Mailbag: Worldview of Atheism, Part 3

From: "Craig"
Subject: Mr. Atheist

One quick question... hypothetically, If Christs resurrection were to be 99.9% historically probable, and all the other doctrines of Christianity were to be (I cant say scientifically proven) but proven, inthe same way legal and historical cases are proven, would u then accept it?

Craig's conclusion does not follow form his premises. Even if I had a video of man coming back from the dead, and he was wearing a name tag saying "Hello, My Name is: Yeshua ben Yosef," that would not in any way prove the rest of Christian doctrines. After all, if the Christian explanation is reasonable, then so are any number of other possible explanations. In order to base Christianity on that, it is necessary to demonstrate that the Christian explanation is superior in explaining the (theoretically, in this case) known facts.

Craig doesn't seem to understand that not only must Christianity argue for the existence of certain historical facts, but it must also argue that its explanation of those facts is the best available. Accomplishing the first is not the same as accomplishing the second. As a legal parallel, it isn't enough that a prosecutor prove the historical fact that Jack was at the crime scene. In addition, the prosecution must prove that its explanation for Jack's presence (namely, that Jack was there in order to steal the necklace) is the best available. Other explanations, like that Jack was there in order to call a mechanic because his car was broken down, must be excluded as reasonable alternatives.

I feel the need to pray for you because no one will ever become a true christian through apologetics, real faith in God (and faith is not a blind leap in the dark, but what you have reason to believe is true - something you do with your mind and will...) - is only the work of the Holy Spirit. Because to most people a forgiving God who forgives murders, a God that gives us free will to choose against him- it seems foolishness.

If belief in Craig's god can only occur through the work of "the Holy Spirit," then I am not personally and directly responsible for lacking this faith - this Holy Spirit is personally and directly responsible. So, are there any negative consequences for lacking this faith? And if so, why if I am not responsible for it? Does Craig think that it is just if we are held responsible for failing to have something we could never have acquired on our own?

And why would it be just to reward someone for possessing something if they aren't responsible for getting it? If the government started giving large amounts of money to people with a specific genetic marker, but demanding fines from those who lacked this marker, would it be just? Most would conclude that this is unjust because the people have no control over possessing this genetic marker or not. This is, in fact, why society has concluded that racial discrimination is unjust - it is not fair to punish some and reward others based upon whether or not they have a couple of genetic markers responsible for racial characteristics.

I should point out, also, that belief is not something done through the will - I cannot "will" myself to believe that my chair is not here, or that I am really sitting on an elephant. Belief is simply a consequence of what we know and our ability to reason.

I ask that you pick up the new edition of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

I have read McDowell's work, and I have to be honest: it's atrocious. If Craig wants some rational and intellectually mature apologetics, he need to read something by Hans Kung or William Lane Craig. At least they don't engage in egregious fallacies and actually require some thinking in order to address.

In an earlier email Craig apologized for assuming that I had no background in studying the Bible, but then he turns around and assumes that I have no background when it comes to Christian apologetics, either. What's particularly strange about this, however: if Craig believes that no one can become a "True Christian" through apologetics, why would he ask me to read apologetics? What would be the point if it has no influence on whether or not I become a Christian. If all that is necessary is the work of your Holy Spirit, then why not just pray really hard? Why bother with anything else? Isn't everything else a waste of time?

Part 2 of this conversation appeared yesterday

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...