Catholics and William Lane Craig

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

*Arguments for the historicity of Jesus and how his true nature is revealed and is consistent with revelation in scripture is also important. Once you add it all up, you end up with picture that looks very Christian. *

One of the most masterful approaches to this theme will be found in William Paley’s Evidence of Christianity.

 

[Spock]

Honestly, I’m the same way - not once as a mystical or supernatural phenomena occurred to me even when I pray. I still do it, because I believe in God and all, but I’ve never had any of that stuff happen to me.

So, I’ve come to think that God makes our souls each “spiritual” in different ways. For some of them, its effortless to meditate until you see a vision of Christ. For me, I think feeling God is just the peace of mind I get, and my interest in reading and studying scriptures and theology and religion.

The only explanation I can offer, and I mean absolutely no offence to you when I say this, is that you were asking for a type of thing which God didn’t plan to give you - perhaps he decided to show himself in a different, (seemingly) non-supernatural way, and you rejected that. Or perhaps he would all in due time, but you weren’t patient enough. Just my thoughts. It could be some other reason, or maybe you’re right, or maybe there is a God but we can’t understand his reasons for not answering you.

No offense taken. Of course I asked for things that were not supposed to be “granted”. Like that little kid in the Onion (see here which is not supposed to be taken seriously). You are only supposed to ask for two kinds of things, if you wish to get positive results. Either something that will happen anyhow. Like to ask for snow in the winter. Or things that cannot be verified. Like to ask to be “saved”. Stuff, which is highly improbable and can be verified is a serious no-no.

Now we all respond to such non-response differently, based upon our attitude. Some of us are more prone to believe without substantiation, others are highly skeptical. Stands to reason that God would use a different “tactics” for the skeptics, if he cared deeply about us. Since he does not, I have to draw my own conclusion, which I already stated above.

 

[ddarko]

I see some Catholics here on the forum who seem to have really taken to the writings and arguments of the Evangelical William Lane Craig. I read some of his work a few years ago and it’s easy to spot someone echoing his arguments. I think it’s a mistake. I know years back when I read Craig and some of the other Evangelical apologists it actually damaged my faith. Religion is not “proving” there is a God, religion is not forming deductive arguments that end with “therefore, there is a God”. Not only does it have nothing to do communing with God, or faith, bringing your will into union with the will of God, or anything else that IS considered part the religious life, but the arguments themselves are open to charges that they are flawed. The Evangelicals want to turn belief in God into a type of science or philosophical argument, where you simple get “faith” through reading through some deductive arguments or through the “science” of Intelligent Design. I’m pretty sure if a Craig ever met a Teresa of Avila or a John of the Cross and explained to them that there must be a God because of the Kalam argument, they’d probably look at him and say “I guess that’s interesting, of course I already know there is a God, excuse me now while I get back to my contemplation”.

I think what Craig is doing is fine. I’ve seen some of his debates including once when he came to our University for a debate. He has just started to take the atheist on their call for reason. Something to note though is that he even defends religion based on personal experience alone (I for one think that needs some more refinement and certainly is not acceptable as it is). But I just thought you should know that he is really not trying to rationalize religion but simply using faith + reason.

That being said, there are somethings that I found troubling at times. In some of his debates, especially with regard to faith matters like the resurrection of Christ, the erroneous Protestant teachings start to rise up. He speaks of Jesus having brothers and James as a blood brother of Jesus at times. That is indeed problematic. He did this in some debates against Muslim theologians and it was really unnecessary to defend the argument they were making as well. But, for his defense, since Craig does not have anything like Tradition to use, so he has had to pull something like that in many an occasion. So in the end, the erroneous Protestant theology does start to show in his theological works.

So in short, if you are looking for subjects in philosophy, then Craig’s debates are great. BUT, if you are looking for matters that concern theological matters, I would CERTAINLY NOT recommend Craig. His work can indeed be misleading in that area.

God Bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ddarko

So in short, if you are looking for subjects in philosophy, then Craig’s debates are great. BUT, if you are looking for matters that concern theological matters, I would CERTAINLY NOT recommend Craig. His work can indeed be misleading in that area.

I’m afraid he’s in the same category as C.S. Lewis. Truly brilliant but full of blind spots.

 

[Pieman333272]

No offense taken. Of course I asked for things that were not supposed to be “granted”. Like that little kid in the Onion (see here which is not supposed to be taken seriously). You are only supposed to ask for two kinds of things, if you wish to get positive results. Either something that will happen anyhow. Like to ask for snow in the winter. Or things that cannot be verified. Like to ask to be “saved”. Stuff, which is highly improbable and can be verified is a serious no-no.

Now we all respond to such non-response differently, based upon our attitude. Some of us are more prone to believe without substantiation, others are highly skeptical. Stands to reason that God would use a different “tactics” for the skeptics, if he cared deeply about us. Since he does not, I have to draw my own conclusion, which I already stated above.

Oh, I wasn’t trying to say you asked for too much - I was trying to say you weren’t satisfied with what God did answer to you. As I said, I once wanted more from God - a spiritual experience, a vision, anything. But as I grew wiser, I realized God’s revelation to me was the peace of mind, the joy I’ve seen, and the interest and knowledge I had in God and the faith - and others too!

But it’s fine to ask for a miraculous healing or to be able to levitate, or more minor spiritual experiences (i.e. “feeling” God). What’s not fine is to get upset or renounce your faith (again, no offence) when you don’t get them.

 

[Spock]

Oh, I wasn’t trying to say you asked for too much - I was trying to say you weren’t satisfied with what God did answer to you. As I said, I once wanted more from God - a spiritual experience, a vision, anything. But as I grew wiser, I realized God’s revelation to me was the peace of mind, the joy I’ve seen, and the interest and knowledge I had in God and the faith - and others too!

I have a great peace of mind. I have a lot of joy. I am happy as I can be. I overflow with love for my wife and family. There is almost nothing that I would “wish” to have that I do not have. (Well, I would love to live as long as I get tired of living, but that is not possible, so it does not bother me.)

But it’s fine to ask for a miraculous healing or to be able to levitate, or more minor spiritual experiences (i.e. “feeling” God). What’s not fine is to get upset or renounce your faith (again, no offence) when you don’t get them.

I think I need to go into details. I did not lose my faith because my prayers were “denied”. It was the first “crack” in the wall, so to speak. I lost my faith because I grew out of it (and no offense implied here). It was a gradual process. It is simply gone now. What can I say?

 

[Pieman333272]

I have a great peace of mind. I have a lot of joy. I am happy as I can be. I overflow with love for my wife and family. There is almost nothing that I would “wish” to have that I do not have. (Well, I would love to live as long as I get tired of living, but that is not possible, so it does not bother me.)

I never meant to say you need to pray to have joy. I just meant to say my peace of mind and joy in many ways correlate to my belief in God (not in the sense I’m obsessed with religion, to be clear).

I think I need to go into details. I did not lose my faith because my prayers were “denied”. It was the first “crack” in the wall, so to speak. I lost my faith because I grew out of it (and no offense implied here). It was a gradual process. It is simply gone now. What can I say?

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Spock]

I never meant to say you need to pray to have joy. I just meant to say my peace of mind and joy in many ways correlate to my belief in God (not in the sense I’m obsessed with religion, to be clear).

All I can say is that I am happy for you.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

You are most welcome.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The role of cosmological arguments is not to prove specific religious practices, but rather its about proving the existence of a being whose “ontological attributes” are known by Christianity Islam and Judaism through tradition and scripture. Now while, I haven’t proven that Christianity is true revelation, it can be proven that the general ontological attributes of God as understood by those three religions exist. This is very important to Christianity and Christian intellectuals who believe that God gave them a brain for a reason. That other religions may claim God as there own is irrelevant. It follows quite obviously that once you prove that such attributes exist, there are certain religions or revelations that are more likely to be true than others. More importantly, the Abraham religion from which Christianity and Islam branch out are more likely to be true than other religions once you analyse properly the ontological nature of God

You talk about the arguments as being more in line with supporting the Christian view of God’s “attributes” than other religions. Other than Aquinas’s “Five Ways” (which many theologians say were written more to define God’s infinite attributes than to prove His existence) what other modern arguments for the existence of God (which are almost always the ones you hear recited) help define God’s attributes in a way that supports The Christian view more than another religion? The Kalam? Cosmological? Design?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is an interesting monologue by Craig on the relationship between faith and reason.

Faith trumps reason.

youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ

 

[MindOverMatter2]

(which many theologians say were written more to define God’s infinite attributes than to prove His existence)

I don’t care about a theologians opinion when it comes to philosophy.

what other modern arguments for the existence of God (which are almost always the ones you hear recited) help define God’s attributes in a way that supports The Christian view more than another religion? The Kalam? Cosmological? Design?

It depends on which variations of those arguments you are talking about, and whether or not they are developed according to a metaphysical view of things. If you are asking me to give you an example, I must say that I do not care to show somebody like you, since you have made it evident to me that you lack a clear logical understanding of things and do not want one; so much so that you wouldn’t be able to comprehend why the argument was correct if it was shown to you. For fear of your faith being challenged, you would prefer to recite the opinions of old theologians rather than humble yourself to rational discipline.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Once again, Wile E Coyote aka Suuuuper Genius, destroying the myth that it’s just the atheists that are smug and arrogant with an overblow opinion of themselves. Highlights from this thread alone;

“If you are asking me to give you an example, I must say that I do not care to show somebody like you, since you have made it evident to me that you lack a clear logical understanding of things and do not want one; so much so that you wouldn’t be able to comprehend why the argument was correct if it was shown to you.”

“I am beginning to have the feeling that it would not be wise to boast as to why I can see, but others can’t.”

“I prefer it if you take the time to type it out for us. Then I might take you seriously.”

“William lane Craig has done much to move Christianity outside the realm of fairy tales in to the realm of something that is to be intellectually respected”

“People should be honest enough to answer my argument directly or admit that they are in error or do not know; better that than make weak arguments from authority or tradition and then claim that I am not a Catholic just because I blew those arguments out of the sky.”

“You have not done that, you have just made assertions and then claimed that those assertions are better than any philosophical arguments for Gods existence. That is not the mark of a good thinker”

“It does us no good to take Christianity or any religion for granted. Intellectual laziness should not be a teaching of the faith; and “faith” should never mean “blind”.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“If you are asking me to give you an example, I must say that I do not care to show somebody like you, since you have made it evident to me that you lack a clear logical understanding of things and do not want one; so much so that you wouldn’t be able to comprehend why the argument was correct if it was shown to you.”

“I am beginning to have the feeling that it would not be wise to boast as to why I can see, but others can’t.”

“I prefer it if you take the time to type it out for us. Then I might take you seriously.”

“William lane Craig has done much to move Christianity outside the realm of fairy tales in to the realm of something that is to be intellectually respected”

“People should be honest enough to answer my argument directly or admit that they are in error or do not know; better that than make weak arguments from authority or tradition and then claim that I am not a Catholic just because I blew those arguments out of the sky.”

“You have not done that, you have just made assertions and then claimed that those assertions are better than any philosophical arguments for Gods existence. That is not the mark of a good thinker”

“It does us no good to take Christianity or any religion for granted. Intellectual laziness should not be a teaching of the faith; and “faith” should never mean “blind”.”

Thanks!! Those are some cool quotes, all of which are facts.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t care about a theologians opinion when it comes to philosophy.

For fear of your faith being challenged, you would prefer to recite the opinions of old theologians rather than humble yourself to rational discipline.

Here is another two quotes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter
**
For fear of your faith being challenged, you would prefer to recite the opinions of old theologians rather than humble yourself to rational discipline. **

Are old theologians in your opinion not capable of rational discipline?

Is that how you think about Paul and Augustine and Aquinas?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

MindOverMatter
**
For fear of your faith being challenged, you would prefer to recite the opinions of old theologians rather than humble yourself to rational discipline. **

Are old theologians in your opinion not capable of rational discipline?

Is that how you think about Paul and Augustine and Aquinas?

It’s a classic case of the psychological condition known as of “Projection”. It’s HIS faith that gets challenged anytime someone tries to tell him his cosmological and teleological arguments for God aren’t the slam dunk he thinks they are. He NEEDS those arguments for his faith. Just like he needed to believe an actually infinity can not exist, on another thread a last week when I told him about Georg Cantor and Set Theory he nearly had a conniption fit, started barking insults at me just like on this thread. Poor guy, his faith is lost without his arguments.

This was the danger I was pointing out in the OP

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter

**
For fear of your faith being challenged, you would prefer to recite the opinions of old theologians rather than humble yourself to rational discipline. **

Are old theologians in your opinion not capable of rational discipline?

Is that how you think about Paul and Augustine and Aquinas?

First of all I haven’t said that faith is not valuable; I am saying that faith without reason is worthless to me; and I don’t care much for fame. When Aquinas functions as a philosopher, I treat him as philosopher, and I am concerned with their premises and conclusions and whether or not they are being rational in that context. When they speak as philosophers, their beliefs are irrelevant to me accept as to provide a hypothesis that I must show to be reasonable. I want to know if their arguments work; end of story.

When they function as theologians I treat them as theologians, and I value their theological arguments (which also employs rational discourse) as theological arguments, since that is the context in which they make rational argument. The question of whether or not God exists is not in my mind a theological question. It is a philosophical question. The question of whether or not God should be exposed to philosophical debate is not a question that should concern philosophers; but rather its a question that worries theologians or Catholics who fear philosophy and logic in general.

I believe that the truth of philosophy - more specifically metaphysics - as an independent strictly objective method of obtaining truth will never contradict the truth of faith, if in fact the faith is true. It is said that I can know of Gods existence by reason alone, and thus I seek the fulfilment of that truth, and I have seen the fulfilment of it. There is no accusation, ridicule, or otherwise, that can undermine that fact or take it from me. There is nothing the devil can do about it.

A Faith that does not conform to strict rationality is absolutely worthless to me in terms of having a reasonable belief, since it is no more reasonable than any other religion on the planet. The Catholic faith claims that I can know of their God through rational investigation. Its a Dogma. That makes the faith vulnerable, but it also makes the faith something worth investigating and being involved with. I do not worship an rationally impotent God. I might accept that God can do things I cannot comprehend, but I do not worship a God that can do logically impossible things or cannot be known to exist through rational argument. You cannot expect any atheist or reasonable person to accept the faith just because you say or believe its true. A true Catholic faith cannot avoid rational discourse; and if you truly believe in sharing the goodness and love of God with other human beings, then you ought to know, especially in times like these, that it is a moral imperative to form rational arguments for the existence of God.

Woe to those set god against logic. Woe to those who set God against science.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s a classic case of the psychological condition known as of “Projection”. It’s HIS faith that gets challenged anytime someone tries to tell him his cosmological and teleological arguments for God aren’t the slam dunk he thinks they are. He NEEDS those arguments for his faith.

I need rational arguments for God if I am to have a reasonable faith, and not just a blind one.

Just like he needed to believe an actually infinity can not exist,

I don’t need to believe it. I proved it to you that an a numerical infinity in ontological terms is impossible. I was not the only one who could clearly see this fact. You still haven’t refuted my argument because it cannot be refuted. Instead you asserted it was absurd and ridiculous without presenting any counter-argument. Then you said…

I told him about Georg Cantor and Set Theory he nearly had a conniption fit,

I did nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out to you that claiming that somebody famous has said something to the contrary does not prove the existence of ontological physical infinities, neither does it present it as a possibility, and neither does it cast doubt on my argument. Quoting famous people in your defence is a fallacy you enjoy repeating. If you cannot see the error of this, I don’t see how its possible that you can know that all cosmological or teleological arguments fail in proving Gods existence. I should note that just because some versions of the cosmological argument or teleological argument fail, does not mean that there are not other arguments or other versions of the cosmological argument that succeed.

…started barking insults at me just like on this thread. Poor guy, his faith is lost without his arguments.

I haven’t really been any more insulting than you have. All I did was state facts and backed them up with arguments. You found those facts insulting. And yes I probably would lose faith without those arguments.

This was the danger I was pointing out in the OP

The only danger I can see is people like you interfering with philosophical and rational development.

 

[ddarko]

A Faith that does not conform to strict rationality is absolutely worthless to me in terms of having a reasonable belief, since it is no more reasonable than any other religion on the planet. The Catholic faith claims that I can know of their God through rational investigation. Its a Dogma. That makes the faith vulnerable, but it also makes the faith something worth investigating and being involved with. I do not worship an rationally impotent God. I might accept that God can do things I cannot comprehend, but I do not worship a God that can do logically impossible things or cannot be known to exist through rational argument. You cannot expect any atheist or reasonable person to accept the faith just because you say or believe its true. A true Catholic faith cannot avoid rational discourse; and if you truly believe in sharing the goodness and love of God with other human beings, then you ought to know, especially in times like these, that it is a moral imperative to form rational arguments for the existence of God.

Woe to those set god against logic. Woe to those who set God against science.

I think another way to look at it is that without faith, we know nothing. It is with faith that we know anything. God has made us such that we can have great faith in things and we don’t even question why. For an example your Faith in reason, you view it as reasonable but it does not make any sense to view it that way, no? How do you know its reasonable to be reasonable? It appears that you have to have first accepted it by Faith.

At the same time I think this shows why Faith needs Reason as well. Without Reason, we cannot know the importance of Faith. What I said above of the necessity of faith is after all from Reason.

Therefore none is superior to the other. They both need each other and God has given us a tremendous gift in making us capable of possessing both Faith and Reason at the same time.

I think the problem with all atheists is that they somehow forget the Faith and only concentrate on Reason. And then, all knowledge is lost. It’s only a matter of time till they see the foundations of knowledge had been destroyed. I think this is why the OP is against using JUST reason alone. I think he might have a point there. The atheist WILL NEVER realize God exists because he does not realize the importance of Faith. Maybe the best thing we can do for an atheist is to first make him realize the necessity of FAITH.

In the case of God, it is both FAITH and REASON that we know him. For we know he must exist because otherwise we have no REASON to have any FAITH in anything.

God Bless

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The atheist WILL NEVER realize God exists because he does not realize the importance of Faith.

I don’t think that’s true. I think many atheists do respect faith, but within a rational context. They do not respect blind faith in the context of it having a position of authority in their lives, and they are rightfully cautious not to be hoodwinked into faith. They respect faith only insofar as it’s necessary. Many people have been convinced of Gods existence through rational arguments; and I don’t believe that I can expect anything more from an atheist. I can expect an atheist to be honest, if they believe in rational discourse. But while it is true that people must have faith in certain things like the objectivity of the physical universe, it is not self-evident that one must have faith or ought to have faith in “God”. One can see a universe, but one cannot immediately see God in the same sense. We only acquire that knowledge because we first “reason” that this must be the case. That God must exist in-order for logical arguments to be valid or in-order for morality to make objective sense is itself a logical argument. Even the belief that one is better of with faith than not, is a product of practical reasoning. We can have faith because we are first rational animals.