Proof That Smart People Can Defend Dumb Ideas
William Lane Craig spoke at the annual conventions of the Evangelical Theological and Philosophical Societies. Here is part of what he defended, in his own words:I presented a well-attended lecture on the question “Is Uncertainty a Sound Foundation for Religious Tolerance?” My target here was certain philosophers who claim that religious tolerance should be based on two factors: (1) our grasp of moral principles which state that persecution of other religions is wrong and (2) uncertainty that one’s own religion is true. Such philosophers want to foster as much uncertainty about religious beliefs as they can and as much certainty about moral beliefs as they can as a way of increasing tolerance. I pointed out that this strategy backfires in a number of ways. In the first place, with respect to a religion like Christianity, which commands us to love our neighbor and even our enemy, it’s not uncertainty but certainty of that religion’s truth that will increase religious toleration. Fostering uncertainty about such a religion will actually decrease people’s motivation to be tolerant. In fact, for any religion which sees morality as based in God, undermining people’s belief in God will undermine their confidence in the very moral principles which state that persecution is wrong!
13 comments:
History proves WLC right! As people's certainty in the absolute correctness of their belief system increases, their tolerance for other belief systems they know to be incorrect and insulting to the true God skyrockets!
Oh, wait...
I can just see the "No True Scotsman" defense coming to WLC's rescue a mile away. It's like I start hearing faint bagpipes in my head.
There is tolerance in uncertainty. There is humility in uncertainty.
But uncertainty also breeds other things, not so admirable.
But our God asks us to both be tolerant and humble in our certainty; a higher standard of living, not easily attained.
God exists you can be certain of that
The watchmaker
Vote Ron Paul 2008
Have a great day all
I'm actually inclined to sort of agree with him. A reasonable degree of certainty about many beliefs is never going to be a threat to freedom of conscience. The difficulty is with crazy beliefs like "There is a God who tortures people forever for believing the wrong things, and this is a good thing."
"There is a God who tortures people forever for believing the wrong things, and this is a good thing."
That is not why you will go to hell.
Christianity isn't here to make the ride more comfortable it's here to save you from the deserved punishment for breaking the Law.
That is the purpose of the Law. We can see the work of God's Law illustrated in civil law. Watch what often happens on a freeway when there is no visible sign of the law. See how motorists exceed the speed limit. It would seem that each speeder says to himself that the law has forgotten to patrol this part of the freeway. He is transgressing the law by only fifteen miles and hour- and besides, he isn't the only one doing it.
Notice, however, what happens when the law enters the fast lane with red lights flashing. The speeder's heart misses a beat. He is no longer secure in the fact that other motorists are also speeding. He knows that he is personally guilty, and he could be the one the officer pulls over. Suddenly, his "mere" fifteen-MPH transgression doesn't seem such a small thing after all. It seems abound.
Now look at the freeway of sin. The whole world naturally goes with the flow. Who hasn't had a lustful thought at one time or another? Who in today's society doesn't tell the occasional "white" lie? Who hasn't taken something that belongs to someone else, even if it's a "white-collar" crime? They know they are doing wrong, but their security lies in the fact that so many others are just as guilty, if not more so. It seems that God has forgotten all about sin and the Ten Commandments. He "has said in his heart,'God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see'"(Psalm 10:11).
Now watch the Law enter with red lights flashing. The sinner's heart is stopped. He places his hand on his mouth. He examines the speedometer of his conscience. Suddenly, it shows him the measure of his guilt in a new light-the light of the Law. His sense of security in the fact that there are multitudes doing the same thing becomes irrelevant because every man will give an account of himself to God. Sin not only becomes personal, it seems to "abound." The law shows him that his mere lust becomes adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); his white lies become false witness; his own way becomes rebellion and a violation for the First Commandment; his hatred becomes murder in God's sight (1 John 3:15); his "sticky fingers" make him a thief. "Moreover the Law entered that the offense might abound." Without introduction of the Law, sin is neither personal, nor is it a threat: "For without the Law sin is dead (the sense of it's inactive and a lifeless thing)" (Romans 7:8) (wotm)
A friend of my sisters with christian bumperstickers on her car was passed by an angry man, flipping her off and yelling obcenities. His bumperstickers were rainbows and one that said "tolerance now." Hmmm.
My point is that people call Christians hypocrites, but really we are all hypocrites aren't we.
And it seems that people who get mad at people for not being tolerant are some of the most intolerant.
and by the way, God doesn't call us to be tolerant, but to love. Love and tolerance are 2 very different things. If I disagree with your views, you call me intolerant, but really, I just disagree . . . unless I hate you because you disagree with me, which is what you are doing when I disagree with you. It's dizzying really.
David said "unless I hate you because you disagree with me, which is what you are doing when I disagree with you. "
Who said I hate you? If that is what you're inferring then you are so entirely wrong my friend. I love you enough to sit and talk to you then play with my three kids. It is that important.
Perfect love is a constant confronter , it takes far more love to confront then to just ignore the situation. I want to help you understand the cliff that you are headed towards.
We Judge not according to the appearance, but we judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24)
Remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
But what does this truly mean. (In good hermeneutics we must take it in context) Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.
The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
We are to judge false teachings. Understand that there is such a thing as absolute truth. The Bible tells us that there's only one God in all existence, that Jesus Christ is God in flesh, that we are justified by grace through faith, that Jesus died on the cross, that he rose from the dead physically, etc. These are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. If there were a religion that contradicted these essentials, then that religion would not be true because Jesus gave us the truth and anyone who contradicts what Jesus said, is not true. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 24:24 that in the last days they would be many false Christ's and false prophets who would arise and deceive many. If it did not matter about different religious systems, then why did Jesus warn us about just that?
We cannot say which groups that this individual was thinking of, but let's take the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses as examples.
Both the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses state that they believe in God, the Bible, Jesus, and his sacrifice. Yet, I state that these two groups are not Christian. Why is that? This is because the Mormons teach that God used to be a man on another planet, that he has a goddess wife, that they both have bodies of flesh and bones, and that forgiveness of sins is not by grace through faith alone, but by grace plus obedience to the laws of God. Mormons are also polytheist, where the Bible teaches monotheist. This violates basic Christian teaching.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, deny that Jesus Christ is God in flesh and they also deny his physical resurrection. Since of the deity of Christ and his physical resurrection are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, the Jehovah's Witnesses are denying
those essentials and are therefore not Christians.
We see that the more we know what the truth of God's Word is, the more we realize that there are counterfeit groups who seek to appear Christian and teach unchristian things. This is why it is necessary for Christians to judge and expose those false groups.
Dan Marvin said...
God exists you can be certain of that
Existence exists (the universe and everything within it) and YOU can be certain of that! No one is obligated to believe fantasies (invisible things for which there is no evidence) so please show us the evidence for your god. All you have given us is a link to a creationist argument that was obsolete and refuted (by David Hume) before it was put down on paper by William Paley in 1802. The only watchmaker needed is the blind watchmaker of natural selection.
"There is a God who tortures people forever for believing the wrong things, and this is a good thing."
That is not why you will go to hell.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
It sure looks like the bible writers placed a great deal of importance on what one believes. No matter how good a person is, if they don't believe in Jesus they're doomed, and no matter how evil a person is, if they get "saved" before death they are on their way to paradise.
Regardless, sin is a religous idea and has nothing to do with morality or ethics, which can not come from god, and certainly not the bible god that you and William Lane Craig adore, as shown here. There can ultimately be no objective morality if your god exists, because he can just make up his own rules.
Who hasn't had a lustful thought at one time or another?
One of the great dangers Christianity poses to an individuals psychological health is the equating of thoughts with actions, and thereby inducing guilt for having normal and natural human feelings.
The threat of hell is a tool of manipulation, a form of terrorism, the stick to Christianity's heavenly carrot. What logical argument can you provide that a finite crime deserves an eternal punishment? Before you formulate your argument just remember that special pleading is not allowed.
Sorry, here is the correct watchmaker link
Craig said, philosophers claim that religious tolerance should be based on two factors: (1) our grasp of moral principles which state that persecution of other religions is wrong and (2) uncertainty that one’s own religion is true.
These things are obvious! Why Craig would even try to dispute them, is beyond me. What he needs to do is show that Christianity is a tolerant religion which rejects the persecution and harrassment of those who disbelieve. But its history down to today along with various Biblical texts say otherwise. A Christian person who is certain that people will go to hell because of people like me cannot be tolerant of me. Which church will ever invite me to speak to the whole group?
Aquinas taught that people who lead others "astray" have committed the most serious sin, since if I'm successful, I have done worse than to kill a man, I have sent him to an everlasting punishment. I deny this, of course, because I think I'm freeing people from the shackles of a delusion. But how can a person who is certain I'm doing this ever be tolerant of me? I just think Craig is defending the indefensive of several levels.
"No True Scotsman" aside, I'll admit that Christianity has had its fair share of believers who were extremely intolerant. However, if you feel this describes the majority of Christianity, then you're trying to paint a picture with only one color.
Christianity is also historically tolerant (just look at our country today!), of being charitable to non-believers and so on. Yeah, there are some rotten apples, and there's nary an excuse for them, but I don't think its fair to simply proclaim that they describe all of Christianity.
Post a Comment