The way that I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis the
witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. This gives me a self
authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the
evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances,
the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity.
I don’t think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In
such a situation, and I should regard that simply as a result of the contingent
circumstances that I am in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence
and with time I would discover that in fact that the evidence—if I could get the
correct picture—would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells
me.
Apologists are always claiming that they just follow the evidence wherever it leads, but in fact, the rule for Christians is: Follow the evidence whenever it leads to Christianity; otherwise follow your subjective feelings.
Posts
Craig's chief critic, Contra Craig, shows more evidence that Craig doesn't care for evidence.
ReplyDeleteHey Vinny, I decided to respond to your post on your own site, considering the subject is directly related to your post.
ReplyDeleteBefore I begin, please let me know if you want me to quote some of Craig's detailed reasoning in the article I have if what I am saying is not making sense. I decided not to take the own initiative upfront because, quite frankly, I don't want to spend the time going over the article again. :)
So here are a few things I have to say. Shortly following the quote you have posted, Craig speaks of the cornerstone behind the whole logic of his statement (notice I say "statement" over against "argument" because clearly the video was posted for Christian edification over against pure intellectual formula). He said that by allowing the Holy Spirit to be the core testimony of truth, it will keep people from bouncing back and forth between the "shifting sands of evidence". We are constantly digging up new archaeological discovery and recovering new manuscripts from ancient times that give us greater insight into history. However, amidst these great discoveries there tends to be some negative side effects. Namely, incorrect assumptions/"educational guesses" on a newly discovered artifact.
Let's say that a fraction of a scroll is discovered, which in its fragmented state, suggests that Julius Caesar never existed. There is now physical, hard evidence, that suggests a view that contradicts a lot of Roman history. Should we then abandon what we know about Caesar's existence in light of the new "evidence"? Or should we hold out on what we have so strongly held to as factual from previous evidences and see if something new will come up? As for me, I would pick the later option and I see no reason why it would be illogical to do so.
As for Craig, there have been so many things in his life (as well as the actual physical evidences that he uses to support the Christian faith) that continual to attest to the reality of his faith. To suddenly abandon it because of one new piece of evidence that "may" say something different is ridiculous. Scholars tend to be wrong about the meaning of new discoveries (after all, none of us were actually there) so why couldn't the new discovery be misinterpreted by the scholar? Couldn't there be a "correct picture" that the scholar is missing in his belief that the fragment disproves Caesar's existence? I, personally, would be looking for that "correct picture" that would explain the evidence. If there is none, then I will have to deal with that resolution. But I am being completely logical in my noetic faculties in "holding out" considering all of my prior knowledge/experience attests to an entirely different reality.
I mentioned before about the whole Hittite discovery. Christian scholars were mocked for believing that Hittites existed until in the 19th century 10,000 + tablets were discovered solidly proving the existence of the Hittites.
Were the Christian scholars, prior to the discovery, irrational for believing in their existence???
For them, there were so many things that have attested to the validity of their faith, that it seemed only logical to hold to the Bible's claims of the Hittites.
Now this applies to anyone, not just Christians. All scholars practice this type of epistemological methodology. It is logical, coherent, and to do anything different is....well...not practical.
Jeremiah,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct we continue to discover. This includes new documents, or newly translated documents, or archeology, etc. And you are also correct we need to view these discoveries in light of previous information. Springing off your example of a scrap of paper saying Julius Caesar did not exist, we would need to view this in light of archeology, coins, historical ramifications, other writings (both positive and negative) as well to determine the viability of this claim.
However, (using your example) the scrap does exist. It would need to be explained in light of the contrary information—either it is a portion of fiction, or is being mis-translated or perhaps (far more likely) we simply would not have enough context to make any determination as to what else the document says.
Instead of using a hypothetical, though, let’s use an actual occurrence—the Exodus. For a long time, due to the record of the Tanakh, people considered it a historical fact. Then archeology did not turn up a record of 2 Million people wandering in the Sinai Peninsula in the 15th Century BCE We thought we hadn’t looked in the right spot.
All the other spots didn’t provide any evidence either. And the conquest of Joshua, post-Exodus, as recorded in the Tanakh was not aligning with archeology. And the Ten Plagues was not aligning with archeology, or other recorded histories of local persons. We tried moving Exodus to the 23rd Century BCE, or the 13th Century, each new date creating as many problems with the evidence we have.
The language development is contrary to a 15th Century writing, and anthropology demonstrates Phoenician, not Egyptian influence on the Canaanites. Eventually all these discoveries, this new information, causes the pendulum to swing and instead of presuming Exodus occurred, we presume it did not. Certainly not in the form recorded in the Tanakh.
Or, using your example, eventually new discoveries out-weigh the old information and we would learn Julius Caesar, despite what we thought, did not exist.
The problem with Craig’s “witness of the Holy Spirit” is the appearance he will believe what he wants in spite of the evidence. In other words, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, no matter how much the pendulum swings the other way, he will hold on to his belief.
I question, then, why I should find him persuasive. Would you if someone presented a similar rationalization? What if a person informed you they were convinced by “internal intuition” they believed in UFO’s? You point out no UFO’s have been sighted. They say their “internal intuition” thinks someday we will discover UFO’s can evade our technology—hence preventing us from seeing them.
You point out descriptions of aliens are similar to Hollywood depictions. They say their “internal intuition” says this only reinforces the belief, due to the similarity. At some point you throw up your hands and walk away; no matter what the evidence this person will always think “someday, somehow I will be vindicated in my ‘internal intuition.’”
This is why skeptics are completely unconvinced by Craig. He appears to be saying, “I don’t care WHAT the evidence is, I will hold on to this belief.” Especially when Craig would abandon that methodology in any other aspect of his life. (He would not grant a UFO-believer “internal intuition.”)
Jeremiah: I mentioned before about the whole Hittite discovery. Christian scholars were mocked for believing that Hittites existed…
I did not find where you mentioned this, so if you gave this information I would appreciate it again. Please quote where “Christian scholars were mocked.” NOT where Christians claim they were mocked by skeptics, but the actual quote AND cite where a skeptic says, “The Hittites of the Tanakh did not exist.”
We see this claim over and over and over. If you google it, you will find it 1000’s of times. And every single time (that I could ever find) it is always, Always, ALWAYS, a Christian claiming a skeptic said the Hittites did not exist, and the Christian was proven correct. I have never seen the skeptical quote claiming Hittites did not exist.
You can read a similar search done by Peter Kirby here.
What I see is evidence pointing in a direction; a direction the Christian does not want to go. So the Christian claims, “Well, they’ve (the proverbial ‘they’) have been wrong before—look at the Hittites! I presume ‘they’ could be wrong again. Therefore, I will continue to believe what I choose.”
Can you see why this would not be effective to a skeptic? Especially one who can’t find where “they” have been wrong about the Hittites?
And don’t get me wrong, we ALL have been wrong about historical events and modified our belief on new discoveries. That has happened. The question is—by what method do we use to objectively modify our beliefs—not some subjective “I believe it ‘cause I want to.”
Thanks to everyone for stopping by!
ReplyDeleteJeremiah
Methodologically, I think you are correct. Scientists don’t abandon well-accepted theories when faced with inconsistent observations. In fact, much of science is devoted to investigating those cases where the observed data doesn’t seem to fit the dominant theory. Scientists spend a lot of time trying to fit the data into the existing theories before they start looking for new ones. I could give examples from evolution research, but in the interest of avoiding controversial topics, I will cite an example from astronomy.
The planet Uranus was discovered in the 1781. Early in the 19th Century, scientists determined that its orbit did not fit the predictions of the theory of gravity. Some suggested that there must be another planet out there that was exerting a pull on Uranus. Unfortunately, it required very complex mathematics to determine the orbit, size and location of a planet that would exert the pull necessary to cause the variation between the predicted and observed orbits of Uranus. Once the likely location was calculated, it still took some time for telescopes to confirm the existence of Neptune in 1846. During the twenty-five years it took to locate and verify the existence of Neptune, I doubt that many scientists considered Newton’s theory of gravity to be in any great peril even though it did not fit the observed data.
So methodologically, it is perfectly reasonable for the scientists to give the benefit of the doubt to the existing theory. However, philosophically, the scientist has to acknowledge the possibility that the evidence will continue to point away from the accepted theory. In fact, there came a time when Newtonian physics was no longer sufficient to explain the things that scientists were observing no matter how hard they tried to make them fit. Eventually, Newton’s laws of motion were abandoned and the theory of special relativity emerged to take its place.
If I find that the evidence is pointing away from my position, I don’t think that I have to immediately abandon my position, but I think that intellectual integrity requires me to acknowledge that the evidence is making my position less probably true. I may stubbornly cling to my position and I may struggle to find evidence to support it long after everyone else has conceded defeat. However, I don’t think I can tell someone who is examining the question for the first time that they should embrace my position rather than accept the direction that the evidence leads them.
I love watching a theist argument take shape. First we have the Craig quote to set the mood:
ReplyDeleteallowing the Holy Spirit to be the core testimony of truth, it will keep people from bouncing back and forth between the "shifting sands of evidence".
Might as well start with the master's well crafted statement bursting with visually loaded terminology like "core", "bouncing back and forth" and the beauty, "shifting sands of evidence". Now then after giving an insincere nod to archeology, subtly point to a problem:
there tends to be some negative side effects. Namely, incorrect assumptions/"educational guesses" on a newly discovered artifact.
Brilliant. Ok, the seed has now been planted in your brain that mistakes are made in archeology, and it takes root because your brain has been well fertilized with the Craig quote. Now water that with a ridiculously concocted example of an archeological find (Julius Caesar scroll) and force a choice between accepting this evidence and rejecting all past evidence or sticking with past evidence:
I would pick the later option and I see no reason why it would be illogical to do so.
Indeed! Now get ready for the bait and switch. You've agreed that you'll stick with past evidence instead of scrapping it all for any new, flash in the pan evidence, right? Ok then...
As for Craig, there have been so many things in his life (as well as the actual physical evidences that he uses to support the Christian faith) that continual to attest to the reality of his faith. To suddenly abandon it because of one new piece of evidence that "may" say something different is ridiculous
Did you catch that? All of our collected evidence on Julius Caesar has now been swapped out with Craig's faith and so-called "physical evidences". If you missed that, then you'll blindly go along and think sure, you stick with that over something new. But of course just to make the suspicious go along with this bait and switch, let's go back to that seed that was planted earlier which has bloomed to:
Scholars tend to be wrong about the meaning of new discoveries
Finally to bring it all home, bring up some fairy tale where christians who believed the Hittites existed were mocked before evidence was finally found to prove they existed. See, you can't trust the "shifting sands of evidence", instead trust your "core testimony of truth". Very nice. Of course if you did buy into this argument completely and you really believed the Hittites didn't exist then you should continue to mock the christians and not accept this new evidence since "Scholars tend to be wrong"and your faith should be trusted to be THE true picture of reality. Clearly if given a choice between these, following Jeremiah's logic, "I would pick the later option and I see no reason why it would be illogical to do so."
But of course as this whole argument of Jeremiah's was fabricated, so too is that fairy tale about the Hittites and christians being mocked. That's the shiny cherry on top. :)