NOTICE: Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of SET FREE however SET FREE decides.
Table of Contents
Jeff_Lowder___Kris_Key___A_Running_Dialog___2-27-04
Posting_found_on_a_Web_Discussion_Thread___March_2004
|
Hello Mark..
How are you? I hope everything is going well.
I found your website interesting because I'm a big fan of Dr. Craig. Naturally, i disagree with many of the things you have written, but I hope that doesn't make us enemies. You had said that you "welcome all to submit their best arguments and articles or links to such, in this endeavor", and so I wanted to take this opportunity to give my opinion of how some of the things you've raised are erroneous or mistaken.
I could literally go thru your entire website and point out what I see as many errors, but I don't have the time to do that in one sitting and so I thought I would start off with your "time machine" question to Dr. Craig.
You wrote:
"Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me."
At first I thought your "time machine" question was interesting and it
made me think (which I thoroughly enjoy doing), but upon reflection it became
obvious what the problem was with your "time machine" question.
To show you the mistake (in my opinion), let me give you the same kind of
question, but it will be designed with you in mind... using your objective
experience.
Let's suppose you and I go back to the moment and place you were born. And
we would know this by your parents testimony and also by your birth certificate.
Now, let's be real safe and arrive at this place a week or two before you were
born. Now let's suppose we wait, and wait, and wait, but we never see you
being born. In fact, we see that your mom is not even pregnant. Now,
after a few months of waiting... if we don't see that you were born, then what
are we to conclude? Well, since we KNOW you were born, then
obviously in this case we CAN'T rely on our senses and objective experience
because something screwy is obviously going on. Because we know that you
were born, you would HAVE to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig made in his
answer to you.
Mark here} If this were to happen, I would assume that my parents had lied about giving birth to me. I would assume that I had actually been adopted, and that my parents had wanted to hide that fact from me- as parents oft times do from their adopted children. I would also assume they had gotten the birth certificate altered to reflect the fiction, again, as adapters oft times do. This would be the logical response. Craig's response to seeing no zombie Jesus was NOT logical, but rather emotional. His blind love of his JeJuice blinds him to the obvious, just as YOU assumed my love for (who I thought were) my parents would blind ME. Sorry, I'm not blind.
"You would have to tell me, face to face, that you would STILL
believe that you were born, you would STILL believe in your existence, and you
would STILL remain convinced that your parents conceived you. And
when asked, in light of you being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there
WAS no birth of you, you would have to reply that due to the inner confidence
and assurance you have because you do in fact exist and therefore had to have
been born, you would naturally have to assume a trick of some sort had
been played on you while watching at the moment and place of your own suppossed
birth."
If you responded in the above way, would it then be fair for me to
then turn around and say that "you self-induced blindness astounds
me."? Of course not. Obviously, objective experience will not
always accurately record what really happened.
We can do this "time machine example" with ANY historical event.
JFK's assasination... The signing of the Declaration of Independence... the 3
championship wins by the Lakers, World War II, etc, etc, etc.
Just because our minds are agile and creative enough to think of interesting
thought experiments which can be logical, it does NOT follow that it will always
reveal any truth or insight about reality.
Mark here} So.... eyewitnesses to actual events are worthless, is what I hear you saying. I hate to say this, but if what you're saying is true, you just shot down Craig and every other Christian apologist, because THAT is one of their major arguments!!!
Now, the ONLY way your "time machine" question works, is if we FIRST
assume that a particular experience MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But that
would be "begging the question", would it not? IF the
resurrection of Jesus DID HAPPEN (like your birth, JFK's assasination, etc),
then you can plainly see how your "time machine question" doesn't make
sense IN THE SAME WAY that it doesn't make sense with the above examples, UNLESS
there is indeed a trick being played on you (like a Twilight Zone episode).
Does Dr. Craig... or Should Dr. Craig have that much confidence in the
Resurrection of Jesus as you naturally would have about your own birth or in the
fact that JFK was assasinated? You may not think so, but Dr. Craig does
think so... and that is the debate... which then returns us to the proper
discussion of what evidence Dr. Craig has which would give him that kind of
confidence.
You wrote:
"Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking- Craig is taking a vow of not thinking. I would expect such subjective drivel, and have experienced such, from Mormon missionaries with their "burning in the bosom" crap (see section "Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet?"). Hearing it come from Dr. William Lane Craig saddened me more than anything, proving that "Christianity Causes Brain Death" is more than just a slogan."
With all due respect, such language and opinions are really silly and childish
(which is why i suspect Dr. Craig does not wish to debate you).
Let me give you some examples in the real world which shows how intellectually
unfair you are being in your characterization of Dr. Craig and Christians.
1) There is NO way you can prove that "logic" is logical or
reasonable or rational without engaging in circular reasoning... and yet we all
accept that logic is logical and reasonable. We think this not thru any
"thinking' or "rational" deduction, but because we realize that
logic is self-evidently logical and rational.
2) Here's another... we also CAN'T mathematically prove that 1+1=2, and
yet we "know" it to be true... not thru any proofs (because it's
impossible), but because it's self-evident.
These are only two of many, many "First principles" and
"self-evident" opinions which we accept in philosophy and logic and
math and science, but which we can't prove. Does that mean we are
"taking a vow of not thinking" when we accept these first principles
with no proofs? Are we accepting these first principles and
self-evident propositions because of some kind of "burning in the
bosom"? Of course not.
Mark here} So what exactly is Fran proposing here- that we take logic and science and throw them in the dumpster and return to swinging in the trees??? Of course, alot of religions would like this, for science tends to disprove religions.
In the same way, NO Christian accepts the teachings of Christ or the Bible based
on some kind of "burning of the bosom"... NOT EVEN Dr. Craig.
No where does the term "burning of the bosom" even occur in the Bible
or in the teachings of Christ or in Dr. Craig's literature or from ANY OTHER
Christian apologist. Obviously (to me anyway), it is YOU who is
assuming that the Mormon "burning in the bosom" is equal and/or the
same as Dr. Craig's confidence in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus apart
from evidences. But that simply does not logically follow... you are
making a straw man argument based on a misunderstanding of what Christians are
taught and teach.
Mormon's believe in Jospeh smith's teachings EVEN if they are contradicted by
facts and evidences, which is WHY they fall back on this "burning of the
bosom". But this is clearly NOT the case with Christianity.
Mark here} Uhhh, sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Craig is doing, and most people who read my "Contra Craig" web page acknowledge this- even Christians, to their sorrow. Craig- AND the Mormons, have the attitude of "Damn the evidence! Full speed ahead with my faith!!!"
Even
when we read Dr. Craig's opinion about magesterial and ministrial uses of
reason, NO WHERE does he claim that there is ANY evidence which can be found
that would contradict Christianity. And THAT is the difference
between Mormonism and Christianity. If you disagree, then ALL you
need to do is give a piece of evidence or fact that DOES contradict
Christianity, and then, AND ONLY THEN can we then say that Christianity is doing
the same thing as Mormons in this "burning of the bosom" thing.
Dr. Craig can make his statements about reason precisely BECAUSE he knows that
there are NO evidences or facts that do contradict Christianity or the
teaching's of Christ.
Mark here} Which is WHY I gave him the Time Machine scenario- I wanted to see how Craig would handle a concrete piece of evidence that contradicted his religion, and in my mind, and the mind of MOST Christians, he blew it. He showed himself to be just a user of evidence when it suits him.
Anyway, i apologize for rambling on. Please accept this letter in the
spirit intended. I'm not your enemy and i hold no animosity toward you.
It's just that I simply disagree with some of your stated viewpoints, and i
wanted to give what I think is a reasonend response to you. I thank you
for allowing me to write to you and for this discussion with.
Take care, and have a wonderful day.
Fran Nevue
|
Hello Mark..
How are you? I hope everything is going well for you and your family.
Thank you so much for responding to my first email to you in such a timely manner. You demonstrated much intelligence and i appreciated that you reprinted my entire email (with no editing) to ensure that nothing would be taken out of context. The following is my answer to your responses. I wasnt' sure how much of the last post you would want to include, so i basically kept everything intact, and just typed my answers in blue, to your responses which were in red.
*************************
My Original Email:
(In your web page you wrote...)
"Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection-Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me."
At first I thought your "time machine" question was interesting and it
made me think (which I thoroughly enjoy doing), but upon reflection it became
obvious what the problem was with your "time machine" question.
To show you the mistake (in my opinion), let me give you the same kind of
question, but it will be designed with you in mind... using your objective
experience.
Let's suppose you and I go back to the moment and place you were born. And
we would know this by your parents testimony and also by your birth certificate.
Now, let's be real safe and arrive at this place a week or two before you were
born. Now let's suppose we wait, and wait, and wait, but we never see you
being born. In fact, we see that your mom is not even pregnant. Now,
after a few months of waiting... if we don't see that you were born, then what
are we to conclude? Well, since we KNOW you were born, then
obviously in this case we CAN'T rely on our senses and objective experience
because something screwy is obviously going on. Because we know that you
were born, you would HAVE to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig made in his
answer to you.
Mark
here-1} If this were to happen, I would assume that my
parents had lied about giving birth to me. I would assume that I had actually
been adopted, and that my parents had wanted to hide that fact from me- as
parents oft times do from their adopted children. I would also assume they had
gotten the birth certificate altered to reflect the fiction, again, as adapters
oft times do. This would be the logical response.
Fran's
response here-2} This is indeed a logical response to the
way i had framed my scenario and i applaud your evident sharp mind. But
all you have done is delay the inevitable and pushed the argument back one step.
Although i myself am adopted, i hadn't thought of your answer as a possibility,
and therefore did not frame the scenario in precise enough terms which
considered other alternatives. As i'm sure you are well aware, precise
language is so incredibly important whenever we frame hypothetical or realistic
questions. So in the interest of demonstrating the inherent weakness
of your "time machine question" and that Dr. Craig's answer was the
ONLY logical and available answer, i will take the SAME scenario of your birth
and try to be more precise so as to close up any possible loopholes. This
will hopefully give us a more accurate idea of the position that Dr. Craig
was facing when you asked him the "time machine" question.... and also
to show the inherent weakness of your question... namely that the "time
machine" scenario is really a false dilemma.
So then... let's suppose that you had considered the possibility that you were
adopted BEFORE you and i left in your time machine to arrive at the moment of
your birth. With this in mind, we therefore wisely decide to have you and
your parents take a DNA test (more than one if needed for assurance) to see if
you are INDEED the biological son of your mom and dad. Let's assume that
the findings show that you are. We've now closed the possibility
that there was any adoption.
However, knowing that you are a skeptical and a very bright person, let's
endeavor to refine the scenario even more so as to close a few more possible
loopholes. Let's say we have the best forsensic specialists go over
your birth certificate and they have determined that it is genuine and not a
forgery. We also had other well respected specialists track down the
doctors and nurses who vouched that you were indeed born to your mom at the
place and location stated on the birth certificate. We also confirm their
accounts thru billings and charges that were incurred during your birth at the
hospital. And guess what? We happen to be in luck
because your parents had the fortunate foresight to have videotaped your
birth... and also had the doctors and nurses and your relatives all interviewed
on the tape to vouch for the truthfullness of everything you see on the tape
concerning your birth. Can you think of any other loopholes? If so,
let me know, and i'll plug them as well.
If necessary, we could go and on like this for every "loophole" you
may find... but the POINT here is the SAME point i was trying to make with
my other examples of historical experiences and facts like the JFK assasination,
WW II and the 3 championship wins by the lakers... (we can also add the WTC
tragedy to that list). If we take an historical event that we
know actually happened, and if we apply your "time machine question"
to it and we go back to the time that these events occured... and we then
encounter a situation that shows it DIDN'T occur, then OUR ONLY LOGICAL
explanation is the EXACT one that Dr. Craig gave you when you asked him about
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We KNOW that the WTC was destroyed
when two hijacked planes crashed into them. And we KNOW when it
happened and we also know that many people lost their lives. So HOW ELSE
could we explain what we see and objectively experience if we were to go back in
time and DON'T see the WTC EVER being destroyed? Obviously,
something screwy is going on... and in this situation we COULDN'T rely on our
objective experience because we KNOW the WTC was destroyed. So we would be
FORCED to make the same conclusion that Dr. Craig did... and that there must be
some kind of trick going on to fool us. That's why your "time machine
question" is a false dilemma. There IS a 3rd possible rational
explanation... and that is we could be encountering a deception or a trick being
played on us.
Mark here-2} What you are implying is that the resurrection of Jesus is a known FACT, not an issue of FAITH, and is as well proven and evidenced as the World Trade Center's demise. You are implying that something for which we have thousands of living eyewitnesses and a pile of rubble and and several video tapes of IS EQUAL TO IN PROOF to the unsubstantiated claims in an ancient religious text??? Yes, this is exactly what you are implying. Sorry, your analogy breaks down because of this.
This is the inherent flaw and weakness of your "time machine"
question. It doesn't make sense for historical events. Now... the
only question left is if the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical event
that actually happened... see? If we don't know, then your "time
machine question" makes some sense... but if we DO know, then your
"time machine question" DOESN'T make sense (just as it doesn't make
sense in the WTC example and the others listed above). But untill we
look at the evidence and the facts, your "time machine question"
doesn't help us to find out what the real truth is. By asking the question
before examining the evidence, you are basically "putting the cart before
the horse".
Mark here-2} But you DON'T know- THAT'S my whole point!!!! What you have is F-A-I-T-H. Why do you think Jesus said to Thomas "you have believed because you saw. Blessed are those that haven't seen, and believe" if F-A-I-T-H were not the core issue??? IF Thomas really DID see and touch the zombie Jesus THEN there is no FAITH- but rather objective evidence- I hope you can see the difference! When Craig says he BELIEVES Jesus rose from the dead, he is making a statement of FAITH, not FACT. Craig is not Thomas, and has NOT stuck his hand into a side wound of goo.
And to claim that the four gospels, written BY Christians FOR Christians ABOUT Christians, constitute reliable accurate history- let me ask you this: how trustworthy and objective would four histories of Mormonism be if written by four fanatical rabid Mormons more than willing to die for their faith??? Do you think they would be "objective reporters of the facts" or rather impassioned preachers of Mormon myths??? Do you think they would tell the truth of what happened to drive the Mormons out of Ohio, out of Missouri, and out of Illinois? Do you think they would give an OBJECTIVE and truthful account of The Mountain Meadows Massacre??? Of course not, and you'd be a FOOL to trust their "histories" without a healthy grain of salt. GIVEN THAT- likewise anyone would be a damn FOOL to trust the gospels with their life. UNTIL you agree to trust EVERYTHING four Mormon historians wrote about early Mormonism, you shouldn't expect ME to trust everything Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote about Jesus.
Now... Dr. Craig feels that there are MORE than enough facts and evidence
for a reasonable person to conclude rationally and logically and reliably that
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually did occur. If you disagree with
Dr. Craig, then you NEED to counter or argue the FACTS that Dr. Craig
presents...NOT engage in a thought experiment which does not shed any light on
whether something ACTUALLY occured or not. If Dr.Craig is convinced
BECAUSE of evidences and facts which he feels are very strong for the logical
conlcusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occured, then his
answer to your "time machine question" was the ONLY logical one
for him to give. Your "time machine" question commits the false
dilemma fallacy because you won't take into account the possibility that a trick
is INDEED being played on you.
Mark here-2} The Time Machine question quickly gets to the foundation of Craig's problem- it cuts to the core issue: how does Craig approach REAL facts and evidence when they go against his religious traditions??? One needs to know this BEFORE he invests the time and effort digging up facts and evidence. IF Craig won't believe the GREATEST evidence possible- his own seeing eyes- he certainly won't believe LESSER evidence. That being the case, then why bother spending years presenting secondary evidence in an attempt to challenge Craig's mind when he's already admitted he wouldn't even listen to PRIMARY evidence and THAT from his own eyes??? Craig is totally BEYOND evidence and reason and facts, so why should anyone waste further time trying to convince him WITH evidence and reason and facts???
Look at it this way: substitute the current living Mormon prophet for Craig. Bring this prophet back in the same time machine to that day in the woods of Palmyra, New York, where Joseph said the angels appeared to him. Let him see that NOTHING HAPPENED- no angels, no gold plates, no lights from heaven. NOW- if this modern prophet IGNORED what he saw with his OWN EYES because he had an "inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" JUST LIKE CRAIG burning within his bosum, there is NOTHING Craig could say to him that wouldn't smack of hypocrisy and double standard.
The core issue here is to whom you pledge your allegiance: insanity (internal "still small voices") --or-- sanity (objective external evidence). Please go read my web page Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations and then go take a look at Voices In Our Head. Then let me know which is more likely: that the Lord of the entire universe comes down to hold personal conversations with Bill Craig, --or-- Craig has a form of schizophrenia. That "still small voice" that Christians brag about so much- is it Biblegod, or schizophrenia? And how does one know the difference? What external objective test is to be used when to the schizophrenic their visions are as real as the keyboard and monitor in front of you? ANYONE who listens to the voices or feelings within their head more than to the REAL world, is by definition out of touch with reality- period. End of story. And it doesn't matter if it's self-induced insanity- religion is infamous for that.
I'm sorry for this long explanation, but i thought all of this was evident in my
original post, but obviously i was not clear enough. I honestly apologize
for my lack of preciseness. Obviously (to me anyway) the "time
machine question" is important to you, and so i wanted to take the
necessary time and care (in this subsequent post) to explain this in more detail
so that you and others could hopefully better understand my objections to your
"time machine question".
Mark here-1 (continued from above)} Craig's response to seeing
no zombie Jesus was NOT logical, but rather emotional. His blind love of his
JeJuice blinds him to the obvious, just as YOU assumed my love for (who I
thought were) my parents would blind ME. Sorry, I'm not blind.
Fran's
response here-2}
1) Dr. Craig's response was the ONLY logical explanation when confronted
with an experience which contradicted an historical fact. If you disagree
that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical fact, then you NEED to
attack the reasons and evidences that Dr. Craig brings to the discussion.
Mark here-2} To the contrary, Craig has already confessed his disdain for such trifling matters as facts and evidence. In the words of somebody lost to history, "Don't confuse me with the truth; my mind's already made up."
2) Jesus DOES NOT qualify as being a zombie according to the
dictionary or by common sense. According to Meriam-Webster a zombie is
defined - a
: the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter
into and reanimate a dead body b : a will-less and speechless human in
the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and
been supernaturally reanimated . Jesus,
by all eyewitness accounts was NOT "will-less or speechless" or was
ONLY capable of automatic movement after His resurrection. If you
were to mention the word zombie to ANYONE picked from any crowd of ordinary
people, they will think of someone who acts "will-less" and
"mindless" and who acts like they are only moving automatically with
no sense of "will" (like in the clut classic "Night of the Living
Dead").... so common sense here also tells us that the word zombie does not
qualify for Jesus. In fact, His discples and followers WOULD NOT have been
willing to have gone to their death if Jesus was indeed a zombie and acted like
a zombie (who would?). So your use of the word "zombie" is not
only nonsensical, but it does not logically apply to Jesus according to the
dictionary.
Mark here-2} Well, next time someone pops out of a grave and you're running sacred out of your wits, maybe YOU could stop to ask just exactly WHICH kind of reanimated corpse they are- but I sure as hell am not!!! But in reality, since there are no real Zombies nor resurrected corpses, we may as well be geeks arguing over the fine points of an ancient Star Trek episode.
3) Your use of the word "JeJuice" instead of Jesus also shows
incredible immaturity. How can you be taken seriously when you use
language like this? If you don't accept that Jesus was the Son of
God and that He died and rose again for Your sins... fine... but why use
juvenile language and expressions? Above, you claimed that Dr. Craig
was "rather
emotional ".
Well,
your use of terms like "JeJuice" seems to indicate (to me anyway),
that it is YOU who is rather emotional AND objectively blind to the question of
Jesus Christ. Even confirmed atheists like Bertrand Russell never
expressed himself with juvenile language like you do. I know you are
bright, so why do you do it?
Mark here-2} Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! Perhaps you have never listened to the TBN network on TV, or been to a good old fashioned tent revival- but I have, and have heard all sorts of warped pronunciations of Biblical terms: "Gawd" for God, "Geeee-SUS" for Jesus, "Pah-Raise" for praise, "holyghost!" for Holy Ghost, and "IS-Ray-el" for Israel. While I'm at it, how is it that the VAST majority of preachers seem to have some sort of a southern accent, even when they've never stepped foot in the south? Is that something they're taught in seminary??? Part of their showmanship??? And as for mocking your religion, why shouldn't I? How can ANYone watch those clowns on TBN on TV without snickering and mocking? I bet you've even done it yourself at times. Besides, I don't see YOU or ANY Christian criticizing the "juvenile language" of the "prophet" Elijah when he faced off with the 450 prophets of Baal. According to 1st Kings 18:27 he was VERY disrespectful of their god}
About noon time, Elijah began mocking them. "You'll have to shout louder than that," he scoffed, "to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be awakened!" (1 Kings 18:27, TLB).
Based upon this, will you be CONSISTENT and condemn the "prophet" Elijah for showing "incredible immaturity"? Will you question HIM as you did me with "How can you be taken seriously when you use language like this?"? Will you ask this "prophet" of Biblegod "why use juvenile language and expressions?"??? Will you face off with Elijah and say "it is YOU who is rather emotional AND objectively blind" to the question of the existence of Baal??? Will you insult Elijah as you insulted me with your "Even confirmed atheists like Bertrand Russell never expressed himself with juvenile language like you do. I know you are bright, so why do you do it?"??? If you are condemning "toilet humor" than you've GOT TO condemn your own Elijah- but I won't hold my breath waiting, for Christians are always better at picking the splinters out of others, while ignoring the logs in their own heroes.
"You would have to tell me, face to face, that you would STILL
believe that you were born, you would STILL believe in your existence, and you
would STILL remain convinced that your parents conceived you. And
when asked, in light of you being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there
WAS no birth of you, you would have to reply that due to the inner confidence
and assurance you have because you do in fact exist and therefore had to have
been born, you would naturally have to assume a trick of some sort had
been played on you while watching at the moment and place of your own suppossed
birth."
If you responded in the above way, would it then be fair for me to
then turn around and say that "you self-induced blindness astounds
me."? Of course not. Obviously, objective experience will not
always accurately record what really happened.
We can do this "time machine example" with ANY historical event.
JFK's assasination... The signing of the Declaration of Independence... the 3
championship wins by the Lakers, World War II, etc, etc, etc.
Just because our minds are agile and creative enough to think of interesting
thought experiments which can be logical, it does NOT follow that it will always
reveal any truth or insight about reality.
Mark
here-1} So.... eyewitnesses to actual events are
worthless, is what I hear you saying. I hate to say this, but if what you're
saying is true, you just shot down Craig and every other Christian apologist,
because THAT is one of their major arguments!!!
Fran's
response here-2} I'm not sure why you wrote this...
it seems to me that this is a non sequitur. I never said that
eyewitnesses to actual events are worthless (so you heard wrong).
I'm saying that PRECISELY because of eyewitness accounts that vouch for the
facts that JFK was indeed assasinated and that the Declaration of Independence
was actually signed, and that the WTC was destroyed, that your "time
machine question" does not make sense.
Mark here-2} I wrote this because you were discrediting eyewitness accounts (i.e. the time travelers) when it is supposedly "eyewitness accounts" upon which your religion was based. I see hypocrisy in that- sorry if you don't.
Again, if we go back in time and had the fortunate luck to encounter Mr.
Zapruder (famous for the Zapruder film which showed JFK being assasinated) on
the grassy knoll... and we happened to notice that he doesn't have a camera with
him, this would understandably perplex us. If we were then to go and talk
to him and asked where his camera is, and if he then replied saying he
doesnt have a camera, was never lent a camera, and that he wouldn't know
how to use one even if he had one, this would perplex us even more. And if
we then waited and saw that the president wasn't assasinated when the
presidential limousine passed by the grassy knoll (or in subsequent days), that
would also perplex us greatly. And if upon further investigation we were
to discover that John F. Kennedy was in fact not in that limousine (passing by
the grassy knoll away from the Book Depository), but that it was John Wayne (or
mickey mouse) in the limousine, we would be even MORE perplexed than ever.
We would have no other rational choice but to objectively conclude that
something screwy was obviously going on. See? We can do this
all day if you like, but the point is very simple. If we know something
occured and we have the evidence of reliable eyewitness accounts to verify that
historical events occured, then your "time machine question" would
make no sense if we hypothetically were to go back in time and find that such
things did not happen when we know in fact they did. We would HAVE to
conclude as Dr. Craig did... that a trick was being played on us.
Mark here-2} Then you are condemning eyewitnesses, and therefore the very (claimed) foundation of the Christian church. You are claiming that eyewitnesses are unreliable and shouldn't be trusted. You are claiming that something written in a history book should take precedence over what we see and know with our own eyes. What you have created is something better suited for a "Twilight Zone" episode. I made a very simple and direct test of Craig's intellectual honesty, and you have only tried to muck it up so much that no one would ever be able to know anything about anyone at any time. Like a good preacher, you overly complicate the things you don't want your congregation to know.
Therefore... far from saying that eyewitnesses to actual events are worthless...
i'm saying EXACTLY the opposite... instead, i'm saying that those
eyewitnesses only underscore the inherent weakness of your "time machine
question".
Mark here-2} In other words, you are saying that eyewitnesses underscore the inherent weakness of... eyewitnesses. Huh??? Sorry, but you've just cut off the branch you're sitting on!!! ha ha ha ha ha. How is it that supposed eyewitnesses for which Bill Craig only has a paper account of in the New Testament, how is it that THOSE "eyewitness" over-rule the direct eyewitness experience of Bill Craig in a time machine?? You are verging on insanity here- be careful.
Now, the ONLY way your "time machine" question works, is if we FIRST
assume that a particular experience MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But that
would be "begging the question", would it not? IF the
resurrection of Jesus DID HAPPEN (like your birth, JFK's assasination, etc),
then you can plainly see how your "time machine question" doesn't make
sense IN THE SAME WAY that it doesn't make sense with the above examples, UNLESS
there is indeed a trick being played on you (like a Twilight Zone episode).
Does Dr. Craig... or Should Dr. Craig have that much confidence in the
Resurrection of Jesus as you naturally would have about your own birth or in the
fact that JFK was assasinated? You may not think so, but Dr. Craig does
think so... and that is the debate... which then returns us to the proper
discussion of what evidence Dr. Craig has which would give him that kind of
confidence.
You wrote:
"Some ancient Christian monks took a vow of not talking- Craig is taking a vow of not thinking. I would expect such subjective drivel, and have experienced such, from Mormon missionaries with their "burning in the bosom" crap (see section "Is Craig Coming Out of The Closet?"). Hearing it come from Dr. William Lane Craig saddened me more than anything, proving that "Christianity Causes Brain Death" is more than just a slogan."
With all due respect, such language and opinions are really silly and childish
(which is why i suspect Dr. Craig does not wish to debate you).
Let me give you some examples in the real world which shows how intellectually
unfair you are being in your characterization of Dr. Craig and Christians.
1) There is NO way you can prove that "logic" is logical or
reasonable or rational without engaging in circular reasoning... and yet we all
accept that logic is logical and reasonable. We think this not thru any
"thinking' or "rational" deduction, but because we realize that
logic is self-evidently logical and rational.
2) Here's another... we also CAN'T mathematically prove that 1+1=2, and
yet we "know" it to be true... not thru any proofs (because it's
impossible), but because it's self-evident.
These are only two of many, many "First principles" and
"self-evident" opinions which we accept in philosophy and logic and
math and science, but which we can't prove. Does that mean we are
"taking a vow of not thinking" when we accept these first principles
with no proofs? Are we accepting these first principles and
self-evident propositions because of some kind of "burning in the
bosom"? Of course not.
Mark
here-1} So what exactly is Fran proposing here- that we
take logic and science and throw them in the dumpster and return to swinging in
the trees??? Of course, alot of religions would like this, for science tends to
disprove religions.
Fran's
response here-2} I'm not sure why you wrote this since it
doesn't follow from anythng i had written.
1) According to evolution (as i understand it), man never was
decended from apes, and never originally 'swung from trees" (as far as i
know), so i'm not sure why you typed this, unless it is another indication of
you being blind and emotional.
Mark here-2} And according to what I wrote above (in red) I never said diddly squat about APES. I'm not sure why you wrote this, since it doesn't follow from anything I had written (to quote you verbatim). I know as well as you do that apes don't do much swinging from trees- that's more a job for the chimpanzees and monkeys. As for never having swung from trees, go to any playground and you'll see something called the "Monkey Bars". Look to see if even MODERN humans spend time swinging around.
2) I'm USING and APPLYING logic in trying to show how i thought you
were being intellectually unfair and hypocritical (a logical term) in your
characterization of Dr. Craig and christians... so HOW on earth can i be
proposing to throw logic and science in the dumpster when i'm USING logic?
In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even type meaningful words that you (or others) can
understand if i DID NOT use logic... so once again, how can you deduce that i
propose throwing logic into a dumpster when in the very ACT of typing this email
i'm using logic? How can i EVEN ASK these questions WITHOUT using logic in
the first place? To type this email, i'm APPLYING the "law of
identity" and the law of "non contradiction" (the bedrock and
foundation of logic)... so how can you ask if i propose to throw out logic?
I'm also attempting to point out your mistakes by applying the rule of logic and
calling your mistakes (in my opinion) by the names of the logical fallacy that
logicians use (non sequiturs, strawman, question begging, etc). You may
DISAGREE with my characterization of some of your opinions as being logically
fallacious, but as we discuss why you disagree with my viewpoints, we are in
fact engaging in and applying logic in that VERY process... and so once again,
how does this suggest i'm in favor of throwing out logic?
My ONLY reason for giving the two examples i gave in my original email was to
show that it is NOT always unreasonable or irrational or illogical to accept
some things that you can't prove. Logicians and scientists and
mathematicians ALL do this, and there is a name for that... it's called
"first principles" or "properly basic beliefs" or
"self-evident premises". You were being hypocritical
by demanding of Dr. Craig and Christians the very thing that you yourself CANNOT
do at times. We can't prove logic is logical without circular reasoning,
does that mean we reject logic and throw it in the dumpster? NO!!!!!
Science rests on certain "first principles" which themselves cannot be
proven.. does that mean we throw science in the dumpster? NO!!!!!!!!
It's impossible to prove mathematically that 1+1 = 2... does that mean we throw
math in the dumpster? NO!!!!!! When we accept "first
principles" without being able to prove they are true, does that mean we
are "taking a vow of non-thinking"? NO!!!!!! When we
accept "first principles" even tho they can't be proven, do we do so
because of some kind of "burning in the bosom"? NO!!!!!!!
I hope that is clear enough.
3) I have no doubt that there are religions in this world which would like
to throw logic and science in the dumpster.. but Christianity is NOT one of
them. Christians believe that logic ultimately comes from God and is
embodied in God. Christians also believe that science confirms and
demonstrates and reveals God's creativity and magnificance in this universe.
It's because of this, that Christianity does NOT, and would NOT, and would NEVER
entertain the idea of throwing logic and science in the dumpster.
Throwing logic in the dumpster would be akin to rejecting one of God's
attributres... and throwing science in the dumpster would only hinder our
ability to discover how God created this incredible universe.
4) Science and logic DOES NOT tend to disprove Christianity...
although i do agree that science and logic do tend to disprove other religions.
If i'm in error, i would love for you to show me how science and logic tends to
disprove Christianity.
In the same way, NO Christian accepts the teachings of Christ or the Bible based
on some kind of "burning in the bosom"... NOT EVEN Dr. Craig.
No where does the term "burning in the bosom" even occur in the Bible
or in the teachings of Christ or in Dr. Craig's literature or from ANY OTHER
Christian apologist. Obviously (to me anyway), it is YOU who is
assuming that the Mormon "burning in the bosom" is equal and/or the
same as Dr. Craig's confidence in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus apart
from evidences. But that simply does not logically follow... you are
making a straw man argument based on a misunderstanding of what Christians are
taught and teach.
Mormon's believe in Jospeh smith's teachings EVEN if they are contradicted by
facts and evidences, which is WHY they fall back on this "burning in the
bosom". But this is clearly NOT the case with Christianity.
Mark
here-1} Uhhh, sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Craig is
doing, and most people who read my "Contra Craig" web page acknowledge
this- even Christians, to their sorrow. Craig- AND the Mormons, have the attitude
of "Damn the evidence! Full speed ahead with my faith!!!"
Fran's
response here-2} Well.... this is NOT was Dr. Craig is doing.
Using your logic, then that would mean logicians and scientists and
mathematicians are all accepting "first principles" based on some kind
of "burning in the bosom" experience because they can't prove
the "first principles" they accept in their respective disciplines.
That is absurd of course. Let's make this very simple.
Dr. Craig presents his case with all kinds of evidences and facts and reasons...
if you disagree with his interpretation of those evidences, or you feel that his
case is weak on evidence and facts, then attack that. His case
stands and falls on it's own merit in direct relation to it's weakness and/or
strength.
Mark here-2} Excuse me, but PLEASE go back and read pages 36 and 37 of his book "Reasonable Faith". His personal belief in his gods doesn't have a damn thing to do with facts or evidence. He has already written for all the world to see that if there should EVER be a contradiction between FACT and FAITH, he would dump FACT and cling to his FAITH. Why can't you see that? Even Dr. Craig sees that!!! He wrote it himself, for Pete's sake!!! Stop trying to save Craig from his own words, dude!!!
Even when we read Dr. Craig's opinion about magesterial and ministrial uses of
reason, NO WHERE does he claim that there is ANY evidence which can be found
that would contradict Christianity. And THAT is the difference
between Mormonism and Christianity. If you disagree, then ALL you
need to do is give a piece of evidence or fact that DOES contradict
Christianity, and then, AND ONLY THEN can we then say that Christianity is doing
the same thing as Mormons in this "burning of the bosom" thing.
Dr. Craig can make his statements about reason precisely BECAUSE he knows that
there are NO evidences or facts that do contradict Christianity or the
teaching's of Christ.
Mark here-2} He doesn't believe there is any EXTANT evidence that contradicts his religion- many Christians believe the same thing. However, Craig went WAY beyond this stance to say that EVEN IF there was clear evidence that showed his religion to be full of crap, he wouldn't pay it any attention!!! He is no different from Mormons I've talked to before that have told me point blank that they would NEVER deny Joseph Smith REGARDLESS of any facts or evidence I would ever present to them. Intellectual Dishonesty- closed mindedness- a mind is a terrible thing to waste, isn't it???
Mark
here-1} Which is WHY I gave him the Time Machine scenario-
I wanted to see how Craig would handle a concrete piece of evidence that
contradicted his religion, and in my mind, and the mind of MOST Christians, he
blew it. He showed himself to be just a user of evidence when it suits him.
Fran's
response here-2} Your "time machine" scenario was flawed for
the above reasons stated... and thus it's not a concrete piece of evidence at
all. You cannot logically discount the possibility that a trick is being
played on you if you were to encounter a situation where your objective
experience contradicts known historical facts and events.
Mark here-2} Sorry dude, but objective experience trumps some dusty old history book any day of the week, especially when there are experts on the book who themselves doubt it. In fact, the VAST majority of scholars in Christianity do NOT believe in a perfect Bible- including Craig. He said in public that he doubts the validity of the Matthean story of resurrected saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem.
If Dr. Craig uses evidence (even if it is only when it suits him like you
contend), then attack him on the pieces of evidence he presents. Don't you
see the mistake your are making here? EVEN IF Dr. Craig were
using evidence when it suited him (which i disagree that he is), then WHY can't
you attack him on the evidence? Are the evidences he presents weak or
strong? Yes or no? If they are weak, then attack them and show us how they
are weak.... what BETTER way to undermine Dr. Craig's case then by showing
that his evidence is weak? But if they are strong, then why
not accept them or acknowledge it and deal with it?
Mark here-2} Are you deaf??? Let me try to make this perfectly clear to even someone as stubborn as you:
-
CRAIG DOESN'T CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
-
IF AND WHEN EVIDENCE AND FACTS CONTRADICT HIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, HE WILL SIDE WITH HIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AND FACTS.
-
THEREFORE, CRAIG DOESN'T CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE AND FACTS- IT'S JUST A SHAM SHOW FOR THE PUBLIC THAT HE PRETENDS TO.
i may be incorrect, but it sure seems to me that you are trying to use the
"time machine" scenario to skirt or dodge Dr. Craig's position instead
of dealing with the evidences that Dr. Craig presents. Any evidence that
Dr. Craig presents either stands or falls ON THEIR own merit REGARDLESS of Dr.
Craig motives for using evidence and logic. Can't you see this? It
seems to me that you are committing the genetic fallacy by trying to question
Dr. Craig's motives for using evidence and logic. Dr. Craig's
motives are logically IRRELEVANT to the question of whether those evidences he
presents are good or bad evidences to begin with. Even if we were to grant
your provocate assertion that Dr. Craig's motive were somehow suspect, how on
earth does that effect the evidences and reasons Dr. Craig presents in his case?
If the evidence is weak, show us.
Mark
here-2} It has to do with hypocrisy, for he is demanding of others
what he doesn't demand from himself- that is, he is demanding that others change
their religion when facts and evidence contradict their religion, but should
facts and evidence contradict HIS religion, he's already admitted he isn't going
to change. Based upon that, it is a useless endeavor to try to change Craig's
religion with facts and evidence, regardless of how valid they may be. Craig has
thus shown himself to be a HYPOCRITE- he is no better than a smoker who condemns
others for smoking, but won't ever stop smoking himself. I'm sorry if your being
a Christian and going to church has so numbed you to the disgust that HYPOCRITES
engender in the rest of us who are NOT Christians. Maybe your "moral
compass" needs a tune-up.
Thank you once again for allowing me to write to you and for this discussion
with you. I eagerly await your response with great interest and curiousity.
Take care, and may you and your loved ones have a wonderful day.
Fran Nevue
|
||||||||||
Mark,
I am writing for two reasons. First, I am disappointed with your
representation of Dr. Craig's views. Second, honest, logical people looking
for truth would like to consider the things you have to say as you appear to
be intelligent, but I find it nearly impossible with the muddied water you
stir up through scoffing and emotionally-charged rejections. At the
beginning of any fight the person officiating the match says to keep it
clean. I suggest this for you, for your sake and for the sake of
"free-thinking".
Sam
Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics??? If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental- sorry.
As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at the factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this.
|
||||||||||
Dear Mark,
I have responded to you below.
"Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I??? I put his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG- not even as a quotation, but an actual photograph, and not only that, HAD DR. CRAIG SIGN THE DAMN PAGES TOO!!!! If that is STILL "misrepresenting" Dr. Craig, I'd like to know just how BETTER I could have represented Dr. Craig!!! I'd like to see any Christian scholar go to those lengths to avoid misrepresentation of an author.
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I
think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens
through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he said NO. Why does one need to have one's brain muddled by philosophy to understand what Craig said??? It is only you philosophy geeks that have a hard time with simple ideas. I'm sure with a room full of 100 philosophers all typing away 24/7 that eventually at least one coherent thought would emerge after a few centuries, but I'm not going to wait around for that remote possibility to happen. If YOU have a problem with clear thinking, you need to have it looked at.
Again, I am using these as examples of why I said
I was disappointed in your misrepresentation of Dr. Craig, not to get into a
lengthy debate about the specifics. Also, note that these are based on the
assumption that I understand what you are saying. If this is not the case,
please let me know.
1. "Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity" - Within the spectrum of
expressions Christian faith can take, Dr.
Craig is not considered a
fundamentalist. He is considered an evangelical that has kept to
the
orthodox faith passed down from the Apostles, not a fundamentalist.
Mark Smith here} Oh god, here we go with definitions of minutia! Oh please EXXXXCUUSSSS ME if I didn't recognize the "OFFICIAL International Association of Geek Philosophers Dictionary" definition of Fundy. I just use Fundy to mean anybody that has Jesus shoved up their ass to the point where they can't walk without an intellectual limp. Is that definition wrong??? Sorry!
2. Because he takes the classical
Western view that rationalism fails (that
is, we cannot know everything through pure evidential empirics, but that
some things are known inuitively), you stretch that to mean that there is no
use for reason and evidence--that it means nothing to him.This is frankly
not the case. Why does he spend so
much time working with evidences and
debating and writing about reasonable arguments?
Mark Smith here} Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to make his client win, regardless of the truth, and THAT is a totally DISHONEST way to approach ideas. Sorry you're so far out of touch with the rest of us not to see anything wrong with someone admitting they place FEELINGS over FACTS. Maybe you should try to get OUT OF TOUCH with your feminine side- I think it's taken over.
Because they are
meaningful and build a case for what is--truth. However, there are parts
of
existence, pieces of truth, beyond reason. Because we can only know a
small
percentage of what exists through reasoning, it is not the end-all be-all.
Since Craig does hold this view, you make him into a straw man. Instead of
representing him as consistent with the classical Western philosophy of
knowledge, you make him appear to be dogmatically opposed to any outside
evidence. This is not the case. He
considers evidence, but holds the view
that empirical evidence and reason are not all that exist.
Mark Smith here} Yes, he "considers" evidence, but if it dares to go against his religion, he chucks it out. You see nothing wrong with this? That disgusts me.
"As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a
robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at
the
factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like
Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual
suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this."
First, Mark, again, you assume way too much. You assume that I do not care
about truth. I do, this is the reason I am attempting to read through your
site. Second, he is attempting to keep people from spiritual suicide,
which
includes intellectual suicide. Reason
in its proper place seems to be his
goal--that is, truth.
Mark Smith here} Yaas sir, bossman! We'uns gwoin keep dat dar reason in its good and proper place- whichuns means dat if its ever too uppidy, we'uns gwoin gives it a good beating- how dares reason EVER suggest dat da lawd was a fraud!!!
He is not anti-intellectual or anti-reason (again,
see #2 above). Third, on what basis do you make the moral judgment that I
should be ashamed for not caring? Fourth, do you know anything of the
character of Dr. Craig? Have you seen him in his daily life?
Although this
is merely one aspect of evaluating credibility, I
think you should not paint
the picture that Dr. Craig is an anti-intellectual bigot who is out to
persuade "good" people (again, what basis are you using to make this
judgment?) to hurt themselves.
Mark Smith here} Sorry, but how else can I paint a man who has already admitted both in writing and in person that he places more credence in his subjective girly gut feelings than in FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REASON??? If that is NOT being "anti-intellectual" than nothing is. Craig should be the poster boy for irrational Christians.
It is a complete misrepresentation. He is
not malicious nor is he intending to make your life so emotionally
uncomfortable (as you admit you are feeling). His
intention is to find
ultimate truth. That's it.
Mark Smith here} Wrong!!! His intention is too convert people, whatever the intellectual cost. Craig doesn't give a rats ass about truth- only about making his religion look good. Craig already admitted that truth and facts and evidence matter less to him than his believing in Jesus.
Respectfully yours,
Sam
|
||||||||||
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I??? I put his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG- not even as a quotation, but an actual photograph, and not only that, HAD DR. CRAIG SIGN THE DAMN PAGES TOO!!!! If that is STILL "misrepresenting" Dr. Craig, I'd like to know just how BETTER I could have represented Dr. Craig!!! I'd like to see any Christian scholar go to those lengths to avoid misrepresentation of an author.
While you did show the pages on your site, there are so many other issues that go into using evidence. You must look at the context of the chapter, the book, and all his other work as well as the presuppositions from which he begins. It is your interpretation of what Dr. Craig is saying that lacks understanding. Without understanding, you begin judging. And then you reason to conclusions that misrepresent because your understanding is lacking. Without proper understanding, conclusions are going to look preposterous.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Oh Jesus H. Christ, will you please come off your cloud into the REAL world??? I bend over BACKWARDS when it comes to fully documenting my arguments, and now you are suggesting that for me to dare criticize your god Craig putting up a photograph of the two pages in question is not enough- no, YOU demand that I "look at" his whole BOOK, and not only that, you demand I "look at" every single book he's ever published, and not only that, you demand that I "look at" every single presupposition that he may have had. And when I have finished doing all that- ten years from now, THEN I may be qualified to say what I said in the first place. Right. And let me ask you- when the Jehovah Witness comes to your door and says the world is going to be destroyed next year, do you withhold comment until you've read every single book, every single magazine, and every single lecture they've put out in the last hundred years or so??? I can answer for you- no, you don't. But as soon as someone starts pointing out stupidities in Craig's teachings, now you want to put up all these intellectual speed bumps. Sorry, but most of us don't need to take ten years to tell when a man is bullshitting us. I don't know what YOUR problem is. Craig said some VERY stupid things- what is your problem with that??? Can YOU really NOT see that??? And YOU are the one to dare question MY sight!!!
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I
think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens
through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he said NO. Why does one need to have one's brain muddled by philosophy to understand what Craig said??? It is only you philosophy geeks that have a hard time with simple ideas. I'm sure with a room full of 100 philosophers all typing away 24/7 that eventually at least one coherent thought would emerge after a few centuries, but I'm not going to wait around for that remote possibility to happen. If YOU have a problem with clear thinking, you need to have it looked at.
Mark, I understand English. But, there are so many questions that must be answered first before your words even mean anything. Philosophy is not about muddling, but about thinking clearly. Only when you get the ultimate questions about reality right (the questions of first things) can you then go on to make accurate judgments and then conclusions. If you are not willing to do the work on the first things, your conclusions have much less significance.
You also did not say "If there was no resurrection". He was taking you much more seriously than you seem to think. Based on what you asked him, it appears he was making his decision based on what he has concluded as real - that is, time travel is not possible, and if such a thing did exist and it indicated something contrary to what he has concluded as real, then it should be doubted first before tossing out all his other reasoned conclusions of truth.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Yes, and if you philosophers ran the world, we'd all still be living in caves, as you guys would still be arguing over the "caveness" of a cave, rather than actually DOING anything with your lives. I don't know why it takes you so much work to figure out something so simple, other than you want to obfuscate it to the point where NOBODY has a chance to understand it- which is most likely your ultimate goal, so people like Craig are free to go about spouting their horseshit unquestioned.
As for your comment that "You also did not say 'if there was no resurrection'", I think that when people see what I have on my Contra Craig web site, they will also see you are wrong. This is, below, EXACTLY what's on that site:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
Golly Gee! There it is: "There is no resurrection". Of course, you haven't read EVERY single essay I've every written, or examined every single presupposition that I've ever had, so maybe you somehow missed this. Or maybe, you're just too busy spouting philosophical horseshit to really read something thru.
Again, I am using these as examples of why I said
I was disappointed in your misrepresentation of Dr. Craig, not to get into a
lengthy debate about the specifics. Also, note that these are based on the
assumption that I understand what you are saying. If this is not the case,
please let me know.
1. "Craig's brand of Fundy Christianity" - Within the spectrum of
expressions Christian faith can take, Dr.
Craig is not considered a
fundamentalist. He is considered an evangelical that has kept to
the
orthodox faith passed down from the Apostles, not a fundamentalist.
Mark Smith here} Oh god, here we go with definitions of minutia! Oh please EXXXXCUUSSSS ME if I didn't recognize the "OFFICIAL International Association of Geek Philosophers Dictionary" definition of Fundy. I just use Fundy to mean anybody that has Jesus shoved up their ass to the point where they can't walk without an intellectual limp. Is that definition wrong??? Sorry!
2. Because he takes the classical
Western view that rationalism fails (that
is, we cannot know everything through pure evidential empirics, but that
some things are known inuitively), you stretch that to mean that there is no
use for reason and evidence--that it means nothing to him.This is frankly
not the case. Why does he spend so
much time working with evidences and
debating and writing about reasonable arguments?
Mark Smith here} Craig uses arguments and evidence the same way that a crooked lawyer uses "evidence" and "arguments"; anything that it takes to make his client win, regardless of the truth, and THAT is a totally DISHONEST way to approach ideas. Sorry you're so far out of touch with the rest of us not to see anything wrong with someone admitting they place FEELINGS over FACTS. Maybe you should try to get OUT OF TOUCH with your feminine side- I think it's taken over.
Okay, this is where it is obvious we are not understanding each other. What you have described is a totally dishonest way to approach ideas, but I do not see Dr. Craig doing this. Within the writings of CS Lewis he has described the difference between looking at a beam of light and looking along it. Only in looking along it can it then be understood. In what I have seen of Dr. Craig's debates and in his writings, it appears he is attempting to understand opposing viewpoints without rejecting them on face. If he is not, he is not being intellectually honest. This is something we should all be able to do in order to come to conclusions of truth.
Also, it seems as though you do not understand what Dr. Craig is describing. I will not speak for him, but what I understand him to be saying is not that subjective feelings should be trusted. Instead it is the level of understanding that he has come to that should be trusted first, which takes into account facts, nonrational evidence, and philosophical proofs. Without presuming too much, I would argue that you have denied the non-rational things of life, things that cannot be known through empirical evidence. Please attempt to answer these questions so we can better understand each other.
Can truth exist without knowledge?
Can knowledge without the scientific method?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Sorry, but I understand EXACTLY what Craig wrote on pages 36 and 37 of his book "Reasonable Faith", and so do alot of other Atheists and Christians and ex-Christians who have read the book. It really isn't that complicated, and unless you have a mental problem OR you are just being argumentative, you understand it too. And if I didn't understand exactly what Craig meant, THAT was why I asked him about the Time Machine scenario, which ANYbody- even you- can understand. Stop quibbling over minor points and deal with the big issues.
As to your questions, this is not a philosophy web site, and isn't going to become one. Please stick to the topic. Craig said that regardless of what he saw on Easter morning 33 AD, he would still believe in Jesus. Please deal with that. It's not complicated.
Because they are
meaningful and build a case for what is--truth. However, there are parts
of
existence, pieces of truth, beyond reason. Because we can only know a
small
percentage of what exists through reasoning, it is not the end-all be-all.
Since Craig does hold this view, you make him into a straw man. Instead of
representing him as consistent with the classical Western philosophy of
knowledge, you make him appear to be dogmatically opposed to any outside
evidence. This is not the case. He
considers evidence, but holds the view
that empirical evidence and reason are not all that exist.
Mark Smith here} Yes, he "considers" evidence, but if it dares to go against his religion, he chucks it out. You see nothing wrong with this? That disgusts me.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Why do you need to have a PhD to tell when someone is being a bullshit artist? Are you REALLY that out of touch with reality??? How Craig treats evidence IS disgusting, and I don't need to spend the next ten years trying to convince you why if you can't see it. Of course, I think you see it as clearly as I do, but you're just pretending not to, to be argumentative.
"As for my getting emotional about things I care about, who are you Sam, a
robotic "Mr. Spock" who lost his emotion chip when you were built at
the
factory??? No, I will NOT apologize for getting PISSED OFF at people like
Craig who are trying their hardest to get good people to commit intellectual
suicide, and I think YOU should be ashamed for not caring about this."
First, Mark, again, you assume way too much. You assume that I do not care
about truth. I do, this is the reason I am attempting to read through your
site. Second, he is attempting to keep people from spiritual suicide,
which
includes intellectual suicide. Reason
in its proper place seems to be his
goal--that is, truth.
Mark Smith here} Yaas sir, bossman! We'uns gwoin keep dat dar reason in its good and proper place- whichuns means dat if its ever too uppidy, we'uns gwoin gives it a good beating- how dares reason EVER suggest dat da lawd was a fraud!!!
I am attempting to take you seriously. I would appreciate the same.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} The fact that you see nothing humorous in your phrase "reason in its proper place" tells me you have problems already. You see nothing funny in that? Putting reason in its place- where? In the back of the bus? In the "reason only" section of the restaurant? Listen, if you were born without a humor gene, that's your cross to bear, not mine.
He is not anti-intellectual or anti-reason (again,
see #2 above). Third, on what basis do you make the moral judgment that I
should be ashamed for not caring? Fourth, do you know anything of the
character of Dr. Craig? Have you seen him in his daily life?
Although this
is merely one aspect of evaluating credibility, I
think you should not paint
the picture that Dr. Craig is an anti-intellectual bigot who is out to
persuade "good" people (again, what basis are you using to make this
judgment?) to hurt themselves.
Mark Smith here} Sorry, but how else can I paint a man who has already admitted both in writing and in person that he places more credence in his subjective girly gut feelings than in FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REASON??? If that is NOT being "anti-intellectual" then nothing is. Craig should be the poster boy for irrational Christians.
It is not anti-intellectual. It is non-rational. There is a difference between irrational and non-rational. Can you see this and admit this?
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Huh? Are we splitting hairs again? How many NORMAL people out of a hundred would recognize your claimed differences??? Are you REALLY from Earth, or are you from another planet???
It is a complete misrepresentation. He is
not malicious nor is he intending to make your life so emotionally
uncomfortable (as you admit you are feeling). His
intention is to find
ultimate truth. That's it.
Mark Smith here} Wrong!!! His intention is too convert people, whatever the intellectual cost. Craig doesn't give a rats ass about truth- only about making his religion look good. Craig already admitted that truth and facts and evidence matter less to him than his believing in Jesus.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} No, they are not the same. You are confusing a person with a concept. Jesus is no more "truth" than George Bush is a cucumber, regardless of how many republicans say otherwise.
Respectfully yours,
Sam
NOTE FROM MARK SMITH, Saturday October 4, 2003}
This will be the final email from Sam that I will waste web space putting up. I
am going to also not waste my time responding to anything he says. His own words
should be enough to hang him in the court of public opinion. It is quite clear
the goal a man like Sam has in mind. His goal is to muddy the waters, to obfuscate
the issues to the point where us "commoners" realize we can't
understand what the hell the issues are anymore, and thus give up, and let the
theologians have their way.
Contrast HIS writing style of trying to dazzle people with bullshit to mine: crystal clarity. Which do you really think respects the truth more? Which is more concerned with actually communicating, rather than confusing? Also note for yourself that if Christian intellectuals have to resort to such weaseling around to defend their positions, maybe that's a sign their positions really aren't worth defending. After all, any Christian that has to come off sounding like Bill Clinton during his infamous "is-is" speech is obviously trying to HIDE something, rather than REVEAL something.
|
||||||||||
Mark,
See below.
Dear Mark,
Apparently I am not communicating (or you are not understanding) clearly.
Let's attempt to find some common ground to begin communicating. Generally
it is agreed upon that there are three degrees of reason. First we
understand, second we judge, and third we reason. Can we agree on this?
"Mark Smith here} Well, once again it's "gleaming generalities" that are
attacked, rather than specifics. Are ALL Christians allergic to specifics???
If I had a SPECIFIC thing that Sam was disappointed with, MAYBE I could
make a response, but this "everything you say is wrong" mentality is mental-
sorry."
First, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest. Second, I did not say
"everything you say is wrong" either, so please do not misrepresent me
or
transfer onto me your leftover frustrations from others. What you did with
my email is an example of the type of thing with which I am disappointed .
I said I was disappointed with your representation of Dr. Craig.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I really "misrepresented" Dr. Craig, didn't I???
I put
his entire TWO pages up on my web site as a JPEG- not even as a quotation,
but an actual photograph, and not only that, HAD DR. CRAIG SIGN THE DAMN
PAGES TOO!!!! If that is STILL "misrepresenting" Dr. Craig, I'd like
to know
just how BETTER I could have represented Dr. Craig!!! I'd like to see any
Christian scholar go to those lengths to avoid misrepresentation of an
author.
While you did show the pages on your
site, there are so many other
issues that go into using evidence. You must look at the context of the
chapter, the book, and all his other work as well as the presuppositions
from which he begins. It is your interpretation of what Dr. Craig is
saying
that lacks understanding. Without understanding, you begin judging.
And
then you reason to conclusions that misrepresent because your understanding
is lacking. Without proper understanding, conclusions are going to look
preposterous.
Mark Smith Responding on Saturday, September 27, 2003} Oh Jesus H.
Christ, will you please come off your cloud into the REAL world??? I bend
over BACKWARDS when it comes to fully documenting my arguments, and now you
are suggesting that for me to dare criticize your god Craig putting up a
photograph of the two pages in question is not enough- no, YOU demand that I
"look at" his whole BOOK, and not only that, you demand I "look at" every
single book he's ever published, and not only that, you demand that I "look
at" every single presupposition that he may have had. And when I have
finished doing all that- ten years from now, THEN I may be qualified to say
what I said in the first place. Right. And let me ask you- when the Jehovah
Witness comes to your door and says the world is going to be destroyed next
year, do you withhold comment until you've read every single book, every
single magazine, and every single lecture they've put out in the last
hundred years or so??? I can answer for you- no, you don't. But as soon as
someone starts pointing out stupidities in Craig's teachings, now you want
to put up all these intellectual speed bumps. Sorry, but most of us don't
need to take ten years to tell when a man is bullshitting us. I don't know
what YOUR problem is. Craig said some VERY stupid things- what is your
problem with that??? Can YOU really NOT see that??? And YOU are the one to
dare question MY sight!!!
First, what is "real" in your opinion? That is what I am trying
to get at.
And, because I consider the possibility that what you see as real is in fact
not reality, you respond by calling me mental or rejecting what I say.
That
is not very helpful or reasonable in a dialogue about what is true.
Second, Mark, I am not questioning your sight, but rather your
presuppositions that determine your understanding of what you see.
Although
you make the search for truth seem so exagerated that it is impossible;
nevertheless, it is hard work to really get at the truth and requires
committed humility. I'm sorry if you are frustrated that it takes work to
make consideration while witholding judgment. That does not change the
fact
that it is a long, hard process. You won't find truth with snap judgments.
Third, you must inquire from where a person is coming in order to understand
the truest meaning of what he or she may say. Understanding
presuppositions, and allowing for the possibility that they may be true, is
the necessary part of the question you pose about the Jehovah's Witness.
If
I have already considered the presuppositions and know that I disagree, then
it is not necessary to go through the whole process you describe. However,
someone better consider the whole context to be sure the conclusion is true.
And if I trust that someone's ability to be intellectually honest and
rigorous, then I can trust the conclusion that person made.
Fourth, I thought I would take a chance and try to reason with you about
your view of what Dr. Craig said, not because I worship him, although I,
with much of academia, respect him as an academic and I, along with much of
Christendom, respect him as a disciple of Christ. You made him appear to
have drawn the conclusion that his "religion" is true based on
irrationalities, regardless of what actually is true. That is
close-mindedness. That is not the story. In order to determine what
is
true, you must allow for the possibility that other, opposing views, might
be right. What if he had already done this and he is attempting to live
according to what (namely a Judeo-Christian worldview where Jesus is who He
said He was) he actually has concluded as true? Do you see how this is
different from holding onto a religion as a safety blanket that serves as a
guard from truth? I argue he does the former, not the latter, which is
what
you depict him as. That is the main issue here.
I did not
say everything you say is wrong. It is a misrepresentation to take the
statement that I am disappointed with how you represent Dr. Craig and
stretch it to say everything you say is wrong and then label me as mental.
It was not my intention to go into specifics about why I disagree with your
representation of Dr. Craig. I think many of your arguments are founded in
philosophical error, which are the real issue that paints the lens through
which you see Dr. Craig's views incorrectly. I do not plan to go into
specifics because, as I said, I am not interested in a mudslinging contest,
which you appear to be anxious to participate in, except to use two as
examples of what I mean.
Mark Smith here} Oh here we go with philosophy!!! What's wrong, plain
English not good enough for you? I asked Craig if he went back in a time
machine and saw that THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION, would he deconvert, and he
said N