All Comments for: God Is Not Dead Yet | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > July

Christianity Today, July, 2008 |

God Is Not Dead Yet

How current philosophers argue for his existence.

William Lane Craig | posted 7/03/2008 10:50AM

You might think from the recent spate of atheist best-sellers that belief in God has become intellectually indefensible for thinking people today. But a look at these books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 53 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

The Gnu

Posted: July 16, 2008 2:43 PM

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.

Matt	Posted: July 16, 2008 8:12 AM

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.

just one reader

Posted: July 15, 2008 11:00 AM

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.

Brad Curry

Posted: July 15, 2008 2:06 AM

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.

John	Posted: July 14, 2008 7:50 AM

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.

comment

Posted: July 14, 2008 4:52 AM


Men and women love to argue over the existence of god and pridefully claim to find proof for their beliefs in the tricks of philosophy. I wonder what happened to the Christian message of humility. Here it is claimed that belief in jesus as god will get you into heaven, as if acts don't matter. What I find in my heart and how I act on it is what matters to me.

visiting skeptic

Posted: July 13, 2008 5:09 PM

Your premise that the current wave of atheist best sellers is from a bygone generation ( specifically circa the 1966 "Is God Dead?" headline) and that these writings don't reflect current arguments for a god is wishful thinking. 1. All three named authors hadn't started their writing careers in 1966. One wasn't even born yet. 2. Dawkins' "The God Delusion" soundly deals with arguments. Did you even do any research?

dave3

Posted: July 13, 2008 4:07 PM

Great summary of natural theology for the uninitiated. Also, excellent point that natural theology is not an either/or proposition - either it proves God's existence so it's a necessary evangelistic tool or it doesn't and should be discarded - but rather it's an aid. Kind of like injecting fertilizer into the parable of the sower and the seed. Fertilizer would aid the growth of the seed in good soil while not actually causing it to sprout up, and it wouldn't change the outcome of the other seeds (bird-eaten, rocky soil, weed choked) although it might delay the outcome of the rocky soil or weed choked seeds. In response to the comments on this article, ultimately I guess what's nourishment to one is "bull" to another...

Liz	Posted: July 13, 2008 3:27 PM


This article was a nice but brief (very brief!) look into the question of God's existence. I hope that those who buy into this current pop-atheism fad will take the time to dig seriously into the arguments made on both sides.

Mister Marcus

Posted: July 13, 2008 1:40 PM

A nicely packaged terse overview discussing some of the modern-day philosophical arguments for the existence of God in Christian apologetics. The article makes for a nice non-technical introduction to such arguments as the Kalam Cosmological argument, the Ontological argument, and the Teleological argument. In general, a great quick-read for any individual curious about mainstream philosophical arguments FOR the existence of God.

Dave2

Posted: July 13, 2008 2:58 AM

Setheroo, why do you make the rash assumption that any product of natural processes is ipso facto untrustworthy? My eyes work pretty good, and so does my brain. naspinski, in case you hadn't heard, logic classes are no longer part of the trivium. Causes no longer need to have at least as much neo-Platonist 'reality' as their effect. Check out Hume, Frege, and the Scientific Revolution in your local library. Christensen of Missouri, you don't need a knockdown demonstration that everything's a product of natural processes to make an educated guess, and in any case being humble and saying "I don't know" doesn't exactly lead you to an immaterial mind who created everything ex nihilo. Annie, if "God's terms" involve being unreasonable, then refusing to accept God's terms is like refusing to join

Setheroo

Posted: July 12, 2008 2:38 PM

Wow... Alot of atheists on here are full of crap with this "I'm dissappointed" stuff. Will you people let it go? You have no basis for what's rational/irrational because according to you, all of our minds (including yours) have come from a blind and mindless process. So please quick drooling your agenda on everyone because since we are just particles, no one has any more reason to believe you at ALL. Naturalism logically leads to nihilism, no matter what you try to do to avoid it. At least be a DEIST like Anthony Flew or SOMETHING. William Lane Craig is right, new atheism has no intellectual basis and is incredibly pathetic.

Sam	Posted: July 11, 2008 5:41 PM

Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (www.epsociety.org), has published many of William Craig's scholarly articles. For Philosophia Christi, I think he's reviewed some of William Rowe's recent work. More info about the journal can be found at www.epsociety.org/philchristi (BTW, they are currently featuring a really super subscription offer: http://www.epsociety.org/store/membership-signup.asp)

Petra Jaimes Simon

Posted: July 11, 2008 4:53 PM

It amazes me that all of you are still debating GOD'S existence. Ladies and gentlemen, Daniel and John the Revelator are sounding like newscasters, have you noticed the bloody handwrting on the walls? Does it 'feel good' and spiritually, religiously, philosophical to discuss the Calvin's, Luther's or Acquinas' perspective? The argument goes around and around and falls like road apples in front of the suffering of the world. Like, whats your favorite theories or ideas about The Almighty? If the LORD is in you He is quite capable of bringing clarity about Himself and His Family. It may help to turn the volume down, sacrifice a few toys on the altar and listen. Listen, be still, and when He contacts you it will become quite evident that He is alive, you won't even waste your time talking, you'll be busy listening to that Shepherd's Voice, He will lead you, but, it isn't going to be easy. Church, listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. Petra Jaimes Simon Colombia

JP	Posted: July 10, 2008 6:43 PM


This article presents the same old ineptly shallow and intellectually throttled arguments that have long since been defeated. Disappointing.

Annie

Posted: July 10, 2008 12:28 AM

I spent some time talking about God on an athiests board. God is their favorite subject. I did learn that there are some topics which seem to hit a nerve with athiests. One of those topics is the Flood of Noah. This sets them into an unreasonable rage, to the degree that I wondered WHY. You can definitely push their buttons with that subject. I came to the conclusion that their irrational reaction was actually proof of sorts. I have a theory that they react to this story because it is one of judgment. God's judgment on evil people who denied God. So that's one thing I noticed about athiests. Another thing I noticed is they demand proof of God on THEIR terms. But this is not a logical way to approach it. If God is... GOD... then we need to ask for proof on God's terms, not our own. I don't think athiests are even WILLING to acknowledge God could be GOD. Which is proof of how objective they aren't.

Thomas Branson

Posted: July 09, 2008 1:48 PM

"Fine tuning" is a question-begging misnomer. It is accurate to say "If certain constants and quantities of the universe were different from what they are, then there would be no life as we know it." But calling this "tuning" is completely inappropriate. Nobody has demonstrated that these constants and quantities could be any different from what they are. If there can be no variation, then then there is no need for an explanation for variation. Both the intelligent tuner and mulitiverse hypotheses thus become worthless. Since Craig, like others, has failed to show that the constants could vary, his "God is probably the fine tuner" argument is totally bankruput. If some things in the universe were different, then other things would be different. Duh! But, if those things cannot be different, who cares? No legitimate argument for God can come out of this.

Reg D

Posted: July 09, 2008 8:12 AM

Mr re:napinski, you are confused between the so-called laws of thought, and the laws of logic. The "law of causality", otherwise known as the principle of sufficient reason, is not part of classical logic, therefore its very applicability is highly questionable. You are also confused between reasons and causes, the principle as originally formulated does not specify whether the necessary explanation be causal or merely reasonable. Also the finitude or infinitude of the universe is irrelevant, its mere existence is enough to generate the question (assuming the principle is valid). And finally the idea that the cause or reason need be greater than the effect is not part of the principle.

Christensen of Missouri

Posted: July 09, 2008 2:53 AM

The atheist is left with the inference that existence, life, mind, and reason itself are the product of mindless forces. Claims that they simply have a "lack of belief" simply evade this observation; and the fact that the inference is itself as absurd as any claim they pretend to have a basis for criticizing. If you disagree, I await the demonstration that existence, life, mind and reason are the product of mindless forces...the answer that we can't do it yet but will "someday" does not count, except as an atheist version of faith. I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Married to atheist

Posted: July 08, 2008 4:47 PM

[Commenter J Stockwell, you are right on that the rise of the anti-religion movement is at least in part the result of Christian attempts to refute evolution in public schools. Christians' unwillingness to accept evolution as a scientific reality makes atheists' work so much easier for them.] As a Christian married to an atheist, I read these arguments with the hope they would present something new. However, I was disappointed. These are arguments I learned back in Intro to Philosophy class. Perhaps Craig's book is more meaty. The atheists I know reject belief in God for two simple reasons: 1. lack of empirical evidence for God and 2. what they see as ridiculous God-talk by Christians (i.e., "I was praying and God just told me blah blah blah). No intellectual argument in the world is going to change their minds, only a personal experience of Jesus.

Re:naspinski

Posted: July 08, 2008 2:23 PM

Before discussing logic (are claiming that someone else's logic is flawed) know the basics of logic. In the first lecture of almost every "beginning philosophy" course of study, one learns the 4 laws of formal logic (law of: non-contradiction; identity; excluded middle; and causality). The last of the 4 laws (i.e. the law of causality) states that for every finite effect, there is a cause equal to or greater than the effect. Is the Universe finite? Yes, then the law of causality applies (This is why the Universe being eternal or not eternal is critcial issue). Simple question is a burrito equal to or greater than the universe? Obviously no. Therefore, if the Universe is finite it has a cause and that cause must be equal to or greater than the Universe.

ammonius

Posted: July 08, 2008 8:27 AM

I was disappointed with the arguments laid out. Nothing but undergrad "Philosophy of Religion" stuff. The thinkers do nothing to contradict Nietzsche (as the title suggests). Nietzsche's position, succinctly is that God is a "bad idea", that the idea of God doesn't explain anything. To merely call the "cause" or "explanation" of something "God" doesn't mean anything. Morally, for Nietzsche, "God" is a harmful concept, because it says that "Man can not go beyond Man". That to transcend humanity in Christianity means to "live forever in heaven" but die on Earth. Nietzsche thus sees the idea of (the Christian) God anti-life, anti-change, anti-development. I think it is a different argument than the "New Atheists", and it has never really been addressed, as far as I know, though it is often dismissed. I'm still looking for theological argument that isn't rooted in some form of the classical arguments for God as an ontological explanatory substance ("Cause", "Being" etc.)

KY_Prof

Posted: July 07, 2008 12:04 PM


Believe me, you do NOT want a flying monkey. Way more trouble than fun. As regards the article, nothing more than spurious arguments and special pleadings. So far, nothing new.

John Stockwell

Posted: July 07, 2008 10:52 AM

This article is informative to a degree, but it fails to address the real issue, that being to answer the question "Why are there hard-hitting academic anti-religionists in the first place?" That answer is that the current anti-relgion movement is directly a result of the attempts to inject religious dogma into public education, these attempts usually take the form of "anti-evolution" arguments. The second question that is not addressed by this article is " If arguments that purport to rationally prove the existence of God, why are Dawkins, Hitchens, and other vocal atheists successful in their anti-religious argumentation?" The answer to this question, I believe, is that these arguments are by no means airtight. In each case, either the notion of God, a property of the universe, or a naive notion of causality is presupposed and glossed over without proper analysis in the light of modern scientific results.

Eazy E

Posted: July 07, 2008 12:41 AM


Fantastic article. philipthegreat, Dawkins' literature is horrible. We both know your statement is a lie.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment