|
einstein89
|
|
Posted 07/31/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
The following is a re-post of a freethought blog, linked below:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/02/the-creepy-delusions-of-william-lane-craig/
Part of my negative reaction to Reasonable Faith was the dishonesty of it. When Craig is addressing mixed audiences, he presents himself as a scholar who’s just following reason and evidence where it leads, and whose claims are all grounded in mainstream scholarship. Here, for example, is how Craig started off his opening statement in hisdebate with Eddie Tabash (Craig was speaking second): It’s worth underlining the fact that the debate tonight concerns which view is the truth. We’re not here to talk about which view I like the best, or which view appeals to me the most, but which view is the truth. So how do we discover truth? The answer is that we must use logical arguments, formulated according to the basic rules of logic which have governed all valid reasoning since the time of Aristotle. Emotional appeals and powerful rhetoric may move juries, but they’re philosophically useless at helping us get at the truth.
Reading Reasonable Faith, it’s clear that Craig didn’t really mean what he said about using logical arguments to get at the truth: I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa (pp. 47-48 in 3rd edition, though wording is virtually unchanged from the 2nd edition).
When I first started telling people about this aspect of Reasonable Faith, a lot of them, both atheists and Christians, had trouble believing it, because it’s so at odds with the persona Craig puts on the rest of the time. He’s deceiving people, plain and simple. More recently, though, I’ve realized there was another part to my reaction: I was just plain creeped out. This is the really creepy part: When a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God (p. 47).
How could Craig possibly know this? How could he possibly know that out of all the non-Christians of the world, not a single one of them is kept from converting by intellectual difficulties? How could he possibly know that out of all the non-Christians in the world, all of them want nothing to do with God, or would want nothing to do with God if only they had a good reason to think he existed? The answer is that Craig doesn’t know any of this, and in fact countless non-Christians know he’s wrong, and some have probably told him so, but Craig doesn’t care. Craig is committed to his notions about what’s going on in other people’s heads, no matter what the evidence is. He’s delusional.
-----
Thoughts?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 07/31/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
|
Neither of those choices (topic title) are true. And the article isn't particularly useful for anything.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Michael
|
|
Posted 07/31/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
I can see how that would look, based on an atheists assessment of the evidence (that it is not conclusive, nor persuasive), that these statements would be horribly contradictory.
Consider, however, the implications of Christianity being true. It would mean that when the bible says that 'all men are without excuse', and 'the fool says in his heart "There is no God".'
I also believe that, in the face of sustained and validated arguments against theism and Christianity, even Dr Craig would become an atheist. When placing his comment about the witness of the Holy Spirit in the context of the rest of his writings and speeches, I see it as saying that "If I were given evidence that God did not exist, or Jesus wasn't who he said he was, then I would trust in the inner testimony of the Spirit until such time as I could examine the evidence closer, and see if it can be debunked."
Least, that's my take on it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 07/31/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by einstein89
Thoughts?
Why yes. You might have to dig in a little to find the bit dealing with the specific difference that is being referred to, because I think the larger point bears addressing. I'll do it here.
The Masterful Horror Of Chris Hallquist
When a person's argument resorts to powerful emotional appeals, it's often (though not always) because their actual argument lacks substance. With that in mind, Chris Hallquist's titling of his post made a poor first impression. Nevertheless, leaving aside the emotional appeal (how is 'creepiness', even if true, a measure of the truth of one's claims?), I take a look at what he says.
He talks about reading Reasonable Faith, which is impressive. Most atheists are ignorant of the work of theists, boldly pronouncing judgement on things they know little to nothing about. If what Chris Hallquist says is true, then his tolerance to alternative worldviews is commendable. However, his reaction is immediately surprising:
Quote: my gut reaction to reading the first chapter was, “this guy is a total lunatic, I didn’t know he was so crazy.”
Wow. Very powerful appeals to emotion here. With adjectives like "creepy delusions", a "total lunatic", "he was so crazy" you would think Chris Hallquist was writing the plot of a horror movie, with Dr. William Lane Craig the scary villain. At this point, if you notice any typographical errors in this response, it will be due to me quaking in fear at this scary depiction. In fact, in case I do not finish this response, Dr. Craig the villain has surely gotten to me. Run.
So what makes Dr. William Lane Craig so detestable? Is he a zombie? Was he burned to death in a red-and-green striped sweater, returning to torment people in their dreams? No, something much worse, according to the David Lynch of atheist bloggers: He believes Craig is dishonest.
Yes, Chris alleges that with mixed audiences, Dr. Craig appeals to logical arguments as the source of truth while in Reasonable Faith, Dr. Craig very deceitfully contends (likely using tiny font size, perhaps on the very back of the book) that the witness of the Holy Spirit supersedes arguments and evidence.
But that's only part of the plot of this gore-fest. For the other, our intrepid master of horror contends that Craig's belief about the refusal to come to Christ: Quote: When a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart.
is something he willingly holds to in the absence of adequate evidence for the claim, thus making him....delusional. This cannot be adequately emphasized without a companion video:
Okay, I'm sufficiently emotionally shaken, where do I sign up to become an atheist? LOL JK. Let's look at what constitutes a creepy belief according to the Alfred Hitchcock of bloggers. To be creepy, a belief has to be:
1. About something in the present, as opposed to about something in the distant past.
2. About people who interact with oneself regularly.
3. About people at the very present as opposed to in the future.
4. About me, Chris Hallquist. (Wait a second...)
There are other reasons that make this belief creepy:
5. If it falls outside the (normal) constraints that (normally) apply to religious beliefs.
6. If it falls well outside the normal rules of behavior.
7. It might tell them to start shooting redheads.
It wouldn't surprise me, thoughtful theist, if you would like to immediately reject God and become an atheist. I mean, just look at how creepy religion is.
But wait a minute.
Let's track back to the apparent difference between the two apparent sources of truth. One one hand, logical arguments are said to be the source of truth, on the other, the witness of the Holy Spirit is said to deliver the smackdown to logical arguments. Isn't this ironclad evidence of a contradiction? Hasn't the internet's Wes Craven taken down Dr. William Lane Craig?
Of course not. There is no real contradiction. For a mixed audience, what is the common source of truth, if not logical arguments? It is only respectful for Craig not to impose the authority of the Holy Spirit on someone who doesn't believe in it. Instead, he appeals to reason, the source of common authority that both Christians and non-Christians share.
The witness of the Holy Spirit is a greater source of authority than logic and reason. For logical arguments can be based on premises that are often tentatively true. Or at the very least contingently true. Very few if any, we can say are absolutely true, all things considered (see appearance-of-age argument). But according to the Christian worldview, the witness of the Holy Spirit is absolutely true. And thus, we have an argument in support of the authority of the witness of the Holy Spirit superseding even logical arguments.
So what accounts for the difference? It's simply that the Christian believes in the Holy Spirit, and thus the authority of the Holy Spirit above reason is an acceptable proposition to them, while for the atheist, it is not acceptable. Not being acceptable doesn't make it not true. It simply makes it unfruitful to belabor the presupposition and instead move on to finding common ground.
I suppose this is the first real twist in this horror movie: Chris Hallquist doesn't even understand the subject he speaks of.
But what about all the creepiness, you ask? When will the brave knight Chris Hallquist valiantly defeat the creepy scary zombie-monster Dr. William Lane Craig?
He won't. You'll notice that Chris Hallquist is only capable of portraying Dr. William Lane Craig in a negative way and calling him names. Chris is brilliantly capable of arousing fear and loathing in his readers. I'm sure many of you who read his blog post recalled the propaganda of the Cold War.
(Fear: Successfully mongered. Initiating irrationality in: 3...2...)
But is Chris right? And in all this fixation on the affixing of frightening features, fluffed-up fearmongering and fantastic fictions, why is he not concerned with what is important: Truth versus falsity?
The parallels are not difficult to see. When it comes to propaganda, truth takes a back seat to emotion. And Chris Hallquist marches in step here. The thesis of his critique is not about right or wrong, true or false, it's about emotions. The closes he gets to the question of right or wrong is when he challenges Craig on the epistemic basis of his belief.
But he makes no attempt to examine it critically. No, critical analysis is unimportant here. It's all about emotionally riling up his readers. And as long as he has successfully scared his readers, or inspired hatred or contempt towards this individual he disagrees with, he has succeeded. After all, a Christian might one day shoot up redheads, right?
Now I will grant that this belief that Craig holds about the basis of rejecting God is a controversial one. It might come across as incredibly offensive, as it appears to assume bad faith on the part of those who reject God. This is a conclusion I personally find understandable on the part of some, because first-glance impressions are lasting impressions. And the Bible does not mince words here, and neither does Craig.
But that doesn't for a minute mean that it is meant to offend or put down the atheist. It is a belief, that when separated from the emotions and politically correct distortions deserves serious examination. I for one, think the principle behind it is perfectly true: I believe people's worldviews are not solely defined by arguments and evidence for the truth and falsity of the claims. I believe there is a whole ecosystem of interactions between a person and his willingness to adhere to or reject a belief, of which arguments and evidence constitute a singularly important part intellectually, but a smaller part practically.
What matters practically to most people is more what a person finds satisfying to believe. And in that sense, I believe a lot of astute, experienced people who have consistently "reached across the aisle" will agree.
But whether this is true or not- does this belief, and other controversial beliefs deserve to be discussed and critically examined? If Chris Hallquist believed in the value of reason over emotion, he would agree. And not only would he agree, he would renounce the appeals to emotion that his blog post resorted to, and start living up to the rationality he espouses.
Because it's slightly ironic to see the Christian being rational while the atheist does not.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Michael
I can see how that would look, based on an atheists assessment of the evidence (that it is not conclusive, nor persuasive), that these statements would be horribly contradictory.
Consider, however, the implications of Christianity being true. It would mean that when the bible says that 'all men are without excuse', and 'the fool says in his heart "There is no God".'
I also believe that, in the face of sustained and validated arguments against theism and Christianity, even Dr Craig would become an atheist. When placing his comment about the witness of the Holy Spirit in the context of the rest of his writings and speeches, I see it as saying that "If I were given evidence that God did not exist, or Jesus wasn't who he said he was, then I would trust in the inner testimony of the Spirit until such time as I could examine the evidence closer, and see if it can be debunked."
Least, that's my take on it.
Interesting and thoughtful (which I want to include here not as a compliment, but as a big flag of 'why I am willing to step cautiously into this minefield of a thread on this specific post').
I do have to ask though, if your assessment is correct, why do you think he is bothering? If the Holy Spirit is enough, which seems to be the case, and is the most powerful evidence I have ever heard a Christian present both for them personal and generally, then why dedicate a life to supporting arguments?
It'd be like if someone tried to prove the Moon existed through logic. We can all look at it, it's right there, and it's obvious. Why would anyone dedicate their life to constructing controversial deductive arguments in its favour? Why would this person be able to pack theatres?
Now, the obvious answer is atheists. But atheists aren't people who have seen the Moon and refused to believe in it, they are people who haven't seen the Moon. Why isn't Craig spending his time, like most preachers, just telling atheists to "look up"?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
stephenmills1000
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Interesting and thoughtful (which I want to include here not as a compliment, but as a big flag of 'why I am willing to step cautiously into this minefield of a thread on this specific post').
I do have to ask though, if your assessment is correct, why do you think he is bothering? If the Holy Spirit is enough, which seems to be the case, and is the most powerful evidence I have ever heard a Christian present both for them personal and generally, then why dedicate a life to supporting arguments?
It'd be like if someone tried to prove the Moon existed through logic. We can all look at it, it's right there, and it's obvious. Why would anyone dedicate their life to constructing controversial deductive arguments in its favour? Why would this person be able to pack theatres?
Now, the obvious answer is atheists. But atheists aren't people who have seen the Moon and refused to believe in it, they are people who haven't seen the Moon. Why isn't Craig spending his time, like most preachers, just telling atheists to "look up"?
Great points.
But I think why Craig bothers was implicit in what Michael said:
Quote: "If I were given evidence that God did not exist, or Jesus wasn't who he said he was, then I would trust in the inner testimony of the Spirit until such time as I could examine the evidence closer, and see if it can be debunked."
I would believe this to be true. For some, the inner witness is not enough to accept- it wasn't for me. I needed some compelling arguments to justify any belief, and that's where I discovered apologetics. As one of our atheist friends on this board constantly quotes Craig as saying: "It thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved." My heart was so moved, but I needed intellectual permission- I have no problem admitting this, and I suspect others need it, too (perhaps you?  ).
I regards to your moon analogy, I would argue the same could be said for physics in general, yes? We interact with it everyday, why go to all the trouble to break it down and explain why it works, when it's obvious that it does whether we know anything about it or not (note I do not extend the same sentiments to science in general, as it would be absurd not to pursue knowledge in medicine, for instance).
I'm sure by saying the following, atheists will want to see me lynched, but I firmly believe the Holy Spirit has in fact revealed itself to all; has already testified to your heart, and people are in fact ignoring or supressing it for fear of something (can't be too presumptuous, after all). Admittedly, as Michael pointed out once again, this is presuming theism to be true, but I presume it to be true precisely because I have good reason, provided by the combination of the inner witness and apologetics, no less than those together.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by stephenmills1000I would believe this to be true. For some, the inner witness is not enough to accept- it wasn't for me. I needed some compelling arguments to justify any belief, and that's where I discovered apologetics. As one of our atheist friends on this board constantly quotes Craig as saying: " It thereby gives people the intellectual permission to believe when their hearts are moved." My heart was so moved, but I needed intellectual permission- I have no problem admitting this, and I suspect others need it, too (perhaps you? ).
I see. I'm not sure if that applies to Craig, but I respect it as a methodology. I'm afraid I have not had any experience of the Holy Spirit, and thus am missing the foundation of any kind of theistic belief. Without which I find Craig's arguments to be highly unconvincing.
I can certainly see how one would look to God as an explanation of the universe, if one already had good reason to believe He existed. But the abstract form of the KCA does not have this benefit. In the same way that if I found a man (let's call him David) standing in a room with a body and a gun, then I would reasonably suppose that David had shot the man. If I simply found a dead body, without the ability to check for bullet wounds, then I would be wrong to come to such a conclusion.
Quote:
I regards to your moon analogy, I would argue the same could be said for physics in general, yes? We interact with it everyday, why go to all the trouble to break it down and explain why it works, when it's obvious that it does whether we know anything about it or not (note I do not extend the same sentiments to science in general, as it would be absurd not to pursue knowledge in medicine, for instance).
I'm sure by saying the following, atheists will want to see me lynched, but I firmly believe the Holy Spirit has in fact revealed itself to all; has already testified to your heart, and people are in fact ignoring or supressing it for fear of something (can't be too presumptuous, after all). Admittedly, as Michael pointed out once again, this is presuming theism to be true, but I presume it to be true precisely because I have good reason, provided by the combination of the inner witness and apologetics, no less than those together.
I don't actually think atheists treat science with quite the reverence that theists suppose. It's very important, and helps to answer some very important philosophical questions, but it doesn't hold the quasi-religious status that is often suggested. Dawkins, being a biologist, may have given the impression that his devotion to it can be generalised to all atheists, but I don't think this is correct.
I find it very strange how little the inner witness is talked about here. Having no experience of it, and being familiar with the concept of a delusion, I am forced by parsimony to come to an atheistic conclusion about what it is. But given how important it is to Christianity and, frankly, how much more pleasant it is to speak to a Christian who is actually consciously remembering the basis of their faith than to speak to one who is trying to rely solely on apologetics, I would expect it to be far more effective.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
stephenmills1000
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
|
It is interesting that we never talk about the inner witness, especially since Craig places such a premium on it over rational arguments. Maybe that topic should be started...
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fhbradley
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
I don't actually think atheists treat science with quite the reverence that theists suppose. It's very important, and helps to answer some very important philosophical questions,
What? Science can't answer philosophical questions, since if it could, it wouldn't have been a philosophical question in the first place.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
GRWelsh
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa (pp. 47-48 in 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig).
Makes me think of these lines from Tim Minchin's Storm:
"Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Geneticist
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote mining is so great isn't? Done correctly, one can make anyone look like a hypocrite.
Unfortunately, as presented, we are divorced from the contexts of those quotes. As such, it would appear that Craig is arguing for blind faith over reason and evidence.
However, within the context of the actual chapter in Reasonable Faith, I actually understand it quite differently as instead being the conflict of personal experience as evidence of God versus external arguments. For example, if I have a personal experience of God's love and then am presented with the Problem of Evil, Craig says I should give precedence to my personal experience over that of the Problem of Evil.
For comparison, I have personal experience with the people of Afghanistan, the war, and the nature of combat and American operations there. I have often been presented with arguments and even evidence that contradict my experiences. I give precedence to my own experience.
Perhaps this is not the best approach, but deceitful it is not, and arguably it is itself a more logical approach as it is based on personal experiences.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
stephenmills1000
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
I linked this in a topic I started, but it is clearly relevant here also:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-witness-of-the-holy-spirit
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
What? Science can't answer philosophical questions, since if it could, it wouldn't have been a philosophical question in the first place.
I said help with philosophical questions, not answer them, though I didn't actually understand the logic you presented here.
Science can most definitely help with philosophy. I don't know how or why anyone would argue against this beyond skepticism. Even anti-realists about science can gain insight into how we think from it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fhbradley
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by Fhbradley
What? Science can't answer philosophical questions, since if it could, it wouldn't have been a philosophical question in the first place. I said help with philosophical questions, not answer them
My mistake.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tcampen
|
|
Posted 08/01/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
WLC has been asked on several occasions what evidence and/or argument, if presented as being reliable and trustworthy and true, would convince him he is wrong in his faith in God and Jesus. I'll have to find pinpoint cites, but I recall him consistently saying nothing could convincing him of such. When I hear responses like this, I am forced to think that ultimately things like "evidence" and "arguments" suddenly become irrelevant. So, I too wonder if WLC holds such a position, why spend so much effort with the science and philosophy arguments. I suspect WLC has an internal battle between his head and his heart with regard to his faith, and is using his admittedly sharp mind to over compensate for finding the best way to allow his mind to be in line with his heart.
But if no argument or evidence could ever convince him otherwise, I find this to be something of an intellectually dishonest pursuit.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
