Christianity Today

Craig's account of the state of play in theistic arguments seem to me to be correct, especially in the impact that they have had in the academy -- not clinching the case for theism as much as earning it the right to be part of the conversation. His identification of so-called post-modernism with modernism also seems right and it is plausible to say that the reaction of "The New Atheism" has been based on trying to turn back the clock on the presumptions of secular philosophy.

Heh, as far as summing up the current arguments goes, not bad. The new ontological argument in particular seems very persuasive. The christian community could use a bit of the flexing of its intellectual muscle. At commenter number three, the argument goes that everything which -begins- has to have a cause. God did not have a beginning, so the objection doesn't apply, and he doesn't need a further explanation, either, because he exists necessarily.

Those who think these arguments Craig lists are long-refuted medieval retreads need to get the word out to atheist philosophers of religion, who still take them quite seriously. I read the technical stuff these guys write for a living, as I imagine a handful of others here do, and can tell you that these people are talking about these arguments yet today, as Craig says. This is not to say they would not discuss them and offer nuanced rebuttals--to which theistic philosophers of religion would in turn offer their own nuanced rejoinders. They do. But they take them very seriously and this is much of what transpires in professional journals in philosophy of religion, which is again testimony to the renaissance in Christian philosophy in the academy. I wager that most atheist philosophers who make their living in this stuff are embarrassed by the shallowness of argument and poverty of research clearly evident to them in books like The God Delusion, god Is Not Great, and the Harris books.

Well done Dr. Craig. I appreciate the brief outline and wish you had a few more pages to flesh out these ideas. For the record, Dr. Craig is not claiming to find "proof" for the existence of God and utilizing philosophical "tricks", he is simply pointing out that there is an abundance of evidence in nature to help us to give a reason for the hope that is in us. The heavens truly do declare the glory of God. This is not to ignore "what I find in my heart and how I act on it..." however if that is all we have, what is to distinguish us from other religions? The mormons typically refer to the burning in their chest and no one can deny their actions. We must, as disciples and followers of Christ, learn to worship Him with a balance of head, heart, and hands. If any of these is missing or is weaker than one of the others, we will struggle to be effective ambassadors.

It would be interesting to see an article that actually debunks Hitchens or Dawkins as opposed to a retread of medieval arguments. The problem is you cannot scientifically prove the existance of an omnipotent God that could always manipulate the data either way. Unless you read the Bible literally, it is not a science book and thus the idea that evolution disproves God (the Dawkins theory) falls apart. This only leaves Dawkins with "there's no proof" which again you can never have. Hitchens says not only is God not real but the idea of God does bad things. That's an argument that perhaps can be taken up. I think the focus on Dawkins is misapplied since you're never going to disprove him and he's never going to convince you. Additionally, taking on Hitchens has the added bonus of dealing with another issue raised below, just cause you prove A God does not mean it's the God of the Bible. So take on Hitchens on what following Jesus does to people and society.