Craig & Dennett on God's Existence

Craig, Dennett, & Alister McGrath

I just listened to the exchange between William Lane Craig and Daniel Dennett. Craig calls his presentation "In Defense of Theistic Arguments for the Existence of God." Those familiar with Bill's presentations will find little that is new here.

As for Dennett's response, I have these comments.

• Dennett graciously called Bill's presentation a "stunning, virtuoso job" in presenting "dautingly difficult" issues.
• He then added (to audience laughter) "Ironically, though, I think it proves my point."
• Bill gave the statistically mind-boggling odds against philosophical naturalism being the best explanation for our fine-tuned universe (given multiverse theory). Dennett's response is: "Whatever the truth is, it is 'mind-boggling'. We know this in advance. The truth will be "jaw-droppingly improbable and counter-intuitive... So you can't use 'mind-bogglingness' as your litmus test."
• My immediate response to this is: Bill is not simply using "mind-bogglingness" as a litmus test. For example, Penrose's example of the "100 sharpshooters" obviates this. That 100 sharpshooters missed you on the explanation that they randomly did so would be mind-boggling. But it would not be mind-boggling on the explanation that it was planned (designed) that they miss you. So I think Dennett does not understand the argument.
• Dennett goes on to say, "Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the cosmological argument does favor the conclusion that the cause of the universe is a timeless, changeless, abstract, immaterial 'whatever.' At that point we have no idea what that might be, Maybe it's the idea of an apple? Maybe it's the square root of 7? But no, Craig says, because abstract things don't cause things. But who says that abstract things can't cause things? My favorite example of abstract things causing things is the principle of triangulation so that when you want to keep your house from going down you create a triangular structure to keep it up. It seems causal. This is an abstract principle of Euclidean geometry being invoked in a causal way."
• Whether or not this is the kind of causality Bill is talking about is questionable. I am now guessing that Dennett equivocates on the term 'causality.'
• Further, "the problem with a changeless God is that 'it' is changeless. Don't bother praying to it. Don't expect 'it,' in time, to hear your prayers and respond.
• But here Bill has written much about God's relation to time as: without creation, God is timeless; in relation to creation God is temporal. It's complex. Go here to begin.

J.P. Moreland on Postmodernism, Deconstructionism, Et. Al.

Here's a link to a number of excellent, clear apologetic video presentations by some very good Christian-theistic thinkers. See especially J.P. Moreland and Francis Beckwith.

See Moreland on "Postmodernism" (and other issues) - J.P. is such a brilliant scholar and teacher! J.P. defines "postmodernism" philosophically as this: "The view that all truth, reality, and value is relagtive to your community." "'Deconstructionism' is the postmodern hermeneutic."

What does it mean to deconstruct human language?
Step 1 - you disregard the author's meaning in the text.
Step 2 - The reader brings questions to the text. I, the reader, get these questions from my ideology, my agenda. Say, e.g., that I am a lesbian. Out of my lesbian worldview I will ask the text questions. Now imagine that the text I am ideologically questioning is the book of Romans.
Step 3 - The reader creates a brand new text whose meaning reside in the reader's own community. For example: I will create a "Lesbian Book of Romans." That is, the reader creates a text from their own worldview.

One result of this is: students raised under postmodern thinking will be unable to read a text, but will be disgistingly good at talking about how they feel about the text.


See also: Francis Beckwith on "Abortion," "Relativism," and others. Beckwith, a professor of philosophy and jurisprudence, is a great thinker.

I Google, Therefore I (do not)Think

This semester I have 90 undergraduate students in three philosophy classes. One of them is Logic, aka "critical thinking" (which is the name of the text I use). I love teaching this class. I feel as if I am giving them skills that can last a lifetime.

From my very narrow POV most students cannot think critically; i.e., they cannot think for themselves. My internet experience (e.g. Facebook; chat room discussions) tells me the same thing; viz., there's not a lot of real thinking going on out there.

There's a lot of "internet research" that mostly involves the following abilities: 1) the ability to "Google"; 2) the ability to cut and paste; and 3) the ability to make it look like your own thinking. How could you spot the non-thinking cut-and-paster? You could do this by actually getting together with them, face-to-face, and dialogueing. In a face-to-face environment we find out what people really have, cognitively.
Here, for me, is an example. A few years ago I reviewed atheist John Allen Paulos's Irreligion. Surprisingly, he wrote me. He was very cordial. He told me he doesn't care to "dialogue" on the internet. But if I was ever in Philadelphia he would enjoy going out for coffee and dialogue together. I think I would enjoy that. Paulos is brilliant, and seems kind. Yet I find some of his reasons to a-believe faulty. But here's the deal, for me. Paulos would find out if I was merely a googling cut-and-paster or could actually reason. The two are not the same.

That's why I give face-toface oral exams in my Philosophy of Religion classes. I find out "what students' got." There they sit, minus their laptops. If they google their own minds will there be anything there? It's tense, dramatic, and rewarding when you meet a young thinker, sans techno-crutches, who can actually reason.

In his new book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, Richard Arum "determined that 45% "demonstrated no significant gains in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and written communications during the first two years of college," and 36% showed no improvement over the entire four years. Including dropouts would have made the findings even worse."  

The Chronicle of Higher Education calls this "the most significant book on higher education in years. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa's recently published Academically Adrift shows that for many students, four years of college make little difference in their ability to write and synthesize knowledge."

Data is not wisdom. Technology does not equal ability. The following is false: I google, therefore I think.

Your Marriage Represents Christ & the Church

To husbands and wives: If your marriage represented the love Christ has for the Church, his Bride, what condition would the Church be in?

Linda read this to me yesterday, out of John and Stasi Eldredge's Love and War: Finding the Marriage You've Dreamed Of.

"Being married costs you everything... We all know that loving is hard. Marriage is hard. It is hard because it is opposed. The devil hates marriage; he hates the beautiful picture of Jesus and his Bride that it represents. He hates love and life and beauty in all its forms. The world hates marriage. It hates unity and faithfulness and monogamy. Our flesh is not our ally here either - it rebels when we put others before ourselves. Our flesh hates dying.

But God loves marriage! The Holy Trinity is for it. God loves intimacy, friendship, unity, self-sacrifice, laughter, pleasure, joy, and the picture of the Sacred Romance that you have the opportunity to present to the watching world. God is with you. He is for you. He commands you to love and he says that with him and in him all things are possible."

Explaining Objective and Subjective Moral Values

This is a great text to
dig deep into the
moral argument as
presented by W.L.
Craig.

In presenting William Lane Craig’s moral argument for God’s existence I used the following to explain objective moral values and subjective moral values. Consider these two statements.


1. Torturing and raping little girls for fun is wrong.


2. John believes that torturing and raping little girls for fun are wrong.

Both 1 and 2 are statements. As statements each describes a state of affairs. If the state of affairs they describe obtains, then the statements are true. If that state of affairs does not obtain, then the statements are false.

If 1 is true, it is true for everyone. If 1 is false, it is false for everyone. The same can be said for statement 2. That is, if it is true that John believes that torturing and raping little girls for fun are wrong, then it is true for everyone. If it is false it is false for everyone.

But even if 2 is true, this does not mean 1 is true. It only affirms that John believes that 1 is true. Therefore, on 2, the belief that one should not torture and rape little girls for fun is non-binding and, therefore, not objective.

Now if God does not exist the kind of ethical statements we have are only of the kind 2 represents. With no divine Lawgiver we are left with our own subjective beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. While we must admit things like “John believes… X is wrong,” which is not a moral judgment, we cannot arrive at the moral judgment “X is wrong.” Without a divine Lawgiver moral judgments are merely things we invent; i.e., they are subjective moral values. As such, they cannot be adjudicated in the sense of being morally binding.

It is for reasons such as this that the atheist philosopher Joel Marks affirms that, without God, morality does not exist. Since Marks believe there is no Commander God (i.e., a God who is perfectly good in essence and issues commands that are good), the metaphysical ground for morality is gone.

When You Wage Marital War, Obtain Guidance

(A marriage in trouble - Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in "The War of the Roses.")

It's Monday morning, and snow is lightly falling upon the foot of snow we got last week. Linda and I are sitting in our quiet living room. She's reading Proverbs.

"Listen to this one," she says. "Plans are established by seeking advice; so if you wage war, obtain guidance."

"Wow! Where's that one at?"

"Proverbs 20:18."

In a tribal culture like that of the ancient Hebrews it was socially acceptable to seek advice and obtain guidance. In an individuated culture such as our's asking others for counsel, especially if we are "waging war," is more a sign of weakness. Especially, in general, for men. My experience is that women are more open to asking for help in the midst of marital battle than men are.

I'm applying this verse to marriages in conflict. If you are maritally battling you probably won't figure this out yourself. This is because who you are and what tools you've got have gotten you into this battle zone. What you need is another perspective from a wise counselor. If you are unable to achieve peace, obtain guidance. It takes humility to do this, and it is wisdom.

Paul, Judgment Day, & Eternal Consequences

Sioux Falls

Next Sunday morning at Redeemer I'll preach out of 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10. Which reads:
 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

" ³ We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing. ⁴ Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.

⁵All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.

8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."


One of the texts I'll use to unravel and explain this verses in Ben Witherington's 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Witherington's scholarly output rivals that of Craig Keener and N.T. Wright. When I read them I feel I am getting the best possible understanding of the biblical texts.
 
Re. this passage Witherington says, “This is as stark a depiction of what happens on judgment day as any found in the Pauline corpus. Ch. 2 will build on it. Paul really does believe there are eternal consequences to having and persevering in faith in Christ or refusing to do so.”
 
Next Sunday morning I will especially address the concern that vv. 8-9 seem incompatible with a loving God.

Tomorrow's Message - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

From my POV, out the window of our upstairs home office, we're getting 3-4 inches of pristine, windless, airy-light and white snow. It is beautiful!

True or false: This snowfall is beautiful.

I've been crock-potting in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 all week. We've just begun preaching, at Redeemer, the Christology of the Letters of Paul. This is high Christology, and makes so much more sense to me after our 5 years of preaching through the 4 Gospels. This is a great text, exemplary of the lasting relevance of Scripture.

One book in my exegetical arsenal is Gordon Fee's Pauline Christology.

I am going to enjoy tomorrow.

Know People, Not Know Everything

An elderly man in our church's neighborhood came to me this week and asked, "Who plows the snow out of your parking lots?" I said, "I don't know."

I wish I had a photo of the look on his face as he responded to me, incredulously, "You...  don't know.. who plows your parking lots?" This man was stunned at my ignorance!

"Nope. But he does a good job, doesn't he?"

I said, "I know who knows. His name is Joe. Joe has hired a friend to do our lots. I'll give you Joe's number."

The old man said, "Looks like he does a good job. I want to see if he'll come down the street and do my driveway when it snows."

As a leader I do not have to know everything or have my hands in everything. In fact, I cannot know everything. (Note: it is important to know this.) But I do know and trust Joe, who has the responsibility to see that our parking lots are plowed. This week my attention was drawn to our snow-plowed lots, and I saw that Joe chose a good person to do the job.

Everyone's Heart Is an Inner Cupboard

If you came to our house hungry we would look in the cupboard and refrigerator to see what we have, and feed you. Feed people with what you've got. That seems obvious.

Don't feed people with what you don't have. That seems obvious. How can you give people something you don't have to give? Yet it happens, I think, all the time.

Our local newspaper has a philosophy & religion internet chat room. I've entered it a few times. Most of the people dispense philosophical and religious wisdom they don't actually have. My suspicion is this: I face a thought-dilemma, therefore I Google. Then: cut, and paste. Philosophize out of an empty cupboard of wisdom and knowledge and appear wise. Having little within yet dispensing much, philosophical paupers serve up gourmet meals to the hungry, quoting Plato without having actually read him, and without understanding him.

When I was ten years old my hero was Elvis. One day I took an album cover with Elvis on it into our bathroom, leaned it against the mirror, and began to work on my appearance. I combed my hair like Elvis's and practiced his famous lip-curl. "I am Elvis," I thought. I emerged from that bathroom a new man and walked through my backyard to my friend John's house. When he saw me he said, "So you're trying to look like Elvis again?" The appearance of a full cupboard; the reality of it being empty.

I am not Elvis. Therefore I can't serve up to others what Elvis had. But I can give to others out of what I have. It's taken me a long time to realize this. Like Lionel says to Bertie the king in "The King's Speech," "You have a voice."

I think it takes years to "get a voice." The quasi-philosophers in the chat room lip-synch the voices of others. If they engage the original thinkers for years they may come to understand them and gain a philosophical voice of their own in relation to them. The shackles of Google-dependency can be broken and one can sit in the Agora and dialogue out of the shallows and depths of what one authentically has. Everyone's heart is an inner cupboard. Whether it is bare or stocked with food depends on how we spend our lives, on what we invest in.

To give to others the best of what I am and have been given feels like freedom to me. It's freedom from acting, freedom from comparison, and release from pressure. I do not need to pretend to give something I don't have. I am to freely dispense whatever spiritual food my heart's cupboard contains.