William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:35 am

fleetmouse wrote:Maybe this will partly address that:
In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb. 

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cr ... le%20Faith

Craig studied with a major student of Baultmann, Kasemann. He's well aware of the liberal trdition. The kind of liberal that Bulatmann was, hold over from Von Harnack and the 19th century, they didn't give a damn about the resureection. Baultmann didn't believe in the resurrection. Kasseman did but I'm sure he probalby reserved in the back of his mind the possibility that the Von Hanarnack kind of thing might be true and would be worth perusing if he didn't have faith in the resurrection.

If you weren't hung up on "beating Christianity" it shouldn't really matter. It's the fundie mentality that say there has to one thing it has to be literal and anything that departs form it is not Christianity. There's no reason why they get to define what Christianity is.

you are willing to play this game to believe in God the majority has to be right. you couldn't consider joining a group of religious believers that's 3%of the population. but you are willing to be part of the group of anti-believers that's 3%. that is crazy.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by Metacrock » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:37 am

Here's another thing to consider: I think there is a level of logic on the order of what Perlmemann called "non formal" logic. There's a more pragmatic level of belief. There's nothing wrong with making a commitment of faith based upon the pragmatic level.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by URBILD » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:39 pm

Hey Meta, did you hear that John Hick died last week?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick

:arrow:

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by met » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:18 pm

fleetmouse wrote:That's an interesting point. I would have thought the fundamentals were the resurrection, personal salvation through Christ, and so forth. But if you actually look at his arguments, his fundamentals are indeed the premises he asserts in these philosophical arguments.

He has said over and over that his trump card (at least for him personally) is the witness of the holy spirit. Loftus has been hammering him about that.
From there:
Would you please specify the propositional content of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Plantinga calls the content "the great things of the gospel", and includes the idea that "God exists", "God has forgiven and accepted me", or "God is the author of the Bible." You claim this content assures Christians that they are children of God. But such a notion echoes the poet whom Paul quoted who said, "we are his offspring." (Acts 17:28) You are surely arguing that the inner witness of the third person of the trinity contains more propositional content than that. Shouldn't this witness be more specific about what is meant to be a "child" of the kind of "God" one believes in, how one becomes a child of this God, where one can learn additional information about this God, what he must think of the authority of that source of information, and how he can best interpret it? . . . .
Don't get it. What he getting at, fleet? :( (The assumption seems to be "if God is the author, he must provide us with propostional forms of truth as propositional truths are always far superior to poetic ones...)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by met » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:26 pm

URBILD wrote:
met wrote:
fleetmouse wrote:…. 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.
What are the 'funcdamental truths of the Christian faith' ... are they things that are open to 'reason and evidence?'
The problem, is that Craig's so-called "fundamentals" are often the historically relative systematic claims of philosophical theology...(e.g., the doctrine of ex nihilo, classical view of omnipotence, timeless doctrine of omnisicence, etc.). The truthfulness of such claims are determined by adherence to argument and evidence.
Sola scriptura evangelical Prot's always have that problem! :)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by fleetmouse » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:09 am

Metacrock wrote:Craig studied with a major student of Baultmann, Kasemann. He's well aware of the liberal trdition. The kind of liberal that Bulatmann was, hold over from Von Harnack and the 19th century, they didn't give a damn about the resureection. Baultmann didn't believe in the resurrection. Kasseman did but I'm sure he probalby reserved in the back of his mind the possibility that the Von Hanarnack kind of thing might be true and would be worth perusing if he didn't have faith in the resurrection.
That's all well and good but Craig believes in the resurrection. He believes in it so strongly that not even his own personal eyewitness testimony to the contrary could shake his faith that the resurrection happened. I'm addressing Craig's positions and statements here, not those of his mentors.
If you weren't hung up on "beating Christianity" it shouldn't really matter. It's the fundie mentality that say there has to one thing it has to be literal and anything that departs form it is not Christianity. There's no reason why they get to define what Christianity is.
I'm not saying that Craig defines what Christianity is or that addressing his statements "beats" Christianity.
you are willing to play this game to believe in God the majority has to be right. you couldn't consider joining a group of religious believers that's 3%of the population. but you are willing to be part of the group of anti-believers that's 3%. that is crazy.
Again, I'm addressing Craig's statements not holding him up as representative of all Christianity.

Craig is one of the most prominent Christian apologists. You've cited him yourself, regarding the cosmological argument. If you want to walk back any support for Craig, that's fine, but there's no need to be defensive. I'm not trying to hang him around your neck.
Last edited by fleetmouse on Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by fleetmouse » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:24 am

Metacrock wrote:Here's another thing to consider: I think there is a level of logic on the order of what Perlmemann called "non formal" logic. There's a more pragmatic level of belief. There's nothing wrong with making a commitment of faith based upon the pragmatic level.
met wrote:Don't get it. What he getting at, fleet? :( (The assumption seems to be "if God is the author, he must provide us with propostional forms of truth as propositional truths are always far superior to poetic ones...)
There's no reason pragmatism and poetry shouldn't and don't shape our worldviews as much as reason and evidence. This is and should be true even of secular worldviews.

But Craig's book and website are titled "Reasonable Faith", not "going with my gut on this one faith". He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth - paying lip service to reason and evidence with which he purports to trounce nonbelievers, but keeping his fingers crossed behind his back just in case this whole reason and evidence thing doesn't happen to support his prior commitments. It's a double standard. It's hypocrisy.

Hey Meta, remember a few threads back when I discussed a moral argument, you pooh-poohed it and said it wasn't the real argument or was a straw man or something to that effect? Remember when it turned out to be Craig's argument and you got real quiet and didn't respond? Why is that? (ok, maybe I'm trying to hang him around your neck just a little bit :mrgreen: )

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by met » Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:59 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:Here's another thing to consider: I think there is a level of logic on the order of what Perlmemann called "non formal" logic. There's a more pragmatic level of belief. There's nothing wrong with making a commitment of faith based upon the pragmatic level.
met wrote:Don't get it. What he getting at, fleet? :( (The assumption seems to be "if God is the author, he must provide us with propostional forms of truth as propositional truths are always far superior to poetic ones...)
There's no reason pragmatism and poetry shouldn't and don't shape our worldviews as much as reason and evidence. This is and should be true even of secular worldviews.

But Craig's book and website are titled "Reasonable Faith", not "going with my gut on this one faith". He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth - paying lip service to reason and evidence with which he purports to trounce nonbelievers, but keeping his fingers crossed behind his back just in case this whole reason and evidence thing doesn't happen to support his prior commitments. It's a double standard. It's hypocrisy.
Is it? Or is it more like saying" "Hockey is a stupid game. it sucks! But MY team can still kick YOUR teams ass at hockey!" :?

.... u don't really need a commitment to loving the game just to play. U just need a stick.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by Metacrock » Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:19 pm

met wrote:
fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:Here's another thing to consider: I think there is a level of logic on the order of what Perlmemann called "non formal" logic. There's a more pragmatic level of belief. There's nothing wrong with making a commitment of faith based upon the pragmatic level.
met wrote:Don't get it. What he getting at, fleet? :( (The assumption seems to be "if God is the author, he must provide us with propostional forms of truth as propositional truths are always far superior to poetic ones...)
There's no reason pragmatism and poetry shouldn't and don't shape our worldviews as much as reason and evidence. This is and should be true even of secular worldviews.

But Craig's book and website are titled "Reasonable Faith", not "going with my gut on this one faith". He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth - paying lip service to reason and evidence with which he purports to trounce nonbelievers, but keeping his fingers crossed behind his back just in case this whole reason and evidence thing doesn't happen to support his prior commitments. It's a double standard. It's hypocrisy.
Is it? Or is it more like saying" "Hockey is a stupid game. it sucks! But MY team can still kick YOUR teams ass at hockey!" :?

.... u don't really need a commitment to loving the game just to play. U just need a stick.
Craig does talk about his own religious experiences. He's just tailoring his answers to atheist criticism who would mock anything but logic and empiricism and tough minded stuff.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

Post by Metacrock » Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:20 pm

URBILD wrote:Hey Meta, did you hear that John Hick died last week?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick

:arrow:
NO I didn't. rats! I'm sorry to hear that.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply