Catholics and William Lane Craig

[ronnie_bonigli]

I see some Catholics here on the forum who seem to have really taken to the writings and arguments of the Evangelical William Lane Craig. I read some of his work a few years ago and it’s easy to spot someone echoing his arguments. I think it’s a mistake. I know years back when I read Craig and some of the other Evangelical apologists it actually damaged my faith. Religion is not “proving” there is a God, religion is not forming deductive arguments that end with “therefore, there is a God”. Not only does it have nothing to do communing with God, or faith, bringing your will into union with the will of God, or anything else that IS considered part the religious life, but the arguments themselves are open to charges that they are flawed. The Evangelicals want to turn belief in God into a type of science or philosophical argument, where you simple get “faith” through reading through some deductive arguments or through the “science” of Intelligent Design. I’m pretty sure if a Craig ever met a Teresa of Avila or a John of the Cross and explained to them that there must be a God because of the Kalam argument, they’d probably look at him and say “I guess that’s interesting, of course I already know there is a God, excuse me now while I get back to my contemplation”.

 

[Pieman333272]

I see some Catholics here on the forum who seem to have really taken to the writings and arguments of the Evangelical William Lane Craig. I read some of his work a few years ago and it’s easy to spot someone echoing his arguments. I think it’s a mistake. I know years back when I read Craig and some of the other Evangelical apologists it actually damaged my faith. Religion is not “proving” there is a God, religion is not forming deductive arguments that end with “therefore, there is a God”. Not only does it have nothing to do communing with God, or faith, bringing your will into union with the will of God, or anything else that IS considered part the religious life, but the arguments themselves are open to charges that they are flawed. The Evangelicals want to turn belief in God into a type of science or philosophical argument, where you simple get “faith” through reading through some deductive arguments or through the “science” of Intelligent Design. I’m pretty sure if a Craig ever met a Teresa of Avila or a John of the Cross and explained to them that there must be a God because of the Kalam argument, they’d probably look at him and say “I guess that’s interesting, of course I already know there is a God, excuse me now while I get back to my contemplation”.

He doesn’t argue for intellectualized faith, he argues for faith founded in both reason and emotion - just as Aquinas did.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

He doesn’t argue for intellectualized faith, he argues for faith founded in both reason and emotion - just as Aquinas did.

Please tell me you’re NOT comparing him to Aquinas?

And with Aquinas faith came first, the five ways were just intellectual validation of what you already know through faith. With Craig and some of the others, God is the end of a deductive argument, which is suppose to lead to faith. That’s the way I’ve read him anyway.

I think there’s a reason there are no Catholic William Lane Craigs (or any of the other Evangelical apologists). It’s because Catholics don’t feel you need to “prove” God through logical arguments or, even worse, “science” like Intelligent Design

 

[Pieman333272]

Please tell me you’re NOT comparing him to Aquinas?

And with Aquinas faith came first, the five ways were just intellectual validation of what you already know through faith. With Craig and some of the others, God is the end of a deductive argument, which is suppose to lead to faith. That’s the way I’ve read him anyway.

Well, IMO Aquinas is better (as you agree). But Craig is like him in that he wants to show how the evidence points to God’s existence as much as faith does. He doesn’t want to reduce Christianity to a deductive, Hume-proof argument, he wants to show how faith is reasonable and intellectually true. Really, this objection - that he’s intellectualizing the faith - can be applied to all major apologists.

 

[buffalo]

Craig does a service when he debates atheists and conclusively shows their beliefs and claims are completely bankrupt.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, IMO Aquinas is better (as you agree). But Craig is like him in that he wants to show how the evidence points to God’s existence as much as faith does. He doesn’t want to reduce Christianity to a deductive, Hume-proof argument, he wants to show how faith is reasonable and intellectually true. Really, this objection - that he’s intellectualizing the faith - can be applied to all major apologists.

I think you can show that what we know through modern science is very consistent with the traditional western view of a creator God, my favorite Catholic “apologist” Stephen Barr takes this route. But I feel the Craigs of the Evangelical world are too triumphalist in their approach. It seems to cheapen faith and has little to do with real religion.

 

[Windfish]

I think you can show that what we know through modern science is very consistent with the traditional western view of a creator God, my favorite Catholic “apologist” Stephen Barr takes this route. But I feel the Craigs of the Evangelical world are too triumphalist in their approach. It seems to cheapen faith and has little to do with real religion.

I think I know where are you coming from. Bear in mind, though, when Craig publishes books and speaks at lectures and debates, he is first and foremost in an academic train of mind. He is a philosopher engaging in philosophical debate. He is not trying to be a Christian spiritual leader (i.e., a saint) in such venues.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I think I know where are you coming from. Bear in mind, though, when Craig publishes books and speaks at lectures and debates, he is first and foremost in an academic train of mind. He is a philosopher engaging in philosophical debate. He is not trying to be a Christian spiritual leader (i.e., a saint) in such venues.

You may be right, and I could be making more out of this than needs to be made. But still, Craig and a bunch of other Evangelical apologists often seem to be writing for the person who isn’t sure about belief in God, who is a little wobblely faith wise, and trying to argue him through logical arguments into faith. I do think the reason all these guys are Evangelicals and you can’t really find any Catholic apologist taking this route is because Catholics consider faith to be a supernatural gift, not something you reason yourself into. Plus these Evangelicals often take questionable positions as part of their arguments, like relying on Intelligent Design (though Craig is a little more noncommittal on that one), and taking odd positions like arguing that the Bing Bang is proof of God because “whatever begins to exist needs a cause of it’s coming into existence” and yet at the same time they often refuse to take a position on WHEN the Big Bang happened, so as not to take a stance against a young earth position. I just question whether these guys like Craig can end up damaging someone’s faith when people find out their “proofs” are not so watertight afterall.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60:

Pieman333272:

TruthSeeker60:

Pieman333272:

TruthSeeker60:

Pieman333272:

TruthSeeker60:

Pieman333272:

Is it a greater evil to destroy free will or to stop the rapist? I think, actually, the former, but you obviously will disagree.

Outrageous! You think it would be a greater evil for a police officer to interfere with the free will of a rapist rather than to stop the rape! Or you don’t regarding a police officer, but do when the intervention is done by a god (a double-standard).

That’s freedom to act (with the cop), not free will. I realize I misinterpreted the question above, actually, and will answer it again if prompted.

Are there any conventional definitions of the word “good” in which god allowing things such as a child being raped, tortured, and murdered can compatible with being “good”? If not, I rest my case.

I’ll just say, I believe God lets us live as we live (and rarely intervenes to protect us) and will give use justice depending on how we did. The girl will be in paradise, with no pain, and the rapist will be separated from God if he didn’t repent, if not suffering.

You clearly don’t get the point. The point is that allowing any evil act to occur (regardless of whether or not he’ll make amends for things later) is contrary to an all good, powerful, and knowing god.

If god’s going to punish the criminal and reward the victim later, he could do so without allowing a child to be raped, tortured, and murdered?

Why stop it in a finite way, which could further “contradict” his traits, when he can justify it in an infinite way?

You’re saying that stopping a rape is against god’s traits?! A god wouldn’t need to allow a rape to allow someone to go to heaven. An all-powerful being could make people infinitely happy without having to give infinite happiness as satisfaction for rape (or torture, murder, etc.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think there’s a reason there are no Catholic William Lane Craigs (or any of the other Evangelical apologists). It’s because Catholics don’t feel you need to “prove” God through logical arguments or, even worse, “science” like Intelligent Design

That God can be proven to “exist” through the light of human reason alone is a core teaching of the Catholic Church. If you disprove that principle teaching, you disprove the Catholic faith, or at least the authority of the catholic faith in matters of truth. We are not “fideists”.

There are plenty of people of different faith who just “know” that their faith is correct. I respect a faith that is open to the test of philosophical argument and evidence.

My only problem with William lane Craig is that he uses scientific arguments, which are philosophical inferences based on scientific knowledge. The problem with scientific arguments such as these is that they are based on the shifting sands of scientific theories. The big-bang theory doesn’t do anyone’s faith any good if it gets dis-proven tomorrow. Thus it is not a good idea to base ones faith on such arguments. But neither is it reasonable to believe something blindly.

 

[JDaniel]

I see some Catholics here on the forum who seem to have really taken to the writings and arguments of the Evangelical William Lane Craig. I read some of his work a few years ago and it’s easy to spot someone echoing his arguments. I think it’s a mistake. I know years back when I read Craig and some of the other Evangelical apologists it actually damaged my faith.

Fortunately for me, I suppose, I have not read any Craig, yet.

Religion is not “proving” there is a God, religion is not forming deductive arguments that end with “therefore, there is a God”.

Actually, I rather don’t think Saint Thomas would have spent all that time building a Summa based on so much philosophy had reason not been as important as Faith to him. Also, his usual philosophical argument was inductive rather than deductive. He employed a dialectic which resulted in an inductive conclusion that, as you have no doubt seen herein, often drives some to anger.

Not only does it have nothing to do communing with God,

On the contrary. I believe it can bring maximum communion with God, providing a proper dialectic is employed.

or faith, bringing your will into union with the will of God, or anything else that IS considered part the religious life,

I must disagree with you here.

but the arguments themselves are open to charges that they are flawed.

That is the test of validity. I welcome the challenges of such charges.

The Evangelicals want to turn belief in God into a type of science or philosophical argument, where you simple get “faith” through reading through some deductive arguments or through the “science” of Intelligent Design. I’m pretty sure if a Craig ever met a Teresa of Avila or a John of the Cross and explained to them that there must be a God because of the Kalam argument, they’d probably look at him and say “I guess that’s interesting, of course I already know there is a God, excuse me now while I get back to my contemplation”.

That’s probably true, for the most part. But, St. John of the Cross was into a different form of the “study” of God, but one that was, nevertheless, philosophical as well. Philosophy as philosophy is not a cesspool of evility. Unfortunately, it has, as a part of its process, the raising of objections. These can often be quite compelling, at times. But, once such objections are overcome, at least to my satisfaction, I find that my Faith is boosted.

God bless,
jd

 

[danserr]

Actually Craig has admitted quite clearly that what is needed is not an intellectual belief in God so much as coming to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. (A typically evangelical thing to say, but no Catholic need object to it). He simply wants to show that there are also good reasons that can support one coming to this relationship.

And God does command us to love him not only with our whole hearts, but our whole “minds.” St. Paul says to be as “wise as serpents” and as gentle as doves. While St. Peter says that we should always be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us to anyone who asks. Besides, the apostles themselves tried to demonstrate God from reason, St. Paul appeals to the heavens and earth as God’s handiwork in Romans.

Reason does not destroy faith, it can help one come to faith. Faith is not simply a mode of knowing, but the commitment of one’s entire being to God. And reason can help push one to make this commitment.

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8018

In this link he deals precisely with your question and says: “One of my concerns about a ministry like mine which focuses on the truth of the Christian worldview and arguments for it is that people may not realize that the Christian faith is not just about having a change of mind and coming to accept a new worldview. It’s about coming into a new relationship and becoming a new person.”

 

[Spock]

That God can be proven to “exist” through the light of human reason alone is a core teaching of the Catholic Church.

This “core teaching of the church” appears in the cathecism (obviously), since the cathecism is the systematic collection of what the church teaches. It “only” misses the proof.

 

[Windfish]

This “core teaching of the church” appears in the cathecism (obviously), since the cathecism is the systematic collection of what the church teaches. It “only” misses the proof.

It is actually a dogma of the Church that God’s existence can be known with certainty through reason. . Which means it’s true. I think it is awesome. I wonder if there is any other organization in the world which makes that kind of declaration. It is ballsy, and I love it.

But as with the other thread, your are intentionally ignoring two crucial points: 1) It is not the Church’s business to declare and articulate proofs. This is something that its theologians and laymen can engage in, but the Church proper, in its authoritative capacity, has no business whatsoever in this area. Why? Because its authority extends only to Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Bible - none of which advances any particular proofs. Actually, I think it’s quite funny, the only time the Bible deals with atheists is to call them fools. Again, ballsy - I love it. 2) The Catechism is systematic, but it is not comprehensive. It does not cover everything.

 

[Spock]

It is actually a dogma of the Church that God’s existence can be known with certainty through reason. . Which means it’s true.

Which means it is claimed to be true. And, as we all know, claims are dime a dozen. Without a proof a claim is not worth the cost of paper it is written on.

But as with the other thread, your are intentionally ignoring two crucial points: 1) It is not the Church’s business to declare and articulate proofs. This is something that its theologians and laymen can engage in, but the Church proper, in its authoritative capacity, has no business whatsoever in this area. Why? Because its authority extends only to Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Bible - none of which advances any particular proofs. Actually, I think it’s quite funny, the only time the Bible deals with atheists is to call them fools. Again, ballsy - I love it.

Ballsy to call someone a fool? Since it is just another empty declaration, it is not particularly convincing, nor it is admirable. It is just another cheap shot.

1. The Catechism is systematic, but it is not comprehensive. It does not cover everything.

To omit the proof for such a basic, important claim is a major flaw. But, hey, it is a dogma! What was that old bumper sticker? “My karma ran over your dogma.”

 

[Windfish]

Which means it is claimed to be true. And, as we all know, claims are dime a dozen. Without a proof a claim is not worth the cost of paper it is written on.

Well, to you it is just a claim. For us, who accept the authority of the Church, it is as true as the birth mark on my nose.

Ballsy to call someone a fool? Since it is just another empty declaration, it is not particularly convincing, nor it is admirable. It is just another cheap shot.

It’s dismissive, and I like it. There is a certain spunk and admirable confidence to it that I am attracted to.

To omit the proof for such a basic, important claim is a major flaw. But, hey, it is a dogma! What was that old bumper sticker? “My karma ran over your dogma.”

Apparently, you missed the part where I told you the Church’s jurisdiction, so to speak, ends at the declaration of the dogma. The Church’s authority does not extend to any particular proof. Such proofs do not constitute the deposit of the faith - therefore, the Church has no business on them.

 

[grannymh]

That God can be proven to “exist” through the light of human reason alone is a core teaching of the Catholic Church. If you disprove that principle teaching, you disprove the Catholic faith, or at least the authority of the catholic faith in matters of truth. We are not “fideists”.

There are plenty of people of different faith who just “know” that their faith is correct. I respect a faith that is open to the test of philosophical argument and evidence.

My only problem with William lane Craig is that he uses scientific arguments, which are philosophical inferences based on scientific knowledge. The problem with scientific arguments such as these is that they are based on the shifting sands of scientific theories. The big-bang theory doesn’t do anyone’s faith any good if it gets dis-proven tomorrow. Thus it is not a good idea to base ones faith on such arguments. But neither is it reasonable to believe something blindly.

I agree about the problem with scientific arguments because “reason” can look beyond natural science to the magnificent beauty of the universe or the smile of a baby in one’s arms.

The beginning of CCC 31 is “Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know Him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God.” Somehow, this seems a softer way of explaining an individual seeking knowledge of God. Speaking from experience, the “also called proofs” can be unreasonable, irrational nonsense; yet they can lead the mind to God which is the proof of the pudding.

 

[Hastrman]

It is de fide that God can be known through the reason; and frankly, I have never known him any other way. Also, to a Christian, worshiping the eternal and unchanging Logos, which is the very intellect of God (see Summa Theologica Prima Pars, Q. 27), it seems odd to deny reason.

As St. Bernard of Clairvaux said, “It ill befits a spouse of the Word to be stupid.”

 

[Spock]

Well, to you it is just a claim. For us, who accept the authority of the Church, it is as true as the birth mark on my nose.

Your position that you accept the claim to be true, does not change the fact that it is just an unsubstantiated claim. A claim remains a claim, regardless of the fact that someone accepts it to be true.

Apparently, you missed the part where I told you the Church’s jurisdiction, so to speak, ends at the declaration of the dogma.

I did not miss that you said it. Is that also a dogma? Are you in the position to declare dogmas?

The church declares that any dogma declared by the church is unquestionably true. Is that also a dogma? Or is it questionable? If it is questionable, then I stand of firm ground - because I am questioning something that is not dogmatic. If it is a dogma, then we have a nice, circular “reasoning” - the church declars dogmatically that anything the church declares dogmatically is “true”. A perfect example of self-proclaimed “authority”. Somehow that is not very convincing to atheists, and not even convincing to other christians.

By the way, is there an unquestionable list of all the dogmas declared by the church? Or putting together such a list is also beyond the church’s jurisdiction?

The Church’s authority does not extend to any particular proof.

Is that also a dogma that the church does not have the authority to prove what it says?

 

[grannymh]

Your position that you accept the claim to be true, does not change the fact that it is just an unsubstantiated claim. A claim remains a claim, regardless of the fact that someone accepts it to be true.

I did not miss that you said it. Is that also a dogma? Are you in the position to declare dogmas?

The church declares that any dogma declared by the church is unquestionably true. Is that also a dogma? Or is it questionable? If it is questionable, then I stand of firm ground - because I am questioning something that is not dogmatic. If it is a dogma, then we have a nice, circular “reasoning” - the church declars dogmatically that anything the church declares dogmatically is “true”. A perfect example of self-proclaimed “authority”. Somehow that is not very convincing to atheists, and not even convincing to other christians.

By the way, is there an unquestionable list of all the dogmas declared by the church? Or putting together such a list is also beyond the church’s jurisdiction?

Is that also a dogma that the church does not have the authority to prove what it says?

Perhaps one is stuck on the word dogma which in my opinion can apply to
H2 0