I find myself put off by Craig’s use of disagreements and thought experiments in academic disciplines (which are the sign of a healthy field!) as a weapon against them. For example he uses speciesism to attack against non-theistic moral philosophy, instead of using it as a means of talking about what properties are relevant for moral consideration—which was its original purpose. And he uses Hilbert’s Hotel to assert that infinities are “paradoxical”—even though they are perfectly logically consistent, and much of modern mathematics is based off of them.
I understand that he is trying to win, he doesn’t care about honesty, but that doesn’t make it any less off-putting.
I find myself put off by Craig’s use of disagreements and thought experiments in academic disciplines (which are the sign of a healthy field!) as a weapon against them. For example he uses speciesism to attack against non-theistic moral philosophy, instead of using it as a means of talking about what properties are relevant for moral consideration—which was its original purpose. And he uses Hilbert’s Hotel to assert that infinities are “paradoxical”—even though they are perfectly logically consistent, and much of modern mathematics is based off of them.
I understand that he is trying to win, he doesn’t care about honesty, but that doesn’t make it any less off-putting.
I wonder if he would agree with