Epistemic Justification of Christian Faith for Talbot School of Theology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Dr. Craig gives a virtual lecture for students at Talbot School of Theology on the Christian doctrine of faith and its rational justification.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
All glory to God!
Much love William. God speed.
Hello my fellow humans, Dr. Craig that is so well explain! God bless you and your family and all who listen to the voice of Jesus.
Praying for others to come into his kingdom!!!
Peace my fellow humans!!!
You have come to the comments… very daring.
What?
So much information!
Dr. William Craig's lectures are widely opening my mind. "Reasonable Faith" and "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"(Dr. Frank Turek) prevented me of becoming and atheist in my country. From Brazil, I thank you Dr. Craig!
It's a justification for circularity, therefore it's fallacy
Does Craig mean by "proper basicality", irrational faith? (not to be confused with faith that is illogical) but is, faith based upon something other than reasoned thinking? I am bothered by Plantinga's notion that properly basic ideas or faith (not epistemically supported or derived), still gain validity as long as those ideas are not met by a defeater. Does that mean that disbelief, as well, can be properly basic and justified in the absence of a defeater? Well, what would a defeater, in both cases, look like? Would it not be identical to an epistemic formulation of some kind ? Would that put these "properly basic ideas" into the epistemically rational category? I'm confused.
I've been doing some thinking about this as well. I think there are a few subtle points to be made here. So first of all, proper basicality has of course a detailed treatment in Plantinga's work, but one can roughly get the idea by considering that we often form beliefs that aren't rigorously justified - and that this is essential to the way we function. For eg, an average person from an extremely young age, believes that food and water is good for him. Of course it is possible to PROVE that food and water is good for him, but a young child believes this prior to his having any ability to perform or understand such a proof - but it seems right to think that this young child is nonetheless justified in holding such a belief without evidence. So you could roughly say that beliefs formed directly from our immediate experience is properly basic - and absent defeaters, we are justified in believing them. Properly basic beliefs may be subject to defeaters - for eg, on encountering a mirage for the first time, I may be justified in believing the image to be a real thing, but upon learning about mirages, I acquire a defeater for that belief. So properly basic beliefs may turn out to be false - that's an important point. It's just that we are justified in believing them until we are in position to know better.
So where Christian beliefs come in is a) whether Christian beliefs are properly basic and b) if they are indeed properly basic, to what extent are they defeasible by possible defeaters - that's the bulk of this lecture. But do note the critical point: this discussion isn't about whether Christianity is TRUE - but whether Christian BELIEF is justified. It is possible for Christianity to be FALSE but for Christian belief to be justified - think of it like an illusion so powerful that humankind has no possible way to see through it, and thus cannot be blamed for thinking the illusion is true.
So, if you look closely, this is a question of critical importance to a Christian - but not really to an atheist. It doesn't really harm an atheistic worldview if Christian belief turns out to be justified, esp if its just for some people - all the atheist would have to admit is that at least some people are simply built such that they would honestly believe in God, even if there is no God. But for the Christian, it becomes a big problem - because if Christianity were not properly basic, then even if Christianity is true, only dedicated intellectuals who have spent a gigantic effort gathering all evidences and refuting all arguments can ever rationally have Christian beliefs - but Christianity is meant for the masses, for the simple man and woman as well as the apologetics scholar. So it must be that the common person can sensibly believe in Christianity in a basic way - at least in the absence of defeaters.
Dr Craig does seem to go one step further and argue that one might sensibly believe in Christianity even in the presence of apparently good defeaters, but I'm not myself so sure about that part.
Plantinga is great but so hard to read.
Craig's (or Plantinga's) setting up of a dichotomy between "epistemic" and "practical" rationality seems to me to be misconceived. I would simply coin the difference as being between deductive and inductive philosophical methodologies. The case of one who validates his faith by holding a belief that will help him heal, is merely a case of inductive reasoning - that is - getting healed by holding this belief, validates the belief.
Have Christians forgiven Judas the traitor?
Interesting question, Tim Keller goes into that about half way through. Worth a listen if it is a genuine question. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hour-of-darkness/id352660924?i=1000529330189
No.