Religion Debates

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

TruthSeeker wrote:Typically, YEC's believe because their pastor or dangerous evangelists like Hovind tells them to. They typically have never studied the scientific evidence for an old earth.. or the biblical evidence for one. That is pretty crazy.
The biblical evidence for an old earth? I have two Bible based conservative timelines of the Bible, and they show the process of generations and events from Adam to Jesus. At least I respect the fundies for being honest and reading their Bible straight!
Just because I decide to defend a guy who values a defense in this forum, I then must be a "Craig clone".
Actually, no one has called you that. But it's probably a safe bet based upon what you've posted so far.
You engage in a lot of denial regarding the amount of respect Craig is given..
Good grief, enough with the Craig fawning. I don't give a flip what Harris said in the intro to a debate. I don't care what anyone says about Craig. Based upon the quotes I have provided, I can't take the man seriously.
Kent Hovind picks his opponents wisely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he hasn't debated any top-level evolutionist thinkers...
Doug and I debated him on a radio show once. It wouldn't matter who he debated, he would probably appear to do pretty good to the uninformed, which is always the majority of an American audience on complex science matters. And he's very good at the Gish gallop and saying things that are so stupid, a "top-level evolutionist" would simply be stunned and not know where to begin with such intellectual stupidity and dishonesty. Hovind would do worse with someone who has simply studied his history of dishonesty and his ludicrous arguments. In the radio program exchange we pulled his pants down regarding his fake Ph.D., for instance.

The editor of my book wrote this book:

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims

Free online here.
DAR
If a philosopher says:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of [Ganesh] to the fundamental truth of the [Hindu] faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa."
TS
I'm not ducking at all. You gave a cherry-picked, out of context quote that is highly misleading until you take it all in.
You can add all you want. And what you have added actually makes it a bit worse, as I'll show. Craig's comments work equally well for any deity or religion, which means they don't work at all. They are, worthless. Laughable. Embarrassing.
Craig uses the example of a seminary student who believes due to reasons other than evidence. That is the basis for his "even those who are given no good reason to believe... have no excuse".
Right. And the reason they have no excuse, is because they went with reason and arguments instead of listening to the Holy Spirit. That's not philosophy or the pursuit of truth, that's a naked religious statement and quite the opposite of reason.
I typed, "the student was given no good reason to believe yet still did due to his personal relationship with Christ. Hence, why Craig closes the whole part with "the reason they do not believe is because they have rejected God's Holy Spirit"."
What's a Holy Spirit? Why is a philosopher telling people to listen to a ghost when reason and argumentation don't give the desired answer?
You didn't give the full quote, though. It looks a lot different when you do.
It doesn't look at all different. Again, you can insert any God or religion into Craig's comments here and they work equally well. Which means they are worthless. That's theology, not philosophy. Craig should learn the difference and not pretend they are the same.
DAR
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of [Ganesh] to the fundamental truth of the [Hindu] faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." --Craig
Is this kind of reasoning the sign of a competent philosopher?

TS
Again, you're giving a clipped quote that I've seen all over anti-Craig sites and writings.
Well I've never seen them but his errors here are so blatant I am not surprised that everyone else has figured out the obvious here too. As you admit, if you didn't believe this stuff you would be making fun of it too. As you should.
Literally just after that quote, it reads,

"Some people disagree with what I've said about the role of argument and evidence.
That reminds me of Paul, after making up some ludicrous doctrine and then predicting that people would come along some day and scoff at it. Pretty obvious really.
[Craig quote]
... They ask how else we could determine which is true, the Bible, the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them. The muslim or the mormon also claims to have a witness of God's spirit... But how is the fact that other persons claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit's witness? The existence of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirit's witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion do anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? If a Mormon or Muslim falsely claims to experience the witness of God's Spirit in his heart. that does nothing to undermine the veridicality of my experience".
Wonderful. I love that last sentence. So he's assuming that when a Mormon or Muslim claims to have an experience, it's false (why? Craig doesn't explain), but this doesn't change the fact that the ghost mutterings he happens to hear in his head, are the one true mutterings? Does special pleading get any more absurd than this. How can anyone fall for such foolishness?
There's much more to read on it.. I'm not going to type his whole book. See pages 49-50. In the end, it's about checks being put on arguments/evidences.
Yes, and as Craig has plainly stated, the check on the arguments/evidences, is the Holy Spirit whispering in your ear. The personal witness of the Holy Spirit trumps argument and evidence. Problem is, it works perfectly well to support any and all superstitious beliefs, which means it doesn't really support anything at all. It is completely worthless. This makes it very different from the methods of arguments and evidence which have given us the modern age and all of the benefits that come with it.
I don't know how much afterlife experiences are true or not, but they make for a good example here.
Since they probably aren't, it's not a good example. See: near-death experience (NDE)

There are no NDE anecdotes that can hold up to examination. I can give you lots of data on this. Moody fooled people for a while in the '80's with this, but it's all been unpacked now. See also The Case Against Immortality.
Remember that his afterlife experience was a true one.
No, it's a personal anecdote and an extraordinary claim. And in religious comparison, it contradicts all of the other religious personal anecdotes. I dismiss your personal religious anecdote about Holy Spirits for the same reason you dismiss religious anecdotes that contradict yours.
As for Christianity, if you assume that Christians are having real experiences with God, then it would make sense to use that experience in a "checks" sort of fashion when comparing it against arguments or evidences.
I agree. If you assume your argument is true from the outset, it makes the conclusion much easier to reach. Craig says Holy Spirit trumps argument and evidence. That's not philosophy or a pursuit of truth. That's naked religious assertion and not philosophy.
That does not mean at all to ignore the arguments completely.
That is actually what it means. If you can use argument and evidence to support your superstition, then do so, if you can't, then chuck the evidence and go with the Ghost. Who believes this stuff?
I do find it pretty amazing that I'm having to provide full quotes for your cherry-picked, cut ones which point towards a different conclusion when read in full.
Nothing you have provided has changed anything. You again have completely ducked that one can insert any religion or deity into Craig's naked religious assertions, as I did with Ganesh, and it works equally well for any of them. That's quite ridiculous coming from an actual philosopher.
You make it seem like Craig is saying that arguments don't matter, which isn't the case at all. In Reasonable Faith, Craig defines faith as "placing hope in that which you [reason] to be true".
That's just a variation of Hebrews 11:1, which is equally useless. Faith is pretending to know something you don't know, and believing in something without good reasons. I miss the old days when at least Martin Luther was honest about this stuff!

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." --Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)

"Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason." --Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.23, p. 99)

"The damned whore Reason..." --Martin Luther
Craig has repeatedly challenged preachers and pastors to teach those participating in the church about defending the faith with arguments.
Of course. To do otherwise would be foolish. Which is exactly what Craig says to do. He uses philosophy like a prostitute to support his superstitious beliefs. Ride on it, appeal to it when possible, but when it can't be abused to support what he wants to believe, then throw it overboard and go with the Holy Ghost. What embarrassing nonsense.
The quote is for Christians, so I can see why you wouldn't like it much.
Yes, Craig would probably know better than to talk so foolishly before a philosophically sophisticated audience. He only dumbs it down like this when addressing Christians! That's a little insulting, or should be.
If I were you, I'd probably be poking fun at it also.
I would go further and say that any honest person would make fun of this stuff. Praise Ganesh, it's not philosophy, it's crap.
We Christians do believe that we can experience God, though I wouldn't describe it as a "ghost whispering in the ear".
Yes, well my Jehovah's Witness mother believes Jesus returned to rule the world in 1914. People believe a lot of things. Sometimes their beliefs even make them act like this:

Image

There's your faith in action. Because humans so naturally fall into believing utter absurdities and nonsense, we need tools to discern the good from the garbage. Good thing we have them in the form of argument and evidence and a couple thousand years of diligent study and work. And then along comes this parody of a philosopher, Craig, who says throw it out if it contradicts what the Spook tells you. That means at his core, he's really not a serious philosopher. He's an apologist who knows some fancy words.
If it is true that these experiences are true,...
Considering the variety of human religious belief, there is no good reason to believe they are true, just people fooling themselves, as they have from the beginning.

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." --H.L. Mencken
...they should be used in a checks sort of fashion against arguments and evidence.
There you go again. Something a Craig clone would say! No, history shows, best to go with the arguments and evidence. Superstition based upon faith in Spooks and wishful thinking has a terrible track record.
They can't just be ignored, Darrel.
They can be totally ignored, and should be. I ignore your argument from personal experience for the same reason you ignore all of the billions of arguments from personal experience that contradict yours. The argument from personal religious experience is self-defeating.

Don't give up TS, I think you are making progress!

cheers,

Darrel
------------------
"Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown? What right would this god have to complain of a crucifixion suffered in accordance with his own command?" [Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. 259]
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Post Reply