Do Christians Really Believe that Faith is “Trust Based on Evidence”?

Gary

“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.”

 —evangelical Christian apologist, William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith [Crossway, 1994] p. 36
 –

Image result for image of william lane craig

21 thoughts on “Do Christians Really Believe that Faith is “Trust Based on Evidence”?”

  1. And that, right there, is why I look at all apologists with suspicion. They may not all think like WLC, but I’m pretty sure that a lot of them do. They simply aren’t interested in discovering truth, they’re interested in confirming what they already believe.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

        1. Craig is conflating “truth” and “good” (he isn’t alone; your work too John suffers from this)…

          For example, a mathematician tells us that the sum of two numbers is “true” but not necessarily “good”.

          “Good” and “bad” describe subjective feelings we have toward something; the words “true” or “false” deal with reality regardless of our feelings.

          We can say 2+2=5 is false. Abortion, rape, murder are bad. There is a difference between false, which is clearly labelled improper by an irrefutable standard and “bad”, which is obviously subjective.

          Stephen Law’s claim of “pseudo-science” misses the issue completely…. the issue is simply true/good, false/bad conflation… this should be obvious.

          Like

          Reply

        2. I mean, John… take your book “On The Problem of Good”…

          Your conclusion is: Good is Evil

          But what are you saying with this proposition?
          You are saying: Good is Evil -> TRUE

          Which means in reality the title of your book is in reality:
          “On The Problem of Good: A Scientific Treatise On Why 1=2”

          So, you see?
          Stephen Law’s blurb can easily be used to accuse you of pseudo-science.

          Like

          Reply

        3. Also….

          Your book states the proposition: Good is Evil -> TRUE

          AND

          Your paper states the proposition: Good is Evil -> TRUE

          Like

          Reply

        4. JOHN ZANDE: Yes, good is evil, demonstrably so.
          W L CRAIG: Yes, animals do not suffer, demonstrably so.
          STEPHEN LAW: Yes, pseudo-science, demonstrably so.

          Like

          Reply

        5. Huh?

          “Craig is morally perverted”

          According to your analysis all morals are perverted…. so what exactly is the problem?

          Like

          Reply

        6. So, can you see the major anomaly in your “The Problem of Good” John?

          It is this:

          Good is Evil -> TRUE; therefore, Truth is False

          Now, this leads to the problem with your hypothesis; for we have no options, Truth is False & False

          Now, let’s use Stephen Law’s Mirror Technique on the hypothesis:

          1/ Rejection of a true hypothesis
          Mirror
          2/ Acceptance of a false hypothesis

          C/ Using your model, it means we must choose 2/, i.e. accept a false hypothesis… which means for your hypothesis to be true we must accept: Good IS NOT Evil

          That is the ONLY logical conclusion… same result as TOOAIN

          Like

          Reply

        7. “Good is evil, that’s a truthful statement, as demonstrated.”

          Stephen Law’s Mirror Technique proves that if this hypothesis is true, then it necessarily follows:

          “The acceptance of a false hypothesis.”

          Which means accepting: Good is not Evil.

          Like

          Reply

        8. John, this will be my last post…

          Your book “On The Problem of Good” is pseudo-science (not that it could not be handled scientifically; but you don’t do this in your book… it is simply analogy and examples, i.e. not scientific method at all)

          Here is the anomaly in your thesis:

          PROVED HYPOTHESIS: Good is Evil -> TRUE

          CONSEQUENCES OF PROVED HYPOTHESIS REQUIRES:
          1/ Rejection of a true hypothesis (Good is Evil) -> BECAUSE Good is Evil
          2/ Acceptance of a false hypothesis (Good is not Evil) -> BECAUSE Good is Evil.

          CONSEQUENCES OF STEPHEN LAW MIRROR TECHNIQUE:
          This means, that for the proposition: Good is Evil -> TRUE; it can ONLY be true if you REJECT IT AND ACCEPT that Good is not Evil.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment