William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig
Any Christian or atheist who has had an interest in debates between the two camps has likely heard of William Lane Craig. Most Christians, after observing Craig's debates with atheists, respond with approval of his performance followed by the exclamation that he won the debate.
Craig's website, reasonablefaith.org, has a stated mission:
3 - to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.
"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of a lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis fails to become a Christian because of a lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.”
~ Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (1994), pp. 35-36.
Dr. Craig claims that believers believe in God because God deserves to be believed in. He claims that belief in God has nothing to do with what the individual will receive as a result of that faith, specifically, eternity in heaven as a reward for that belief - rather than - an eternity suffering in the fires of hell. He is actually saying that the avoidance of hell has nothing to do with influencing a person's decision to become a Christian.
Pretend for a moment that the bible that we now possess has no mention of heaven or hell - meaning that - regardless of whether or not a person believed in the God of the bible, regardless if a person "worshiped" God or not, when we die, we all simply ceased to exist. In other words, pretend that there is no mention of an "afterlife" in the bible. Pretend that there is no mention of eternal reward or punishment.
My questions:
1 - Christian, do you think you would still have faith in, and worship the God of the bible if you believed that you would simply cease to exist when you die (no reward or punishment in an afterlife)?
2 - Christian, do you think anyone would have good reason or incentive to worship the God of the bible if God did not promise some kind of reward (heaven) for that faith and worship, or punishment (hell) for the lack of faith and worship?
I believe Dr. Craig has not actually thought it through. I believe if you remove the promise of a reward, and the threat of a punishment from the Christian concept of an afterlife, most prospective believers, those who would become Christians under the current biblical concept of heaven and hell, would not become Christians - which would mean that people don't believe in God simply because He is God (as Dr. Craig contends). Instead, they believe because of what He (supposedly) has to offer as a reward for those that believe, and punishment for those that don't believe.
Imagine God exists and he revealed himself to a select group of people, and he told them that he loves them and commands them to worship and adore him, but he makes no mention of reward for the faithful believers / worshipers and no mention of punishment for the non believers / non worshipers. Would these people experience any motivation to become followers of God?
Why would Christians continue with their religious practices, such as going to church, giving money in support, evangelizing nonbelievers, praying, etc if there was no reward for those practices? I suspect that most "reasonable" believers would conclude (logically so) that their religious beliefs and practices are a waste of time and money. It's hard enough to get Christians who DO believe in eternal reward and eternal punishment, to regularly participate in their religious practices. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if there were no mention of an eternal reward and eternal punishment.
Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig in order to carry out its three-fold mission:
1 - to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
2 - to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
3 - to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.
1 - to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
2 - to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
3 - to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.
From my observations of Craig in the many YouTube videos posted, the first leg of the mission is obvious and accurate in its statement. But I believe the other two legs are simply dressing.
2 - to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
I seriously doubt that anything Craig has said or written in his many books, debates, podcasts, and videos has had any measurable success in challenging or convincing atheists that "biblical Christianity" is true. I have never been challenged by anything that Craig has said. I have never encountered another atheist who thought any different after listening to Craig. From my experience, Craig's writings, debates, and conversations are entirely unconvincing except to the already convinced.
3 - to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.
This one is almost a joke.
Most Christians that I have encountered, have never heard of William Lane Craig.
Most Christians (even Christian ministers) are not the slightest bit interested in defending "Christian truth claims" against challenges from non believers.
Most Christians do not have the slightest idea of why they believe what they believe or how to answer any challenge to their beliefs.
Most Christians - even those who show an interest in apologetic's - and even those who go so far as attend apologetic seminars, show no interest in putting what they learned in such seminars to use by engaging in apologetic's with non believers.
Most Christians are perfectly content to just go to church and to listen to their minister for 45 minutes once a week.
Craig's education:
Craig's education:
Wheaton College (B.A.)
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A.)
University of Birmingham (Ph.D.)
University of Munich (D.Theol.)
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A.)
University of Birmingham (Ph.D.)
University of Munich (D.Theol.)
I barely graduated from high school.
But in spite of all his education and experience, he still manages to make absurd statements that have no support outside of his religious beliefs. Like most any other bible believer, he is not immune to the Christian fault of confusing belief with knowledge.
Some examples:
"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of a lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis fails to become a Christian because of a lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.”
~ Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (1994), pp. 35-36.
Hand-waving by Craig. Does this claim even need to be refuted? This claim seems to be the product of absolutely no contemplation. Craig obviously did not even bother to interview any non believers before diagnosing the REASON for our non belief, he simply read a bible verse (John 3:19 ?) or two and diagnosed our ailment. Any 10 year old could have done this - no PhD necessary. I could almost understand Craig making this statement during the heat of the debate, but to actually put it in print, where you have the time to actually contemplate what you are saying. I have had numerous Christians respond: "Well, you don't want to believe because you just hate God" or "You won't become a Christian because you just want to continue sinning". This is the signal that they have given up - they have no reasonable argument to offer.
One large segment of the population that Craig completely ignores in this statement is the millions of us non believers who are former believers. We very likely used to believe just as he now believes.
“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
~ Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (1994), pp.36.
~ ~ ~
“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
~ Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (1994), pp.36.
In other words - ignore the evidence and cling to what you believe AT ALL COSTS! My gosh, there is so much wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin. This is anything BUT "reasonable". I could dedicate several blog posts to this one statement of his.
~ ~ ~
I listened to a debate several years ago between Dr. W. L. Craig and Dr. Sam Harris concerning morality. In the debate, Dr. Craig said - “You don't believe in God to avoid going to hell. Belief in God isn't some kind of fire insurance. You believe in God because God, as the supreme good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is goodness itself to be desired for its own sake. It has nothing to do with avoiding hell or promoting your own well-being.”Dr. Craig claims that believers believe in God because God deserves to be believed in. He claims that belief in God has nothing to do with what the individual will receive as a result of that faith, specifically, eternity in heaven as a reward for that belief - rather than - an eternity suffering in the fires of hell. He is actually saying that the avoidance of hell has nothing to do with influencing a person's decision to become a Christian.
Pretend for a moment that the bible that we now possess has no mention of heaven or hell - meaning that - regardless of whether or not a person believed in the God of the bible, regardless if a person "worshiped" God or not, when we die, we all simply ceased to exist. In other words, pretend that there is no mention of an "afterlife" in the bible. Pretend that there is no mention of eternal reward or punishment.
My questions:
1 - Christian, do you think you would still have faith in, and worship the God of the bible if you believed that you would simply cease to exist when you die (no reward or punishment in an afterlife)?
2 - Christian, do you think anyone would have good reason or incentive to worship the God of the bible if God did not promise some kind of reward (heaven) for that faith and worship, or punishment (hell) for the lack of faith and worship?
I believe Dr. Craig has not actually thought it through. I believe if you remove the promise of a reward, and the threat of a punishment from the Christian concept of an afterlife, most prospective believers, those who would become Christians under the current biblical concept of heaven and hell, would not become Christians - which would mean that people don't believe in God simply because He is God (as Dr. Craig contends). Instead, they believe because of what He (supposedly) has to offer as a reward for those that believe, and punishment for those that don't believe.
Imagine God exists and he revealed himself to a select group of people, and he told them that he loves them and commands them to worship and adore him, but he makes no mention of reward for the faithful believers / worshipers and no mention of punishment for the non believers / non worshipers. Would these people experience any motivation to become followers of God?
Why would Christians continue with their religious practices, such as going to church, giving money in support, evangelizing nonbelievers, praying, etc if there was no reward for those practices? I suspect that most "reasonable" believers would conclude (logically so) that their religious beliefs and practices are a waste of time and money. It's hard enough to get Christians who DO believe in eternal reward and eternal punishment, to regularly participate in their religious practices. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if there were no mention of an eternal reward and eternal punishment.
I think it is obvious - without heaven and hell, Christianity would have never become what it is today. Christians become Christians and remain Christians - largely - because of where they believe they might go when they die. There would be absolutely no incentive to worship a god just because a god claim to be worthy of worship.
If my suspicions are correct, which I believe they are, people become Christians out of purely selfish reasons - self preservation. They are not aware of this, unfortunately, but I believe self preservation is their base motivation. That is counter to Dr. Craig's above claim.
If my suspicions are correct, which I believe they are, people become Christians out of purely selfish reasons - self preservation. They are not aware of this, unfortunately, but I believe self preservation is their base motivation. That is counter to Dr. Craig's above claim.
What say you?
bob
r.u.reasonable@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment