Is Belief in God Reasonable?: the debate

[ydoaPs]

Today, I'll be attending a debate about whether or not belief in God is reasonable where the Christian in the debate has said:

 

"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."-Reasonable Faith p.36

 

and

 

 

An open-armed embrace of confirmation bias is by no stretch of the imagination "reasonable".

 

The more I think about it, the more this hurts Craig. The first quote, the one from his "published works" is merely a statement about his personal irrationality. The second quote, though, generalizes this claim into a normative claim for all Christians.

 

Using Craig's framework of "the Devil is out to get you", not only are reasoned/evidenced claims conflicting with Christianity suspect, but all reasoned/evidenced claims are suspect (why would the devil who is out to get you stop at claims that conflict with Christianity when he can go all the way and mess with all of the possible reasoned beliefs?). So, on Craig's view, the Christian ought not accept ANYTHING on reason. So, for Craig to argue that belief in God *is* reasonable, he'll have to debate himself.

 

I may bring this up with Alex before the debate. If I had thought of this last night, I would have brought it up with him after his talk last night on Rational Choice models in social science.

 

And, unless there's a good reason given why the Devil couldn't tamper with Craig's intuitions, even the beliefs not held by reason are suspect. Now, what could this reason be? It can't be argument or evidence, because this Devil could tamper with those and would be unlikely to expose his ploy. So, it seems that Craig (and all Christians, given his aforementioned normative claims) must be doomed to Descartes's radical skepticism (actually, Hume's even more radical skepticism) without special pleading.

[john5746]

I wonder who will go first, because it seems like Craig likes to go first and send off a bunch of salvos, usually strawman quotes of his opponent to get them off track. I'm sure he will run away from any specifics regarding his faith as well.

[ydoaPs]

I wonder who will go first, because it seems like Craig likes to go first and send off a bunch of salvos, usually strawman quotes of his opponent to get them off track. I'm sure he will run away from any specifics regarding his faith as well.

He DOES like the Gish Gallop.

 

And before someone straw mans the crap out of the OP, this isn't to say that belief in God is not reasonable. It is, however, to say that Craig *must* hold that it is without contradicting himself.

[tar]

Today, I'll be attending a debate about whether or not belief in God is reasonable where the Christian in the debate has said:

 

"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."-Reasonable Faith p.36

 

and

 

 

An open-armed embrace of confirmation bias is by no stretch of the imagination "reasonable".

 

The more I think about it, the more this hurts Craig. The first quote, the one from his "published works" is merely a statement about his personal irrationality. The second quote, though, generalizes this claim into a normative claim for all Christians.

 

Using Craig's framework of "the Devil is out to get you", not only are reasoned/evidenced claims conflicting with Christianity suspect, but all reasoned/evidenced claims are suspect (why would the devil who is out to get you stop at claims that conflict with Christianity when he can go all the way and mess with all of the possible reasoned beliefs?). So, on Craig's view, the Christian ought not accept ANYTHING on reason. So, for Craig to argue that belief in God *is* reasonable, he'll have to debate himself.

 

I may bring this up with Alex before the debate. If I had thought of this last night, I would have brought it up with him after his talk last night on Rational Choice models in social science.

 

And, unless there's a good reason given why the Devil couldn't tamper with Craig's intuitions, even the beliefs not held by reason are suspect. Now, what could this reason be? It can't be argument or evidence, because this Devil could tamper with those and would be unlikely to expose his ploy. So, it seems that Craig (and all Christians, given his aforementioned normative claims) must be doomed to Descartes's radical skepticism (actually, Hume's even more radical skepticism) without special pleading.

ydoaPs,

 

Sounds like a very interesting debate (just read the Wiki bios on the two featured speakers). Do let us know how it turns out.

The speakers and the assembled, including you, are well equipt to debate the issue, much more so than I am.

 

Just wondering how the thing is set up. Do you get a chance to forward any arguments or make any points?

Well if you do contribute or not, please let us know your take on the proceedings.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ydoaPs]

Just wondering how the thing is set up. Do you get a chance to forward any arguments or make any points?

Well if you do contribute or not, please let us know your take on the proceedings.

There is a Q&A portion after the debate. If this debilitating downward spiral of radical skepticism isn't addressed during the debate, I'll probably ask about it. Biola University is also streaming it live.

[SomethingToPonder]

in my opinion , if god helps these people have better lives then great, "in a way" he is real. But i think that he was invented to be honest to answer the questions that couldn't and still cant be answered.
Saying because god created it has become the one thing that people always choose to explain things that science cant yet explain, It will no doubt it will but not yet.

religious protesters and people who are militantly religious frequently call on scientists to mathematically or scientifically prove things such as the big bang and evolution etc. But yet they cannot explain anything about creation etc apart from "god made it" well if that was the answer "to it all" it seems a bit simple doesn't it.

[tar]

There is a Q&A portion after the debate. If this debilitating downward spiral of radical skepticism isn't addressed during the debate, I'll probably ask about it. Biola University is also streaming it live.

Thanks ydoaPs, I'm signed up to be informed when the feed is available for individual viewing.

Feel free to trace out a decending spiral with your finger , should you be on camera.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited February 1, 2013 by tar

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

I missed the debate. Biola never sent me an e-mail linking me to the stream.

 

How did it go?

 

Regards, TAR

Is belief in god reasonable?

 

Had a waking thought this morning that we might tie into the debate.

 

Sleep. And dreams.

 

Why do we sleep, and when we do sleep, who or what do we trust to keep the ball rolling 'til we wake up? And who or what, has never failed to do the job?

 

There was something on the job prior our birth. Something will be on the job after we die. Something we believe in 100%.

 

Can't be human. Can't be a dream. Has to be real.

 

We can control certain portions of our waking lives, but not by our selves, not completely independantly. The plans and methods and good ideas of people that came before us, and people that live around us stand guard while we sleep, and assist us in our control of the environment. We trust others to watch over us, and we trust the world to never fail us, to always be there in its entirety when we wake. Always working by the same unchanging rules, always fitting together exactly.

 

Dreams give us complete control, to experiment without consequence. To try out plans and "do" stuff and see if it works out or not. Fly, vanquish demons, have relationships with movie stars, put our boss naked in front of a truck, or whatever we need to try out. But it need not follow ALL the rules, we can leave out and add in, whatever rules we "dream" up.

 

However, upon awakening, the old rules, the constant rules, reality, is in control. Much as it was when you closed your eyes. And it fits together flawlessly. Every motion and rearrangement with consequences. Flying into your dream girl's bedroom is not going to be possible, it is not going to work out, it does not fit reality. Reality has rules. Many imposed by man, many more imposed by something else.

 

Who or what, never fails to be the case? Is belief in this, eternal truth, not reasonable? Is it not apparent every time we wake?

Can we not put our trust in it, unconditionally? Was in not the case before we opened our eyes? Will it not be the case after we close them for the last time? Is it not reasonable to believe in God?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

A blizzard is supposed to show up later today and affect the lives of most of Northeast residing folk. I am going to go upstairs now and look out the window at the road infront of my house, and see what currently is the case. For real.

Edited February 8, 2013 by tar