It is clear from many statements that William Lane Craig is not the beacon of rationality many theists regard him as, due to a host of fallacies and errors, such as his selective cry for assuming things to be true if they cannot be disproven (like the idea that conscience reveals moral obligations or that one's sensory perceptions match up with the actual external world). On his Facebook page, he recently admitted to basically assuming that certain scientific claims he read about particle behavior are true (he shared the initial article on June 6th), leading him to recall his support in a follow-up post (on June 7th).
The exact issue of particle physics he commented on is not relevant to the fact that there is no rational basis for accepting miscellaneous scientific claims from others as true because hearsay and agreement (among scientists or anyone else) has no logical connection to metaphysical and epistemological truths, but the article he shared claimed that CERN scientists recorded particles travelint faster than the speed of light. Craig freely confesses in the later post from June 7th that he is "too trusting" of what he reads, as well as asserting that the article was fake--as if trust in the sense of belief in what cannot be fully proven by strict logicality could ever be anything short of fallacious as it is!
Science is epistemologically inferior to reason in every way; it hinges on logic, whereas logic transcends science and matter. Neither the elements of scientific perception that cannot be logically proven, including the universality of scientific laws and the nature of physical phenomena beyond what is immediately observable, nor hearsay about scientific matters is what a rational person points to as an example of demonstrable truths. There is no rational, epistemological justification for believing that a chair one is looking at is even there beyond one's sense of sight, much less that there are particles that travel faster than light.
Craig's assumption that the words of a publication are true is not without precedent, of course. When explaining the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, he appeals to the words of historians instead of directly referring to the documents that mention Jesus! Historical documents prove nothing more than that someone recorded a claim about history, of course, just as scientific essays and publications prove nothing more than that someone wrote a scientific claim. As rationalistic Christians might expect, he does not even clarify the distinction between evidence and proof in this context!
It is no surprise that William Lane Craig would believe something that is ultimately unverifiable on the grounds of hearsay. In other cases, he openly affirms that he believes it is rational and perhaps even necessary to do so! His own comments about how he would be a Christian in the absence of any evidence whatsoever due to the perceived presence of the Holy Spirit [1] shows that he is no stranger to making assumptions if they do not contradict the philosophical ideas he wants to be true. On the basis of preference and persuasion, he is content with making and believing blind assertions.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/william-lane-craigs-foundational.html
No comments:
Post a Comment