Here's what William Lane Craig has to say about the existence of god(s).
For example, why think that naturalism is true? The last half century has witnessed a veritable renaissance of Christian philosophy. In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” Complaining of naturalists’ passivity in the face of the wave of “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today,” Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”It seems to me that most philosophers are rather soft on their theist colleagues. They tolerate, and even praise, many Christian apologists who masquerade as philosophers. I'm thinking specifically of Alvin Plantinga but there are many others.
This renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in arguments for God’s existence based on reason and evidence alone, apart from the resources of divine revelation like the Bible. All of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments, not to mention creative, new arguments, find intelligent and articulate defenders on the contemporary philosophical scene.
So, here's a question for you philosophers out there. Is Craig correct? Is it true that most philosophers defend arguments for god's existence based on "reason and evidence alone"? Is it true that philosophy departments have sunk to this level?
Here's an example of Craig's philosophical arguments for the existence of god(s) from his debate with Christopher Hitchens on "Does God Exist." You can skip the first 12 minutes. Craig starts at 12:50. Remember, the question I'm asking isn't whether his conclusion is correct (it isn't). It isn't whether his arguments are bad (they are remarkably bad). It's whether most philosophers respect his arguments and grant that they are legitimate and sound philosophical arguments.
Note: The other day I was having lunch with a bunch of people from CFI Canada and a group from UTSA (University of Toronto Secular Association). The topic of debating creationists came up and William Lane Craig was a good example. My position—with due respect to Christopher Hitchens—is that you should not debate people like Craig because they simply don't play fair. They use their rhetorical skills to avoid any serious discussion of the issues. I've posted some examples on: Why Reasonable People Should Not Debate William Lane Craig.
UPDATE: Vincent Joseph Torley has a Ph.D. (2007) from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne (Australia). He posted a defense of William Lane Craig on Uncommon Descent: Larry Moran asks: “Do philosophers take William Lane Craig’s arguments seriously?”]. His best argument is ...
If people write a lot about your arguments, that’s a pretty reliable sign that you’re highly respected in your field. I think we can safely assume, then, that Professor Craig’s arguments for the existence of God are taken seriously by philosophers, whether or not they agree with Craig.I find it interesting that someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy would use such an argument. I guess it's useful for explaining why so many people write about Michael Behe, Bill Dembski, and Jonathan Wells. It must be because they are "highly respected in their field." It's the only possible explanation.