tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8850059176467934129..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig is an Epistemological SolipsistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39245140375428568762008-10-15T10:34:00.000-04:002008-10-15T10:34:00.000-04:00ryan, thanks. I have just responded to Professor C...ryan, thanks. I have just responded to Professor Craig's comments <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/william-lane-craig-is-epistemological_15.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Let's continue this debate in this new post of mine, for I make the same charge I did here based on his recent comments, which add nothing new to what I've seen him say on the topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4612988433383507892008-10-15T02:17:00.000-04:002008-10-15T02:17:00.000-04:00We still don't know what Craig's experience is. He...We still don't know what Craig's experience is. He compares it to a belief that if we have food in our stomachs, then we ate something.<BR/><BR/>However, Craig's silence as to what his experience was makes it obvious that his experience is nothing like as solid as he makes out.<BR/><BR/>If it was solid, he would tell us what it was.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Craig's 'inner witness of the Holy Spirit' is fancy talk hiding a whole lot of nothing.<BR/><BR/>CRAIG<BR/>Thus, for example, a Christian who encounters the problem of evil is faced with a potential defeater of his belief in God.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Here is what Plantinga thinks of evidence as being a defeater for his claim that he knows he is right.<BR/><BR/>On page 303 of 'The Analytical Theist', Plantinga simply denies that anything follows even from seeing 10 to the power 13 'turps' of evil in the world.<BR/><BR/>No matter how much evil there is in the world, Plantinga is unshaken in his belief that an all-good god created it.<BR/><BR/>In fact, he writes that nothing whatever can be concluded simply by agreeing that it is very unlikely that an all good god is compatible with vast amounts of evil.<BR/><BR/>So while Craig might claim his faith is reasonable, these sorts of people boast in public about how evidence will never sway them.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72781459451197377812008-10-14T22:32:00.000-04:002008-10-14T22:32:00.000-04:00Dr. Craig has recently addressed your criticism of...Dr. Craig has recently addressed your criticism of his view at the link below. I'm a theist who's been lurking for some time and I'm interested in your reply to his response.<BR/><BR/>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6489Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16164102543355645322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19222710171510049652008-10-11T02:45:00.000-04:002008-10-11T02:45:00.000-04:00If I was convinced that I was Napoleon (wore the f...If I was convinced that I was Napoleon (wore the funny hat, kept my hand in my shirt, constantly made plans to invade Russia...)would the rationality of this belief be directly related to the strength of my conviction in the sense that, the more I believed it the more rational it would be?<BR/><BR/>How would I be any different than Craig or Plantinga?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44433585203847645332008-10-10T18:03:00.000-04:002008-10-10T18:03:00.000-04:00Keith Parsons is very busy but sent me this as a r...Keith Parsons is very busy but sent me this as a reply:<BR/><BR/><I>I looked at Linville’s response and I found it confusing. He seemed to think that I was commenting on him or Plantinga, but I was responding to the piece you wrote about Craig. He made a couple of remarks that struck me as, frankly, silly. When I inquired as to the nature of Craig’s experiences and what made them so compelling, he suggested that maybe, a la Sarah Palin, the theist could just say “I just know. You betcha (wink, wink).” But this is risible. Craig says that the “inner testimony” of the Holy Spirit is so forceful, that the believer can, and indeed is rationally compelled to believe even if he or she has no reply to atheological arguments. But surely it is absurd to say that you can “just know” that something is so with such assurance that you can dismiss all counter argument. If we let people say that, what would be not let them say?</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85886714557122979002008-10-09T20:55:00.000-04:002008-10-09T20:55:00.000-04:00Mark, don't forget in all of this not to neglect t...Mark, don't forget in all of this not to neglect the <I>Outsider Test for Faith</I> I've developed.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60963048164423170072008-10-09T15:43:00.000-04:002008-10-09T15:43:00.000-04:00Mark said...I'm seriously entertaining writing a b...Mark said...<I>I'm seriously entertaining writing a book that will complement yours as the other bookend. <BR/><BR/>How about Why I Am Not An Atheist as a title?</I><BR/><BR/>It'd have to be as good as mine to earn that title! :-)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, that's a good title!<BR/><BR/>The black hat is because I'm a bad boy now! But the beard, hmmmm, kinda looks like Jesus now doesn't it? <BR/><BR/>Join our side. We need you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40034501626853550232008-10-08T23:44:00.000-04:002008-10-08T23:44:00.000-04:00Kiwi's questions are very good, which is why Mark ...Kiwi's questions are very good, which is why Mark ducked them when asked to describe what experience Craig had.<BR/><BR/>So far, all we have been given as warranted belief for 'the great things of the Gospel' is somebody looking at the starry heavens and thinking that a god must have made them.<BR/><BR/>2000 years of Christianity and this is all they have come up with?<BR/><BR/>What did Craig experience?<BR/><BR/>Craig bangs on and on about his 'inner witness of the Holy Spirit', and as far as I can see , all this means is that Craig thinks he is right and that other people are wrong.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1943125410961492882008-10-08T23:06:00.000-04:002008-10-08T23:06:00.000-04:00If a person has the inner conviction God is tellin...If a person has the inner conviction God is telling him that he should kill homosexuals, or blow up an abortion clinic, or kill his children because they will go to hell otherwise, is it rational to obey God? If not, why not?<BR/><BR/>How do we know a conviction comes from the Holy Spirit, rather than our imagination? What is the way to distinguish it?<BR/><BR/>Serious questions, by the way. I'm trying to understand what's going on in Plantinga and Craig brain. In my every day life, I have strong feelings that I am right about a lot of things... How would I know that some of those convictions come from the Holy Spirit? Does it have a distinctive feeling? If so, what it is? If not, how do Plantinga know when it's the Spirit and when it's just wishful thinking?kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17369248480878697252008-10-08T22:57:00.000-04:002008-10-08T22:57:00.000-04:00"I can imagine someone of Christian conviction hav..."I can imagine someone of Christian conviction having a degree of certitude that they take to be sufficient for knowledge."<BR/><BR/>Really? Why would Craig - and other Christians - have such a confidence that Christianity is true? <BR/><BR/>If we take Craig, none of his arguments are impressive. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is controversial and has been answered; the moral argument is weak and does not convince a lot of people, including Christian philosophers; the argument that the resurrection of Jesus can be deduced as the best explanation with some historical facts is bogus and has been debunked. The inner testimony of the holy spirit is indistinguishable from wishful thinking.<BR/><BR/>Not only that, there's plenty of strong atheistic arguments against Christianity. <BR/><BR/>If Craig wants to claim that Christianity is more likely to be true than atheism, I would strongly disagree, but at the same time I would think that it's somewhat a reasonable position. But it seems he has such a strong confidence that Christianity is true (again... why?) to a point I cannot think of one defeater that could make Craig changes his mind. Now, I'm not a philosopher, but I cannot see how this attitude could possibly be considered rational.kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22113411410740461432008-10-08T15:04:00.000-04:002008-10-08T15:04:00.000-04:00Mark,Granted, of course, that methodological natur...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Granted, of course, that methodological naturalism does not hold all the answers for all things. But neither does it purport to. That Lockwood and Kim have mused that the science involved in consciousness is inadequate or hopeless doesn’t bother me – as I’m sure you know expressions of the hopeless of scientific ventures do not have a great track record. (Btw, how do you equate their conclusions with having “no room for the fact that I am consciously entertaining your arguments..?” Isn’t that kind of like saying that because an abiogenist cannot explain how life began he has no room for the fact that life began?)<BR/><BR/>Theism is uniquely different from atheism in that atheistic viewpoint properly accommodates any new evidence. If, for instance, prayers are suddenly answered, predictions about the future are accurately made, etc., then whammo, I’m a Theist. But the exact opposite of those things happens every day and, well, as this post attributes, theists remain theists. In other words, there isn’t just an overwhelming lack of evidence for a specific theistic God. There is an overwhelming abundance of contrary evidence, and that evidence does present a unique problem to theists. In short, atheists have planted their flag on the moving probable wherever it may lead; theists on the (highly) improbable on an island that only gets smaller.<BR/><BR/>In other words, defined branches of theism, by purporting to know the empirically unknown, do uniquely face the problem of accommodating empirical evidence as it accumulates. And that is a unique problem that they face.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-525192780628102012008-10-08T13:34:00.000-04:002008-10-08T13:34:00.000-04:00Tony:I believe that people who are actually in the...Tony:<BR/><BR/>I believe that people who are actually <EM>in</EM> the Matrix are rewarded for believing that they are not.<BR/><BR/>Any ultimate positive accounting of things--a worldview or conceptual system--will have to encounter stubborn data that is not easily handled. Consider, for example, the problem of accounting for consciousness on physicalism. Contrary to what might be supposed here, the claim that there is a problem does not originate with Christian apologists and mind-body dualists. Michael Lockwood, for instance, writes,<BR/><BR/>"It seems to me evident that no description of brain activity of the relevant kind, couched in the currently available languages of physics, physiology, or functional or computational roles, is remotely capable of capturing what is distinctive about consciousness. So glaring, indeed, are the shortcomings of all the reductive programmes currently on offer, that I cannot believe that anyone with a philosophical training, looking dispassionately at these programmes, would take any of them seriously for a moment, were it not for a deep-seated conviction that current physical science has essentially got reality taped, and accordingly, something along the lines of what the reductionists are offering must be correct. To that extent, the very existence of consciousness seems to me to be a standing demonstration of the explanatory limitations of contemporary physical science."<BR/><BR/>And Jaegwon Kim has argued recently (in <EM>Physicalism or Something Near Enough</EM>) that mental causation and content cannot be explained unless some variety of reductionism is true, and "reductionism may not be true." He attempts a "functional reduction" of consciousness, but acknowledges that "qualia" (what it <EM>feels</EM> like to be in pain, for instance) resists such reduction.<BR/><BR/>I can handle an ancient earth and common ancestry. But it is a rather serious problem for any theory that has no room for the fact that I am consciously entertaining your arguments at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Now, before this thread is hijacked into a discussion of philosophy of mind, my point is simply to note that theism is in no way unique in facing problems.MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13232259097925234212008-10-08T13:17:00.000-04:002008-10-08T13:17:00.000-04:00Hey, John.I'm seriously entertaining writing a boo...Hey, John.<BR/><BR/>I'm seriously entertaining writing a book that will complement yours as the other bookend. <BR/><BR/>How about <EM>Why I Am Not An Atheist</EM> as a title? <BR/><BR/>Then you and I can take it on the road--a traveling debate. We can either split the cost of an outfitted bus or each get our own and race.<BR/><BR/>I need a gimmick, though. You've got that hat. A white hat for me is too obvious. How about a sequined jacket like Steve Martin in <EM>Leap of Faith</EM>?MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38378971899711625872008-10-08T13:12:00.000-04:002008-10-08T13:12:00.000-04:00Mark,I appreciate your candor and your willingness...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your candor and your willingness to take a flyer on this, but your distinction between in principle and in fact defeasibility doesn't amount to much more to me than an announcement that Christians will hold stubbornly to their convictions.<BR/><BR/>The problem with likening your theistic conviction to an in fact indefeasible convictions is that they have no confirming nor predictive powers. The world behaves exactly as I expect it should if I am not, in fact, in the Matrix. (Never have power outages resulted in my waking, shrieking, in a fetal bed of the fellow deceived, etc.) It has always been this way for me. Tomorrow, I will behave as if I am not in the Matrix, and I will be rewarded for this conviction. <BR/><BR/>Being a theist, on the other hand, would compel me to constantly explain away, in extensive and tortured ways, all the Matrix-like glitch moments that pop up in this supposedly Theistic universe. An old earth. Common ancestry. Bizarre theological principles. Other religions. Evil. <BR/><BR/>In other words, don’t expect my wife to be one in a long number of aliens because I have never been given an opportunity to suspect it. The extent of a specific denomination based on a theistic conviction, on the other hand, is not so immune.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31263860082514601612008-10-08T12:33:00.000-04:002008-10-08T12:33:00.000-04:00LEE RANDOLPHFor example, occasionally I hear my wi...LEE RANDOLPH<BR/>For example, occasionally I hear my wife's voice for an instant when she's not around.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>It is, if you have a telephone, or are married to Ethel Merman...Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55538466775666165562008-10-08T12:25:00.000-04:002008-10-08T12:25:00.000-04:00mark,oh no now you did it...."the simple fact is t...mark,<BR/>oh no now you did it....<BR/><B><I>"the simple fact is that christianity and religion is wishful thinking"--particularly since you seem inclined to assert this in lieu of argument.</I></B><BR/>heres a <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/search/label/Lee" REL="nofollow">link</A> to all my arguments.<BR/><BR/>the most irrational principle I can think of is that we are supposed to believe something on faith. <BR/><BR/>please fill in the blank mark<BR/>"we are supposed to believe on faith for our salvation because ______________________."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7799395902452812522008-10-08T12:17:00.000-04:002008-10-08T12:17:00.000-04:00Lee:I don't share your skepticism regarding though...Lee:<BR/><BR/>I don't share your skepticism regarding thought experiments involving bizarre scenarios. Here's why. Typically, what is being assessed is some proposed principle or definition that, if true, would apply in all <EM>possible</EM> scenarios. And so merely <EM>possible</EM>--even if improbable--counterexamples are fair game.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion that "the simple fact is that christianity and religion is wishful thinking"--particularly since you seem inclined to assert this in lieu of argument.<BR/><BR/>(Man, I just have to say no to blogging here. I may be unemployed at present, but I still supposedly have a life!)MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63349818306318833802008-10-08T12:05:00.000-04:002008-10-08T12:05:00.000-04:00Sorry but i have to rant. Guys like craig make me...Sorry but i have to rant. Guys like craig make me angry because they should know better.<BR/><BR/>Very, very few things are beyond doubt, especially "human experience". <BR/><BR/>and mark, I like thought experiments too, but when they get implausible like the alien or evil genius conspiracy then, in my opinion, they aren't very useful. <BR/><BR/>I think that christians and atheists as well like to think that these philosphical arguments against christianity are brilliant and highbrow, and some of them are very sophisticated and brilliant refutations on both sides, but the simple fact is that christianity and religion is wishful thinking using a presumption that traditions rooted thousands of years ago that have demonstrated no substance over that time and must violate rational principles to sustain themselves are worthy of an emotional investment.<BR/><BR/>the most irrational principle I can think of is that we are supposed to believe something on faith. People like that are fresh meat for the con man. <BR/><BR/>what in the world could justify a plan for salvation that is based on irrational principles when success in everything else in the world depends on rationality? What are the grounds for that? What is the principle supporting that?<BR/>Its a plan that is just begging to fail. And it does, over 2000 years christianity is at 30%. That kind of performance stinks.<BR/><BR/>Its a case of not extending rational principles into the domain of religion. <BR/><BR/>Lets try not extending rational principles into the domain of engineering or medicine and see what we get!<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to say that I believe that people like craig are just as bad as con men.<BR/><BR/>I'll go back in my hole now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91922649621196093122008-10-08T11:40:00.000-04:002008-10-08T11:40:00.000-04:00Lee Again:And, of course, my story could have been...Lee Again:<BR/><BR/>And, of course, my story could have been one that circumvents all of that by appeal to some scenario on which I am systematically deceived. Thus, it involves an evil genius, or a virtual reality program created by aliens. Or, perhaps all of the people who can independently verify my wife's identity over time are just more aliens who are in on it.<BR/><BR/>And I'll toss this in: My reason has nothing to do with my most fundamental belief that there is an external world. That is, it is neither an inference of reason nor is the proposition such that its denial is a contradiction.MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78258569967064255742008-10-08T11:35:00.000-04:002008-10-08T11:35:00.000-04:00Lee:I don't think the disanalogous features that y...Lee:<BR/><BR/>I don't think the disanalogous features that you observe have anything to do with the effectiveness of the example. <BR/><BR/>The simple, core point is just to illustrate the notion of an indefeasible belief--however that belief has come to be entertained.MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3238300012472552712008-10-08T11:22:00.000-04:002008-10-08T11:22:00.000-04:00Hi mark,I'd like to propose to you that your analo...Hi mark,<BR/>I'd like to propose to you that your analogy does not properly represent whats going on with craig. You can point to evidence and records, and witnesses, and other people that have experience with your wife that will all agree on some core set of her characteristics without having to consult with you or consider you at all. She is idependent of you, and has affected the world independet of you. Therefore your belief is based on rational principles.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32524453549712601082008-10-08T11:13:00.000-04:002008-10-08T11:13:00.000-04:00John wrote"Hey, I initially wrote my post dealing ...John wrote"<BR/><BR/><STRONG>Hey, I initially wrote my post dealing with William Lane Craig's position where he said his inner witness "trumps all other evidence."<BR/><BR/>Would you want to defend that position? Is it different than yours?</STRONG><BR/><BR/>That makes it <EM>sound</EM> as though he thinks the resulting beliefs are utterly indefeasible, and I would be surprised to hear this. <BR/><BR/>Will this help? Maybe we can distinguish between <EM>in principle</EM> indefeasibility and <EM>in fact</EM> indefeasibility. (What follows here is seat-of-the-pants stuff. Hope it makes sense.)<BR/><BR/>I have such a degree of confidence in certain of my beliefs that I might be willing to say that they trump any potential counter-evidence or that they defeat all potential defeaters.<BR/><BR/>Consider my belief that the woman to whom I am now married is identical to the person I dated when I was 14. (Skip here worries over personal identity over time that are of concern only to philosophers and Buddhists. ;-)) <BR/><BR/>I <EM>know</EM> this to be the case. It is an item of knowledge only if it is true. And if it is true, then there just <EM>will not</EM> be evidence sufficient to show it to be false--and I <EM>know</EM> this. So it is, as I'm calling it here, <EM>in fact</EM> indefeasible.<BR/><BR/>But it is not <EM>in principle</EM> indefeasible. Suppose that I learn that I have been the subject of a 51-year study conducted by aliens. Further, <EM>everyone</EM> from their planet is identical in appearance to the person I take to be my wife (nice planet). I am astonished to discover that a <EM>series</EM> of look-alikes have played the role. (She leaves to go shopping or to the dentist and returns later, only the person I greet at the door with a kiss is <EM>qualitatively</EM> but not <EM>numerically</EM> identical to the person I kissed goodbye an hour before....)<BR/><BR/>Even my belief that my wife is numerically identical to the 14-year-old with whom I fell in love and is not identical to an alien is not <EM>in principle</EM> indefeasible.<BR/><BR/>I can imagine someone of Christian conviction having a degree of certitude that they take to be sufficient for knowledge. They might thus think that the probability of their belief being proved false on some sort of counter-evidence to be zero or close to that. If Bill is warranted in believing in the resurrection, and if warranted true belief constitutes knowledge, then he may assert with a great deal of confidence, "There <EM>will not</EM> be a successful defeater."<BR/><BR/>(This might be akin to my confidence in advance that a presumed defense of Protagorean relativism will be fallacious.)<BR/><BR/>But isn't this compatible with being able to state what <EM>would</EM> count as sufficient counter-evidence?<BR/><BR/>Very few beliefs qualify as <EM>in principle</EM> indefeasible. Off the top of my head, I think that I would want to limit the list to self-evidently necessary truths. There is no possible world in which these are false (and we have epistemic access to this fact), and so it is in principle impossible that they be shown to be false. (Though, of course, there are possible worlds in which I am somehow led to <EM>believe</EM> that contradictory states of affairs obtain.)<BR/><BR/>I've never explored this alley before, and I'm finding it fascinating.MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86798938392849366442008-10-08T10:27:00.000-04:002008-10-08T10:27:00.000-04:00The Wittenburg Door? Becky Garrison is the senior ...The Wittenburg Door? Becky Garrison is the senior writer there and has a copy of my book for review. That's the review I fear the most. Roast anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88921267332126628342008-10-08T10:23:00.000-04:002008-10-08T10:23:00.000-04:00Hey, Mark, for the record I missed the irony in yo...<STRONG>Hey, Mark, for the record I missed the irony in your transforming plant story as well. Sorry to be so daft, but Poe's Law and all that.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>I had to look up "Poe's Law." Thing is, it's true! I have contributed quite a few satirical pieces to <A HREF="http://www.thewittenburgdoor.com/" REL="nofollow">The Wittenburg Door</A>, and I've found that some of these groups say and do such bizarre things that it is hard to write a good satire. I mean, how can you top <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhsVkIF0vng" REL="nofollow">This?</A>MuDdLehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12993757556158488302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74092507824454489732008-10-08T10:08:00.000-04:002008-10-08T10:08:00.000-04:00Mark, you're having way too much fun here!Hey, I i...Mark, you're having way too much fun here!<BR/><BR/>Hey, I initially wrote my post dealing with William Lane Craig's position where he said his inner witness "trumps all other evidence."<BR/><BR/>Would you want to defend that position? Is it different than yours?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com