Layman

Craig believes that the Christian is justified in his or her faith by the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit." That's what he is discussing in the chapter in which that quotation appears. Unfortunately I have loaned my copy to an atheist friend here at the office, but I don't remember him discussing inerrancy in the book.

Toto

You are grossly distorting what I said. I do not call anyone dishonest for believing in the Resurrection (or astrology or spirit possessions.) I am only saying it is dishonest to pretend that there is firm historical evidence that would meet a secular definition of a good explanation for the resurrection.

If Craig believes that the Christian is justified in his or her faith by the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit", he shouldn't feel the need to distort history to bolster this internal witness. I can't argue with an internal experience, which may have its own validity. I can argue with Craig's attempt to find external crutches for his internal experience.

Layman

It would be honest if he was pretending. But that's not what you are saying. You are saying that no one informed and intelligent person can honestly believe that there is firm historical evidence for the resurrection. Which would encompass many of the theists who post here. Unless you are willing to accuse us all of bieng stupid and uninforned, you must believe us all to be dishonest. Which is fine, I just want to hear which it is you believe.

Since he doesn't believe he's distorting history it follows that he doesn't feel the need to do so.

I doubt he would attempt to persuade you by arguing about his internal experience. But characterizing his historical argument as "external crutches" is just getting back to your claim that he's a dishonest fellow. Which boils down to your assumption that no informed and intelligent person can honestly believe there is historical support for the resurrection.

Toto

Let me qualify that. I do not think that an informed and intelligent person can honestly believe that what evidence there is for the resurrection is of sufficient scientific validity to convince a skeptic. There may be enough evidence for a believer to convince himself that what he already believes is not irrational, but there is not enough for a dispassionate non-believer to consider the resurrection a historical fact, or even a historical probability.

If Craig had approached it that way - if he had said, the evidence from 2000 years ago is understandably pretty weak, but it is at least consistent with my beliefs - I couldn't quarrel. But he said that the resurrection passed the test of the best historical explanation of what happened.

You seem to be trying to box me into insulting you with "stupid, uninformed or lying", like Josh McDowell's false trilemma. I really don't know you enough to characterize you. If you are like other Christians I have known, you may just be following a party line that works for you, that you do not want to question, and that you really hope is true. Probably you can't face the possibility of it not being true. I don't think that makes you stupid, uninformed, or lying. Just wrong.

Layman

I appreciate the qualification. But I see a giant chasm between being a skeptic and already being a believer. Like it or not, the majority of people are not skeptics of the type you are speaking of. Indeed, I doubt that a majority of nonbelievers are skeptics. That leaves Craig a huge audience that are not devoted to your--or my--preconceptions.

Well, to be fair to Mr. Craig, his overall approach to Apologetics is that to convince skeptics such as yourself, the best approach is to first demontrate the existence--or possible existence--of a God. THEN, he would proceed to his resurrection argument. However, most people are not skeptics like you. Indeed, since 96% of the U.S. population believes in the existence of some sort of God, it's quite reasonable for Craig to present his Resurrection Arguments as he does. Not to mention the fact that most people wouldn't want a debate that moved from the existence of God argument to the resurrection argument. They like them more concise. But, in his book Reasonable Faith, that is exactly how Craig proceeds. Additionally, he's just as well known for debating about the existence of God as he is about the resurrection.

Ahh, typical. Associate me with some lowbrow apologist like Josh McDowell, even though I'm making no apologetic argument here. Anyway, it's not his trilema, it was C.S. Lewis's. And I haven't placed you in a box, you are the one accusing Craig of being intellectually dishonest. That was YOUR accusation, not my interpretation. I have been trying to understand what you mean by that. Apparently, you think it's possible to be intellectually dishonest without "lying." I find that confusing, but perhaps it makes sense to you.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

Layman, I don't want to drag this out, since it's pretty unproductive. But even if I believed in some sort of deity, Craig's historical argument is still bad history. Believing in God/ Godess /the Force still wouldn't make his explanation of his facts the best explanatory theory.

Layman

Well, I don't want to drag this out either, so here is my response.

I know it's your opinion that Craig is doing bad history. However, the question was whether he was dishonest. I pointed out that most of his audiences are unlikely to share the preconceptions that most skeptics do (which are the ones you presumed he should be targetting). He does address the issue of naturalism quite bluntly and in depth, just not in every debate.

Frankly, I don't care what your uninformed nonexpert opinion is about Craig's approach to history. I was more interested in the charge that he was intellectually dishonest.

Vorkosigan

It depends whether you consider it intellectually dishonest to announce that no empirical facts or arguments are ever going to make you change your mind on the Bible, as Craig did above. I consider that kind of revelation completely, almost painfuly intellectually honest, but consider Craig utterly lacking in intellectual integrity for committing himself in that manner. Perhaps the real thing you're arguing about is whether the good doctor has intellectual integrity rather than intellectual honesty.

Michael