William Lane Craig in the Washington Post

On the American Humanist Association's new website for youth:

The American Humanist Association is promoting a new Web site that is designed to furnish children with a naturalistic or atheistic perspective on science, sexuality, and other topics. The stated goal of the Web site is laudatory: “to encourage curiosity, critical thinking, and tolerance among young people, as well as to provide accurate information regarding a wide range of issues related to humanism, science, culture, and history.”

The problem is that those values have no inherent connection with naturalism, which is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that there is nothing beyond the physical contents of the universe. One doesn’t need to be a naturalist in order to endorse curiosity, critical thinking, tolerance, and the pursuit of accurate information on a wide range of topics.

Ironically, the AHA has been remarkably uncritical in thinking about the truth of naturalism and of humanism in particular.

Continue reading the column

Comments

[RonH]

Craig says...

In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments...

Recent, if you think 2001 is recent.

Does it matter? Well, it is hard to say without knowing Craig's reasons for calling Smith's article 'recent'.

But what about the AHA? Has it really thought so uncritically as Craig suggests?

He is the one to shift the burden of proof

For example, why think that naturalism is true?

He is the one offering non sequitor objections

...the 'renaissance of Christian philosophy'

Unless we've dropped the errors of the AHA as a subject, Craig's implying that the AHA is wrong about the truth of naturalism and humanism because theists increased their numbers among academic philosophers between the 1960's and 2001. (They were up to maybe 11.6% in 2010.)

Hm. Well, maybe this 'renaissance' explains why (if not how) the AHA is wrong about naturalism and humanism.

Perhaps as a backup non sequitor explanation for the errors of the AHA, Craig offers another line: Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher.

Yeah, that explains why the AHA is wrong about naturalism and humanism. Sure it does.

Suppose a person (or group) has made an error in critical thinking somewhere at some point. Does that disqualify them from promoting and/or teaching critical thinking?

Suppose a person (or group) promotes a philosophical view and others offer objections to it. Does that mean the person/group is wrong? Does it mean the person/group thinks poorly?

RonH