Faith Without Reason (A Response to Richard Dawkins, et al)

[shunyadragon]

Then you disagree with Abdu'l-Baha who clearly says that these are "Proofs and Evidences for the Existence of God." Not philosophical arguments! Of course this is not the first time you threw your religion under the bus for the accolades of the world.

I disagree that they are sufficient proofs that would be adequate to convince non-believers that God exists. The importance of any logical argument form the human perspective is to be convincing of others who do not believe, and not to make on comfortable with ones on belief as Plantinga tries to do. They are descriptions of reasons to belief in God, which I believe. Your hypocrisy is you do not believe any of it, and are constantly looking for rabbit bones in Cambrian rocks.

[ShrimpMaster]

Hey Seer and other Christians, if you are interested in the topic of belief in God as properly basic Dr. William Lane Craig is going over it in his current defenders class. He gives a rough and ready idea of the topic. Here are the links:

Lecture 1: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4243425
Lecture 2: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4281912
Lecture 3: will happen next Sunday 8/30

[seer]

Hey Seer and other Christians, if you are interested in the topic of belief in God as properly basic Dr. William Lane Craig is going over it in his current defenders class. He gives a rough and ready idea of the topic. Here are the links:

Lecture 1: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4243425
Lecture 2: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4281912
Lecture 3: will happen next Sunday 8/30

Thanks SM...

[whag]

Hey Seer and other Christians, if you are interested in the topic of belief in God as properly basic Dr. William Lane Craig is going over it in his current defenders class. He gives a rough and ready idea of the topic. Here are the links:

Lecture 1: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4243425
Lecture 2: http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4281912
Lecture 3: will happen next Sunday 8/30

I find his detailing of Holy Spirit epistemology in lecture 2 puzzling. The first difficulty is that not all Christians as far as I know experience the HS as a feeling or personal interaction. Some say that don't experience it at all. Second, he calls that experience unmistakable when felt, meaning that the Christian knows it can't be anything other than God, and, thus, is proof of God (just as an innocent man being accused of murder KNOWS he didn't do it. In other words, he has that kind of surety). Third, he calls this unmistakable proof of God resistible. I don't believe that if you have internal reliable proof of God that you could resist it by becoming an atheist. That makes no sense to me.

[whag]

Craig said that but also says that potent divine proof is resistible. Howso?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/faith-and-doubt

[ShrimpMaster]

I find his detailing of Holy Spirit epistemology in lecture 2 puzzling. The first difficulty is that not all Christians as far as I know experience the HS as a feeling or personal interaction. Some say that don't experience it at all. Second, he calls that experience unmistakable when felt, meaning that the Christian knows it can't be anything other than God, and, thus, is proof of God (just as an innocent man being accused of murder KNOWS he didn't do it. In other words, he has that kind of surety). Third, he calls this unmistakable proof of God resistible. I don't believe that if you have internal reliable proof of God that you could resist it by becoming an atheist. That makes no sense to me.

I guess my first question would be how do the Christians you know experience the Holy Spirit if not by feeling or personal interaction? And a second question would be; is an experience of the Holy Spirit necessary to be a Christian? I would think so, but I also think it can take place in many different ways.

Also, what if we consider Dr. Craig as including faith in his commentary on the experience of the Holy Spirit. I think we can all agree a Christian must have faith (which comes through the Holy Spirit).

A good proof verse might be Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3 ESV)

Your final question regarding the unmistakable proof of God and it's resistability has more to do with soteriology, so I don't think it is entirely appropriate for this topic. I think your objection comes from the assumption that humans cannot freely resist God's grace, which hasn't been supported by your post and is also an assumption of Calvinism(see: efficacious grace). That is something for you to think about and we could discuss it if you wish to make a topic... Thanks

[whag]

I guess my first question would be how do the Christians you know experience the Holy Spirit if not by feeling or personal interaction? And a second question would be; is an experience of the Holy Spirit necessary to be a Christian? I would think so, but I also think it can take place in many different ways.

Craig emphasized three times in that video that Holy Spirit epistemology doesn't have anything to do with feelings. I think your question is for him, not me.

Also, what if we consider Dr. Craig as including faith in his commentary on the experience of the Holy Spirit. I think we can all agree a Christian must have faith (which comes through the Holy Spirit).

A good proof verse might be Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3 ESV)

You have to make up your mind whether Holy Spirit epistemology actually is about strong unmistakable interaction amounting to personal proof that the Christian God exists. Faith is exercised independently of numinous feeling and interaction with the divine.

Your final question regarding the unmistakable proof of God and it's resistability has more to do with soteriology, so I don't think it is entirely appropriate for this topic. I think your objection comes from the assumption that humans cannot freely resist God's grace, which hasn't been supported by your post and is also an assumption of Calvinism(see: efficacious grace). That is something for you to think about and we could discuss it if you wish to make a topic... Thanks

If you don't think this is on topic, you must not have watched the videos. Craig clearly references the resistibility of this powerful unmistakable proof of God's existence.

This is at odds with Plantinga's description of Holy Spirit epistemology being akin to being falsely accused of murder but knowing one is innocent. A person who knows he's innocent of a crime would never resist that knowledge. It's equally nonsensical that a person given unmistakable proof of God's existence would become an atheist.

[ShrimpMaster]

Craig emphasized three times in that video that Holy Spirit epistemology doesn't have anything to do with feelings. I think your question is for him, not me.

I think the issue is the way you phrased it. You said "The first difficulty is that not all Christians as far as I know experience the HS as a feeling or personal interaction". Well when you say experience we could mean any number of things. Your question wasn't that clear. You are right Craig's lecture is clear that the belief in God as properly basic is not an argument from religious experience, but he doesn't say that we can't have feelings about our convictions or anything. I think we just need clarity on what you are actually asking...

You have to make up your mind whether Holy Spirit epistemology actually is about strong unmistakable interaction amounting to personal proof that the Christian God exists. Faith is exercised independently of numinous feeling and interaction with the divine.

I have and it is unmistakable. That would not make it irresistible...

If you don't think this is on topic, you must not have watched the videos. Craig clearly references the resistibility of this powerful unmistakable proof of God's existence.

This is at odds with Plantinga's description of Holy Spirit epistemology being akin to being falsely accused of murder but knowing one is innocent. A person who knows he's innocent of a crime would never resist that knowledge. It's equally nonsensical that a person given unmistakable proof of God's existence would become an atheist.

Right, the unmistakable proof of God is resistible. This would also furnish the grounds for the Christian doctrine of divine judgement, where humanity will be judged on their free choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Your next question will probably be about presuppositionalism (term used loosely here), which is natural consequence of this model. The only thing I would say is that atheists genuinely believe there is no God (so they are genuinely atheists), but that the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit [Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31 ESV)] would be a type of meta-level sin, so that atheists noetic faculties are damaged in such a way that although they "know" there is a God they do not recognize him and still maintain their genuine atheist values. This is a pandoras box that would probably take a good chunk of time to fully talk about. I don't know of any official material Craig has put forth on this topic, or if he even agrees with me, but I think it would be something like what I just said...

Also, Craig is using the analogy to say that the conviction a person experiences when they are accused of something they didn't do is the same as the conviction a person experiences when they are accused of operating their cognitive faculties irrationally because they accept the Christian faith. It isn't entirely correct. I could also point out that a person who is accused of murder could also question their memory whereas Plantinga's model would conclude that the Holy Spirit furnishes the believer with defeater-defeaters. The analogy isn't perfect and isn't meant to be.

If you want to inquire about the model I would speak about the model directly and not poke holes in Craig's analogy.

[whag]

I think the issue is the way you phrased it. You said "The first difficulty is that not all Christians as far as I know experience the HS as a feeling or personal interaction". Well when you say experience we could mean any number of things.

Things or feelings? If you mean something other than feelings, you'll have to be clearer. Experience is sensational, and if the sensations are felt inwardly, I can only assume you're talking about the very thing Craig says it's not. For example, when you feel the unmistakable sensation of being condemned, you felt the feeling of fear, I'm assuming.

I have and it is unmistakable. That would not make it irresistible...

I'm understanding now what you mean by that. You believe the resistability of these unmistakable proofs must be caused by damage to noetic facilities. Brain damage, IOW.

My, that is a Pandora's box, isn't it? =)

Right, the unmistakable proof of God is resistible. This would also furnish the grounds for the Christian doctrine of divine judgement, where humanity will be judged on their free choice to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Your next question will probably be presuppositionalism (term used loosely here), which is natural consequence of this model. The only thing I would say is that atheists genuinely believe there is no God (so they are genuinely atheists), but that the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit [Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31 ESV)] would be a type of meta-level sin, so that atheists noetic faculties are damaged in such a way that although they "know" there is a God they do not recognize him and still maintain their genuine atheist values. This is a pandoras box that would probably take a good chunk of time to fully talk about. I don't know of any official material Craig has put forth on this topic, or if he even agrees with me, but I think it would be something like what I just said...

I'm sure you can synthesize your brain damage hypothesis concisely. Please go on, as it's key to this discussion.

Also, Craig is using the analogy to say that the conviction a person experiences when they are accused of something they didn't do is the same as the conviction a person experiences when they are accused of operating their cognitive faculties irrationally because they accept the Christian faith. It isn't entirely correct. I could also point out that a person who is accused of murder could also question their memory whereas Plantinga's model would conclude that the Holy Spirit furnishes the believer with defeater-defeaters. The analogy isn't perfect and isn't meant to be.

If you're arguing that resisting proof of God can only be attributed to mental degradation, the analogy is more spot on than you say. If I murder someone and but don't remember it, my memory must have been physically compromised in a serious way. A man tends to remember if he strangled someone to death.

If you want to inquire about the model I would speak about the model directly and not poke holes in Craig's analogy.

The analogy isn't so flawed now that you've argued that atheism's cause is due to a type of brain damage.

[ShrimpMaster]

I'm understanding now what you mean by that. You believe the resistability of these unmistakable proofs must be caused by damage to noetic facilities. Brain damage, IOW.

This goes back to warrant and proper function. Let me clarify two things. First, brain damage is a poor choice of words, because it is usually taken the physical sense. For most people, the idea of 'brain damage' is a result of physical damage, for instance, falling on your head, or having a stroke. Second, this shouldn't be taken as an insult, because according to Plantinga's model the noetic consequences of sin effect all humans until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Last, in WCB (pg. 208), Plantinga distinguishes between sinning (making a moral choice that you are culpable for) and being in sin (the state humanity finds themselves in from birth and is non-culpable for). This effects every human being from birth. What is the damage done? Sin compromises the knowledge of fact (it prevents non-believers from coming to a true knowledge of Jesus Christ and his person) and it compromises the knowledge of value (non-believers do not know what is worth loving and what is worth hating). Plantinga goes on to say that sin is also an affective disorder that skews our affections and directs them toward the wrong objects; we love and hate the wrong things. The example Plantinga gives is that humanity is bent on their own self-aggrandizement and personal glorification rather than seeking first the Kingdom of God. What about 'Christians' who are bent on their own self-aggrandizement and glorification? The logical conclusion of the model is that they are not regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are not Christians.

An important note Plantinga makes is that the disorder is cognitive and affective but not intellectual. I may have muddied that water a bit, so I apologize. He says there is a failure of proper function - a sort of madness of the will - where a non-believer cannot make the appropriate affective choices.

[ShrimpMaster]

The most recent lecture is up and does a bit better job than myself explaining it

http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4296895

[seer]

The most recent lecture is up and does a bit better job than myself explaining it

http://livestream.com/reasonablefaith/events/4296895

Thanks SM.

[whag]

This goes back to warrant and proper function. Let me clarify two things. First, brain damage is a poor choice of words, because it is usually taken the physical sense. For most people, the idea of 'brain damage' is a result of physical damage, for instance, falling on your head, or having a stroke. Second, this shouldn't be taken as an insult, because according to Plantinga's model the noetic consequences of sin effect all humans until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

I don't take offense to that, although I do find "regeneration of the Holy Spirit" to be an empirically vague and convenient concept. Regeneration is a powerful noun, implying much has taken place that, in most cases, is barely evident except in the believer's vocal expression of faith. If it merely means moving one to accept a religious fact (e.g., Mohammed was Allah's messenger, Joseph Smith was a prophet, Christ was The Lamb), then all religious believers empirically qualify as "regenerated."

Last, in WCB (pg. 208), Plantinga distinguishes between sinning (making a moral choice that you are culpable for) and being in sin (the state humanity finds themselves in from birth and is non-culpable for). This effects every human being from birth. What is the damage done? Sin compromises the knowledge of fact (it prevents non-believers from coming to a true knowledge of Jesus Christ and his person) and it compromises the knowledge of value (non-believers do not know what is worth loving and what is worth hating).

This I do take as an insult (though not a personal one you meant to direct toward me). I can provide voluminous examples of "regenerated" Christians who hated the wrong things (e.g., Hypatia's wisdom, Jews, homosexuals). The belief that human beings are born damaged in such a way that only the acceptance of a specific dogma can remediate is a major stretch.

Plantinga goes on to say that sin is also an affective disorder that skews our affections and directs them toward the wrong objects; we love and hate the wrong things. The example Plantinga gives is that humanity is bent on their own self-aggrandizement and personal glorification rather than seeking first the Kingdom of God. What about 'Christians' who are bent on their own self-aggrandizement and glorification? The logical conclusion of the model is that they are not regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are not Christians.

I always found the "regenerated" disciples bickering about who would be counted the greatest in the group as odd. Most people don't have the instinct to argue about who'll be the most famous. In the context of being in the presence of the living God, such a conversation is almost unbelievable.

The majority of people simply don't have this instinct of self glorification and self aggrandizement. It actually ostracizes people, gets people fired, and makes one the butt of jokes. Your assumption that's it's the default human state is specious.

An important note Plantinga makes is that the disorder is cognitive and affective but not intellectual.

I may have muddied that water a bit, so I apologize. He says there is a failure of proper function - a sort of madness of the will - where a non-believer cannot make the appropriate affective choices.

No need to apologize. I like this discussion. That being said, madness must be rooted in cognition. It is an incoherent concept to attribute madness to will since will directly correlates to cognition.

[Adrift]

Hypatia wasn't hated because of her wisdom, but likely because of her association with the Christian prefect Orestes. Tim O'Neil wrote a couple fantastic articles on the subject here and here.

[whag]

Hypatia wasn't hated because of her wisdom, but likely because of her association with the Christian prefect Orestes. Tim O'Neil wrote a couple fantastic articles on the subject here and here.

"Hypatia's associations" doesn't sound quite as sexy.