID thoroughly flunks. This isn't at all what Craig represents about Dawkins, and from this mess Craig manages to exclaim, "Ooh, Dawkins admits ID can be treated as a science!" Well, no. And Craigs KNOWS this, but he feeds his audience what it wants, anyway, leaving people with the false impression that Dawkins is impressed with ID. Boo.
Finally, I personally find that Craig's apologetics for the existence of God is profound, and very meticulous, but I have trouble with Craig's doctrine. I find Craig to be an inspiring source of data to reaffirm my belief in God, but I simply cannot follow Craig through his theological conclusions. In one podcast, Craig debates Plato's conundrum, "Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" Craig dispenses with either option, concluding that God's being is goodness. He says goodness is God's essence, rather than God being subject to a moral law above him, or contriving moral law by will. Yet Craig abandons this entire premise in a later podcast when he discusses God's commission of atrocities in the Old Testament. Suddenly, Craig falls back on the premise that "something is good because God commands it." Thus, if God commands wholesale slaughter of a nation, including women, children, and animals, it may seem wicked to US but because it is a commandment from God it becomes ethical and even--Craig's own words, here folks--"our moral duty." WHAT?!! So now Craig adopts the "It's good because God commanded it" argument, and he does it to legitimize what Craig himself calls "genocide." In one swoop, Craig hamstrings his own previous argument in order to validate God-directed mass murder. And he does this because the alternative is to admit that the Bible may not be inerrent in its attribution of genocide to God, which locks Craig into a theological premise (that loses), forcing him to abandon FAR more reasonable, moral, and logical explanations.
Craig takes on the issue of Biblical inerrency, and in particular Bart Ehrman. But Craig offers a set of proofs to support the veracity of New Testament manuscripts that sounds good, unless you know better. Frankly, Craig just skips over the ENTIRE breadth of scholarship that has found temendous and meaningful alterations, errors, and omissions in thousands of New Testament manuscripts. Instead, Craig assures his eager audience that the manuscripts are generally cohesive, reliable, and that no substantive variations exist--or none which damages our faith in the NT as a sturdy document. Craig clings to an inerrent view of the Bible, holding opponents up as surly (Ehrman) and self-contradicting, without the slightest acknowledgement of the real, undeiable, plain-as-day differences in texts. This is not theory or conjecture; these texts physically exist, translations are published, and they do NOT agree on key historic points. Craig, however, glosses over this and proposes that we should regard them as reliable in their KV form.
I don't like Craig's theology on "moral values." Sadly, many are turned off by Christianity because of a perception that Christians are unified to the Right, and obsessed with issues limited to abortion and homosexuality. Craig makes mention of Christian "moral values," and then goes on to elaborate...you know what's coming, folks..."such as abortion and homosexuality." AARGH! Another stereotype confirmed! In this ENTIRE podcast series, I never once hear ANY mention of "moral values" that are actually representative of BIBLICAL priorities--not a single mention of poverty, hunger, the poor and oppressed, health care, economic justice--ALL of which are central to Biblical morals in multiple degrees of greater attention than the same two Craig (and other American Christians) tether themselves to..."abortion and homosexuality." As if no other moral values existed, let alone took GREATER prominence in the actual Bible.”Read full review »
Matthewokc via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
06/04/10
More reviews of Reasonable Faith Podcast
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I downloaded the podcast on Dawkins, thinking it would be a conversation w Richard but it was just this guy talking about Dawkins, and what he had to say was boring and self promoting”
JGatsby via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
07/01/11
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Comments on recent debates and interaction with topical issues by WL Craig in an interview format. The debates including the one where C Hithchens made rather a mess of presenting his case are on public record for anyone to view and check. This podcasts gives you the personal angle.”
PeterEsq via Apple Podcasts ·
Great Britain ·
01/26/11
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Wow.....”
FAtBalloon via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
04/07/09
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
