I think your chapter on Craig is fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. It seems strange to me that “exposing” Craig doesn’t include the most damning evidence for Craig’s dishonesty and insincerity: his stance regarding arguments, evidence and reason itself. So, on the one hand, we have Craig who champions himself as an intellectual on a mission to show that there’s all sorts of arguments and evidence for God, and Christianity is reasonable, and yet, on the other hand he’s on record saying that arguments and evidence play only a “ministerial” role, and if they collide with his faith, it’s faith that should take precedence! In fact, he writes how he confided to one of his professors that “If somehow through my studies reason is to turn against Christianity, so much the worse for reason!” As Robert M. Price noted in his debate with Craig, where he did an excellent job exposing Craig (if you haven’t listened to it, see the two-part-videos “Robert M. Price exposes William Lane Craig” on YouTube), in any other (academic) context, say if a historian who champions his per theory, admits nothing could convince him his theory is wrong (like Craig does), we’ll have no trouble recognizing him “as a hack, a fake, a bad historian”. How does Craig respond to the accusation of being a hack? — he first tells his audience how pleased he was that Price finally got around to discussing the debate topic at the end of his speech, and then that his thinks his position is “perfectly consistent”: he knows Christianity is true through the witness of the Holy Spirit, but when showing that to someone else he uses arguments! Now, simply the fact that Craig apparently thinks this is an adequate response to the charge of being “a hack and a fake” shows just how far out there Craig is. Of course, neither Price, nor anyone else who’s brought this subject up, including Hitchens and C. Washington during their debates with Craig, had questioned whether a person can know Christianity is true through the Holy Spirit or in some “properly basic” way (like Plantinga argues). Rather, they had questioned the integrity and honesty of a man who’s made a career out of presenting arguments for God, who at the same time admits that he’d discard any argument and evidence, along with reason itself, in case it turns against Christianity. As Price writes in his article on Craig “By this time he stinketh: the attempts of William Lane Craig to exhume Jesus” “William Lane Craig’s apologetics has adopted insincerity as a structural principle.”

And here we get to the most appalling part of it all: Craig’s lack of shame. It’s bad enough to admit to holding the position of the average fundamentalist (e.g. ‘nothing can change my mind and convince me I’m wrong!’) in the opening chapters of a book (titled “Reasonable Faith”!), and thus to manage to commit an intellectual suicide before you even begin laying down your case, but what makes it much worse is one of Craig’s favorite shticks—shamelessly projecting his own vices onto his opponents. What are we to make of a person who, right after denigrating arguments and evidence by relegating them to having a “ministerial” role, urges his fans to question the honesty of unbelievers when they are not persuaded by the arguments for God by asking them “If I answer your objections would you become a Christian?”, despite the fact that Craig had just made it clear if that question is posed to him, e.g. “If I answered your objections, would you abandon your faith and become an atheist? “, the answer would be “NO!”. Consider also Craig’s behavior during his debate with Hitchens where he had the nerve to urge Hitchens to become a Christian and said “If Mr. Hitchens is a man of good will, he will follow the evidence where it leads and all the evidence tonight had been on the side of theism!” It is only when one takes on board fully the fact that this comes from a person who was quoted earlier in that very same debate as saying “Should a conflict arises between witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.” – the very antithesis of intellectual honesty and what academia stands for, and who’s made it abundantly clear he will not follow the evidence where it leads if it leads away from his faith (The Holy Spirit trumps it all!), and is therefore by his own definition not “a man of good will”, one can truly appreciate the extent of Craig’s utter, almost pathological, shamelessness and dishonesty.