Catholics and William Lane Craig

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

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.

I’m not worried about the Big Bang being disproven tomorrow. There is more proof for that than there is for evolution.

Likewise, there is more indication of intelligent design than there is of blind chance.

These philosophical notions should be embraced, not because they are required for faith, but because they supplement faith. The truths of science cannot overturn the truths of religion. They never have and they never will. Only a “challenged” intellect believes that evolution disproves the existence of God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

These philosophical notions should be embraced, not because they are required for faith, but because they supplement faith. The truths of science cannot overturn the truths of religion. They never have and they never will. Only a “challenged” intellect believes that evolution disproves the existence of God.

If one has the kind of faith you are implying than I don’t see any need for intelligent design proofs. The fact is, people look to these arguments for evidence, not simply as an icing on the cake of an already strong and vibrant faith, but rather as a life raft to a faith that is crumbling under the weight of what appears to be evidence against Gods existence.

Only a “challenged” intellect believes that evolution disproves the existence of God.

Deceptions, how things appear, can be very powerful, effectively crippling the minds of very intelligent people. I don’t think a lack of intelligence is the root cause of atheism or doubt. The fact is, evolution can appear to be contrary to the idea of a loving God or even the teachings of scripture or dogma; like the problem of evil. Some people, for some reason, find away out of the dilemma. I am beginning to have the feeling that it would not be wise to boast as to why I can see, but others can’t.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

MindOverMatter

I’m not worried about the Big Bang being disproven tomorrow. There is more proof for that than there is for evolution.

Likewise, there is more indication of intelligent design than there is of blind chance.

These philosophical notions should be embraced, not because they are required for faith, but because they supplement faith. The truths of science cannot overturn the truths of religion. They never have and they never will. Only a “challenged” intellect believes that evolution disproves the existence of God.

I doubt the basics of what happen after the Planck epoch (that would be the first 10 to the power of -43 seconds after the Big Bang) will change much, but that tiny fraction of a second known as the Planck epoch is the big unknown. That’s the period where we try to figure out what CAUSED the Big Bang, and it’s where atheist leaning scientists come up with all kinds of speculations on quantum vacuum fluctuations and chaotic eternal inflation and a dozen other wild hunches. And it’s also where guys like Craig try to argue that it was an act of God that started the Big Bang, not an act of God in the sense that all events are within the Providence of God’s plan, but instead that it was a direct intervention by God to start the universe off. This is where he goes a bridge too far, the Big Bang MAY have been a real genuine ex nihilo act of God, or it may not have. God’s Providence may have included the Big Bang as part of a “natural” chain of events. That’s the problem with some of Craig’s arguments, some one will read his arguments and think “I know there is a God because God explains the Big Bang”, and then they’ll find out that maybe it really is a possibility that some natural means “lit the fuse” for the Bing Bang, and now their faith, which was resting on this tenuous Big Bang “proof” gets undermined.

 

[JDaniel]

I doubt the basics of what happen after the Planck epoch (that would be the first 10 to the power of -43 seconds after the Big Bang) will change much, but that tiny fraction of a second known as the Planck epoch is the big unknown. That’s the period where we try to figure out what CAUSED the Big Bang, and it’s where atheist leaning scientists come up with all kinds of speculations on quantum vacuum fluctuations and chaotic eternal inflation and a dozen other wild hunches. And it’s also where guys like Craig try to argue that it was an act of God that started the Big Bang, not an act of God in the sense that all events are within the Providence of God’s plan, but instead that it was a direct intervention by God to start the universe off. This is where he goes a bridge too far, the Big Bang MAY have been a real genuine ex nihilo act of God, or it may not have. God’s Providence may have included the Big Bang as part of a “natural” chain of events. That’s the problem with some of Craig’s arguments, some one will read his arguments and think “I know there is a God because God explains the Big Bang”, and then they’ll find out that maybe it really is a possibility that some natural means “lit the fuse” for the Bing Bang, and now their faith, which was resting on this tenuous Big Bang “proof” gets undermined.

Amigo:

The Catholic Church is quite clear on the notion of a Creation, by a Creator God. In fact, it is even suggested, as I have described several times, elsewhere in these forums, that it took an immense amount of God’s power to initiate such a Creation. One can envision that the Big Bang’s beginning was sequential, yet outside of time. Remember, God creates (the present tense is being used because we’re still in it) the universe in an Eternal Now. After the Planck epoch, matter/energy (whatever!) simply continued its inexorable roll-out (expansion). However, your point is well taken and no doubt has been a matter of much consternation for many.

God bless,
jd

 

[CTuck]

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”.

Hello, please don’t be hostile, I would just like to correct you on one or two points, with all due respect. The Church does not claim it’s authority to speak dogmatically stems from a dogmatic statement concerning its authority to do so. This would indeed be a circular reasoning. Yet, what the Church does claim is actually linear - Christ, being God, has given authority to the Church to speak infallibly concerning faith and morals. No one can attain authority by their own means, it must be given to them by a higher authority.

 

[CTuck]

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”.

 

[CTuck]

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”.

Hello, please don’t be hostile, I would just like to correct you on one or two points, with all due respect. The Church does not claim that her authority to speak dogmatically stems from a dogmatic statement concerning her authority. This would indeed be a circular reasoning. Logic says that no one can attain authority by their own means, it must be given to them by a higher authority. Yet, what the Church does claim is actually linear - Christ, being God, has given authority to the Church to speak infallibly concerning faith and morals.

 

[Spock]

Yet, what the Church does claim is actually linear - Christ, being God, has given authority to the Church to speak infallibly concerning faith and morals.

And how do we know this? You guessed it, from the Bible, which was put together by the church, selecting some ancient writs to be included and others to be discarded. How do we know that the Bible is “inerrant”? You guessed, the church asserts that. Oh, it is a nice circular argument, all right. The church asserts that the Bible is correct, and the Bible says that the chruch received its authority from Jesus. It does not get any more circular than that.

 

[Hastrman]

And how do we know this? You guessed it, from the Bible, which was put together by the church, selecting some ancient writs to be included and others to be discarded. How do we know that the Bible is “inerrant”? You guessed, the church asserts that. Oh, it is a nice circular argument, all right. The church asserts that the Bible is correct, and the Bible says that the chruch received its authority from Jesus. It does not get any more circular than that.

Oh god, stop, you’re killing me.

The Church was spread by word of mouth, by human beings, for decades before the bible. People accepted the Church’s authority based on the consonance of the message of the Messiah to their own beliefs about morals and the cosmos. Then it certified certain writings as authentic to its own tradition.

The Church only uses the Bible to assert its own authority—when nobody accepted that collection of Jewish folklore and memoirs in bad Greek except on its say-so—when dealing with Protestants. They, you will recall, bizarrely chose to take the thing they only ever accepted because of the Church, for a weapon against the Church. It is a circular argument in any other context, but it’s only properly made in the context of an argument already circular.

Do you really think the early Christians, who could go toe to toe with Neoplatonists and Peripatetics, would try to use a thing they imposed by authority, to justify the authority they imposed it by? These guys were Romans, they had more words for “authority” than we have for “thief”. Any slave in a market would’ve picked holes in that argument.

 

[Spock]

Oh god, stop, you’re killing me.

I am not god.

The Church was spread by word of mouth, by human beings, for decades before the bible. People accepted the Church’s authority based on the consonance of the message of the Messiah to their own beliefs about morals and the cosmos. Then it certified certain writings as authentic to its own tradition.

Well, in this case you redupiate the Bible, and stick to the “sacred tradition”. In this case it certainly is a “self-authentication”.

 

[The_Exodus]

A claim remains a claim, regardless of the fact that someone accepts it to be true.

spock:

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.

The Church does proclaim itself an authority. This does not make it an authority, obviously. But neither does it make it not an authority.

If the Church really were an authority, this is what one would expect. You can believe that claim or not, but your belief really has nothing to do with the truth of the claim as such. See your line that I quoted at the beginning of my post.

spock:

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?

Dogmatic theology is a field of study, you know. And many scholars have gone about drawing up such lists. I can think of the Denzinger (a book with statements from Pope’s, Bulls, etc.) and Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book, the outline of which can be found here:

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

The Church claims to be a messenger of God. It does not “make up” the truth. It hands on what it has received. As an institution, it may not even be aware of specific “proofs” for God’s existence, for instance, but that does not mean that such do not exist. The Church merely hands on what it has been given to hand on.

 

[Spock]

The Church does proclaim itself an authority. This does not make it an authority, obviously. But neither does it make it not an authority.

Impeccably correct. An authority is someone who can demonstrate what it says is correct.

If the Church really were an authority, this is what one would expect. You can believe that claim or not, but your belief really has nothing to do with the truth of the claim as such. See your line that I quoted at the beginning of my post.

No doubt again. That is what I said, and what you quoted. Just because someone accepts a claim, it does not make that claim correct. Let’s not forget where this all started. I was referring to the dogma, that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, using only rational means. Yet, this claim is not substantiated in the cathecism, making it a Bare Assertion. I was pointing out that this omission makes the claim dubious and irrelevant.

Dogmatic theology is a field of study, you know. And many scholars have gone about drawing up such lists. I can think of the Denzinger (a book with statements from Pope’s, Bulls, etc.) and Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book, the outline of which can be found here:

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

Yes, thank you. I am familiar with those lists, and find them fascinating. Of course, the question arises: “why does the church not compile an inclusive list, so there would be no confusion?”. After all dogmas cannot be rejected, once they are offered. It is possible to add new ones, but not to discard one.

The Church claims to be a messenger of God. It does not “make up” the truth. It hands on what it has received.

Claims, again. Why should anyone consider a simple claim, without anything to support it? Where is the support? The Bible was put together by the church. The sacred tradition is part of the church. God does not speak on behalf of the church. We are stuck again with the church asserting that the church is the authority.

As an institution, it may not even be aware of specific “proofs” for God’s existence, for instance, but that does not mean that such do not exist. The Church merely hands on what it has been given to hand on.

If the institution is not aware of a specific proof, it is not in the position to make a claim that such proof exists. Of course, the church has all the theologians at its disposal, and if all those brilliant theologians cannot come up with a specific proof, then it is the only reasonable assumption that such proof does not exist. After all they all have a vested interest to spread the word as wide as possible, as convincingly as possible, to convert the most people to their faith. Sounds very reasonable, don’t you think?

 

[commoncents]

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”.

Am I misinterpreting this or are you basically saying that logical arguments for the existence of God have no place in religion?

 

[commoncents]

It’s because Catholics don’t feel you need to “prove” God through logical arguments or, even worse, “science” like Intelligent Design

looks like I got my answer. So Catholics are just supposed to believe because thats what their parents told them to do? Maybe just a gut feeling?

 

[davidv]

looks like I got my answer. So Catholics are just supposed to believe because thats what their parents told them to do? Maybe just a gut feeling?

You are supposed to believe it because it is true.

That your parents told it to you does not make it less true.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

looks like I got my answer. So Catholics are just supposed to believe because thats what their parents told them to do? Maybe just a gut feeling?

I’m guessing you’re not Catholic.

People have believed in God for thousands of years without elaborate deductive arguments that are suppose to “prove” there is a God with their “therefore, there is a God” conclusion to the earlier premises.

Instead, the belief in God could be considered innate, do you think the Israelites or early Christians, or Saint Augustine needed an argument for God starting from the premise of the Big Bang to believe there is indeed a God?

I feel abstract philosophical arguments for the existence of God should be merely intellectual exercises, not anything that is necessary for belief. Like the great mathematician Kurt Gödel who constructed his own Ontological Argument for the existence of God, yet considered it more of an intellectual endeavor than something religious.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Craig doesn’t do anything Aquinas didn’t do before him. So if you are going to criticize Craig for trying to provide an intellectual foundation for faith, go after Aquinas and all the others too. That certainly is not the traditional Catholic view.

Craig can be most helpful in providing answers to those who would use intellect to bash the teachings of the Church, people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, whom Craig has debated in public forums. The only thing I find disconcerting about Craig is that with his great intellect and learning, he has not some time ago found his way into the Catholic Church.

youtube.com/watch?v=RuCT0aQ-uPI&feature=related

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Craig doesn’t do anything Aquinas didn’t do before him. So if you are going to criticize Craig for trying to provide an intellectual foundation for faith, go after Aquinas and all the others too. That certainly is not the traditional Catholic view.

Craig can be most helpful in providing answers to those who would use intellect to bash the teachings of the Church, people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, whom Craig has debated in public forums. The only thing I find disconcerting about Craig is that with his great intellect and learning, he has not some time ago found his way into the Catholic Church.

youtube.com/watch?v=RuCT0aQ-uPI&feature=related

Not fair, showing a YouTube of Craig slapping around the loathsome Christopher Hitchens. He does look good there.

 

[The_Exodus]

spock:

Impeccably correct. An authority is someone who can demonstrate what it says is correct.

This isn’t necessarily the case. I can be an authority and tell you all about the run in I had the other night with the theif, etc. I may not be able to demonstrate my claim to you though.

spock:

No doubt again. That is what I said, and what you quoted. Just because someone accepts a claim, it does not make that claim correct. Let’s not forget where this all started. I was referring to the dogma, that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, using only rational means. Yet, this claim is not substantiated in the cathecism, making it a Bare Assertion. I was pointing out that this omission makes the claim dubious and irrelevant.

The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, since the Church claims itself as an authority. She gives truth through that role, not through some sort of scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, demonstration, etc.

Of course, what she says are assertions. You can call them “Bare” if you like, but it doesn’t make the claim dubious or irrelevant in itself, unless you bring a particular bias to the table - which you have every right to do. I am only saying that you bias does not make the authority of the Church dubious or irrelevant, just like if you had a bias toward’s my account of the theif, it would not therefore make my account dubious, fallacious, etc.

spock:

Why should anyone consider a simple claim, without anything to support it?

Because they believe in the divine authority of the Church. Everyone believes things based on authority; there is nothing inherently wrong with it. You believe that the sun is 92 million miles away from the earth from some scientific authority you put trust in. I believe in Catholic teaching because I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.

spock:

If the institution is not aware of a specific proof, it is not in the position to make a claim that such proof exists.

Why not? The Church doesn’t make up her own truth, but passes on what is handed to her from God. Thus, even if the Church did not know of a “specific proof,” it doesn’t therefore follow that there isn’t one, and thus that it would be true to teach that the mind can know God’s existence by reason. If I was told by God that there was a ton of gold in the middle of Kansas, and he told me to pass that truth along, I would be obligated, even if I had never seen the gold myself, to pass along the message.

But, I do think many proofs have been laid down which show that God exists. Simply because they do not compel your subjective reason does not make them untrue or bad reasons.

As a matter of fact, if I am skeptical enough, I do not think you could even “demonstrate” to me that you exist, if I required utmost subjective certainty. What does it even mean to “prove” or “demonstrate”? Does it mean that I have to convince you of the truth of my claim? Obviously, in the case of myself and the theif, I may give true and good reasons, though you may not find them compelling, nor think that I have “demonstrated” my claim. Perhaps if we cleared up these terms we could reach a better understanding.

 

[Spock]

As a matter of fact, if I am skeptical enough, I do not think you could even “demonstrate” to me that you exist, if I required utmost subjective certainty. What does it even mean to “prove” or “demonstrate”? Does it mean that I have to convince you of the truth of my claim? Obviously, in the case of myself and the theif, I may give true and good reasons, though you may not find them compelling, nor think that I have “demonstrated” my claim. Perhaps if we cleared up these terms we could reach a better understanding.

Actually, this is the crux of the matter. What does it mean to prove, substantiate or demonstrate the veracity of a claim? It is not too hard to define these concepts in a general fashion. They mean that the person, who was skeptical about the claim has no more rational reason to reject it, once the demonstration is over.

Using you example of the thief, if someone had captured the incident on tape, it would be much more compelling then to rely on word alone. Not all claims carry the same burden in order to be sufficiently substantiated. Here are a few pointers to consider:

1. If a claim is not about some important issue, one can take less compelling arguments. If the claim is about some very important issue, the arguments must be very compelling.
2. If there is only testimonial substantiation, one must consider the relability of the witness.
3. One must consider the if the claim is about a probable event, or very improbable. The more imporable a claim is, the more evidence is required.

Using again your example:

1. Catching a thief is not a very important issue for someone who is not involved.
2. I would have no reason to doubt your word.
3. Unfortunately, break-ins are frequent. So there is nothing unbelievable about them.

Based upon these, I would accept your claim.

Suppose you said that the thief was the Queen of England, in her full royal regalia. Obviously, your word alone would not be sufficient, even if you could support it with a video tape. I would reject your word for it, unless some really substantial evidence would support it.

But, I do think many proofs have been laid down which show that God exists. Simply because they do not compel your subjective reason does not make them untrue or bad reasons.

Correct. However, they are not compelling to anyone who started out as a skeptic. Only believers find them adequate.