Is Craig a fideist?

William Lane Craig’s recent answer to a question is getting some buzz in the blogosphere:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

His answer raises the issue of whether he’s a fideist. On the face of it, it seems absurd to suggest that Craig is a fideist. Few men have done as much or more to argue for their faith.

Still, a hostile critic might say that’s deceptive. In his heart of hearts, Craig is a fideist who merely exploits reason and evidence to rationalize his fideism, to make his fideism more outwardly respectable, to snare unsuspecting converts. So it’s just a charade or calculated ploy.

Of course, that’s the least charitable interpretation of his motives. In this post I’m less concerned with dissecting Craig’s position than addressing the issue at a more general level.

One way of testing a position is to assume it’s true for the sake of argument, then consider what the evidence would look like in that event. If true, what does the position entail? If true, what’s consistent or inconsistent with that position?

A fair-minded atheist should conduct that exercise. If he refuses, then he’s not a fair-minded atheist.

Suppose you’re an atheist. You don’t believe in the Holy Spirit. Still, in order to evaluate Craig’s claim, you should grant his premise for the sake of argument and then consider the consequences of that postulate.

The Holy Spirit is a person of the Godhead. Omniscient, omnipotent, and so on.

If the Holy Spirit exists, is he able to instill in Christians an unfalsifiable faith in Christianity? Can the Holy Spirit create that mental state in Christians? Off-hand, I can’t think of any antecedent objection to that possibility.

Assuming that he could do that, would he do that? Beyond the abstract possibility, is that a plausible suggestion–given the premise?

Well, most Christians in church history don’t have access to reams of corroborative evidence. Likewise, most Christians in church history don’t have the aptitude to formulate rigorous arguments for the faith. So it’s not improbable that if the Holy Spirit exists, he’d give Christians a degree of conviction that’s not dependent on their brilliance or erudition.

In order to reject that appeal, an atheist would have to disprove the existence of the Holy Spirit, or demonstrate that his existence is unlikely. So an atheist can’t justifiably dismiss Craig’s appeal to the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit out-of-hand. He’d have to go back a step and successfully challenge the operating premise. For unless he knows or has good reason to believe there is no Holy Spirit, then he can’t presume that Craig’s appeal special pleading.