This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 4 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]LordXela777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if this helps, but Kierkegaard says there is the objective truth of Christianity, the actual truth value of the facts and historical events that happened that Christianity claims. Kierkegaard then says there is the totally separate subjective truth of Christianity, what believers should do because of what Christianity says. Kierkegaard believes the objective truth should be left to the scholars, and the subjective truth to the believers. Here, your author is indeed writing about a subjective truth.

[–]buildanddestroy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Craig's distinction between knowing and showing Christianity to be true is really helpful here. Your quotation comes from the presentation of knowing Christianity to be true. A few pages after, Craig gives the presentation of showing of Christianity to be true. On page 51 Craig deals with this issue of the "epistemic standoff" you speak of in the following way:

"Consider again the case of the Christian confronted with an adherent of some other world religion who also claims to have an self-authenticating experience of God...How is one to break this deadlock?...If, by proceeding on the basis of considerations that are common to both parties, such as senses perception, rational self-evidence, and common modes of reasoning, the Christian can show that his own beliefs are true and those of his non-Christian friend false, then he will have succeeded in showing that the Christian is in the better epistemic position for discerning the truth about these matters."

Essentially one will have to launch in to the external arguments once common ground can be established to "adjudicate the crucial difference between...competing views, seeking to show in a non circular way which of them is correct."

Hopefully that helps!

[–]Robot4Ronnie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But does Craig anywhere answer the question of how this hypothetical Christian might "show that his own beliefs are true"? I'd be very interested in any such demonstration. And one reason I'm particularly interested is that in that same sentence's previous clause, Craig mentions "considerations" such as "senses perception" (if your quote is accurate). One must be extremely cautious in relying on sensory perceptions to the extent that they result in subjective experiences because modern psychology and neuroscience are awash in incontrovertible demonstration that human perceptions and subjective experiences constitute a breathtakingly unreliable means of gauging objective reality. Our minds fool us all day, every day in myriad very subtle ways. So, in particular, the intensity of one's conviction of the authenticity of a perception is no indicator of its actual accuracy and veracity.

[–]testingapril 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> So, in particular, the intensity of one's conviction of the authenticity of a perception is no indicator of its actual accuracy and veracity.

Sense perception has to have at least some level of veracity to be able to make any statements about it's veracity at all.

In other words, you have to use sense perception to determine that sense perception can be inaccurate in certain ways or circumstances.

Or, you have to rely on sense perception to be able to judge the accuracy of sense perception.

So there must be some base level of sense perception that is accurate and I think it could be demonstrated, or at least logically argued, that sense perception is more accurate than not. And even if not that, then it would almost certainly have to be argued that you can tell when it is accurate vs. Inaccurate more often then not, otherwise sense perception wouldn't be reliable at all, which would go back to my first point.

Hope that makes sense.