What is apologetics anyway?

[The Cadet]

This is a very good question. He tells by comparing what his inner witness communicates to him against God's written word. If it contradicts God's written word then it is not of God.

...And if it doesn't, does it necessarily follow that it is? The fact that you can tell that something isn't the inner witness (although let me tell you, the layers of unjustified assumptions that go into that statement lay down a sediment thick enough to disprove a 6000-year-old earth) doesn't say anything about whether any particular thing is the inner witness. If Craig's "inner witness" tells him "Do not kill", how can we tell if that is actually God speaking?

 

[anonymous person]

No, I did not say that. Why would I confess to something I have no recollection of?

And yet somehow there is overwhelming evidence against my innocence? On what basis then do I know that I am innocent? I can only report what I remember, but my recollection of events may not be veridical, and it certainly isn't unquestionable.

How do we determine whether Craig genuinely has the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" in his heart?

Ok Archaeopteryx you have used words like "overwhelming" and "recollection". I never used these words. I simply gave you a hypothetical in which you were accused of committing a murder you know you did not commit.

Don't press the hypothetical or try to dissect it.

Another illustration may be in order. Your belief in your existence is so powerfully warranted that any defeater raised against this belief will be defeated by the intrinsic knowledge you have of your existence. Telling Dr. Craig that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is not real is like me telling you that you don't exist.

Now you may retort that you are open minded and would be willing to reconsider your existence if someone presented you with evidence that you did not exist to which I respond by saying it is impossible for someone to present to YOU evidence that YOU do not exist.

 

[anonymous person]

This gets us nowhere. Presumably his "inner witness" also informs how he reads "God's Word." So "God's Word" confirms his "inner witness," which also confirms "God's Word."

Where are you trying to go?

 

[anonymous person]

...And if it doesn't, does it necessarily follow that it is? The fact that you can tell that something isn't the inner witness (although let me tell you, the layers of unjustified assumptions that go into that statement lay down a sediment thick enough to disprove a 6000-year-old earth) doesn't say anything about whether any particular thing is the inner witness. If Craig's "inner witness" tells him "Do not kill", how can we tell if that is actually God speaking?

Jesus said if anyone were willing to do His will then they would know the truth.

So one must have a willingness and be open to the things of God before they can receive knowledge of the truth and hear from God.

People can find reasons for not accepting or believing in something if they are unwilling to accept or believe it. Intent is prior to content.

 

[The Cadet]

Jesus said if anyone were willing to do His will then they would know the truth.

So one must have a willingness and be open to the things of God before they can receive knowledge of the truth and hear from God.

People can find reasons for not accepting or believing in something if they are unwilling to accept or believe it. Intent is prior to content.

That's not an answer to my question. Wanna try again? If Craig's "inner witness" tells him "Do not kill", how can we tell if that is actually God speaking and not just Craig's own delusion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok Archaeopteryx you have used words like "overwhelming" and "recollection". I never used these words. I simply gave you a hypothetical in which you were accused of committing a murder you know you did not commit.

Don't press the hypothetical or try to dissect it.

Why not? You said that, in this hypothetical, I "know" I am innocent. Given the overwhelming evidence against this proposition, on what basis do I know that I am innocent?

Another illustration may be in order. Your belief in your existence is so powerfully warranted that any defeater raised against this belief will be defeated by the intrinsic knowledge you have of your existence. Telling Dr. Craig that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is not real is like me telling you that you don't exist.

Now you may retort that you are open minded and would be willing to reconsider your existence if someone presented you with evidence that you did not exist to which I respond by saying it is impossible for someone to present to YOU evidence that YOU do not exist.

This is yet another poor analogy. I need to assume the existence of a self that is "me" in order to be able to reason about other propositions that may be true or false, including the propositions of theism. I don't need to assume the existence of deities to do that. You are taking an assumption that we must make in order to think and comparing it to a whole body of religious assumptions that don't appear to be essential to our cognitive faculties, but which are still assumed by theists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where are you trying to go?

Toward a better understanding of the world. The problem is that the "inner witness" doesn't appear to further our understanding in any way. Any theist can justify any claim by appealing to his "inner witness." He can also resist counter-evidence to his claims by giving his "inner witness" the greatest epistemic weight.

 

[anonymous person]

That's not an answer to my question. Wanna try again? If Craig's "inner witness" tells him "Do not kill", how can we tell if that is actually God speaking and not just Craig's own delusion?

If Craig is displaying no symptoms of delusion and I know he is a man of God and what he says lines up with the written word then I would be inclined to believe that God had spoken to him as opposed to him being delusional. Could I be wrong? Sure. It's possible. But I would need some good reason to believe he was delusional when all the evidence I have points to the contrary. Possibilities come cheap.

 

[anonymous person]

Toward a better understanding of the world. The problem is that the "inner witness" doesn't appear to further our understanding in any way. Any theist can justify any claim by appealing to his "inner witness." He can also resist counter-evidence to his claims by giving his "inner witness" the greatest epistemic weight.

The inner witness is not supposed to further the understanding of an atheist. The inner witness is given to God's children. You can reference the bible for why God gives His children the Holy Spirit.

It is true. A theist can justify any claim by appealing to the inner witness and can also resist counter-evidence too.

So it seems to me that we are back to square one. Either Craig has this inner witness which is infallible or He does not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is true. A theist can justify any claim by appealing to the inner witness and can also resist counter-evidence too.

You have just conceded my entire point.

 

[KCfromNC]

This gets us nowhere. Presumably his "inner witness" also informs how he reads "God's Word." So "God's Word" confirms his "inner witness," which also confirms "God's Word."

Plus God never wrote anything. All we have is the words of men telling us what they think their god(s) want. How did they figure that out? Presumably their inner witness, since there's no objective evidence for their claims. Round and round we go.

 

[The Cadet]

If Craig is displaying no symptoms of delusion and I know he is a man of God and what he says lines up with the written word then I would be inclined to believe that God had spoken to him as opposed to him being delusional. Could I be wrong? Sure. It's possible. But I would need some good reason to believe he was delusional when all the evidence I have points to the contrary. Possibilities come cheap.

How about the fact that he's apparently getting ideas in his head that supposedly aren't from him (although honestly, we already know that they are from him)? I'd call that a good sign of a delusion, personally. Or maybe delusion is too strong of a word. Self-deception, maybe? It's easy to fool yourself into believing things without justification. Especially if you've been brought up with a huge array of previous assumptions which you can reach to for justification. Craig has just elevated this belief into an unshakeable truth.

I don't think you understand quite how extravagant a claim he's making! He is claiming that a supernatural entity is speaking to him and revealing untestable truths to him. In what other circumstance would you ever believe such claims?

 

[anonymous person]

You have just conceded my entire point.

Great.

 

[anonymous person]

How about the fact that he's apparently getting ideas in his head that supposedly aren't from him (although honestly, we already know that they are from him)? I'd call that a good sign of a delusion, personally. Or maybe delusion is too strong of a word. Self-deception, maybe? It's easy to fool yourself into believing things without justification. Especially if you've been brought up with a huge array of previous assumptions which you can reach to for justification. Craig has just elevated this belief into an unshakeable truth.

I don't think you understand quite how extravagant a claim he's making! He is claiming that a supernatural entity is speaking to him and revealing untestable truths to him. In what other circumstance would you ever believe such claims?

It seems you have your mind very well made up. Craig and every other Christian who claims they have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is either delusional or self deceived or maybe a mixture of both.

This means I am either delusional or self deceived or a mixture of both so I doubt I can be of any help to you.

 

[anonymous person]

Plus God never wrote anything. All we have is the words of men telling us what they think their god(s) want. How did they figure that out? Presumably their inner witness, since there's no objective evidence for their claims. Round and round we go.

This is a topic for a different discussion in a different forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems you have your mind very well made up. Craig and every other Christian who claims they have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is either delusional or self deceived or maybe a mixture of both.

This means I am either delusional or self deceived or a mixture of both so I doubt I can be of any help to you.

No, Craig's mind is made up. Nothing we present would ever be enough to convince him to question his theological commitments. Craig can dismiss any evidence contrary to his theology by lending the preponderance of epistemic weight to his personal experience, or "inner witness," which consistently supports his theology.

 

[The Cadet]

It seems you have your mind very well made up. Craig and every other Christian who claims they have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is either delusional or self deceived or maybe a mixture of both.

This means I am either delusional or self deceived or a mixture of both so I doubt I can be of any help to you.

I just don't get how you can tell the difference. Either between the witness of the holy spirit and the witness of some other supernatural being, or between the witness of the holy spirit and your own brain trying to reinforce your own positions. You are asserting something rather extraordinary, and providing absolutely no evidence for it. You could be mistaken. You could be delusional. You could be wrong. You could be right! But of those options, I'm left to ponder, as Hume would put it, "which is the greater miracle". And there's just no question.

 

[anonymous person]

No, Craig's mind is made up. Nothing we present would ever be enough to convince him to question his theological commitments. Craig can dismiss any evidence contrary to his theology by lending the preponderance of epistemic weight to his personal experience, or "inner witness," which consistently supports his theology.

Exactly. So can I. This is the assurance that we have from God that we are His children.

Think about it. Suppose for a moment that God exists and that Jesus was who He and His apostles said He was and that each one who confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, receives the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their salvation. Would not this Wonderful Counselor, This All Wise God give His children an assurance of the truth that is indefeasible?

Most certainly!

 

[anonymous person]

I just don't get how you can tell the difference. Either between the witness of the holy spirit and the witness of some other supernatural being, or between the witness of the holy spirit and your own brain trying to reinforce your own positions. You are asserting something rather extraordinary, and providing absolutely no evidence for it. You could be mistaken. You could be delusional. You could be wrong. You could be right! But of those options, I'm left to ponder, as Hume would put it, "which is the greater miracle". And there's just no question.

Do you have any reasons for thinking I am wrong or mistaken or delusional? If so I would love to hear what they are. If not then why not believe what I say?

 

[Davian]

Exactly. So can I. This is the assurance that we have from God that we are His children.

You mean, you have read about it in the bible.

Think about it. Suppose for a moment that God exists and that Jesus was who He and His apostles said He was and that each one who confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, receives the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their salvation. Would not this Wonderful Counselor, This All Wise God give His children an assurance of the truth that is indefeasible?

Most certainly!

Suppose for a moment that gods are only characters in books, and that Jesus and his apostles were merely characters inspired by actual person(s) of the time, and there were those that wished to create a means of controlling people via religion, with the promise of salvation. Could not the writers of the subsequent holy texts, building on the knowledge of the failures of the religions before them, simply build in an assurance that the "truths" claimed in those texts are indefeasible?

Most certainly.