William Lane Craig on evidence and reason

[fleetmouse]

I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

…We’ve already said that it’s the  Holy Spirit who gives us the  ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role.

I found this quote here:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2931

I checked my copy of Reasonable Faith and yes, Craig does say that.

[met]

Yeah so?

[fleetmouse]

Oh, I dunno. It's interesting to note who's willfully unreachable by reason and evidence, is all.

[met]

…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

What are the 'funcdamental truths of the Christian faith' ... are they things that are open to 'reason and evidence?'

[fleetmouse]

Maybe this will partly address that:

In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb. 

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cr ... le%20Faith

[met]

yeh, it's the emotional impact of someone's faith. The internal evidence. A person's identity is tied up in it and it has become part of the way they order their universe. Kind of like how... many people would still refuse to believe their spouse cheated even after u show them the video!

[mdsimpson92]

yeah, that does seem to be taking the leap of faith and just abusing it to death.

[met]

I disagree, md. I think you have to realize that Craig is making an emotional statement here. (Just cuz he's a philosopher doesn't mean he doesn't have feelings.) Similar to the person with the spouse, who says "No, I will NEVER believe it, no matter what you show me!!!"

X-ianity is not a detached intellectual position. It requires more than that. Some other stuff like .... commitment, devotion, emotional investment. And that's what I think Craig's expressing here. In reality, given the situation proposed above and some further time to digest and process the new info, Craig might well adjust his position - say, to that of an xian who now believes the Resurrection is an entirely spiritual event - but it would take an awful LOT of convincing.

As perhaps it should..... and that's what he's actually expressing, that commitment.

[URBILD]

…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.

What are the 'funcdamental truths of the Christian faith' ... are they things that are open to 'reason and evidence?'

The problem, is that Craig's so-called "fundamentals" are often the historically relative systematic claims of philosophical theology...(e.g., the doctrine of ex nihilo, classical view of omnipotence, timeless doctrine of omnisicence, etc.). The truthfulness of such claims are determined by adherence to argument and evidence.

[fleetmouse]

That's an interesting point. I would have thought the fundamentals were the resurrection, personal salvation through Christ, and so forth. But if you actually look at his arguments, his fundamentals are indeed the premises he asserts in these philosophical arguments.

He has said over and over that his trump card (at least for him personally) is the witness of the holy spirit. Loftus has been hammering him about that.