The William Lane Craig Phenomenon

[Carrikature]

We can say with some confidence that time began with the Big Bang, and we can say that the reason the Big Bang applies to this universe only is because this is the only universe we have any evidence for.

The last part of this isn't true, though. Again, there had to be something pre-BB. That's what the singularity is. We can't speak much about what form it takes, but it still exists. You don't have to call it another universe, but you can't ignore its presence.

[Adrift]

The last part of this isn't true, though. Again, there had to be something pre-BB. That's what the singularity is. We can't speak much about what form it takes, but it still exists. You don't have to call it another universe, but you can't ignore its presence.

So you disagree with Hawking who says that time began at the Big Bang?

[robrecht]

As I understand it, the logical problem of evil was refuted decades ago by Alvin Plantinga through his free will defense, which is widely accepted among philosophers of religion.

I don't think so.

Ok? So why should anyone be surprised that a non-Christian or a non-theist lacks enthusiasm for the views of a Christian philosopher?

I don't think anyone should be surprised. I was just responding to the initial post in this thread that was trying to understand some people's reactions to Craig. So I gave my honest impression.

robrecht, I don't really understand the line you're trying to draw here at all. If your college classes largely predate most of his career, well, then, yes, it certainly makes sense that you wouldn't have heard of him in most of your lectures. Nor is anyone suggesting that he's a philosopher of, say, Plantinga's caliber. I'm assuming it's only been within the last twenty or so years that he's made a big enough name for himself that he'd be mentioned at all in courses on philosophy of religion, and then, mostly for his version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and his recent work on God and abstract objects.

His article was interesting enough for me to lecture on it some 20+ years ago. I introduced (and critiqued) his approach in a symposium on theological cosmology.

[robrecht]

As I understand it, the Big Bang is still the most widely held theory for the beginning of the universe by a long shot, and there is absolutely no hard evidence for the multiverse at all.

Everything depends on the various ways that some theoretical physicists try to understand a singularity, which by definition cannot be understood. These are theoretical models that are far removed from hard evidence. Theology and philosophy represent different methodologies for trying to understand a singularity.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.

From my personal review of William Lane Craig's work, his theories respect scientific, exegetical, and philosophical disciplines and methodologies.

OK. I did not say that he did not, but I do think that he tends to make some logical leaps and category mistakes that all seem to be in favor of his beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but don't expect some people to be convinced, especially if they do not already share his beliefs.

[Carrikature]

So you disagree with Hawking who says that time began at the Big Bang?

Not at all. Time, to my knowledge, is a function of the initial conditions present right after the BB. We end up using some phrasing like 'logically prior' to get us out of the time-dependent usage of 'before', but there is still a before. If there's a personal creator, it exists 'logically prior' to the BB. So, too, does the singularity.

Honestly, humans are so bound by time-dependent conceptions of the universe that I'm not entirely convinced we're capable of really understanding what it means to exist outside of that context. Any sort of personal creator would be well beyond our ken.

[Adrift]

I don't think so.

Source: What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy by Gary Gutting

Plantinga's free will defense has been generally accepted as a successful response to the claim that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically inconsistent.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Return to Reason by Kelly James Clark

The atheologian (Mackie, for instance) has charged the theist with embracing a logically impossible state of affairs. Plantinga's arguments have been solely to rebut this position, which entails specifying a logically possible state of affairs in which God and evil are logically consistent. If there can be such a state of affairs, then Plantinga has surely refuted the atheologian's charge. He has, then, offered a real solution to Mackie's logical problem of evil. Abraham and Mackie both agree that Plantinga has succeeded in this. Abraham admits that "in terms of strict logic Plantinga is entirely correct," and Mackie states that such a defense is "formally [i.e., logically] possible." And this is all that is required of the free will defense in order to refute the logical problem of evil.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Philosophical Approaches to the Devil by Benjamin W. McCraw, Robert Arp

Though there never has been and likely never will be a resolution of the so-called "problem of evil" to which all parties agree, there has been a kind of meeting of the minds in the last half century or so that has served to refocus the debate. This meeting of the minds was facilitated in 1974 by Alvin Plantinga's publication of a refutation of the so-called "logical argument from evil" (LAE) (Plantinga 1974a, 164-196; 1974b, 29-59; see Sennett 1998, 22-49). Plantinga's argument-a version of the venerable free will defense-was impressive enough that many prominent philosophers declared LAE dead once and for all. Even William Rowe, considered the dean of advocates of the problem of evil, called Plantinga's offering "a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God" (1979, 335).

© Copyright Original Source

I don't think anyone should be surprised. I was just responding to the initial post in this thread that was trying to understand some people's reactions to Craig. So I gave my honest impression.

That a non-theists or non-Christians lacks enthusiasm for Craig's ideas should, I imagine, go without saying. He's a theist promoting theism, they...aren't. But still, there's a pretty big difference between that and despising Craig to his very core (per the OP), wouldn't you say?

His article was interesting enough for me to lecture on it some 20+ years ago. I introduced (and critiqued) his approach in a symposium on theological cosmology.

Well there you go.

[Adrift]

Everything depends on the various ways that some theoretical physicists try to understand a singularity, which by definition cannot be understood. These are theoretical models that are far removed from hard evidence. Theology and philosophy represent different methodologies for trying to understand a singularity.

The Big Bang is still the standard model, and there is no hard evidence for the multiverse.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.

Exasperation.

OK. I did not say that he did not, but I do think that he tends to make some logical leaps and category mistakes that all seem to be in favor of his beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but don't expect some people to be convinced, especially if they do not already share his beliefs.

Well, as you've said, you're not familiar with his work. Perhaps what you perceive as logic leaps and category mistakes have been sufficiently explained.

[JimL]

So you disagree with Hawking who says that time began at the Big Bang?

Time existed for your mother, but as far as you are concerned, time didn't begin until you were born. Of course you know better than that, because you know and have access to your mother and you know that time, and events in time, existed prior to your birth. We don't have access in that same way to whatever the universe emerged from, so saying that time began with the birth of the universe is akin to saying that for you, time began when you were born. That doesn't tell us anything about the nature of time itself, whether it began to exist at the BB or existed prior to it, it only tells us when it began for this universe. Personally i don't think that timelessness makes any sense at all, since without time nothing can happen at all.

[robrecht]

Source: What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy by Gary Gutting

Plantinga's free will defense has been generally accepted as a successful response to the claim that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically inconsistent.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Return to Reason by Kelly James Clark

The atheologian (Mackie, for instance) has charged the theist with embracing a logically impossible state of affairs. Plantinga's arguments have been solely to rebut this position, which entails specifying a logically possible state of affairs in which God and evil are logically consistent. If there can be such a state of affairs, then Plantinga has surely refuted the atheologian's charge. He has, then, offered a real solution to Mackie's logical problem of evil. Abraham and Mackie both agree that Plantinga has succeeded in this. Abraham admits that "in terms of strict logic Plantinga is entirely correct," and Mackie states that such a defense is "formally [i.e., logically] possible." And this is all that is required of the free will defense in order to refute the logical problem of evil.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Philosophical Approaches to the Devil by Benjamin W. McCraw, Robert Arp

Though there never has been and likely never will be a resolution of the so-called "problem of evil" to which all parties agree, there has been a kind of meeting of the minds in the last half century or so that has served to refocus the debate. This meeting of the minds was facilitated in 1974 by Alvin Plantinga's publication of a refutation of the so-called "logical argument from evil" (LAE) (Plantinga 1974a, 164-196; 1974b, 29-59; see Sennett 1998, 22-49). Plantinga's argument-a version of the venerable free will defense-was impressive enough that many prominent philosophers declared LAE dead once and for all. Even William Rowe, considered the dean of advocates of the problem of evil, called Plantinga's offering "a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God" (1979, 335).

© Copyright Original Source

These people are talking about a very narrow and extreme argument against the existence of God, sometimes called the logical argument from evil. The larger philosophical problem of evil and the theological mystery of evil are still alive and well and should not be avoided by Christian philosophers and theologians who want to explore these dimensions of human existence and Christian belief, especially if they want to engage in philosophical or theological dialogue with philosophers and theologians of other faiths or no faith.

That a non-theists or non-Christians lacks enthusiasm for Craig's ideas should, I imagine, go without saying. He's a theist promoting theism, they...aren't. But still, there's a pretty big difference between that and despising Craig to his very core (per the OP), wouldn't you say?

I don't despise Craig, but I do think he comes off as condescending toward others and do not find some of his arguments convincing. I don't agree that people of different faiths or no faith should be expected to be unenthusiastic about the philosophical work of others who have a different faith or no faith. I think the Christian faith can be presented in a way that is appealing and attractive to others. Likewise, Christians can explore other philosophies of others with enthusiasm. Think, for example, of Thomas Aquinas embracing the metaphysics of Aristotle. Some of my favorite philosophers are Jewish and I think atheism can be a very profound approach to life as well. One need not nourish an us vs them attitude, which I find all too common among what is considered apologetics on the Internet.

Well there you go.

What are you trying to say?

[robrecht]

The Big Bang is still the standard model, and there is no hard evidence for the multiverse.

I think you're missing the point. The Big Bang, or rather the multiple ways of thinking about the Big Bang and an expanding or inflationary universe is still pretty much part of most ways of modeling our understanding of the universe, but it is not necessarily an alternative to theoretical approaches to some kind of a multiverse or other ways to try and unravel the singularity. Even if there was one single view of the Big Bang universally accepted by all theoretical physicists and cosmologists, it would still be a singularity that defies an ultimate explanation. It would be stupid for theoretical physicists not to try and better understand such a singularity. We may not ultimately be able to successfully probe the depths of such a singularity but intelligent beings will always try. If one were to say, it is just proof of God, and one cannot understand the inner workings of the universe beyond that is, I think, a very shallow and limiting view of God and our ultimate relation with him.

Exasperation.

Just because I do not share your enthusiasm for Craig?

Well, as you've said, you're not familiar with his work.

I am familiar with what I have read of his work.

Perhaps what you perceive as logic leaps and category mistakes have been sufficiently explained.

Perhaps. I am always willing to change my mind.

[shunyadragon]

The Big Bang is still the standard model, and there is no hard evidence for the multiverse.

Hard evidence ended with Newtonian science. Yes, the Big Bang is still the 'standard model?' of sorts. It remains that there is no definable beginning of our physical existence based on the current science of physics and cosmology.

Science cannot be used to demonstrate the necessary absolute beginning of everything nor anything.

Science has been able to reduce everything to a timeless Quantum world, which in and of itself it has no known beginning nor end, nor definable finite limit.

[Adrift]

These people are talking about a very narrow and extreme argument against the existence of God, sometimes called the logical argument from evil. The larger philosophical problem of evil and the theological mystery of evil are still alive and well and should not be avoided by Christian philosophers and theologians who want to explore these dimensions of human existence and Christian belief, especially if they want to engage in philosophical or theological dialogue with philosophers and theologians of other faiths or no faith.

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but the problem of evil that Plantinga is said to have refuted is, in fact, the philosophical problem of evil. The philosophical problem of evil is synonymous with the logical problem of evil. I've never heard of this so-called theological mystery of evil, but I'm aware of an emotional problem of evil, perhaps those two are synonymous?

At any rate, if you truly believe that the problem of evil is evidence against Christianity, why do you remain a Christian? Why not follow where the evidence leads and reject your faith?

I don't despise Craig, but I do think he comes off as condescending toward others and do not find some of his arguments convincing.

I didn't say you despised Craig. And I find Craig no more condescending than I do you. I have no idea where you're getting this impression from, but by your own admission, you don't know his work very well. It seems to me that you've judged him rashly.

I don't agree that people of different faiths or no faith should be expected to be unenthusiastic about the philosophical work of others who have a different faith or no faith. I think the Christian faith can be presented in a way that is appealing and attractive to others. Likewise, Christians can explore other philosophies of others with enthusiasm. Think, for example, of Thomas Aquinas embracing the metaphysics of Aristotle. Some of my favorite philosophers are Jewish and I think atheism can be a very profound approach to life as well. One need not nourish an us vs them attitude, which I find all too common among what is considered apologetics on the Internet.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to this because it feels like a strawman. Sure, one can be enthusiastic about someone else's views regardless of faith or no faith. I obviously didn't mean to imply that such a thing were impossible, or even the norm, but the people I had in mind were specifically those who were anti-faith, and anti-Christian. I don't care how nice you are, or how flowery your language is, the Daniel Dennett's, Sam Harris', Richard Dawkins', and Lawrence Krauss' of the world are not going to be enthusiastic about the gospel of Jesus Christ. I mean, sure, yeah, you may win even these hardliners if you're willing to compromise your values, and beliefs enough, but why should you? We can't expect everyone to be enthusiastic about everyone else's work. Again, though, lack of enthusiasm is a far cry from absolutely despising (per the OP).

What are you trying to say?

What do you mean what am I trying to say? In post #40 you implied that Dr. Craig was a nobody. That in all of your years of graduate theology and exegesis classes no one ever mentioned his name, and that his methodology wouldn't have been taken very seriously. In the same post you also admitted that most of your classes predated his work. In post #42 I pointed out that it obviously makes sense that no one would have mentioned his name if your classes largely took place before most of his work. Then in post #48 you flip-flopped and implied that his work was, after all, important enough to take notice, because you, yourself, was drawn to it and critiqued it.

Am....am I making sense when I write these posts? Is it me that's the issue? I feel like when I talk to you sometimes that I'm walking through mud or yelling through a thick wall or something. I don't know how it is that two people can be discussing the same thing and be so many worlds apart in their way of thinking. It probably is me, because I mentioned having similar issues understanding Carrikature.

[Adrift]

Time existed for your mother, but as far as you are concerned, time didn't begin until you were born. Of course you know better than that, because you know and have access to your mother and you know that time, and events in time, existed prior to your birth. We don't have access in that same way to whatever the universe emerged from, so saying that time began with the birth of the universe is akin to saying that for you, time began when you were born. That doesn't tell us anything about the nature of time itself, whether it began to exist at the BB or existed prior to it, it only tells us when it began for this universe. Personally i don't think that timelessness makes any sense at all, since without time nothing can happen at all.

I don't think that's at all what Hawking means when he says that time began at the Big Bang.

[Adrift]

I think you're missing the point. The Big Bang, or rather the multiple ways of thinking about the Big Bang and an expanding or inflationary universe is still pretty much part of most ways of modeling our understanding of the universe, but it is not necessarily an alternative to theoretical approaches to some kind of a multiverse or other ways to try and unravel the singularity. Even if there was one single view of the Big Bang universally accepted by all theoretical physicists and cosmologists, it would still be a singularity that defies an ultimate explanation. It would be stupid for theoretical physicists not to try and better understand such a singularity. We may not ultimately be able to successfully probe the depths of such a singularity but intelligent beings will always try. If one were to say, it is just proof of God, and one cannot understand the inner workings of the universe beyond that is, I think, a very shallow and limiting view of God and our ultimate relation with him.

Ok, so what I'm getting from you is that, despite the lack of hard evidence for a multiverse, it would be stupid for a physicist not to theorize about how the universe came about (which, incidentally, I agree with), but the same does not apply to a theologian. Theologians and philosophers should NOT attempt to understand how the universe began to exist. They should NOT theorize about such things.

Just because I do not share your enthusiasm for Craig?

No, because I find you exasperating.

I am familiar with what I have read of his work.

Which, by your own admission isn't much.

Perhaps. I am always willing to change my mind.

I wonder about that.

[Doug Shaver]

I notice something very odd. People either have a great deal of respect for this man or they absolutely despise him to his very core.

1) I have actually conversed with atheists who refuse to acknowledge that the guy has a Ph.D (let alone two). They call him "Mr. Craig", as though this were some cute tactic. You may have also seen "William LAME Craig". You know, grade school tactics.

Yeah, we atheists are just as human as you Christians. Surprise.

2) Why is the most used label for this guy "apologist"?

the frequency that some people use this label, while avoiding any mention of his scholarly history, strikes me as desperate.

Most of us skeptics regard his scholarly history as unimpressive. Even if it were otherwise, his c.v. is irrelevant to any analysis of his arguments, which are, in fact, apologetic in their intended purpose.

So, lets run through his credentials...

When we respond to his arguments, his credentials count for nothing. Nothing matters except the logical rigor of his arguments and the credibility of the premises on which he bases his arguments.

I have heard of no scholar who takes him seriously except those who presuppose the truth of his conclusions. More specifically, he is held in high esteem by evangelical Christians and almost nobody else.

There is a difference between getting attention and being taken seriously. If Kalam were the only argument Craig was noted for, he would be a one-trick pony. He has several others in his rhetorical arsenal, all of them easily rebutted.

That depends on what they write about your arguments.

The range of scholars he has debated in the public forum is ridiculous.

I imagine that even atheists, those of them who are intellectually honest, have to admit that the guy is really impressive.

The kind of people in the blogosphere and on youtube who attack him with such disgust? Well, who are they?