I’ve always wondered how to reconcile the good, concrete, and objective reasoning for the existence of God and Jesus/Paul’s insistence on blessing those who do not see yet believe (John , 2 Cor 5, etc). Could anyone twist the concept of proving objectively the existence of the christian faith and the idea of just not seein but beleiving
Ben Edwardssays
I know I’m tardy in my comment, but I’m curious as to why you refer to it as impressive. What, in particular, do you find impressive? The reason I ask, is that to me it does not seem all that helpful in actually leading someone to the Christian God.
For example, his first two arguments (cosmological) do not logically lead to a Christian worldview. In the first, he argues that some things exist necessarily, including things like math and numbers. However, the Christian worldview would state that nothing exists necessarily except for God (since all things were created by Him.) However, if everything else exists contingently, then there’s no logical reason to assume that God exists necessarily apart from His revelation of this truth. The second has a similar problem, in that it provides no logical basis for assuming that God did not begin to exist at a point in time (i.e., if everything had a beginning, why not God? Rather than assuming an uncaused cause, wouldn’t we logically assume an infinite regression of causes?)
The third argument (moral) is a strong one that leads to the idea of some god, but not necessarily a Christian one, because the objective moral values are nowhere stated. Thus, it could be a god of Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc. The fourth argument (teleological) at best leads to some unknown designer, not the Christian God, and the same is true for the fifth (ontological)—it proposes an idea for an unidentified maximally great being, but gives no basis on which we can judge what is maximally great or by which we could identify this great being.
As well, the arguments only lead to a high degree of probability, but not absolute certainty. Someone who embraces them could say, “I’ve found something that seems more true than other ideas out there,” but could not say “I’ve found truth.”
Thus, I think Craig does a good job of showing some flaws in Dawkins approach, and makes it plausible that a supreme being exists, but does not seem to go far in leading someone to faith in the God of the Bible.
That’s my impression, and I admit that I may lack the intelligence or theological acumen to see the value of Craig’s paper. That’s why, if you have time, I would love to hear what you found impressive in his arguments.
I’ve thoroughly profited from the presuppositional view of apologetics that DBTS teaches, and I’m sympathetic with it. But in the case of Craig’s essay, we should understand it on its own terms. Craig’s essay is impressive as a response to Dawkins. Its objective is not to lead someone to faith in the God of the Bible, so I don’t think it’s fair to apply that criterion.
(But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask the questions you do. We should.)
Ben Edwardssays
Thanks for answering. I think I understand what you are saying, and do see the essay’s value in refuting Dawkins. If that is the purpose then I can see why you would call it impressive. Perhaps I assumed more than I should, b/c I inferred from the title that Craig was providing arguments for God’s existence, meaning the God of the Bible, and assumed the objective was at least in part to lead people to belief in God.
So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that this paper would be helpful to give to someone who has been shaken by Dawkins book (unbeliever or believer). Then, they would be able to see the flaws in Dawkins’ arguments. However, we would then need to go further if we wanted to bring the unbeliever to faith in the Christian God. I think I can see that.
Andy, maybe it is impressive on the topic of arguments for God but I think he’s missing the point with regard to the New Atheists. He suggests they are naive for dismissing the arguments. It seems to me that this misses the point about the Strategy of the New Atheists. Let me explain, he defines a good argument as a sound deductive argument. But we know nothing on the basis of deductive argument. Even if one grants a foundationalist view of epistemology (or something like it), much of what we “know” is based on inductive conclusions. Arguments for theory choice aren’t even inductive. They are abductive (If Hypothesis H, Data D; D; Therefore, H). The point is people form beliefs on a radically more abstract basis. The New Atheists seem to be strategically attacking Christianity on the basis of taste, and whether purposefully or not, virtually ignoring logic.
For exhibit A, check out Plantinga’s recent debate with Dennet where Plantinga gave a logical defeater for the reliability of belief on the basis of naturalistic evolution. What did Dennet do? Compared Plantinga’s belief in God to believing in the flying spaghetti monster… Craig may be right about these arguments. But I think the fact that the New Atheists are ignoring them is not naive, but strategic.
Thanks for the link!
I’ve always wondered how to reconcile the good, concrete, and objective reasoning for the existence of God and Jesus/Paul’s insistence on blessing those who do not see yet believe (John , 2 Cor 5, etc). Could anyone twist the concept of proving objectively the existence of the christian faith and the idea of just not seein but beleiving
I know I’m tardy in my comment, but I’m curious as to why you refer to it as impressive. What, in particular, do you find impressive? The reason I ask, is that to me it does not seem all that helpful in actually leading someone to the Christian God.
For example, his first two arguments (cosmological) do not logically lead to a Christian worldview. In the first, he argues that some things exist necessarily, including things like math and numbers. However, the Christian worldview would state that nothing exists necessarily except for God (since all things were created by Him.) However, if everything else exists contingently, then there’s no logical reason to assume that God exists necessarily apart from His revelation of this truth. The second has a similar problem, in that it provides no logical basis for assuming that God did not begin to exist at a point in time (i.e., if everything had a beginning, why not God? Rather than assuming an uncaused cause, wouldn’t we logically assume an infinite regression of causes?)
The third argument (moral) is a strong one that leads to the idea of some god, but not necessarily a Christian one, because the objective moral values are nowhere stated. Thus, it could be a god of Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc. The fourth argument (teleological) at best leads to some unknown designer, not the Christian God, and the same is true for the fifth (ontological)—it proposes an idea for an unidentified maximally great being, but gives no basis on which we can judge what is maximally great or by which we could identify this great being.
As well, the arguments only lead to a high degree of probability, but not absolute certainty. Someone who embraces them could say, “I’ve found something that seems more true than other ideas out there,” but could not say “I’ve found truth.”
Thus, I think Craig does a good job of showing some flaws in Dawkins approach, and makes it plausible that a supreme being exists, but does not seem to go far in leading someone to faith in the God of the Bible.
That’s my impression, and I admit that I may lack the intelligence or theological acumen to see the value of Craig’s paper. That’s why, if you have time, I would love to hear what you found impressive in his arguments.
Thanks,
Ben Edwards
That’s a fair question, Ben.
I’ve thoroughly profited from the presuppositional view of apologetics that DBTS teaches, and I’m sympathetic with it. But in the case of Craig’s essay, we should understand it on its own terms. Craig’s essay is impressive as a response to Dawkins. Its objective is not to lead someone to faith in the God of the Bible, so I don’t think it’s fair to apply that criterion.
(But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask the questions you do. We should.)
Thanks for answering. I think I understand what you are saying, and do see the essay’s value in refuting Dawkins. If that is the purpose then I can see why you would call it impressive. Perhaps I assumed more than I should, b/c I inferred from the title that Craig was providing arguments for God’s existence, meaning the God of the Bible, and assumed the objective was at least in part to lead people to belief in God.
So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that this paper would be helpful to give to someone who has been shaken by Dawkins book (unbeliever or believer). Then, they would be able to see the flaws in Dawkins’ arguments. However, we would then need to go further if we wanted to bring the unbeliever to faith in the Christian God. I think I can see that.
Thanks again,
Ben
Andy, maybe it is impressive on the topic of arguments for God but I think he’s missing the point with regard to the New Atheists. He suggests they are naive for dismissing the arguments. It seems to me that this misses the point about the Strategy of the New Atheists. Let me explain, he defines a good argument as a sound deductive argument. But we know nothing on the basis of deductive argument. Even if one grants a foundationalist view of epistemology (or something like it), much of what we “know” is based on inductive conclusions. Arguments for theory choice aren’t even inductive. They are abductive (If Hypothesis H, Data D; D; Therefore, H). The point is people form beliefs on a radically more abstract basis. The New Atheists seem to be strategically attacking Christianity on the basis of taste, and whether purposefully or not, virtually ignoring logic.
For exhibit A, check out Plantinga’s recent debate with Dennet where Plantinga gave a logical defeater for the reliability of belief on the basis of naturalistic evolution. What did Dennet do? Compared Plantinga’s belief in God to believing in the flying spaghetti monster… Craig may be right about these arguments. But I think the fact that the New Atheists are ignoring them is not naive, but strategic.
See also Hitchen’s argument from taste here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3QW-ub9CM&feature=related