What is apologetics anyway?

[Soyeong]

It's always possible to be wrong about something, even something that you are extremely confident is true, but it would be difficult to show that WLC has interpreted his experience wrongly. His confidence that he has interpreted his experience correctly is such that he would be confident that God existed even if he was wrong about all of his other arguments.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's always possible to be wrong about something, even something that you are extremely confident is true, but it would be difficult to show that WLC has interpreted his experience wrongly. His confidence that he has interpreted his experience correctly is such that he would be confident that God existed even if he was wrong about all of his other arguments.

Of course it would be difficult; the game is rigged! Craig can always appeal to his "inner witness" as support for his belief and there is nothing you or I could say or do that would ever be enough for him to reconsider his theological commitments. He can always play the "inner witness" card to declare the game over. He could throw away every other card in his hand - the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, etc - and claim victory solely by playing this one card. The problem, as I alluded to earlier, is that Craig isn't the only one to adopt this "winning" strategy. Other theists play the same card to declare themselves triumphant. So we are left wondering who the victor really is and whether we should even be playing a game rigged in favour of the apologist's presupposed conclusions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now imagine if philosophy or science played by these epistemic "rules." Imagine if all our inquiries proceeded along these lines.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Archaeopterix, are you ruling out supernatural witness a priori?

I "believe" bil gyayb ... bil (via) the ghayb (unseen) [koran 2:3 IIRC]... Thus we go as we may go via car, on foot etc or via religious faith - this is the opposite of science.

"And We have put before them a barrier and behind them a barrier and covered them, so they do not see. And it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe."

These concepts are so logically stringent IMO, that in itself is an "ayat" sign. The covering is of ones heart (ie it - the heart or mind - is regarded as diseased in a state of faithlessness - mental sickness IOW).

I was atheist but faith offers me more security - cognitive and social. How could this be from tales of the ancients?

 

[Davian]

Now imagine if philosophy or science played by these epistemic "rules." Imagine if all our inquiries proceeded along these lines.

Indeed.

 

[Soyeong]

Of course it would be difficult; the game is rigged! Craig can always appeal to his "inner witness" as support for his belief and there is nothing you or I could say or do that would ever be enough for him to reconsider his theological commitments. He can always play the "inner witness" card to declare the game over. He could throw away every other card in his hand - the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, etc - and claim victory solely by playing this one card. The problem, as I alluded to earlier, is that Craig isn't the only one to adopt this "winning" strategy. Other theists play the same card to declare themselves triumphant. So we are left wondering who the victor really is and whether we should even be playing a game rigged in favour of the apologist's presupposed conclusions.

It's not about winning or losing, but about saying that it is reasonable for your personal experience to influence what you believe.

 

[anonymous person]

Of course it would be difficult; the game is rigged! Craig can always appeal to his "inner witness" as support for his belief and there is nothing you or I could say or do that would ever be enough for him to reconsider his theological commitments.

And there is nothing anyone could say or do that would ever be enough for you to change your mind or reconsider your position if you were accused of murdering someone who you know you did not murder. Your belief in your innocence is what would be termed an "intrinsic defeater-defeater". An intrinsic defeater-defeater is belief that is so powerfully warranted that it simply intrinsically defeats the defeaters brought against it.

He can always play the "inner witness" card to declare the game over. He could throw away every other card in his hand - the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, etc - and claim victory solely by playing this one card. The problem, as I alluded to earlier, is that Craig isn't the only one to adopt this "winning" strategy. Other theists play the same card to declare themselves triumphant. So we are left wondering who the victor really is and whether we should even be playing a game rigged in favour of the apologist's presupposed conclusions.

And you could always play the "I know I am innocent" card to declare your innocence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not about winning or losing, but about saying that it is reasonable for your personal experience to influence what you believe.

Wouldn't it also be reasonable to question your personal experience if new information suggests that you ought to?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And there is nothing anyone could say or do that would ever be enough for you to change your mind or reconsider your position if you were accused of murdering someone who you know you did not murder. Your belief in your innocence is what would be termed an "intrinsic defeater-defeater". An intrinsic defeater-defeater is belief that is so powerfully warranted that it simply intrinsically defeats the defeaters brought against it.

Actually, you're wrong about that. If the evidence against my innocence is overwhelming, then it is possible that I am guilty of committing the crime, even though I have no personal recollection of it. Given the fallibility of autobiographical memory, I cannot justify absolute certainty about my innocence, particularly given the evidence to the contrary. I don't assume that my personal experience is unquestionable. Further inquiry could show that I was mistaken.

In any case, this is a poor analogy. If we are to regard "inner witness" as the highest epistemic standard, then we are still forced to deal with the numerous conflicting supernatural claims that all satisfy this standard. It doesn't further our understanding in any way.

 

[Soyeong]

Wouldn't it also be reasonable to question your personal experience if new information suggests that you ought to?

Sure, but defeating all of WLC's arguments for the existence of God would not be the same as providing information that suggests that he ought to question his person experience. It's important for both people in a debate to not just try to dismantle the arguments of the the other debater, but to also provide arguments in favor of their position.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, but defeating all of WLC's arguments for the existence of God would not be the same as providing information that suggests that he ought to question his person experience. It's important for both people in a debate to not just try to dismantle the arguments of the the other debater, but to also provide arguments in favor of their position.

That's true. Overturning the case for Christianity by refuting Craig's arguments wouldn't be enough. That's the point. Craig has given his personal experience so much epistemic weight that nothing could ever lead him to question his theological commitments.

 

[Soyeong]

Of course overturning the case for Christianity wouldn't be enough. That's the point. Craig has given his personal experience so much epistemic weight that nothing could ever lead him to question his theological commitments.

You just finished arguing that you would doubt your personal experience if sufficient evidence were provided, so it's not impossible, just difficult.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You just finished arguing that you would doubt your personal experience if sufficient evidence were provided, so it's not impossible, just difficult.

Yes, I would, because I don't assign the preponderance of epistemic weight to my personal experience, particularly my autobiographical memory. Consequently, a strong case against my innocence could prompt me to reconsider the matter. With respect to religion at least, the epistemic weight Craig assigns to his personal experience is so great that nothing could ever lead him to question it. He might as well declare his "inner witness" infallible.

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, you're wrong about that. If the evidence against my innocence is overwhelming, then it is possible that I am guilty of committing the crime, even though I have no personal recollection of it. Given the fallibility of autobiographical memory, I cannot justify absolute certainty about my innocence, particularly given the evidence to the contrary. I don't assume that my personal experience is unquestionable. Further inquiry could show that I was mistaken.

So you would confess to committing murder when you know you did not commit murder?

Because this is what we are talking about.

I am not talking about a scenario where you blacked out and could not remember what took place during a certain period of time in which the murder occurred. Nor am I talking about a scenario in which you somehow develop amnesia and forget what you were doing for a period of time. Nor am I talking about a scenario in which your memory somehow fails you. I am talking about a scenario in which you know you did not commit the crime you are being accused of. Plain and simple.

In any case, this is a poor analogy. If we are to regard "inner witness" as the highest epistemic standard, then we are still forced to deal with the numerous conflicting supernatural claims that all satisfy this standard. It doesn't further our understanding in any way.

I get your point. What you have to understand is that either Dr. Craig has the inner witness of the Holy Spirit or he does not.

If he does, then this inner witness is infallible, God cannot lie or make mistakes or be confused about things. If he does then anything uttered by anyone else claiming to also have some inner witness from God which contradicts Craig's inner witness is wrong. Plain and simple.

Archaeopteryx, if the Holy Spirit indwells a person and leads and guides them into all truth and cannot lie, then anything uttered by another who claims also to have an inner witness which contradicts what the Holy Spirit says, is wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[The Cadet]

I get your point. What you have to understand is that either Dr. Craig has the inner witness of the Holy Spirit or he does not.

If he does, then this inner witness is infallible, God cannot lie or make mistakes or be confused about things. If he does then anything uttered by anyone else claiming to also have some inner witness from God which contradicts Craig's inner witness is wrong. Plain and simple.

Archaeopteryx, if the Holy Spirit indwells a person and leads and guides them into all truth and cannot lie, then anything uttered by another who claims also to have an inner witness which contradicts what the Holy Spirit says, is wrong. Plain and simple.

How does Dr. Craig tell the difference between the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and the inner witness of any number of other possible supernatural beings? How does he tell the difference between the inner witness of the holy spirit and simple self-delusion?

 

[KCfromNC]

Archaeopterix, are you ruling out supernatural witness a priori?

a priori? No, there's lots of good evidence that claims of supernatural revelation are a bad source of knowledge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you would confess to committing murder when you know you did not commit murder?

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

I am not talking about a scenario where you blacked out and could not remember what took place during a certain period of time in which the murder occurred. Nor am I talking about a scenario in which you somehow develop amnesia and forget what you were doing for a period of time. Nor am I talking about a scenario in which your memory somehow fails you. I am talking about a scenario in which you know you did not commit the crime you are being accused of. Plain and simple.

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.

I get your point. What you have to understand is that either Dr. Craig has the inner witness of the Holy Spirit or he does not.

If he does, then this inner witness is infallible, God cannot lie or make mistakes or be confused about things. If he does then anything uttered by anyone else claiming to also have some inner witness from God which contradicts Craig's inner witness is wrong. Plain and simple.

Archaeopteryx, if the Holy Spirit indwells a person and leads and guides them into all truth and cannot lie, then anything uttered by another who claims also to have an inner witness which contradicts what the Holy Spirit says, is wrong. Plain and simple.

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

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does Dr. Craig tell the difference between the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and the inner witness of any number of other possible supernatural beings? How does he tell the difference between the inner witness of the holy spirit and simple self-delusion?

Craig apparently has an intrinsic defeater-defeater up his sleeve. But not to worry, I have a defeater-defeater-defeater. This is where the discourse ultimately ends up when the arguments fail. The apologist falls back on faith, on the "inner witness" in his heart.

 

[anonymous person]

How does Dr. Craig tell the difference between the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and the inner witness of any number of other possible supernatural beings? How does he tell the difference between the inner witness of the holy spirit and simple self-delusion?

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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."