All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Podcasts

William Lane Craig asks: are there objective truths about God?

1 Comment

In a lecture entitled “Are there Objective Truths About God?”, philosopher William Lane Craig responds to the nasty reactions you get from postmoderns when you claim that your religion is true, and that other religions are false. See, we think that there are objective truths about God – that there are some propositions that describe the way God is, and that people who don’t believe in them are factually mistaken. But some people want to say that every statement about God is subjective – true for each person – so that conflicting claims are fine and no one is wrong, because everyone is just describing their own preferences. Unfortunately, Christianity claims to be true for everyone – (e.g. – God is three persons and one being), so that Christians are committed to defending the idea that there are objective truths about God.

Here’s the link to a page containing the lecture audio. (H/T Be Thinking)

The MP3 file is here.

So what questions does Bill answer in the lecture?

What is a self-refuting statement?

The main concept in the lecture is self-refutation. A self-refuting sentence is a sentence that, if true, makes itself false or meaningless. For example, suppose someone said to you: “there are no sentences longer than 5 words” then that would be self-refuting since it falsifies itself. Bill argues that objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God are all self-refuting.

What is truth?

Craig holds that “truth” is a property of a proposition such that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the external world. For example, if I claim that there is a crocodile in your closet and we find a crocodile in your closet, then my statement was true. If there is no crocodile in your closet then my statement was false. The real objective world out there is what makes propositional claims true or false – these are not claims about an individual’s preferences, they are claims about the world. Bill is concerned with truth claims about God that are objective – whether there are propositions about God that are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Are there objective truths about God?

Bill discusses 3 objections to the idea that there are objective truths about God. Each objection seeks to make religion subjective, (true for each person, like food preferences or clothing fashion).

Objection #1:The Challenge of Verificationism

The first challenge is that religious claims cannot be verified using the 5 senses, and therefore religious statements are objectively meaningless.

Consider the statement “Only propositions that can be verified with the 5 senses are meaningful”. That statement cannot be verified with the 5 senses. If the statement is true, it makes itself meaningless. It’s self-refuting.

Objection #2: The Challenge of Mystical Anti-Realism

The second challenge is that religious claims, and claims about God, are neither true nor false.

Consider the statement “Propositions about God cannot be true or false”. Craig asks – why should be accept that? Any reason given would have to assert something about God that is true or false, and those reasons would contradict the original statement. For example, “God is too great to be grasped by human categories of thought” is a proposition about God that the speaker thinks is true, which contradicts the original assertion.

Objection #3: The Challenge of Radical Pluralism

The third challenge is that each person invents an entire reality of their own, and that there is no mind-independent objective world shared by individuals.

Consider the statement “There is no objective reality shared by all individuals”. That statement is a statement that applies to all individuals, regardless of what they think.  It’s self-refuting.

Conclusion

Craig ends the lecture by arguing that it is OK for Christians to think that other people’s views are false. It does not follow that just because someone thinks other people’s views are wrong that they am going to mistreat other people. In fact, in Christianity it is objectively true that it is good for Christians to love their enemies. It is objectively true that all human beings have value, because human beings are made by God. So even if Christians disagree with others, they still treat them well, because they think that there are moral truths that they have to conform to.

My thoughts

Sometimes, non-Christians think that it is dangerous to hold beliefs too strongly. But I think what really matters is the content of the belief – some beliefs are evil and some are good – you want to believe the good beliefs as strongly as you can, as long as the evidence warrants it. In Christianity, I am absolutely obligated to treat people with whom I disagree with respect and gentleness (1 Pet 3:15-16). The more convinced I am about that belief, the better my opponents will be treated. A stronger belief in Christianity means more tolerance for those who disagree.

Why do non-Christians get so offended when Christians claim to be right about there being only one way to be rightly related to God? Well, for many it’s because their worldview is a personal preference, and they feel uncomfortable having to defend it rationally and evidentially – which is what Christians do that makes us so different from everyone else. For most people, religion is just their cultural preference – like cooking style, or favorite sport, or clothing style. That’s why they respond to your truth claims with name-calling like “you’re intolerant” and “you’re judgemental” and “you’re arrogant”. These are just shorthand ways of saying, “I’m offended that you’ve thought things through more than I have, and that your careful arguments and evidence make the blind faith that I was raised in look bad – so I’ll just call you a name rather than do any thinking about what you’re saying”.

This happens a lot with insecure people who are raised to think that their religion is a racial, national or cultural identity. They haven’t thought anything through, or considered any alternatives, and they think that if you tell them they are wrong  on matters of fact that somehow this amounts to some sort of racism or prejudice. You make factual claims, and they hear discrimination. But that’s not how Christians think of religion – we only care if it’s true or not – just like we care whether the claims of history or science are true or not. For many non-Christians, religion is not about truth at all but about personal preferences – and they cannot understand why Christians say that they have to go to Hell for having the wrong personal preferences. You have to tell them that religion is about truth. Then they understand why you are disagreeing with them and you can have a conversation about what is true.

For further study

A debate between a Christian and a postmodern, featuring Christian scholar Peter Williams and a very strange liberal person. This audio really makes it clear why people are opposed to objective truth claims about religion. Williams’ opponent is the epitome of postmodern relativist irrational universalism.

Commentary

John Hawkins of Right Wing News interviews Tom Sowell

3 Comments
Thomas Sowell

Right Wing News has a great interview with my favorite economist, Tom Sowell.

Excerpt:

Paul Krugman is one of the best known and highest regarded economists on the Left. He says the problem we have right now is the government simply is not spending enough money and the fears we have about the debt causing all these major problems are extremely overblown. What do you say to that argument that is very prevalent on the Left?

Well, it’s a heads I win, tails you lose argument because if we spend twice as much for the next ten years and things don’t get any better – you can still say, “We didn’t spend enough.” We should have spent four times as much. And if we spend four times as much, you can say we should spend 10 times as much. It’s an impossible argument to refute.

It just so happens I’ve been reading a statement by Henry Morganfeld, the Secretary of Treasury under FDR, and he made the statement in 1939 — he said, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Now this is FDR’s closest confidant, the man who has been in charge of the spending — and after six years of it at this point, they have nothing to show for it and in point of fact, unemployment had gotten back up above 20 percent about a month before he made the statement.

Look at this – the man is branching out from fiscal conservatism into social conservatism. He’s not a Christian, so this is pretty awesome.

Excerpt:

Now, you talked a lot about cultural issues in the book. That’s something you’ve gotten more into in your columns lately. In the book you wrote about gay marriage and the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Why do you think that’s a bad comparison and what do you say to the argument that gay Americans have a right, perhaps even a constitutional right to get married?

Well, my Constitution must be out of date because I haven’t seen it there. It’s one of many things, such as the separation of church and state, that I’ve never seen there.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is an imposition of a government’s interest in certain unions. Probably because those unions produce children, but for other reasons, too. Otherwise people could marry or not marry utterly independently of the government.

But what we’re talking about is not gay marriage. We’re talking about redefining marriage through the convenience of leaders who speak for the gays. And I don’t see any more reason for doing that than for allowing bigamists to redefine marriage to suit their convenience.

And you can read Tom Sowell’s latest column on FDR and the Great Depression here. He talks about how the policies of President Roosevely failed to lower unemployment and how they mirror the policies of Obama and the Democrats today.

Events

Upcoming debate between William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens

1 Comment

Upcoming debate between William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens. (H/T Apologetics 315)

Details:

William Dembski will be debating Christopher Hitchens at the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX, Nov. 18th, on the question of God’s goodness.

“Does a Good God Exist?”

Debate between Dr. William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens

Two intellectual heavy weights will square off toe-to-toe on the existence and goodness of God.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Dr. Dembski is a research professor, has an article on the debate.

Dembski and Hitchens will debate the existence of a good God during a conference for the Biblical Worldview Institute at Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas. The debate will be hosted in the worship center at Prestonwood Baptist Church from 8:40 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. It will also be webcast on http://www.pcawebcast.com.

Dembski, a champion of the Intelligent Design movement, is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and an author of numerous books, including The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems and The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. He was also featured in the 2008 documentary on Intelligent Design, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Hitchens has authored, along with other controversial books, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and he edited The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer. Alongside Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett and Richard Dawkins, Hitchens has been called one of “The Four Horsemen” of the atheism. A former atheist, Hitchens’ brother, Peter, renounced his disbelief and recently wrote the 2010 publication, The Rage against God: How Atheism Led me to Faith.

Prestonwood Christian Academy is a ministry of Prestonwood Baptist Church, the location of one of Southwestern Seminary’s seven extension centers. The College at Southwestern is also a sponsor for the debate. For more information on the conference or to register, visit www.prestonwoodchristian.org.

I am a big fan of William Dembski. He will crush Hitchens, just like Craig did at Biola in 2009.

Dallas/Fort-Worth apologetics conference TODAY

Here’s a quick reminder about the upcoming conference in Dallas, TX.

When:

  • November 5th and 6th, 2010
  • Friday: 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM
  • Saturday: 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Where:

Speakers and topics:

  • Tag-team of all speakers on apologetics
  • Dr. Paul Nelson, “The Power and Promise of Intelligent Design in Biology”
  • Dr. Craig Hazen, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?”
  • Sean McDowell, “Equipping Young People with a Biblical Worldview”
  • Dr. J.P. Moreland, “The War of Worldviews”
  • Dr. Mike Licona, “Can We Really Trust the Gospels”
  • Dr. William Lane Craig, “The Case for the Existence of God”

The main page is here.

The thing I like about this conference is that all of the speakers have participated in lectures and debates. Paul Nelson has debated on intelligent design, JP Moreland has debated on the existence of God, Craig debates regularly on the existence of God, Licona has debated Ehrman and others on the resurrection, and Sean McDowell kicked butt in his debate on morality and atheism. Craig Hazen hasn’t debated to my knowledge, but he does tons of lecturing, and people tend to really like his lectures. I once gave an entire set of lectures to my friends Andrew and Jen and they liked Craig Hazen the best.

So the point is that these guys are all really really good speakers! This conference should be a very lively affair.