I can't find the section in Craig you're referencing, maybe you could provide a quote?

Anyway, Craig is talking about modal logic, the logic of possibility, which is how Plantinga formulates his version of the OA. Again, whether it's well done or not, Craig's point is obvious, that Dawkins (and perhaps you) don't even see the issue.

The attempted rebuttal that Dawkins makes is lifted from a parody constructed by Gasking and was not offered as serious philosophy - just a joke that highlights Gasking's contempt for the classic OA. I don't know if Dawkins even realized this, but the OA Craig espouses is Plantinga's modal version.

Other criticisms of Dawkins, including athiests, have pointed out that Dawkins is intellectually dishonest as an academic because it is normally considered bad form at that level to attack a weaker version of a position rather than the strongest. In other words, Dawkins is indulging in straw man tactics, though he may not even be aware of it.

Edit: I found that section of GD where Dawkins says this on Google Books - he did seem to understand Gasking was joking. Fine, so how does that refute Anselm? After that section he goes on to list spurious arguments for God from an atheist website - what's the point of that other than to be irritating and irrelevant? At no time did he even seriously address classical forms of the OA, much less Plantinga's formulation. The odd thing is I agree that the classical OA is weak and if we do GD I won't spend much time on it. He's so much worse on other issues.

The issue is methodology. A logical argument for the existence of God will always look like this:

(1) I imagine that reality is constituted by certain first principles. X, Y, Z.
(2) I assume that God, if He exists, can be described in similar terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) But, wait! X + Y + Z = God! So if you trust my imagination, God exists!

The point is, obviously---I do not trust St. Anselm's imagination. Or Plantinga's. Or Craig's. Or anybody's. (Especially not when what is being imagined are the first principles of metaphysics! Perhaps there are no first principles. Or they may be completely impenetrable to human intuition.)

A Christian giving a logical argument for God probably cannot even be an honest ATTEMPT at philosophy; the basis of which is surrendering all trust in one's personal intuition. Plantinga, for example, has a spiritual autobiography linked from his Wiki where he says:

Perhaps this sort of credulity has made his life more interesting or endurable, I don't know. But do you see the problem? Here is someone who is unable to walk home from dinner without tripping over heaven's door! Yet he STILL trusts his intuition, even in waters (mirages?) as murky as metaphysical first principles. WHY?

I'm impressed he can still call himself a philosopher with a straight face, but beyond that...I'm...um...unimpressed.

For example, the basic premise of his OA:
- There is a first principle of every 'world' that corresponds to a logical modality of 'possible/actual.'

Does this proposition refer to any conceivable observation? No. It just conjures some vague imagery that we may play logic games with, if we're so inclined.

And I'm not inclined, nor is Dawkins, nor is anyone who values philosophical rigor.

Why not something short and sweet like "A Letter to a Christian Nation?"

Also for those reading Craig, allow me to suggest this website as well: Contra Craig

I have a suggestion for a book for this, read The Ellimist Chronicles, by K. A. Applegate. Its an interesting look at a dualist type of universe.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. Come on, do something outside of Christianity!

What qualifies you to judge someone else's experience? Can you judge someone else's experience?

Especially since history records a lot of these types of personal encounters that people credit as spiritual experiences.

Do you think a chocolate chip cookie tastes the same to two different people and/or is the experience somehow different to each or if the taste is the same does it vary by degree of sensation?

We know some people have a "sweet" tooth and some don't like sweets. Isn't that due to the way they individually experience the world?

So how can you control and categorize someone else's experience?

That's not really the question here. Philosophy isn't about the content we ascribe to our experiences. It's about the structure of our experiences.

Say Plantinga takes a bite of a chocolate chip cookie and says, "Mmm...that's good!"

A philosopher wouldn't ask:
- But is the cookie really 'good'?
However, she might ask:
- What other things does Plantinga call 'good'? What relationship do those things have to this cookie?

And so forth.

Hmmm...just as a suggestion not meant to be offensive or anything. I think you missed my The God Gene thread. But better than reading that thread why not pick up a copy of the book and read it if you have the time. Dean Hamer's The God Gene is the name of the book.

He actually does try to categorize/quantify spiritual experiences and his efforts are documented in the book.

Bertrand Russell was walking home one day from the tobacco shop when he stopped, threw the tin of tobacco into the air and screamed "The ontological argument is right!" He later rejected it, of course.

I've come to believe the OA is an attempt to articulate an intuition that everyone has eventually if they consider the argument in depth. But it never translates into strict logic. FWIW, Plantinga himself admits it doesn't "prove" God. And I don't think Anselm offered it as a proof for athiests, but as an exercise for Christians, to help them consider the faith more deeply.

At any rate, you do much better with it than Dawkins, which is mostly the point of Craig's answer to the question.

But back on-topic. Would anyone be interesting in reading The Ethics by Spinoza?

From Wiki:

"In Ethics, Spinoza attempts to demonstrate a 'fully cohesive philosophical system that strives to provide a coherent picture of reality and to comprehend the meaning of an ethical life. Following a logical step-by-step format, it defines in turn the nature of God, the mind, human bondage to the emotions, and the power of understanding -- moving from a consideration of the eternal, to speculate upon humanity's place in the natural order, freedom, and the path to attainable happiness.'"

count me in sir.

subfallen, hiv and vickreyauction all make decent suggestions at first glance

Why hasn't anyone suggested "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell?

Oh yeah, that "fish in a barrel" thing....

Has "The End Of Faith" from Sam Harris been suggested? Its a good read and Sam Harris is a little more palatable than Dawkins. ($13.95 paperback)

I have The God Delusion and Letter To A Christian Nation on audiobook if anyone wants to listen to them for sh*ts and giggles. PM me if you want them and I can send them through yousendit.

I'd like to suggest The Case for Christ. I expect it to get knocked down this month and I bow to the group. But maybe in the next one?

I think the medical, psychology and fingerprint evidence is fascinating plus there are other core areas and it should spin off a lot of discussions.