Bassam Zawadi said on fb @24.12.19:
“William Lane Craig said:
“I am not saying that where there’s a lack of information you can make a leap of faith. Believing on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit is a rational decision – it is not a leap of faith. We have another source of warrant for our Christian beliefs that makes that belief rational. So I’m not advocating a leap of faith. Now, I disagree heartily with this nonchalant stance of the Christian apologist who says, 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲. It seems to me that the Scriptures would say you would never be justified in taking such a step. Never would you be justified in renouncing Christ and outraging the Holy Spirit of grace that is within you by committing apostasy.”
Bassam Zawadi then commented:
It’s incredible how Craig is oblivious to his use of circular reasoning here. How is one even certain that the Holy Spirit dwells in him, as opposed to being deluded into thinking so? Even Christians themselves quarrel over whether “regenerated” Christians could apostatize. Those who maintain that “true apostasy” is not possible would contend that such apostates only ‘thought’ that they were Christians, even if sincerely.
Thus, one cannot be 100% certain that the Holy Spirit dwells in him. It’s simply an inner feeling which manifests in certain ‘Christ-like’ behaviors (rather than literally hearing the “voice of God”), but that could equally arise from self-delusion, as many Christians themselves readily concede.
Thus, how could Craig urge that such an unsettled and unsound tool of epistemology takes precedence over good evidence presented against Christianity? Shouldn’t belief in the Holy Spirit be based on evidence in the first place?
Contrast this outlook and attitude with the Qur’an which prides itself on being evidentially-based and challenges the kuffar to proffer counter-evidence to negate its integrity.
Which has a more evidence-based approach to examining the truth? And which religion comes across as more sincere and open to the evidence? Answer that one for yourselves.”
Kabir al Asfar replied:
“Craig ties the witnessing of the holy spirit to plantinga’s proper basic belief. While it may be subjective one cannot fault it by arguing it’s irrational ( Craig’s view !)
It’s one of the reasons apologists need to be aware of the intricacies of the beliefs of those they’re up against.
For instance on Craig’s stance citing biblical contradictions will be of no effect since he can sacrifice biblical inerrancy on the alter of the witness of the holy spirit on the veracity of a dying-rising Christ.
Interesting I think this is the Pauline philosophy, Paul equates his experience with the holy spirit on the road to Damascus to actual historical apostleship , perhaps above. Seems evangelicals are being true to Paul.”
Bassam Zawadi replied:
“unlike Paul, there is no supposed “vision” even. Just a “feeling”.”
Kabir al Asfar replied:
“Well there may be goosebumps and tremblings and speaking in tongues too!“