Ask a Christian philosopher a question
- Thread starter anonymous person
- Start date
I'm somewhat confused. Given that you changed your mind about the possibility of being wrong only recently, are you saying that you approached these worldviews skeptically approximately 15 years ago?
Upvote
0
As an aside, I recently finished marking lab reports on this very topic. The verdict? Eyewitness identification is far from optimal, but there is the possibility it could work well under certain conditions.
Upvote
0
That's good to hear.
Given that the "inner witness" argument from personal religious experience was emblematic of that disposition, I presume you no longer consider that argument tenable?
Upvote
0
That's good to hear.
I don't know what argument you are referring to.
Upvote
0
I'm not comfortable using the world "skeptically" any longer. Too many people have a view other than the one you have and I would rather just say I approached them objectively and honestly roughly 15 years ago. Before a month ago, I never thought too deeply about the strict logical possibility of me being wrong about my views.
Upvote
0
Perhaps some context would help. William Lane Craig claims to know that his religious beliefs are true primarily on the basis of the "inner witness of the holy spirit," which he considers incontrovertible. Consequently, if evidence against his theological commitments were to become apparent, Craig would feel under no obligation to revise his theology, no matter how strong the evidence against it. As I recall, in an earlier conversation, you appeared to support this line of thinking. Given that it is emblematic of a disposition you no longer hold (that you cannot be wrong about your religious beliefs), I presume you no longer consider this argument tenable?
Upvote
0
I'm afraid this only deepens the confusion for me. If you had never considered the possibility that you could be wrong up until a month ago, then can you honestly say that you approached these questions objectively roughly 15 years ago? After all, approaching the matter honestly requires one to accept the possibility of error in their thinking. If you only began to accept that possibility a month ago, then it seems strange to say that you approached it honestly roughly 15 years ago. But perhaps I have confused the story. I don't expect you to have perfect recollection of your initial disposition when you began investigating the matter 15 years ago.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
Seriously? You've never heard that?
Look up the eyewitness accounts in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson. This is a fairly recent example of why eyewitness accounts aren't all that trustworthy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Craig in saying what he does, is not arguing that it is not logically possible that he is wrong.
Upvote
0
In effect, that seems to be exactly what he is arguing, since no amount of contrary evidence could ever persuade him to reconsider his theological commitments. In other words, he will continue to believe as he does even if there are good reasons to think his beliefs are wrong and in need of revision.
Upvote
0
I've heard people say that sure.
And I am familiar with the Ferguson account.
You giving me one instance where eyewitness accounts are conflicting is not going to persuade me that every instance where eyewitness testimony is given, said testimony is unreliable.
Upvote
0
It does, however, have everything to do with Craig's level of intellectual honesty. How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept even the mere possibility of error in one's own thinking?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I think you are strawmanning.
Why not just email him and ask him whether or not he thinks it is logically possible for him to be wrong about his beliefs.
I am persuaded he would tell you just what I have told you.
Upvote
0
What strawman? He has specifically stated that if he found himself in a situation where the evidence turned against his religious convictions, he would still remain committed to them regardless. The question bears repeating: how can one approach these matters honestly if one isn't willing to accept the possibility that one could be wrong? Another question worth repeating: given that you now accept the possibility that you could be wrong, I presume you repudiate Craig's line of reasoning as intellectually dishonest?
Upvote
0
With his "inner witness" argument, Craig implicitly denies fallibilism in relation to his religious beliefs. Even if one were to make a strong case against his position, he would not feel obligated to revise his theology, invoking instead his "inner witness" as a means of deflecting whatever criticism comes his way. Given that you apparently acknowledge fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs, it would seem that you are open to revising your theology, as you've stated here.
Upvote
0
You're not getting it.
A person can believe both that it is logically possible that they could be wrong about belief X and at the same hold belief X to be properly basic.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You'll have to elaborate further. Either you accept that you could be wrong about your theological commitments or you don't. Thus far you have indicated that you accept that possibility and that you would be willing to revise those commitments if presented with sufficient reasons to do so (1).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
