Sam Harris v William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

PanoramaIsland, if only ruveyn WERE a pragmatist, it would work out better. I agree with your concerns.

91, I agree with you that Reformed Epistemology was a legitimate idea. I just do not think it works at all because of the diversity of religious claims. Reformed Epistemology can work for traditional Christianity, sure. But it also can work for Mormonism(which most Christians regard as a heresy), Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and undoubtedly a large number of cults. Ultimately, we're in the standpoint where we cannot tell the difference between a Hindu who finds their belief basic, or a Christian who does so, at least without resting entirely in faith in other arguments having strength.

To me Reformed Epistemology is not the end of the discussion. All of your concerns here are valid and I think the Plantinga would agree. However, Plantinga viewed it as the basic manner in which one grounds their beliefs, other arguments can make that case stronger destroy it. Plantinga has argued that some religions; take Mormonism for example can be shown to be false (in spite of personal revelation's defeater-defeater status). Most would start a case against Mormonism with a criticism that its adherents do not believe in creation ex nihilo and the go on from there.

You probably aren't using the term in the sense that panoramaisland is using the term.

Ok, but being a man of science doesn't mean that he isn't making a lot of philosophical claims, nor does it mean that those philosophical claims aren't horrible.

Actually, philosophy of science is probably more complex than that. I think most philosophers of science would be more nuanced, and not pick just from the skeptics, like Popper and Hume tend to be. (Popper is an anti-skeptic, but his anti-skeptical system ends up being too skeptical for most)

Well, for most scientists, philosophy is a waste of time. They use the standard methodological requirements their peers use. Harris, however, is arguing the existence of God though, and that is a philosophical question. To talk on that question, philosophical background is likely needed to not sound like an idiot. (something that I would accuse Harris of occasionally doing given some of his slogans)

I usually use the model of webs of belief from Quine as how I frame people's beliefs.

That being said, I would think that attacking Mormonism would go better through attacking the later revelation itself. Mormon doctrine is probably crazier than what you find through taking a different stand on a philosophical argument. Especially given that I know some scholars would argue that Genesis does not hold to creation ex nihilo, meaning that the attack won't go as cleanly as you want it. (Especially given that nobody will care which scholars stand where, given that you will still have to make a commitment to the Bible and the better interpretation of it as a source of revelation, rather than making it up as you go, a comment I only make given past arguments we've had)

Oh, just as a side note: I think various evidentialist objections to theism still remain, so I don't think they have been debunked, rather, I think the real issue is in the kind of objections that might be used. These objections certainly do have to be formulated properly.

Going back to the original topic, the debate is scheduled for April 7. This should be quite interesting.

@AG The evidentialist objection will probably get some new attention in the near future. Though any refutation of Plantinga is going to be a difficult task.

As to your statement about Genesis, you are quite correct, some scholars do think that the doctrine of creation from nothing is not demonstrated there. I personally do not think this to be a proper interpretation, it is at least quite limited. John 1:3, Corinthians 1:28 and others clearly do support creation from nothing. I would contend that only dealing with Genesis and Peter is far too limited a platform from which to criticize this quite well supported doctrine. As to Mormonism, they clearly do not, in any way, affirm this doctrine. You are right that one could make a strong philosophical objection to their views also.

Right, well, the issue is that Plantinga only formulated an objection to the logical problem of evil. The evidential problem of evil, which was argued by William Rowe is a different animal. Now, it is true that skeptical theism was actually formulated as a rebuttal to Rowe, BUT the problem is that not everybody accepts skeptical theism as a viable option for a few reasons.

Well, yes, the Christian scriptures do seem to support creation from nothing, but Genesis is an issue of debate. I don't think that your contention is that powerful though, as Genesis is one of the BIGGEST scriptures in terms of establishing the Bible's cosmology.

I didn't mean "philosophical objection" to Mormonism, I really just meant criticism of Mormon scriptures in the truth claims they made.

This short interview gets you to the point that AG and I are discussing. In it Plantinga discusses and diffuses the logical problem of evil and deals with God's divine foreknowledge (Plantinga is a Molinist). There is also a good bio that details in short most of Plantinga's views.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-prof ... -of-2-/236

I think the best response to what you are saying here is this Video in which Plantinga deals with both the Evidential Problem of Evil and the issues relating to skeptical theism:

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-prof ... -of-2-/292




Sure but the argument put forward against Genesis is one that only deals with the book on its own and seeks to establish the book's view from there. The view fails if one looks into what the people who wrote it actually believed or seeks to ground the view within the rest of the Bible. So the argument would only really apply to someone who was a literal Genesisite (I don't know if any such people exist) and would not be persuasive to someone who hold Judaic or Christian believes.

No. There is no grounds to distinguish between the book and the authors of the book. We have to assume that the authors meant what was stated because any other writing we have is likely by different authors.

As well, the issue of the rest of the Bible is still problematic as if Genesis is one of the biggest scriptures on cosmology, and the earliest, then wouldn't it actually be the most credible if we hold that the Bible is divinely inspired in any meaningful sense? It seems to me that your less literal view tends towards ad hocness, because I get the feeling that scriptures are not being selected on grounds of showing what the believers closest to the revelation on cosmology would think, but rather on the grounds of convenience. After all, with Genesis, we can presume that it is inspired TO talk about cosmology. With other books... well... cosmology wasn't really the point, and any talk on cosmology is less likely to be a matter of prophetic insight and more a matter of what was passed about at that point in time.

Even further, I really think you are really only trying to appeal to a status quo belief, above and beyond the revelation that is supposed to justify that belief. Obviously, revelations trump status quo, because revelations are the data, and the status quo is just the current interpretation of this. If Genesis is more justifiable as "data" on cosmology, then other scriptures won't matter. The issue is that the other scriptures are not really focused on cosmology to any real extent at all compared to Genesis, which has the role of a creation story. I dunno, it may seem problematic for me to say, but I really continually get the feeling that your theological method is just screwy. Maybe this is because I am a former conservative Protestant, and you are a more liberal Catholic, and the two groups have very very different approaches?

Side note:

I don't think Molinism really accomplishes what it seeks to do, as I still will argue that the issues of control brought about by divine foreknowledge and God's abilities as creator of the universe end up giving God full control over creation, and that responsibility is very related to control. Thus... people aren't really free, because God is really responsible for all that they end up doing under this conception, and he has the control over it.

Further, I am unlikely to view those episodes any time soon. I don't generally watch videos. I mean, I kind of doubt that the video will excite me enough where I'd even want to sit through it.

Who you calling liberal

There are a few issues here

1) Concept of Divine Inspiration

Now if one holds that the Bible is the work of divine inspiration, which I do, then one views its creation as being the intention and will of God. It therefor holds that it was not meant to be read as separate books.

2) The issue is that the other scriptures are not really focused on cosmology to any real extent at all compared to Genesis

Actually the first chapter of John (which quoted earlier) is considered to be a sort of 'Genesis revisited' by most Biblical Scholars. It even states the same way 'In the Beginning.... '

I do suggest you watch those interviews, Plantinga has some interesting views on Molinism and how it can be squared with moral responsibility and they come out quit well there.

You are definitely more liberal than my background. You may be politically conservative, but I went to a church where the "Inerrancy of scripture" was proudly affirmed.

If one holds that the Bible is a work of divine inspiration, then it is a book that contains divinely given information. This really entails that the book will be right on major themes within a context where these themes are focused upon. This really tends to mean that all that is really meant is that the Bible can't be egregiously wrong in areas with a clear intent to say that specific thing.

As for John 1, given the degree of poetry involved with it, the possible reference to the background philosophy of the time, and the fact that Jesus is not quoted to have taught any cosmology(nor would it fit within Christ's major themes), I'd say that the point of John 1 is not to really modify Genesis, but rather to take the background knowledge of the day to frame a testimony on the existence of Jesus Christ. As such, I would have to argue, that all it really shows is that people of the day believed that the Bible claimed creation ex nihilo. This could be argued so that creation ex nihilo is "the doctrine", but... it really does not entail that.

I don't think I'll bother. I hate watching interviews or listening to them or just watching or listening in general. I doubt that Plantinga's framing is really going to persuade me much anyway. Both Orwell and myself tend to think that any notion that reconciles free will and foreknowledge is going to run into problems of reverse causation, which given an interpretation of Newcombe's paradox, precludes the possibility of free will. I consider the idea dead, and I have for a few years now. I am very very very unlikely to change my mind, and I think Calvinists and Open-Theists would tend to share my skepticism of the middle solution.

91. You are an intelligent person. Can you take Scripture as any more than a book of Tales? Some of it is good literature and most of it is nonsense that cannot be taken literally.

ruveyn

^^^^

I don't believe that Jonah was literally inside a whale. I don't see the point in regarding the Bible as 'literally' true, there are entire books within it that are poetry. But I do believe in God and that Jesus died for my sins.

'The Bible is a far larger book than the small thing that some people make it. There is such a thing as allegory and symbol and parable. Whether or not the garden was an allegory, the truth can very well be allegorized as a garden.' - GK Chesterton on literalism