I haven't been following the OTF debate closely, so I'll refrain from commenting on what was said at the link. However, I do agree with your general point - especially when it comes to defending conservative-evangelical Christianity.
Probably the best example that I can think of off the top of my head is Bill Craig and the cosmological argument. He commits the conjunction fallacy when making this argument and he is a philosopher who should know better. Either he is purposely committing it, which makes him dishonest, or he doesn't recognize it. Neither of these possibilities makes him look particularly intellectually respectable.
Aww, you lucky guy, no one is willing to set up whole blocks to tell me what a jerk I am, congratulations!!!
I totally agree with the "Defending faith makes smart people look dumb" idea. The first time I read Descartes meditations I could have sworn the first two were written by a different guy than the idiot who later "proves the existence of God," self deception is a powerful force.
It's ironic -- a few days ago you quoted and praised a letter complaining that no one had responded to CD. Now, your main theme seems to have become, "There are just so many responses to my argument, I just can't keep up with them all!"
Feast or famine -- whether we respond or don't, both somehow seem to discredit Christianity.
Same with your claim that no one who studies the historical evidence properly will conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. Scholars who agree with you, like Ehrman and Allison, "agree with me to a man." Well of course, that's why you mentioned them.
We refer to that as "confirmation bias," or "stacking the deck."
To the extent that your argument is a platitude -- one should consider the evidence for and against one's beliefs fairly -- few Christian scholars will object to it. To the extent that it is presented as some kind of argument against Christian belief, I'm not sure your no doubt excellent training under Dr. Craig has equipped you to understand to understand either world religions, or the Christian theologies of comparative religion, so as to make a persuasive argument.
We are all amateurs in most fields. It's no dishonor to admit a little ignorance sometimes.
They think that criticism of the OTF makes their magical beliefs true.
How quaint.
I guess they don't realize that the believers of myths and magical beliefs they find silly can use the very same "arguments" to convince themselves that their magical beliefs are true.
There's an infinity of beliefs, but only one truth. I prefer to follow the evidence rather than any story involving the supernatural.
To the extent that your argument is a platitude -- one should consider the evidence for and against one's beliefs fairly -- few Christian scholars will object to it.
Craig may not object to it, but he has admitted that even clear and convincing evidence that Jesus was not resurrected wouldn't affect his faith; that his personal revelation will always trump any evidence that contradicts his faith. I think Craig thinks he is being honest in his own lights; but it is the queer sort of honesty that I find my charismatic Catholic brother practicing; that is, what are a few misdirections in this life, if it gets people on the path to salvation, which is eternal?
Craig seems to have an awesome grasp of Bayesian probability theory and cosmology, but when you have actual mathematicians and physicist read and dissect his work, they will tell you that he appears to deliberately misrepresent both areas to support his contentions.
Following a synopsis of the cosmological argument (found here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html ), Craig writes:
"It follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe--which is what most people have traditionally meant by 'God'."
Even granting that his argument was sound up to this point, he is blatantly committing the conjunction fallacy by adding all the extra features of "transcendent" and "mind" to "cause".
The widely used example of the conjunction fallacy (copied from Wikipedia):
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Which is more probable?
1. Linda is a bank teller. 2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
The answer is 1, yet most people will choose 2.
We can plug in Craig's choices to see the parallel:
1. The universe has a cause. 2. The universe has a cause that is also a mind, is transcendent, etc.
Here, as well, (all other things aside) #1 is more probable. Yet Craig claims #2.
I suspect that Craig is aware of this yet uses it precisely because people are prone to commit this fallacy - serving his rhetorical goals.
(I would add that Craig does try to justify why the cause should have these characteristics, but they are very weak justifications that commit errors of their own that I will not get into here.)
In the poster "Fishermage" you’ve attracted another Fundamentalist Universalist, John, a la J. L. Hinman. The most interesting apologists of all.
One who wants to butt his head against the OTF in favor of "Christianity." Yet simultaneously he disagrees "with much of Christian dogma and theology," admits that he is "technically, to many Christians, a Christian heretic as a universalist," and would join you John if you "want to attack the institutional Church."
Perhaps John you should start keeping a spreadsheet of all these breeds of Christianity that are immune to the OTF. It seems a new one pops up every week.
He also says, "apologists use 'faith' that God probably exists and miracles are possible to judge resurrection (and all other religions) and then coming to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead."
For those interested, read up on Michael Shermer’s books on the psychological studies that show people are more inclined to believe an absurd proposition if they have first accepted an even more absurd proposition. In other words; apologists start with the infinitely absurd, and reason backwards from there such that no proposition is too ridiculous to defend.
No wonder Tertullian said, "I believe because it is absurd."
Ildi: Would you mind giving me the quote and source for that on Craig? John made some similiar claim in CD, and I'd like to take peep at the original. Thanks.
Openly Atheist: You miss the point in an epic manner. Fishermage tried just about every religion before coming around to Christianity. One can hardly accuse her of refusing to consider Christianity as an outsider!
Also, according to Alister McGrath, the infamous Tertullian quote is taken out of context and misread. He gives what look like good reasons for thinking that.
What I'm claiming is that even in the face of evidence against God which we cannot refute, we ought to believe in God on the basis of His Spirit's witness. Apostasy is never the rational obligation of any believer, nor is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God can be trusted to provide such powerful warrant for the great truths of the Gospel that we will never be rationally obliged to reject or desert Him.
my fave:
4. Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found.
You might insist, “But how do you know that your experience isn’t also spurious?” I’ve already answered that question: the experience of the Spirit’s witness is self-authenticating for the person who really has it. The Spirit-filled Christian can know immediately that his claim to the Spirit’s witness is true despite the false claims made by persons adhering to other religions. That’s why Plantinga says that the only way Christian belief can shown to be unjustified, irrational, or unwarranted is to show that Christianity is false. For if it is true, then it is likely to be warranted.
Does Plantinga admit the possibility that de facto objections could show Christianity to be false? For readers who aren’t familiar with the lingo, a de facto objection is an objection to the factual truth of some claim. A de jure objection is an objection to the rationality of believing in that claim, even if the claim is true. De facto objections would certainly include argument and evidence, for example, the problem of suffering or sceptical biblical criticism. I’m sure that Plantinga would say that for persons in certain historical circumstances the evidence was against Christianity (think of Russian students educated in the Soviet era universities), such that absent the Spirit’s witness they would rationally judge Christianity to be false. But a person in such circumstances who has and attends to the witness of the Spirit has an intrinsic defeater of the objections he confronts. So in that sense Christianity could not be shown to him to be false.
No David, YOU miss the point in an epic manner. Fishermage INVENTED her own Christianity, no doubt cross-pollinated from many different genres of spirituality. Which, if pressed, I'm sure we'd all find is ultimately quite different from your Christianity. We recently had a Christian here claim that yoga brought him back to Christianity. We have a resident Orthodox commenter here. And a vehemently anti-atheist agnostic here named Brenda, who admitted that if she were a Christian, she'd be an Existentialist one. At least she's up front about admitting that she would make Christianity in her own image, while most of you try to hide the fact.
"Fishermage tried just about every religion before coming around to Christianity."
And have you done the same? HEY ATHEISTS! Let's all be amazed that Fishermage and David have both ended up with same religion! Let's not, below I'll say why.
"One can hardly accuse her of refusing to consider Christianity as an outsider!"
The point is, which Christianity? Not only can I accuse her of it, I can convict her of it using her own reasoning vis a vis her own admission of how apologists go about their business of using "faith" that "God probably exists." What God would that be? The Universalist's God or the Calvinist's God? Pro-life or Pro-choice? Today its a Christian that tells us all spirituality is cut from the same cloth, tomorrow it is a Christian who proclaims that all other religions are the product of Satan. Lo and behold, a Christianity for every Christian! The apologist presumes the God he wants, and always finds it.
This is what we atheists observe as we watch one Christian after another ricochet off the OTF. THAT is the point.
Ildi: Thanks, that context is helpful. The quotes you offer do not support your claim exactly, but do show what Craig was getting at . . . He evidently thinks God confirms the truth of the Gospel directly to believers, in such a way that they can be confident of that truth, even if they aren't in a position to defeat all the arguments they hear offered against it, say as a young subject of communist indoctrination.
I'm not sure I quite agree with it (I've heard similiar lines from too many people who hold contradictory beliefs with great confidence), but it's not quite what you said, and it may not be an irrational position.
More William Lane Craig: Raised in a non-evangelical home, I became a Christian my third year of high school, not through any careful consideration of the evidence, but because those Christian students who shared the gospel with me seemed to be living on a different plane of reality than I was. Their faith in Christ imparted meaning to their lives along with a joyous peace, which I craved.
…As a young believer full of enthusiasm and faith, I went off in 1967 to study at Wheaton College. During the sixties Wheaton had become a seedbed of skepticism and cynicism, and I was dismayed to see students whose intellectual abilities I admired lose their faith and renounce Christianity in the name of reason… Among the students, doubt was touted as a virtue of the mature Christian life, and one was supposed to follow unflinchingly the demands of reason wherever it might lead. I will remember well one of my theology professors commenting that if he were persuaded that Christianity were unreasonable, then he would renounce Christianity.
Now that frightened and troubled me. For me, Christ was so real and had invested my life with such significance that I could not make the confession of my professor – if somehow through my studies my reason were to turn against my faith, then so much the worse for reason! Thus, I confided to one of my philosophy teachers, “I guess I’m not a true intellectual. If my reason turned against Christ, I’d still believe. My faith is too real.
Five Views on Apologetics, pages 26-27. (from commonsenseatheism.com)
McGrew has a rather easy time showing the OTF has no special force. People of whatever faith may well be very clever and highly rational, and certainly sincere. Outsiders or insiders alike will deploy their arguments and disagree. Their location--in or out--won't make any difference. Both those who believe and those who dissent will simply argue as best they can, as they always have. Geography counts for nothing new or important.
Nor can McGrew be rightly said to rest his case on faith at all. As he says, he's an evidentialist through and through. He holds that the resurrection should, even must, be accepted on historical grounds. The testimony of the women who visited the tomb, of the disciples who saw the risen Jesus, of Paul who saw him on the road to Damascus, is, as reported in the gospels and in Corinthians, of such veracity it can't be rejected.
This is lousy history and worse physiology. But it's not faith, it's a a highly tendentious but utterly sincere and well informed reliance on evidence. The OTF doesn't apply because it's (so McGrew believes) only evidence that's to be tested and that's to determine belief.
Plantinga has a much better sense than do the McGrews of just how feeble is the evidentiary case for the resurrection. But then his scorn for basing belief on evidence gets him a terrible stew, and the McGrews see that quite clearly.
There are parallels here to the origins of atheism in France as laid out by Alan Kors. In 18th century France arose two schools of theology--the Cartesian, whicn saw that belief couldn't rest in sense experience, and relied instead on argument from "ideas," and the Aristotelians which held that knowledge must rest in the sensible. McGrew is Aristotle (Thomas), Plantinga is Descartes. They're both wrong, and the atheist is right, in 2010 as in 1710.
James: A clever argument. You also appear willing at least sometimes to admit a bad argument on your side when you see it. I disbelieve some of your premises, though, and doubt others. I think the evidence for the Rez is excellent, as historical evidence goes. Also there's lots of other evidence that supports the worldview in which it becomes most credible.
But I'd like to ask you a question similiar to the one I asked Ildi. When did Plantinga admit evidence for the Rez is "feeble?" I ask with an open mind -- I haven't read Plantinga much, it would surprise me if he said that, but I'm willing to be persuaded.
I am not a fundamentalist, and yes, I found my own Christianity. EVERYONE does. Every Muslim has his own Islam, every member of every faith has his own version of faith -- there are no truly organized religions.
Or philosophies, or ideologies. NO two atheists believe the same thing, no two existentialists do, no two ANYTHINGS do. Not really. We all grok things differently and that is what we become.
I have a map in my head of something bigger than me and so does every theist -- but the map is not the territory, as they say.
God's a bit bigger than that -- at least the God I have found -- bigger than any "religion." He speaks to all in THEIR language, and always has.
What I believe in terms of Christianity is that Jesus was/is the "Word" "Son" "all that is God as God's Logic and Reason is expressed (Divine Logos)" that has been revealing Himself to all throughout history under many names and threw on a coat, got down and lived among us as a man, was a friend, a teacher, a healer and eventually, a sacrifice to end all sacrifice.
Thus all "religions" were fulfilled right there. No longer need anyone DO anything to get in good with God. It is finished.
Since this is an event in and outside of spacetime (being the intersection of divine and man, temporal and beyond time), it is efficacious for ALL -- even all you infidels :)
In the end, God's justice will be perfect, and that includes YOU and ME.
Hell, if it exists, is for chastisement, purifying and refining.
Or perhaps....you guys are so skeptical you won't even believe in God when He brings you back, says he loves you, preaches Grace and love. Then he tries EVERYTHING cool to convince you -- nothing works.
Maybe some of you guys keep this up -- forever.
Sounds like Hell for both sides to me.
Oh, and I didn't EXACTLY TRY every religion, meaning believing in them temporarily, but I studied and enjoyed group participation in many religions, and still do.
I don't actually have any problems with the OTF, I use it daily. I find the discussion interesting; however. I believe what I believe largely do to the OTF, or my own version of it.
I do not expect anyone else to view the data I view as I do -- since no one has my priors -- no one has studied exactly what I have and been where I have been.
God is revealing Himself to you in His own way, as he did to me, and in eternity I look forward to seeing how everyone works out!
Correction: "I believe what I believe largely DUE to the OTF, or my own version of it."
BTW, I am also NOT an apologist. FAR from it. I am much more a preacher for Grace among the legalistic Christian community.
I also try and teach fellow believers how to better to understand other faiths.
Quite frankly, since my road to faith was so personal, I suck at apologetics.
I can tell you why I believe; and what I believe, but not what YOU should believe or why YOU should believe it. I'll trust that to God and better apologists than me.
I do find the OTF pretty interesting though; and I like CS Lewis and Victor Reppert...and so it goes here I am....
From Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief page 271:
Even discounting the effects of sin on our apprehension of the historical case, that case isn’t strong enough to produce warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching are true—at most, it could produce the warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching aren’t particularly improbable.
page 280:
The conclusion to be drawn, I think, is that K, our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn’t anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in G [the great truths of the gospel]. If K were all we had to go on, the only sensible course would be agnosticism: “I don’t know whether G is true or not: all I can say for sure is that it is not terribly unlikely.”
Yes, every atheist is unique, and so is every Christian, and so is the precise content of their beliefs and how they came to acquire them. Why that is supposed to prove Loftus' argument, I have no idea.
Ildi: Thanks. It sounds like one would have to read the whole book, or at least the chapter, to understand Plantinga's point accurately. But I don't see him saying evidence for the resurrection is "feeble," here.
I would guess that his real point -- I asked Gary Habermas his views on this once -- is that even the best historical evidence (which in my view the Rez has), is by itself insufficient to rest the whole of Christian theology upon. Isn't it likely that that's what he's saying?
David: More likely Plantinga is saying that it doesn't matter whether the evidence is feeble or robust; what matters is his sensus divinatus tells him Christianity is true.
I too doubt if Plantinga would say the evidence for the resurrection is "feeble."
But he does say what ildi quotes.
It's in the nature of historical evidence that it may provide only infirm foundation for faith. (New evidence may come to light, a document may be re-dated or proven to forged--that sort of thing.)
So Plantinga finds something firmer: the workings of the Holy Spirit, in his own life and soul, in the lives and souls of other communicants.
But one might doubt that reports of subjective experience--visitations by and impressions of the Holy Spirit--should count as probative evidence. Perhaps the McGrews take this view--after all, Mr. McGrew professes the philosophy of science, and knows what really counts as evidence.
Except that the evidence or the reports of what the women, disciples and Paul saw isn't probative at all, --but nonetheless, the McGrews are convinced that it is.
30 comments:
I haven't been following the OTF debate closely, so I'll refrain from commenting on what was said at the link. However, I do agree with your general point - especially when it comes to defending conservative-evangelical Christianity.
Probably the best example that I can think of off the top of my head is Bill Craig and the cosmological argument. He commits the conjunction fallacy when making this argument and he is a philosopher who should know better. Either he is purposely committing it, which makes him dishonest, or he doesn't recognize it. Neither of these possibilities makes him look particularly intellectually respectable.
Aww, you lucky guy, no one is willing to set up whole blocks to tell me what a jerk I am, congratulations!!!
I totally agree with the "Defending faith makes smart people look dumb" idea. The first time I read Descartes meditations I could have sworn the first two were written by a different guy than the idiot who later "proves the existence of God," self deception is a powerful force.
~Rhaco
Victor Reppert seems to have your number, John.
It's ironic -- a few days ago you quoted and praised a letter complaining that no one had responded to CD. Now, your main theme seems to have become, "There are just so many responses to my argument, I just can't keep up with them all!"
Feast or famine -- whether we respond or don't, both somehow seem to discredit Christianity.
Same with your claim that no one who studies the historical evidence properly will conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. Scholars who agree with you, like Ehrman and Allison, "agree with me to a man." Well of course, that's why you mentioned them.
We refer to that as "confirmation bias," or "stacking the deck."
To the extent that your argument is a platitude -- one should consider the evidence for and against one's beliefs fairly -- few Christian scholars will object to it. To the extent that it is presented as some kind of argument against Christian belief, I'm not sure your no doubt excellent training under Dr. Craig has equipped you to understand to understand either world religions, or the Christian theologies of comparative religion, so as to make a persuasive argument.
We are all amateurs in most fields. It's no dishonor to admit a little ignorance sometimes.
*tee-hee*
They think that criticism of the OTF makes their magical beliefs true.
How quaint.
I guess they don't realize that the believers of myths and magical beliefs they find silly can use the very same "arguments" to convince themselves that their magical beliefs are true.
There's an infinity of beliefs, but only one truth. I prefer to follow the evidence rather than any story involving the supernatural.
David Marshall...
you might want to re-read the bible passage about removing a beam from your own eye--
Confirmation bias is what every believer in the supernatural does to convince themselves that their magical beliefs are true.
To the extent that your argument is a platitude -- one should consider the evidence for and against one's beliefs fairly -- few Christian scholars will object to it.
Craig may not object to it, but he has admitted that even clear and convincing evidence that Jesus was not resurrected wouldn't affect his faith; that his personal revelation will always trump any evidence that contradicts his faith. I think Craig thinks he is being honest in his own lights; but it is the queer sort of honesty that I find my charismatic Catholic brother practicing; that is, what are a few misdirections in this life, if it gets people on the path to salvation, which is eternal?
Craig seems to have an awesome grasp of Bayesian probability theory and cosmology, but when you have actual mathematicians and physicist read and dissect his work, they will tell you that he appears to deliberately misrepresent both areas to support his contentions.
Hi T.A.,
How does Craig commit the conjunction fallacy when he offers his version of the cosmological argument?
Bobcat,
Following a synopsis of the cosmological argument (found here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html ), Craig writes:
"It follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe--which is what most people have traditionally meant by 'God'."
Even granting that his argument was sound up to this point, he is blatantly committing the conjunction fallacy by adding all the extra features of "transcendent" and "mind" to "cause".
The widely used example of the conjunction fallacy (copied from Wikipedia):
Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Which is more probable?
1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
The answer is 1, yet most people will choose 2.
We can plug in Craig's choices to see the parallel:
1. The universe has a cause.
2. The universe has a cause that is also a mind, is transcendent, etc.
Here, as well, (all other things aside) #1 is more probable. Yet Craig claims #2.
I suspect that Craig is aware of this yet uses it precisely because people are prone to commit this fallacy - serving his rhetorical goals.
(I would add that Craig does try to justify why the cause should have these characteristics, but they are very weak justifications that commit errors of their own that I will not get into here.)
In the poster "Fishermage" you’ve attracted another Fundamentalist Universalist, John, a la J. L. Hinman. The most interesting apologists of all.
One who wants to butt his head against the OTF in favor of "Christianity." Yet simultaneously he disagrees "with much of Christian dogma and theology," admits that he is "technically, to many Christians, a Christian heretic as a universalist," and would join you John if you "want to attack the institutional Church."
Perhaps John you should start keeping a spreadsheet of all these breeds of Christianity that are immune to the OTF. It seems a new one pops up every week.
He also says, "apologists use 'faith' that God probably exists and miracles are possible to judge resurrection (and all other religions) and then coming to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead."
For those interested, read up on Michael Shermer’s books on the psychological studies that show people are more inclined to believe an absurd proposition if they have first accepted an even more absurd proposition. In other words; apologists start with the infinitely absurd, and reason backwards from there such that no proposition is too ridiculous to defend.
No wonder Tertullian said, "I believe because it is absurd."
Ildi: Would you mind giving me the quote and source for that on Craig? John made some similiar claim in CD, and I'd like to take peep at the original. Thanks.
Openly Atheist: You miss the point in an epic manner. Fishermage tried just about every religion before coming around to Christianity. One can hardly accuse her of refusing to consider Christianity as an outsider!
Also, according to Alister McGrath, the infamous Tertullian quote is taken out of context and misread. He gives what look like good reasons for thinking that.
David: This isn't the original quote that I had in mind, but I searched Craig's Q&A archive and found this one: Subject: The Witness of the Spirit as an Intrinsic Defeater-Defeater
What I'm claiming is that even in the face of evidence against God which we cannot refute, we ought to believe in God on the basis of His Spirit's witness. Apostasy is never the rational obligation of any believer, nor is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God can be trusted to provide such powerful warrant for the great truths of the Gospel that we will never be rationally obliged to reject or desert Him.
my fave:
4. Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found.
Here's a gem from his post Subject: Counterfeit Claims of the Spirit’s Witness:
You might insist, “But how do you know that your experience isn’t also spurious?” I’ve already answered that question: the experience of the Spirit’s witness is self-authenticating for the person who really has it. The Spirit-filled Christian can know immediately that his claim to the Spirit’s witness is true despite the false claims made by persons adhering to other religions. That’s why Plantinga says that the only way Christian belief can shown to be unjustified, irrational, or unwarranted is to show that Christianity is false. For if it is true, then it is likely to be warranted.
Does Plantinga admit the possibility that de facto objections could show Christianity to be false? For readers who aren’t familiar with the lingo, a de facto objection is an objection to the factual truth of some claim. A de jure objection is an objection to the rationality of believing in that claim, even if the claim is true. De facto objections would certainly include argument and evidence, for example, the problem of suffering or sceptical biblical criticism. I’m sure that Plantinga would say that for persons in certain historical circumstances the evidence was against Christianity (think of Russian students educated in the Soviet era universities), such that absent the Spirit’s witness they would rationally judge Christianity to be false. But a person in such circumstances who has and attends to the witness of the Spirit has an intrinsic defeater of the objections he confronts. So in that sense Christianity could not be shown to him to be false.
link broken in my previous comment:
Subject: The Witness of the Spirit as an Intrinsic Defeater-Defeater
No David, YOU miss the point in an epic manner. Fishermage INVENTED her own Christianity, no doubt cross-pollinated from many different genres of spirituality. Which, if pressed, I'm sure we'd all find is ultimately quite different from your Christianity. We recently had a Christian here claim that yoga brought him back to Christianity. We have a resident Orthodox commenter here. And a vehemently anti-atheist agnostic here named Brenda, who admitted that if she were a Christian, she'd be an Existentialist one. At least she's up front about admitting that she would make Christianity in her own image, while most of you try to hide the fact.
"Fishermage tried just about every religion before coming around to Christianity."
And have you done the same? HEY ATHEISTS! Let's all be amazed that Fishermage and David have both ended up with same religion! Let's not, below I'll say why.
"One can hardly accuse her of refusing to consider Christianity as an outsider!"
The point is, which Christianity? Not only can I accuse her of it, I can convict her of it using her own reasoning vis a vis her own admission of how apologists go about their business of using "faith" that "God probably exists." What God would that be? The Universalist's God or the Calvinist's God? Pro-life or Pro-choice? Today its a Christian that tells us all spirituality is cut from the same cloth, tomorrow it is a Christian who proclaims that all other religions are the product of Satan. Lo and behold, a Christianity for every Christian! The apologist presumes the God he wants, and always finds it.
This is what we atheists observe as we watch one Christian after another ricochet off the OTF. THAT is the point.
Ildi: Thanks, that context is helpful. The quotes you offer do not support your claim exactly, but do show what Craig was getting at . . . He evidently thinks God confirms the truth of the Gospel directly to believers, in such a way that they can be confident of that truth, even if they aren't in a position to defeat all the arguments they hear offered against it, say as a young subject of communist indoctrination.
I'm not sure I quite agree with it (I've heard similiar lines from too many people who hold contradictory beliefs with great confidence), but it's not quite what you said, and it may not be an irrational position.
"people are more inclined to believe an absurd proposition if they have first accepted an even more absurd proposition."
Absurd Proposition:
Everything came from a natural cause even though nothing natural or material existed.
Even More Absurd Proposition:
Everything came from nothing by nothing.
More William Lane Craig: Raised in a non-evangelical home, I became a Christian my third year of high school, not through any careful consideration of the evidence, but because those Christian students who shared the gospel with me seemed to be living on a different plane of reality than I was. Their faith in Christ imparted meaning to their lives along with a joyous peace, which I craved.
…As a young believer full of enthusiasm and faith, I went off in 1967 to study at Wheaton College. During the sixties Wheaton had become a seedbed of skepticism and cynicism, and I was dismayed to see students whose intellectual abilities I admired lose their faith and renounce Christianity in the name of reason… Among the students, doubt was touted as a virtue of the mature Christian life, and one was supposed to follow unflinchingly the demands of reason wherever it might lead. I will remember well one of my theology professors commenting that if he were persuaded that Christianity were unreasonable, then he would renounce Christianity.
Now that frightened and troubled me. For me, Christ was so real and had invested my life with such significance that I could not make the confession of my professor – if somehow through my studies my reason were to turn against my faith, then so much the worse for reason! Thus, I confided to one of my philosophy teachers, “I guess I’m not a true intellectual. If my reason turned against Christ, I’d still believe. My faith is too real.
Five Views on Apologetics, pages 26-27. (from commonsenseatheism.com)
McGrew has a rather easy time showing the OTF has no special force. People of whatever faith may well be very clever and highly rational, and certainly sincere. Outsiders or insiders alike will deploy their arguments and disagree. Their location--in or out--won't make any difference. Both those who believe and those who dissent will simply argue as best they can, as they always have. Geography counts for nothing new or important.
Nor can McGrew be rightly said to rest his case on faith at all. As he says, he's an evidentialist through and through. He holds that the resurrection should, even must, be accepted on historical grounds. The testimony of the women who visited the tomb, of the disciples who saw the risen Jesus, of Paul who saw him on the road to Damascus, is, as reported in the gospels and in Corinthians, of such veracity it can't be rejected.
This is lousy history and worse physiology. But it's not faith, it's a a highly tendentious but utterly sincere and well informed reliance on evidence. The OTF doesn't apply because it's (so McGrew believes) only evidence that's to be tested and that's to determine belief.
Plantinga has a much better sense than do the McGrews of just how feeble is the evidentiary case for the resurrection. But then his scorn for basing belief on evidence gets him a terrible stew, and the McGrews see that quite clearly.
There are parallels here to the origins of atheism in France as laid out by Alan Kors. In 18th century France arose two schools of theology--the Cartesian, whicn saw that belief couldn't rest in sense experience, and relied instead on argument from "ideas," and the Aristotelians which held that knowledge must rest in the sensible. McGrew is Aristotle (Thomas), Plantinga is Descartes. They're both wrong, and the atheist is right, in 2010 as in 1710.
James: A clever argument. You also appear willing at least sometimes to admit a bad argument on your side when you see it. I disbelieve some of your premises, though, and doubt others. I think the evidence for the Rez is excellent, as historical evidence goes. Also there's lots of other evidence that supports the worldview in which it becomes most credible.
But I'd like to ask you a question similiar to the one I asked Ildi. When did Plantinga admit evidence for the Rez is "feeble?" I ask with an open mind -- I haven't read Plantinga much, it would surprise me if he said that, but I'm willing to be persuaded.
Guys, I am a dude.
I am not a fundamentalist, and yes, I found my own Christianity. EVERYONE does. Every Muslim has his own Islam, every member of every faith has his own version of faith -- there are no truly organized religions.
Or philosophies, or ideologies. NO two atheists believe the same thing, no two existentialists do, no two ANYTHINGS do. Not really. We all grok things differently and that is what we become.
I have a map in my head of something bigger than me and so does every theist -- but the map is not the territory, as they say.
God's a bit bigger than that -- at least the God I have found -- bigger than any "religion." He speaks to all in THEIR language, and always has.
What I believe in terms of Christianity is that Jesus was/is the "Word" "Son" "all that is God as God's Logic and Reason is expressed (Divine Logos)" that has been revealing Himself to all throughout history under many names and threw on a coat, got down and lived among us as a man, was a friend, a teacher, a healer and eventually, a sacrifice to end all sacrifice.
Thus all "religions" were fulfilled right there. No longer need anyone DO anything to get in good with God. It is finished.
Since this is an event in and outside of spacetime (being the intersection of divine and man, temporal and beyond time), it is efficacious for ALL -- even all you infidels :)
In the end, God's justice will be perfect, and that includes YOU and ME.
Hell, if it exists, is for chastisement, purifying and refining.
Or perhaps....you guys are so skeptical you won't even believe in God when He brings you back, says he loves you, preaches Grace and love. Then he tries EVERYTHING cool to convince you -- nothing works.
Maybe some of you guys keep this up -- forever.
Sounds like Hell for both sides to me.
Oh, and I didn't EXACTLY TRY every religion, meaning believing in them temporarily, but I studied and enjoyed group participation in many religions, and still do.
I don't actually have any problems with the OTF, I use it daily. I find the discussion interesting; however. I believe what I believe largely do to the OTF, or my own version of it.
I do not expect anyone else to view the data I view as I do -- since no one has my priors -- no one has studied exactly what I have and been where I have been.
God is revealing Himself to you in His own way, as he did to me, and in eternity I look forward to seeing how everyone works out!
Either way, thanks for mentioning me, guys!
Correction: "I believe what I believe largely DUE to the OTF, or my own version of it."
BTW, I am also NOT an apologist. FAR from it. I am much more a preacher for Grace among the legalistic Christian community.
I also try and teach fellow believers how to better to understand other faiths.
Quite frankly, since my road to faith was so personal, I suck at apologetics.
I can tell you why I believe; and what I believe, but not what YOU should believe or why YOU should believe it. I'll trust that to God and better apologists than me.
I do find the OTF pretty interesting though; and I like CS Lewis and Victor Reppert...and so it goes here I am....
anyway thanks again!
From Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief page 271:
Even discounting the effects of sin on our apprehension of the historical case, that case isn’t strong enough to produce warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching are true—at most, it could produce the warranted belief that the main lines of Christian teaching aren’t particularly improbable.
page 280:
The conclusion to be drawn, I think, is that K, our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn’t anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in G [the great truths of the gospel]. If K were all we had to go on, the only sensible course would be agnosticism: “I don’t know whether G is true or not: all I can say for sure is that it is not terribly unlikely.”
Fishermage: Sorry, my mistake.
Yes, every atheist is unique, and so is every Christian, and so is the precise content of their beliefs and how they came to acquire them. Why that is supposed to prove Loftus' argument, I have no idea.
Ildi: Thanks. It sounds like one would have to read the whole book, or at least the chapter, to understand Plantinga's point accurately. But I don't see him saying evidence for the resurrection is "feeble," here.
I would guess that his real point -- I asked Gary Habermas his views on this once -- is that even the best historical evidence (which in my view the Rez has), is by itself insufficient to rest the whole of Christian theology upon. Isn't it likely that that's what he's saying?
David: More likely Plantinga is saying that it doesn't matter whether the evidence is feeble or robust; what matters is his sensus divinatus tells him Christianity is true.
I too doubt if Plantinga would say the evidence for the resurrection is "feeble."
But he does say what ildi quotes.
It's in the nature of historical evidence that it may provide only infirm foundation for faith. (New evidence may come to light, a document may be re-dated or proven to forged--that sort of thing.)
So Plantinga finds something firmer: the workings of the Holy Spirit, in his own life and soul, in the lives and souls of other communicants.
But one might doubt that reports of subjective experience--visitations by and impressions of the Holy Spirit--should count as probative evidence. Perhaps the McGrews take this view--after all, Mr. McGrew professes the philosophy of science, and knows what really counts as evidence.
Except that the evidence or the reports of what the women, disciples and Paul saw isn't probative at all, --but nonetheless, the McGrews are convinced that it is.
Sorry Fishermage. Someone said "her" so I figured someone else knew.
Post a Comment