Posts

We’ve got to train our kids for war

,

An Excerpt from the 3rd Edition of Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig:

In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an over-whelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments for Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to teach our children Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics. Frankly, I find it hard to understand how people today can risk parenthood without having studied apologetics.

Unfortunately, our churches have largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war. We dare not send them out to public high school and university armed with rubber swords and plastic armour. The time for playing games is past.

The William Lane Craig UK Tour

Here’s the promotional trailer for Craig’s upcoming tour of the UK:

[pk_youtube_player width=”560″ height=”315″ align=”center” autoplay=”false” cover=”” video_id=”bjZ5fhSRwqw”]

The final details of the tour are still being arranged, but here’s the schedule as it presently stands:

Monday 17th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?
Public Debate with Stephen Law (lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, London and Editor of the magazine of the Royal Institute of Philosophy THINK). Arranged by Premier Radio.
Westminster Central Hall, London

Tuesday 18th October 2011
12.45pm, Lecture: “The Evidence for God”
Imperial College London, London
Get the live feed here.

6.30pm, Lecture “A Moral Argument for the Existence of God ; can we be good without God?”
University of London Union, Malet Street, London

Wednesday 19th October 2011
7.30pm, Public lecture on Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design followed by a panel response
St. Andrew the Great, Cambridge

Thursday 20th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate at the Cambridge Union: “This House Believes that God is not a Delusion” (Not open to the public)
Proposing the motion: William Lane Craig and Peter S. Williams
Opposing the motion: Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson
The Cambridge Union, Cambridge

Friday 21st October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?
Debate with Professor Peter Millican (Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford University).
The Great Hall, Birmingham University, Edgbaston

Saturday 22nd October 2011
9.30am – 5.30pm Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference
William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, John Lennox, and Peter J. Williams
Westminster Chapel, London

Monday 24th October 2011
7.30pm, Lecture: “The Historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection”
Southampton Guildhall, Southampton

Tuesday 25th October 2011
7.30pm, Lecture – “Is God a Delusion?” A Critique of Dawkins’ The God Delusion
[or a debate with Richard Dawkins if he should accept the invitation]
Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford

Wednesday 26th October 2011
7.30pm, Debate: “Does God Exist?
Debate with Dr Peter Atkins (former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University).
University Place Lecture Theatre, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester

Some of the events will be webcast (access the stream at www.livestream.com/reasonablefaithtour2011), so those of us outside the UK will still get a chance to watch or listen in. We’ll live tweet the debates, if they’re available, so make sure you’re following us on twitter.

Faith in the Face of Evil

Paul Helm:

Faith cannot be totally blind, a gamble in the face of infinite odds. Whatever doubts and risks may be associated with trust, faith, in order for it to be intelligible and defensible, must have some evidence going for it. And the point of Christianity (at least) is to hold that enough of the purposes of God can be seen to trust him for what cannot be seen.

We may trust God in the face of evil not by an act of blind faith, but because there are other parts of the ways of God that are eminently trustworthy. God has a plan; parts of that plan are intelligible to us, and we trust him for what at present it is hard to make sense of.

One reason why it is hard to make sense of the plan of God is that it expresses itself in a temporally unfolding panorama which we, living for a few years in the 20th century, can only see part of.

The faith which can face and even surmount evil cannot be a mindless leap; nor is it a form of faith which has all the answers. It sees part of the picture, and trusts the Creator and Redeemer for what it cannot see.

Read the rest here.

[HT: Patrick Chan]

What does Atheism really mean?

In the April 2010 Reasonable Faith Newsletter, William Lane Craig had this to say about his visit to the University of North Carolina and his debate with Herb Silverman at UNCW, the Faculty Forum on the existence of God.

“Around 1,000 people showed up to hear a very rousing debate. As is typical with secular humanist types, Dr. Silverman had very little of substance to say about the arguments for or against God’s existence (indeed, he presented no arguments against God’s existence, taking the lazy man’s route of re-defining atheism to be just the psychological state of being without a belief in God).”[1]

Atheism has traditionally been defined as the belief that God does not exist. This remains the formal definition in the Philosophy of Religion.[2] Though not usually done, this idea can legitimately be expanded in certain contexts to include the denial of any particular god or gods. The early Christians for instance were called Atheists because they denied the existence of a whole pantheon of Roman god’s.

In recent years there has been a further expansion of the term to what Craig describes above as “the psychological state of being without a belief in God.” The columnist Christopher Hitchens advocated this construal of atheism during his debate with Craig last year (2209) at Biola University. Antony Flew, formally the worlds leading Atheist intellectual recognizes this shift of definition in the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Religion.

“…the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way.  Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.”[3]

It is said that this shift in definition is taken up to avoid the burden of making an argument. No longer does the atheist have to make an argument, because atheism has changed from being a view to being a psychological state. The first must have a truth-value, while the second is absent any proposition, and therefore has no truth-value.

But have these “atheists” truly escaped the burden of making an argument? I think not for at least two reasons.

First, in moments of honesty you will find that those who claim to be Atheist’s of the new variety are actually undercover atheists of the old variety. Ask any of them in an unguarded moment, “Do you believe there’s a God?” and what answer will you get? There answer will be “No.” They may say “no” in different ways, like “God is a Delusion,” (Richard Dawkins) or “You won’t find me guilty of wishful thinking.” (Christopher Hitchens). Bill Cook, the president of the New Zealand Secular Humanist Society in debate and in print has chosen to define atheism in this new, unorthodox way. In debate Craig caught him out by pointing out that a god merely in the imagination and a god not existing is “a difference without a difference.” A recent Thinking Matters comment stated something comparable to; “I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist. I just want you to admit that the essential attributes of your God are incoherent.” This is philosophical double-speak. At bottom, these Atheist’s still hold to the classical construal of Atheism, no matter the lip service they give to a having no-belief regarding God.

The absurdity of their insistence on the new definition, is that if it were so, babies, dogs and cats, even trees should also be considered Atheists. Further still, if Atheism on the new construal were diligently and systematically applied, it would be totally compatible with for Theism being true, and even the more rationally respectable option. So if this truly is what Atheists mean by “Atheism,” why is it that the New Atheist’s rail against the notion of God so much? Misquoting Shakespeare, my history professor said of Dawkins, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

The extreme expression of this linguistic pose is Reggie Finlay, the host of the Infidel Guy Radio program. He will describe himself as an Atheist-Agnostic or Agnostic-Atheist. Agnostic because he recognizes that he cannot know with certainty that God does not exist, and Atheist because he believes that nevertheless Atheism is the more likely than Theism. Findlay says, “I really doubt it [theism].”

To this you may respond, “What reason is there to think that Atheism is more reasonable than Theism?” You would be right to do so. Here is the second reason for why the atheist has not escaped the burden of having to make an argument. Because they implicitly, sometimes explicitly, make the claim that traditional Atheism is the more probable candidate. This claim, like any other positive assertion, needs philosophical justification. Thus the new brand of Atheist is in the difficult position of once again having to support his position with arguments lest he be called irrational.

Attempts of deflection are unsuccessful. Generally Atheist’s appeal to the idea that it is Theism that makes a claim to knowledge that has not yet been demonstrated, so we should not believe God exists in the absence of evidence. This appeal is what is called the Presumption of (traditional) Atheism. It is a poor appeal in two respects.

First off, Atheism also makes a claim to knowledge that cannot be demonstrated. Why then does the adherent of Atheism adopt this psychological state of non-belief in God? Was a coin flipped? Why not non-belief in Atheism? Why not Agnostic-theism?

Second, this appeal relies on idea that all the arguments for Theism, such as the cosmological, teleological, axiological, ontological and historical arguments, etc., are unsuccessful. This lays a heavy burden on the Atheist who now has to try and find reasons to either deny (highly plausible) premises or show an informal fallacy of some sort in the arguments for God’s existence. This is an uncomfortable position to be in as it will always be on the back-foot – defensive mode.

The Atheist might try to appeal to make other appeals, such as to the presence of evil in the world. But once they go there, they are once again in the difficult situation of trying to make arguments like their Atheistic intellectual forebears. Arguments that, after years of re-formulation, eventually grew tired and were found not to work. For instance, Christopher Hitchens, whose only argument (or shall we say railing?) is the Problem of Evil, embarrassingly admitted in a panel discussion in Dallas Texas that the presence of evil and suffering in the world could be explained coherently on the Christian worldview.

If my arguments are correct, then one implication is that Atheism is not the default position or a position of intellectual innocence/neutrality. As rational agents we should be able to give account for the justification of our beliefs and the Atheist must accept this fact, no less than the Theist. Personally, I think so-called Agnostic-atheists, non-theists, a-theists, etc., should tie their shoelaces and become either full-fledged Atheists, or kept faithfully to Agnosticism while calling it thus.


[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith April Newsletter 2010, www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8081

[2] Atheism: “the view that there is no divine being, no God.” Penguin dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Thomas Mautner. Penguin Books (1996)

“Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Edited by Ted Honderich. Oxford University press (1995)

The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.” The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. BUNNIN, NICHOLAS and JIYUAN YU (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.” William Rowe (1998). Atheism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Rowe does go on to say in the article: “Another meaning of ‘atheism’ is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. These two different meanings are sometimes characterized as positive atheism (belief in the nonexistence of God) and negative atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God). Barring inconsistent beliefs, a positive atheist is also a negative atheist, but a negative atheist need not be a positive atheist.”

[3] A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro (Oxford:  Blackwell, 1997), s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew.

I am indebted to Jason Kumar for most of these footnoted references as well as excellent editorial advice.

This months Bragging Rights Award goes to Matthew Flannagan

In the April Newsletter from Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by Matt Flannagan’s interaction with the thought of Michael Tooley. Matt Flannagan runs the Auckland branch of Thinking Matters at Laidlaw and is an excellent Christian theologian and philosopher. He holds a PhD in Theology from the University of Otago and a Masters with First Class honours in Philosophy from the University of Waikato.

Michael Tooley is a well-respected philosophers of religion from the University of Colorado, who has developed a complex argument against God’s existence. William Lane Craig is an eminent Christian philosopher of religion, whose debates have helped popularise his work, and is acknowledged by many to be the world’s leading defender of the faith (you can read our interview with him in our first issue of the Thinking Matters journal here). These two squared off recently on the question “Is God Real?”

Craig says that in preparation for the debate he prepared a four point response which is indebted to Timothy McGrew (who has also on occasion commented here at Thinking Matters) and Matt Flannagan for their helpful interaction.

It has been noted that this is a huge compliment to the quality of Christian scholarship that New Zealand is producing. For those unfamiliar with the more cognitive side of the Christian faith, if you were the Youth Pastor of your church, a comment like this is comparable to Dr. James Dobson singling you out on the Focus on the Family broadcast, and adding, “Here’s what youth groups should look like.” If you can’t possibly imagine yourself as a Youth Pastor, then imagine your specialisation of service for your local congregation is setting out chairs. This is like the World Assembly of Churches’ Arch-Deacon mentioning you by name as an exemplary Seat-Setter in their monthly magazine.

This is a big deal, and a well-deserved recognition of Matt’s service to the defense of the Christian worldview. The Reasonable Faith newsletter is delivered to its many-many members who are interested in Dr. Craig’s work. The Reasonable Faith ministry is arguably one of the most important apologetic organizations around today.

Thinking Matters sends their congratulations on to Matt and the Flannagan household. For more information on the debate, Matt’s blog has the details here.