By Brian Kellogg ~
Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig often uses the argument from personal experience in an effort to prove his god.
Craig says (in his own words):
This argument is obviously inept, but we will go into it somewhat. If Dr. Craig would affirm this argument's validity then he must also be willing to allow all other religions to offer such evidence as well. I do not believe he would accept this due to the exclusivity that Christianity demands. This tool of argumentation only helps to underscore the weakness of Dr. Craig's argument as a whole. At the end of the day Christianity is based on faith. The bible is explicit on this point. His use of this argument therefore reinforces the absolute subjectivity required to accept the myriad of bronze age myths found in Christianity's holy book as true. I along with Hitchens wish christian apologists would just concede this obvious point and be done with it.
The anthropological argument argues for the existence of god due to the need for moral absolutes and the fact that most are born with an innate knowledge of basic right and wrong. Wanting a prime mover in order to communicate moral absolutes to us does not magically make such a prime mover exist. The wanting does not necessitate the needing. We often hear from christians that god must exist otherwise nothing is evil and everything is permissible. If there are no absolutes then whoever holds power creates the absolutes. This is the argument I often made as a christian. An honest review of history shows that it is those holding and wielding power that have determined what is and is not allowable and this is undeniably self evident. Wanting an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god to tell us right from wrong only moves this problem up to an intolerable level. At least when there are humans in power that hurt and oppress their people those in power can hopefully be overthrown. If it is a god doing this then we are to be supremely pitied.
Looking at morals as an evolutionary result, still in process thankfully, of a social species is quite natural and obvious from a secular perspective. As we can see this evolutionary process produces socially acceptable behavior, but also causes us to distrust those that are outsiders and/or much different than those in our social circle. This is far more likely and preferable in my humble opinion.
Craig says (in his own words):
The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost is the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."
This argument is obviously inept, but we will go into it somewhat. If Dr. Craig would affirm this argument's validity then he must also be willing to allow all other religions to offer such evidence as well. I do not believe he would accept this due to the exclusivity that Christianity demands. This tool of argumentation only helps to underscore the weakness of Dr. Craig's argument as a whole. At the end of the day Christianity is based on faith. The bible is explicit on this point. His use of this argument therefore reinforces the absolute subjectivity required to accept the myriad of bronze age myths found in Christianity's holy book as true. I along with Hitchens wish christian apologists would just concede this obvious point and be done with it.
The anthropological argument argues for the existence of god due to the need for moral absolutes and the fact that most are born with an innate knowledge of basic right and wrong. Wanting a prime mover in order to communicate moral absolutes to us does not magically make such a prime mover exist. The wanting does not necessitate the needing. We often hear from christians that god must exist otherwise nothing is evil and everything is permissible. If there are no absolutes then whoever holds power creates the absolutes. This is the argument I often made as a christian. An honest review of history shows that it is those holding and wielding power that have determined what is and is not allowable and this is undeniably self evident. Wanting an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god to tell us right from wrong only moves this problem up to an intolerable level. At least when there are humans in power that hurt and oppress their people those in power can hopefully be overthrown. If it is a god doing this then we are to be supremely pitied.
Looking at morals as an evolutionary result, still in process thankfully, of a social species is quite natural and obvious from a secular perspective. As we can see this evolutionary process produces socially acceptable behavior, but also causes us to distrust those that are outsiders and/or much different than those in our social circle. This is far more likely and preferable in my humble opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment