Frank Walton criticized me for basically name-dropping on his site.
I noticed Frank doesn't allow for any comments on his blog, like I have allowed him on mine. I'm not opposed to differing opinions. They help us to think and they make us grow. So I've decided to publish what he said and try to offer a response. I did eliminate one reference to Dr. Craig though, okay? :)
Some thoughts:
I'm not sure what he means when he says Carrier and Barker are trying to make a name off of Christians. Such a claim doesn't really make sense to me. They just want to debunk Christianity, like I do.
The accusation of name-dropping isn't so bad if that's the best charge he can make against me, now is it? And while he misaccuses me of some ad hominem argument, he should focus on the substance of what I put on my blog, even if I'm merely providing links to other arguments.
Take for example Richard Carrier's few paragraphs copied in my previous post, below. Frank, try dealing with that next time, okay?
I'll be updating my blog/links listings from time to time, depending on the content of those blogs. Don't be surprised if I delete yours if that's the best you can do. I want reasonable links and/or blogs, and it may take me a while to find the best ones--ones which don't resort to ridicule and contain a higher level of thinking. I'm looking for suggestions to make this blog a pretty damn good one.
Frank Walton:
What Loftus is saying in effect is this, "I know that Dr. Craig is one of the greatest modern Christian thinkers. I was even a student of his! But guess what, I'm not a Christian anymore. Which goes to show how unconvincing Dr. Craig is!"
Actually, what I'm saying is that the arguments just aren't there, period, no matter who the defender of Christianity happens to be. If it's true of Dr. Craig's arguments, then it should be true of most all other apologists, although, I know I'm just speaking for myself.
By telling you I was his former student I got your attention, didn't I? What's wrong with that? People usually want to know of our credentials. Isn't that something you'd like to know? If you were a former student of his, I'm sure we'd hear about it too.
In a way, I would like to pressure Bill into debating me. I had initially asked him if he would want to co-author a book as a dialogue between a professor and former student, but he declined, saying "that would give me no joy."
I will say this though, it took a major crisis in my life plus nearly six intense years of thinking and soul-searching to break free from the arguments I had once defended. The last two beliefs of mine I rejected were the resurrection of Jesus and then later the belief in God. These two beliefs of mine were so well ingrained within me, especially as the result of Dr. Craig's teaching and writing, that they were the last ones I rejected. For me, his arguments were very tough to break free of, but in the end, I did break free of them. Not because of rebellion against God or him, but just as the result of the logical educated process of thought.
Another thing. I like Bill very much. I recently told him that I have nothing personal against him, and that I was sorry if I am an embarrassment to him. But the arguments just were not there, period. I have to follow what I believe to be the truth. That's all I can do.
And since I don't believe in Christianity, I want to help others break free from it's narrow-minded, superstitious, guilt producing, and pre-scientific thinking.
Let me add to what Michael Martin wrote on “Craig’s Holy Spirit Epistemology,”
Here.Dr. William Lane Craig argues that Christians should start with faith in the Christian God. Why? “We know Christianity to be true by the self authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit.” What does he mean by that? “I mean that the witness, or testimony, of the Holy Spirit is its own proof; it is unmistakable; it does not need other proofs to back it up; it is self-evident and attests to its own truth.” Hitchhiking on the philosophical work of Alvin Plantinga’s defense of the a properly basic belief in God, and citing the Bible (Gal. 3:26; 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16; I John 2:20, 26-27; 3:24; 5:7-10), Craig writes: “I would agree that belief in the God of the Bible is a properly basic belief, and emphasize that it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that supplies the circumstance for its proper basically. And because this belief is from God, it is not merely rational, but definitely true.” [Apologetics, (pp. 18-22)].
Does Dr. Craig mean to say that he cannot be wrong? I think so. He knows Christianity is true. With this understanding he has insulated himself from any and all objections to the contrary. Dr. Craig knows he’s right because he knows he’s right, and that’s the end of the matter. Since he knows he’s right, Christianity is true.
But consider first the content to this inner self-authenticating witness. Does his inner witness of the Holy Spirit lead him to believe that all of the traditional Christian doctrines are true, as he understands them? Does this entail he has the correct understanding of things like God’s foreknowledge, predestination, eschatology, and Calvinism? Are his specific views on the Deity of Christ, baptism, the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the grave, and his second coming all the correct ones? What is the particular content of this self-authentication from the Spirit? There must be some content to the witness of the Spirit that gives him assurance he’s right, and where does he learn this content? At what point does it stop and he’s left on his own to work things out from reading the Bible? Furthermore, does this inner witness tell him that his views on the self-authenticating testimony of the Holy Spirit are true?
So what is the actual content of this God experience? Where did this content come from, and how coherent is this content? That’s what I want to know, and I believe Craig will have no real satisfying answer to these questions, at least not to third person outsiders like myself.
And what about the coherence of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit of the things he has led Bill Craig to believe? An eternally uncreated Triune being (3 in 1?) who has always existed as he is (with no growth, for he was always perfect), with all power (but doesn't use it like we would if we saw a burning child), all knowledge (since he never learned anything), and who is present everywhere (a non-embodied being?) is just is too complex of an entity to believe in. And in the New Testament (which surely forms the content of this witness, and not the witness of the Spirit itself) we find an Incarnate Son of God who atoned for our sins (even though no one has yet made any reasonable sense of either an incarnate God or how his death atoned for our sins). Those who disbelieve go to hell (however conceived), making the problem of evil for a good omnipotent God impossible to solve (even though without a belief in hell it's insoluble anyway).