Is William Lane Craig Really a Pedophile?

An exercise in logic

Warning: This article may offend some readers. Please note that it is not an accusation that Christian apologist and debater, William Lane Craig, has committed any crimes (besides his crimes against logic and reason). This article is an example showing just how important it is to avoid the use of logical fallacies (which WLC employs constantly) and to especially avoid shifting the burden of proof. Please do not read this article without first reading the previous article on WLC’s logical fallacies. It may also be wise to re-read that article, alongside this article, in order to see the explanations of the highlighted logical fallacies.

The assertion

 A person I know (not a friend, more of an enemy in fact), Jim Bob, recently told me that William Lane Craig (popular Christian apologist and debater) is a child molester. Disgusted by this accusation, and ready to tear Jim Bob to pieces, I stopped and wondered: WWWLCD (what would William Lane Craig Do)?

Why William Lane Craig would admit to being a child molester 

Well, William Lane Craig is very fond of the following logical fallacies: argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, shifting the burden of proof. This would mean we could assume that he is indeed also very fond of underage people. WLC would probably say something like: “well, WLC must firstly disprove the allegations that he is a child molester, AND must prove the position that he isn’t one”. That’s the logic he uses in his debates, I’m assuming he would apply the same logic in this case, because I know for a fact that WLC is NOT a hypocrite.

 WLC also likes saying that if a claim is so ludicrous, it probably is true (i.e. women finding Jesus’ tomb empty). He asks, “Why would someone make it up?” It seems that it didn’t occur to him that people might lie about such things to promote a belief, demonize certain groups, consolidate power, expound on existing myths, write fiction for the heck of it, or because they’re high, drunk or simply psychopathic. Let’s hear his logic again: if someone says something so ridiculous, so out there, so offensive, it MUST be true. Would he still feel this way if someone (like Jim Bob) ridiculously accused him of being a pedophile?

 Given that WLC must concede that this allegation is true, as we have shifted the burden of proof (forget that silly old concept of innocent until proven guilty), perhaps we all start believing that WLC is a child molester. That lends more weight to the allegation, as WLC is a big fan of appealing to the people.

 It turns out that the allegations aren’t even that strong, as Jim Bob clearly was cherry-picking certain bits of information, and pieced together his wild theory. I would try to tell WLC this, but WLC would likely tell me that cherry-picking is a valid form of argument, and he does it all the time! At least he would be honest with me. Like I said before, I know for a fact that WLC is NOT a hypocrite.

 Then I realized that WLC is an American. Americans are awesome and would never do such things. Jim Bob convinced me that WLC is indeed guilty, and that since WLC is acting very un-American, he isn't a REAL American (no true Scotsman).

 But what of Jim Bob? Is he trustworthy? Well, he happens to be a well-respected policeman (who happens to have expertise in investigating sex crimes) in the community. Based on WLC’s love of appealing to authority, again, we would have to accept the allegation as true. In any case, we’d almost certainly take Jim Bob’s word over WLC’s, as WLC is a nasty fellow, and a child molester (circular reasoning, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, appeal to hypocrisy).

 In fact, since WLC is a child molester, we shouldn’t believe ANYTHING he says, especially when he’s trying to talk to us about his god (who happens to condone much rape and child abuse in his Bible).

Therefore, god does not exist.

Conclusion

 So that's the story of how William Lane Craig was imprisoned (I hope you like prison food Dr. Craig; and penis), and how we know for a fact that his god can't exist. Well, not really; this was all just an example.

 Yes the article is very “strong” in subject matter and could have easily chosen something less offensive such as “WLC cheated on his logic exam”. Perhaps I feel that the shock value of it really hammers the point home that we must NEVER, EVER shift the burden of proof. Not even to accuse someone like WLC (sorry, I have trouble hiding my disdain for deceivers). Just as WLC doesn’t have to disprove such disgraceful allegations (I will personally chastise Jim Bob for insulting WLC), non-believers do not have to disprove beliefs/assertions put forth by believers.

 And let’s not forget, WLC actually believes in a god that does indeed condone rape, child abuse, sexism, racism, slavery, genocide and homophobia (among other terrible things). And he wants you to believe in this god too… He also loves using rape as an example in his argument from morality, virtually accusing atheists as believing that rape is “not wrong”. I as an atheist, find THAT offensive.

 Well I would say that before we imprison WLC for being a pedophile, and before we kill or die in god’s name, we should first examine the evidence.

 For the record, I don’t personally believe that William Lane Craig has ever committed any sort of sexual crime. But you never know; I haven’t seen any evidence that he hasn’t…