As with the other posts, here is are quotes from Dr. Craig and my critique. Feel free to critique my work in this fashion.
3a. "Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself." (Craig)
3b. First off, Craig assumes that "it" is true before hearing what the other person has to say. In fact, according to Craig, if the other person does not agree with the Christian's logic, that person is still wrong. They just are. Perhaps this would be a great time to check out my post "The Golden Rule."
The basic premise of "The Golden Rule" of HSFT is that one should treat another's logic/reasoning the way one would want their own logic/reasoning to be treated. Do you think that Dr. Craig would appreciate it if someone told him "I already know god X (not the Christian God) is true. Here are some arguments for him, but if you disagree, you are still wrong. The fact that you disagree is not god X's fault, but mine, and you are still accountable to him." If Dr. Craig and my hypothetical person got into a conversation, no progress would be made.
It is wrong to assume you are right before hearing what the other person has to say. What if the other person says something that actually makes sense?
---------------------------------------------------
4a. "Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." (Craig)
4b.
Issue #1:
"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Allah it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of Allah on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Muslim because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Muslim because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with Allah."
Issue #2:
I am an example of the kind of person Dr. Craig claims does not exist. I am a person who is honestly looking for evidence concerning the existence of god. The reason that I would fail to become a Christian would not be because I love darkness and want nothing to do with god, but because of the lack of arguments. If god exists, I absolutely want to have everything to do with him (eternal joy and not going to hell sounds pretty sweet). If he does not exist, then I will not sacrifice my life by "taking up my cross" (Luke 9:23) and becoming "among all men the most to be pitied [if it is not true]" (1 Corinthians 15:19).
----------------------------------------------------------
5a. "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." (Craig)
5b. It is in this statement that we see the most fundamental difference between Dr. Craig and myself. I think that argument and evidence take precedence over abstract assurance. I have already covered this topic in Fundamental Assumptions 1 & 2, so jump over there for my thoughts!
No comments:
Post a Comment