William Lane Craig Responds to Rumraket on Epistemology

Conversation
23

6 posts were split to a new topic: Why were these posts flagged?

29

Agree. How do we, in concert with Dr Craig, argue against a Mormon who says they have confirmation that Mormonism is true because, as they say, they have a warm feeling in their chest?

I respect Dr Craig in many ways, but don’t follow him here. I do think that it comes back to God being reasonable and knowing what our limitations are. He, of all, is the best parent–knowing what we can and cannot believe. He would not blame us for not being able to follow the intellect He gave us, against the truth.

As Austin Fischer says, it’s often not doubt that loses us our faith. It’s the perception that we are not allowed to question.

If we are all without excuse, and the Holy Spirit is all we need, why does Dr Craig bother with apologetics?

I was embarrassed, but Dr Craig ascribed someone much smarter to my name–some of those quotes were beyond me. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
30

I agree, that is why I don’t use my personal spiritual experiences as apologetics. While they may be incredibly powerful for the person who has experienced them, I think they have nearly zero value for the person who hasn’t. Elsewhere Craig refers to the difference between “knowing” and “showing”. I “know” God exists because of my experience, but that is no use in “showing” God exists. In a similar way if I were accused of a crime that I knew I didn’t commit, I would still be reasonable in believing I didn’t commit it despite any evidence or reasoning that claimed to show I did. But If I expected you to take my word against all the evidence, well now that would be unreasonable of me.

5 Likes
31

Okay, but I just have to wonder what it is about this experience that makes you think it confirms the truth of Christianity? There’s something deeply problematic with adopting this kind of presupposition about the source of your experience.

As I wrote earlier above, to adopt Craig’s stance here is to seal yourself off emotionally and intellectually from the possibility that your position is wrong. A sort of epistemological valve that will allow you to enter into the Christian faith(or whatever belief it is) with evidence and argument, but from which you can’t escape again because now this internal rule about personal experience and “contingent historical circumstance” that becomes active on the inside won’t allow you to conclude that you are mistaken. Two fail-saves have been erected which could never be defeated even in principle.

So you can allow evidence and arguments to persuade you to become a Christian, and then when you’ve entered the faith, you can take your religious experiences to be further confirmation, where before you were Christian they were “just” subjective personal experiences. So now you can’t ever be persuaded out of Christianity again, you’ll always have this feeling you can return to, or at least recall having felt. Doesn’t that seem to you, to close yourself off from the possibility of discovering that you’ve been wrong?

You can always just rationalize in the same way that Craig does, that “I merely happen to be in some historically contingent circumstance, so even though now the evidence is against me, I can fall back on my internal feeling of the Holy Spirit and remain a believer even if the evidence remains against me for the rest of my life, or at least until such a time that new evidence that turns the situation around is found again”. Whatever you may discover in the future, it’s just historically contingent, and there’s always the feeling. With these two ad-hoc epistemological rules, you’ve made it impossible for yourself to discover that you are wrong.

2 Likes
32

Since I believe my experience has no value apologetically I don’t share it unless specifically asked to. I can if you want, or I have posted some details on here previously which I could dig up if you really wanted me to.
However perhaps I should clarify first that my experience only changed me from an Atheist to a Theist. So I suppose any of the monotheistic faiths would be available choices for me. I choose evangelical Christianity (in the spiritual sense, not the american political movement) as the one which fits me best based on reason. However I’ve been researching so-called “messianic Judaism” for the last couple of years and there is a lot in that which also appeals. I may switch in the future. The other point is that someone accepting that God exists in the same way that accepting 2+2=4 doesn’t make them a Christian from a Christian perspective. Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

1 Like
33

I’d like to hear about the experience that convinced you of the existence of God, if you don’t mind.

1 Like
34

My understanding of 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that you have. But respond with gentleness and respect, is that I should always answer that question whether I mind or not, and the only condition is that I have to show gentleness and respect, not the questioner.

It was discussed here: Faith, Belief, and Reason
That doesn’t seem to be all of it. I find the way this forum splits and moves discussions counter-intuitive. I can try and find the other bits when I have time. This is rather a busy time of year for me as I have an opportunity to share my faith with a thousand people a night.

3 Likes
35

Thanks for sharing that. I think you can probably guess my response, so I won’t bother writing it down.

3 Likes
36

@Faizal_Ali your response should be:

Thank you for sharing these personal things about yourself. Of course I am not convinced, but I appreciate you openness.

Right?

2 Likes
37

I guess your response was going to be as hostile as mine used to be when I was an atheist and heard something like that, so I appreciate your restraint. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
38

I’m in the exact opposite situation. I think intellectually, some type of Theism is probably true. But I don’t feel that it’s true. No religious experiences for me.

5 Likes
39

Actually his response was kinder than I expected (or even deserved considering my past) so he has gone up a notch in my estimation.

5 Likes
40

This is a position I can respect, even if I disagree with your conclusion. Presumably you think there is good evidence that has got you to that position, and if better evidence came along you would be open to change your mind again. You have not erected some sort of ad-hoc epistemological equivalent of blowing up the bridge behind you.

2 Likes
41

Depending on the day of the week, I disagree with my conclusion.

5 Likes
42

That’d work, too. :smiley:

1 Like
43

It seems to me that Dr Craig may be taking Paul’s text of Romans 1:20 out of context. Here, Paul is talking about whether those who were even not in the covenant knew anything about God’s character; or, perhaps more clearly, moral law. Certainly, we all (those of us with the mental capacity; children and the mentally challenged may not) have a moral law; we all fall short of it. God would deal with us based on our knowledge, not on whether we caught a whisper that He gave us the 10 commandments, or that He sent Jesus. He’s not saying that the Holy Spirit guided everyone into every truth; after all, Paul elsewhere says, “how can they believe unless they have heard?”

In addition, Randal Rauser posts a great rebuttal to this idea here:
https://randalrauser.com/2015/10/koukl-responds-to-feser-and-i-respond-to-koukl/

Thanks.

1 Like