I'm copying this from my own post on another forum. Would love to get Stefan's take on this or anyone else for that matter. The reason I find this interesting is because this prominent theologan who constantly refers to himself as a philosopher wrote a book about applying reason to the topic of god. Lo and behold, when I read the book (I'm only through the first chapter), he seems to spend the entire time speaking AGAINST the use of reason, evidence and/or argumentation. He seems to have a great disdain for these things! Yet he's taking the position that his arguments are so reasonable they should be considered absolutely true. It's a total mind fck of epic proportions.
Maybe this is typical of theological work but my god, this was a new experience for me. I think I went through some kind of intellectual vertigo, and I can't quite bring myself to start chapter 2, titled "The Absurdity of Life without God"
Anyway, here it is -
First of all, I want to preface this by pointing out that William Lane Craig does not represent all Christians. This is my take specifically on Craig's arguments about Christianity, which means this is not definitive of Christianity as a whole. My intended audience here is other atheists though if any believers want to chime in that's fine. Now, I want to say something, in general, about what reason is and why it's important. When engaging in debate, it's important to have an agreed upon criteria upon which to evaluate each other's arguments and positions. If I engage in a discussion about my position with another individual without first being willing to acknowledge that it's possible that my argument is wrong and establishing criteria we can use to determine whether or not my argument is wrong, then all I am doing is tricking you into joining me for some mental masturbation and maybe a little intellectual fraud by tricking you into thinking we are participating in an actual discussion. Wikipedia defines reason thusly:
In other words, if I present an argument and the method of my reasoning to arrive at the conclusions I did, that method must be universally applicable. If the reasoning I used to reach my conclusion is valid, then any conclusions I reach using that method of reasoning must also be valid. I promise, you will understand why I am saying all of this upfront shortly. Chapter 1 - "How do I know Christianity to be true?" I skipped the intro because just based on the title of the chapter, I knew this was what I was after. Craig gets right to the point, and I can appreciate that. As an atheist there's nothing more irritating about Christians than the way they will make assertions and claims without anything to support it. We are constantly thinking, "but how do you know that to be true?" William Lane Craig will constantly point out in debates that he is a philosopher, and in the realm of this discussion he is truly a power house for the Christian argument. He's damn near unavoidable and he routinely walks all over atheists in debates, so I was very excited to read his work. (Small disclosure, this book was clearly written for a Christian audience to help them in their discussions with atheists and people of other faiths. This was not an attempt to convert non believers) Now, you can imagine my disappointment when one of the first things I read was this:
Please remember what I said earlier about the importance of establishing criteria for determining the validity of an argument (also known as reasoning) rather than simply putting your hands over your ears and deciding you're right no matter what. And that is exactly what WLC is saying here. Self-authenticating is a shyster's way of saying his argument is valid no matter what. There's no way to disprove or invalidate God according to Craig. Technically, there is one way - if the Holy Spirit were to invalidate itself. That is the only possibility. Craig goes on to explain that the holy spirit is the first and primary source of knowledge about god. Argumentation, reason, evidence, etc, are secondary AT BEST. Craig argues that every single person in the world, regardless of their religion or lack of religion, has experienced the holy spirit and is already Christian. In his own words:
His purpose here is clear. He dislikes the idea of God giving people a pass when they arrive at the pearly gates because they rejected Christianity due to a lack of education on the Christian religion or because they were given poor arguments for Christianity. Every one of us already know the holy spirit, according to Craig, and in failing to live by the tenets of Christianity we are like people jumping off of cliffs and denying gravity (my words, not his). Finally, I'd like to point this quote out:
In other words, as pointed out earlier, Christianity is valid because it's valid and anyone or anything that says otherwise is wrong by default. It seems clear to me that the reason Craig is constantly stating that he's a philosopher is because no one would ever believe him to be otherwise. How a philosopher could ever make such a ridiculous statement as this is completely beyond me. In closing, I am thoroughly disappointed in this book. I began reading in good faith because I felt perhaps I had too much of a confirmation bias and hadn't considered the Christian/theist side fairly enough...having read too much atheist material. I will read the rest of the book but my spirits have dropped. I do, however, recommend all atheists pick up a copy of this book and read it. It's already been very enlightening for me in explaining the callous, arrogant, condescending and close minded attitudes that seem so prevalent amongst christians. This has seriously been one of the most childish works I've ever read, and yet this man is very well respected.
I'm copying this from my own post on another forum. Would love to get Stefan's take on this or anyone else for that matter. The reason I find this interesting is because this prominent theologan who constantly refers to himself as a philosopher wrote a book about applying reason to the topic of god. Lo and behold, when I read the book (I'm only through the first chapter), he seems to spend the entire time speaking AGAINST the use of reason, evidence and/or argumentation. He seems to have a great disdain for these things! Yet he's taking the position that his arguments are so reasonable they should be considered absolutely true. It's a total mind fck of epic proportions. Maybe this is typical of theological work but my god, this was a new experience for me. I think I went through some kind of intellectual vertigo, and I can't quite bring myself to start chapter 2, titled "The Absurdity of Life without God" Anyway, here it is - First of all, I want to preface this by pointing out that William Lane Craig does not represent all Christians. This is my take specifically on Craig's arguments about Christianity, which means this is not definitive of Christianity as a whole. My intended audience here is other atheists though if any believers want to chime in that's fine. Now, I want to say something, in general, about what reason is and why it's important. When engaging in debate, it's important to have an agreed upon criteria upon which to evaluate each other's arguments and positions. If I engage in a discussion about my position with another individual without first being willing to acknowledge that it's possible that my argument is wrong and establishing criteria we can use to determine whether or not my argument is wrong, then all I am doing is tricking you into joining me for some mental masturbation and maybe a little intellectual fraud by tricking you into thinking we are participating in an actual discussion. Wikipedia defines reason thusly: In other words, if I present an argument and the method of my reasoning to arrive at the conclusions I did, that method must be universally applicable. If the reasoning I used to reach my conclusion is valid, then any conclusions I reach using that method of reasoning must also be valid. I promise, you will understand why I am saying all of this upfront shortly. Chapter 1 - "How do I know Christianity to be true?" I skipped the intro because just based on the title of the chapter, I knew this was what I was after. Craig gets right to the point, and I can appreciate that. As an atheist there's nothing more irritating about Christians than the way they will make assertions and claims without anything to support it. We are constantly thinking, "but how do you know that to be true?" William Lane Craig will constantly point out in debates that he is a philosopher, and in the realm of this discussion he is truly a power house for the Christian argument. He's damn near unavoidable and he routinely walks all over atheists in debates, so I was very excited to read his work. (Small disclosure, this book was clearly written for a Christian audience to help them in their discussions with atheists and people of other faiths. This was not an attempt to convert non believers) Now, you can imagine my disappointment when one of the first things I read was this: Please remember what I said earlier about the importance of establishing criteria for determining the validity of an argument (also known as reasoning) rather than simply putting your hands over your ears and deciding you're right no matter what. And that is exactly what WLC is saying here. Self-authenticating is a shyster's way of saying his argument is valid no matter what. There's no way to disprove or invalidate God according to Craig. Technically, there is one way - if the Holy Spirit were to invalidate itself. That is the only possibility. Craig goes on to explain that the holy spirit is the first and primary source of knowledge about god. Argumentation, reason, evidence, etc, are secondary AT BEST. Craig argues that every single person in the world, regardless of their religion or lack of religion, has experienced the holy spirit and is already Christian. In his own words: His purpose here is clear. He dislikes the idea of God giving people a pass when they arrive at the pearly gates because they rejected Christianity due to a lack of education on the Christian religion or because they were given poor arguments for Christianity. Every one of us already know the holy spirit, according to Craig, and in failing to live by the tenets of Christianity we are like people jumping off of cliffs and denying gravity (my words, not his). Finally, I'd like to point this quote out: In other words, as pointed out earlier, Christianity is valid because it's valid and anyone or anything that says otherwise is wrong by default. It seems clear to me that the reason Craig is constantly stating that he's a philosopher is because no one would ever believe him to be otherwise. How a philosopher could ever make such a ridiculous statement as this is completely beyond me. In closing, I am thoroughly disappointed in this book. I began reading in good faith because I felt perhaps I had too much of a confirmation bias and hadn't considered the Christian/theist side fairly enough...having read too much atheist material. I will read the rest of the book but my spirits have dropped. I do, however, recommend all atheists pick up a copy of this book and read it. It's already been very enlightening for me in explaining the callous, arrogant, condescending and close minded attitudes that seem so prevalent amongst christians. This has seriously been one of the most childish works I've ever read, and yet this man is very well respected.