Sep 8, 2014

W.L. Craig: believe despite evidence

W.L. Craig: Believe Despite Evidence.
Why W.L. Craig doesn't have the witness of the Holy Spirit. 

Christian apologist William Lane Craig was once asked to pretend to travel in a time machine.  
It's the day before Easter 33 CE, and he's at the tomb of Jesus.
But nothing happens; and after several weeks, still nothing happens. There's no resurrection.
Jesus is dead in the tomb.  

An atheist asked if he would give up, renounce Christianity then.
After all, he had seen there had been no resurrection.
Craig said he would still believe in Jesus and the resurrection.
Moreover, he would assume that a trick had been played on him.
For he still had the witness of the "holy spirit" within him.

He says that the Holy Spirit witnesses to Christians so that the Bible or evidence isn't needed to bolster faith.
His conviction would remain intact in spite of just about anything to the contrary. 

Well, but Christians in fact make their own science and evidence: namely, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
They need the Bible after all, wanting more than the witness of the Holy Spirit. 

W.L. Craig says the Holy Spirit is enough for him.
He's known for his five-point argument for the existence of God. 

Uh, the argument shouldn't be needed when the witness of the Holy Spirit is enough.
To top it off, his argument for the existence of God involves strange rhetoric.
For one thing, he's apt to evoke the name of a reputable scholar, with whom he agrees. Then he establishes what he calls facts in accordance with that scholar.
Because he agrees with a scholastic name, he knows the facts to support his argument. They aren't facts because the scholar is right--they are so-called facts because Craig agrees.
Unfortunately for him, it's non sequitur. 

Then he says “I think I have made it clear that ...”
But so far, the only thing that he has done is to agree with some one.
As a result, his rhetoric doesn't get beyond first base.
It doesn't establish facts.
It doesn't demonstrate reliable facts.
It's empty rhetoric. That's all. 

What is more, the scholar in question is often controversial. But W.L. Craig claims established facts because of his agreement with the man, anyway.
He hasn't yet succeeded in bringing a fact to light. But he moves on as if he has.
It's one of his devices. 

Or he agrees with the Bible in lieu of a scholar. Then says he established a fact from the scripture, because he agrees with it; his M.O is the same--
 (Reasonable Faith, W.L. Craig, p. 37) “Suppose someone had been told to believe in God because of an invalid argument. Could he stand before God on judgment day and say, ‘God, those Christians only gave me lousy arguments for believing in you. That is why I didn't believe’? Of course not! The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit.” 

All right, he agrees with the Bible.
In effect, he is saying, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
So big deal.
Meanwhile, like his scholars, the Bible is controversial. 

W.L. Craig doesn't substantiate anything about what "the Bible says," doesn't present any corroborating evidence.
For example, he can't verify that all “deliberately reject God’s Holy Spirit.” He just asserts it and moves on.

It's only preachment.
Reasonable Faith really comes to Circular Faith.
For example he says @ 1:15, “Most philosophers will agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then it follows that God must exist.”

He agrees, of course; so the existence of God is now an established fact. But as usual he doesn't establish a fact.
But then he presses on as if he did.
The words “most philosophers will agree” hasn't got anything to do with it, anyway. A vote can't determine the existence of God. 

W.L. Craig, as well as other Christians, says he has the witness of the Holy Spirit.
It's how he knows that Christianity is true.
But Mormons claim it, too; they say it reveals the truth of Mormonism.
Both sides claim the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Both sides say the other guy is wrong.

As it seems, the so-called witness of the Holy Spirit is a strong feeling of certitude. It indicates confidence in a religious belief. However, that in itself it doesn't indicate truth.
W.L. Craig doesn't even describe the witness of the Holy Spirit as such.
He only asserts that there is such a thing.

It goes without saying that W.L. Craig gives no credence to Mormonism. But Mormons claim the witness of the Holy Spirit.
When either side talks about the witness of the Holy Spirit, they seem to have a mere subjective point of view. That is, you can't be Roman Catholic, Mormon, and W.L. Craig at the same time.
All three have a version of Christianity of their own. And all assert the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Well, then something's wrong somewhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment