Holy smokes what a pile of nonsense that all confirms everything I said to begin with. Craig goes through the motions of saying that no, of course Christians should not be unreasonable when argument and evidence contradicts the Christian faith, instead they should rely on the “witness of the Holy Spirit”. And by doing that, he’s being unreasonable. To insist on something so patently question-begging and self-serving is to be unreasonable.
“While the sands of arguments and evidence may be shifting and vacillating over time and geography and with differing educations and backgrounds of different people, there is this more fundamental witness to the truth of Christian faith which is the witness of the Holy Spirit. So, in answer to his question: When reason is not a minister of the Christian faith, what should we do? (I take that to mean, When we don’t have good arguments and evidence for the Christian faith, or when perhaps even the arguments and the evidence are against us, what should we do?) Be unreasonable? No, I’m not saying be unreasonable. I’m saying that rational belief isn’t based exclusively on arguments and evidence so that you are reasonable. That’s the whole point! You are reasonable in believing on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit.”
How is this not what I wrote to begin with? When arguments and evidence runs against Christianity, believe on the basis of “the witness of the Holy Spirit” instead. So abandon arguments and evidence when and if they are against Christianity, and instead still believe because of this other thing that isn’t argument and evidence.
“The view that I’m defending is that arguments and evidence are not necessary in order for Christian belief to be rational and even warranted, and, in fact, it can be rational and warranted to believe in Christian truth even when the arguments and evidence appear to be against it. It all depends upon whether or not there is this other source of warrant besides argument and evidence. And I think that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is this other source of warrant, namely it is the witness of the Holy Spirit.”
He also says that “the witness of the holy spirit” is not just some subjective religious experience. He says this.
“This is not a subjective feeling, something you concoct yourself – a religious experience. This is an objective testimony of God himself to our spirits that the great truths of the Gospel are, in fact, true.”
And what evidence does he bring to support that this supposed “witnessing” of the Holy Spirit is not a subjective feeling, a religious experience? It says so in the Bible!
“And I think that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is this other source of warrant, namely it is the witness of the Holy Spirit.”
Oh, scripture says it? Welcome to my tissue religion.
KEVIN HARRIS: We have the witness of the Holy Spirit throughout history in all cultures.
DR. CRAIG: Yes. Then the second point was that if you adopt this view (called evidentialism or theological rationalism, which is again the view that belief is rational only if you have adequate evidence and argument) then I point out a person who had been given bad arguments would have a just excuse before God for his unbelief. He could say, God, those Christians only gave me this lousy banana argument from design for your existence; that’s why I didn’t believe . But the Bible is very clear in Romans 1 that all persons are without excuse before God for not believing in his existence. Therefore you cannot be excused even if you’ve been given bad arguments and evidence for the truth of the Christian faith because there is this other warrant for the truth of the Christian faith which you have to ignore and suppress in order to remain in unbelief.
So Craig says we should just continue to believe that Christianity is true when evidence and arguments run against it, because your subjective religious experience of “the witness of the holy spirit” isn’t really a subjective religious experience. No no, you just KNOW it’s true because you just DO okay? You just DO! The Bible says so in Romans 1.
No, sorry boys. You’re being unreasonable. Insisting strongly that you’re not with a hand wave to Romans 1, and the bare assertion that it’s totally not a subjective religious experience but “This is an objective testimony of God himself to our spirits that the great truths of the Gospel are, in fact, true.” - does nothing to alter that obvious fact.
I have an inner witness of the truth of atheism, and it’s not just some subjective feeling, something that I concocted myself, a religious experience. It’s an objective testimony of reality itself to our knowledge that the great truths of Tissue are, in fact, true. And you are all without excuse.