Who is the Catholic William Lane Craig? And where is he?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Windfish

Guest
I used to be very dismissive of Dr. Craig, but I am ashamed to have ever had that view of him. He is a PHENOMENAL debater, and there is no question, now, that he has single-handedly dismantled and destroyed “new” atheism. It is amazing, really. It has now been over four years since the publication of The God Delusion, and not one sound argument has been advanced AT ALL for atheism. Meanwhile, popular atheists are STILL stumbling trying to understand the theistic arguments, and academic atheists like Roger White, Brad Monton, and Jeffrey Lowder are now DEFENDING theistic arguments. Atheism has been trivialized, now, to just an attitude, a psychological state where one neither believes in God or does not believe in Him - what was once atheism has now become non-theism. The problem, of course, is that attitudes are hard to shake.

Anyway, this brings me to the thread title. Where is the Catholic William Lane Craig? And if there is one, where is he/she? And if there isn’t one, WHY isn’t there one? Maybe we depend too much on the hierarchy?
 
William Lane Craig is a very good debater, and his opponents like Hitchens don’t stand a chance. He’s a very good philosopher in his own right, and has debated very worthy atheists like Quentin Smith, Richard Gale and Antony Flew (who later became a theist, in large part due to Craig).

With that said, Craig’s philosophy is, for the most part, quite un-Catholic. I would describe his philosophy as being generally what is called “theistic personalist”. This includes denying such classical doctrines as divine timelessness, divine immutability, and divine simplicity (this last one in particular being an authoritative teaching of the Church). He also affirms Molinism which, though certainly acceptable for Catholics, is not the traditional way of viewing God’s absolute sovereignty.

Of course, his Kalaam argument doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusions. Saint Bonaventure used Kalaam arguments and still drew conclusions of classical theism. Bl. Duns Scotus also used Kalaam-like arguments, and held to views of time like Craigs, and was able to still affirm divine timelessness and immutability. It’s just that the conclusions Craig draws himself are usually outside of the Catholic philosophical and theological tradition. And of course, his defense of the Resurrection is always great.

I don’t think there is a Catholic equivalent. Dinesh D’Souza is a Catholic who does a lot of Christian apologetics, and debates vocal and public people like Hitchens and Dennett… He’s not a professional philosopher or theologian like Craig though. The only famous guy Catholic Christian apologist/philosopher I can think of is Peter Kreeft. As good and as wonderful as his talks are, however, each of them is on a different level. There are many Catholic philosophers who are just as good as Craig. They are just not as vocal or public and don’t waste their time with people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. I think that this is unfortunate, because even if their arguments are terrible, they are effective in converting others, and Catholics more than anyone else get pulled in.
 
The greatest philosopher and theologian (who is also a Catholic) of the 20th century is, in my opinion, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a Dominican Thomist. I am well aware of Dr. Craig and, while he is quite brilliant, his philosophical underpinnings are not classical and do not stand up to the truly great philosophers of history (e.g. Kant and Hegel and modernity); and his views on God’s nature and salvation are not strictly, in my mind, Biblical. He “fudges” or tries to skirt more difficult passages in Scripture when they do not suit his theology. Lastly, he rejects the traditional Thomistic metaphysics/philosophy of being (if not admittedly, at least as a consequence of some of his arguments.) In my mind, any philosophy which does this, and does not recognize the distinction between
potency and act and posit that God is pure act is, in the final analysis, absurd and not true philosophy (let alone theology).

If you are looking for a great Catholic apology of philosophy and the existence of God, I would suggest Fr. Lagrange’s “God, His Existence and Nature” which appears in two volumes. A word of caution – it is quite advanced, but it is tremendously rich and rewarding. It leads to a deep understanding of Aristotlean/Thomistic metaphysics: the key to understanding the traditional and, in my view, most true notion of God.
 
awatkins69 said:
William Lane Craig is a very good debater, and his opponents like Hitchens don’t stand a chance. He’s a very good philosopher in his own right, and has debated very worthy atheists like Quentin Smith, Richard Gale and Antony Flew (who later became a theist, in large part due to Craig).

With that said, Craig’s philosophy is, for the most part, quite un-Catholic. I would describe his philosophy as being generally what is called “theistic personalist”. This includes denying such classical doctrines as divine timelessness, divine immutability, and divine simplicity (this last one in particular being an authoritative teaching of the Church). He also affirms Molinism which, though certainly acceptable for Catholics, is not the traditional way of viewing God’s absolute sovereignty.

Of course, his Kalaam argument doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusions. Saint Bonaventure used Kalaam arguments and still drew conclusions of classical theism. Bl. Duns Scotus also used Kalaam-like arguments, and held to views of time like Craigs, and was able to still affirm divine timelessness and immutability. It’s just that the conclusions Craig draws himself are usually outside of the Catholic philosophical and theological tradition. And of course, his defense of the Resurrection is always great.

I don’t think there is a Catholic equivalent. Dinesh D’Souza is a Catholic who does a lot of Christian apologetics, and debates vocal and public people like Hitchens and Dennett… He’s not a professional philosopher or theologian like Craig though. The only famous guy Catholic Christian apologist/philosopher I can think of is Peter Kreeft. As good and as wonderful as his talks are, however, each of them is on a different level. There are many Catholic philosophers who are just as good as Craig. They are just not as vocal or public and don’t waste their time with people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. I think that this is unfortunate, because even if their arguments are terrible, they are effective in converting others, and Catholics more than anyone else get pulled in.
Click to expand...
Imagine how much more effective Dr. Craig would be if the richness of Catholic history and teaching were at his disposal!

Aside from his theistic personalism, I think a Catholic would be pretty comfortable listening to his podcasts, reading his books, and watching his appearances. What make s him great is that he is understandable enough to reach a popular level, but he definitely has the goods, unlike our atheist author buddies. He’s the real deal.
 
Windfish said:
Imagine how much more effective Dr. Craig would be if the richness of Catholic history and teaching were at his disposal!

Aside from his theistic personalism, I think a Catholic would be pretty comfortable listening to his podcasts, reading his books, and watching his appearances. What make s him great is that he is understandable enough to reach a popular level, but he definitely has the goods, unlike our atheist author buddies. He’s the real deal.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong. William Lane Craig is a pleasure to read, his debates are brilliant and polished, and he is a very advanced philosopher. All of the debates I’ve actually listened to and read have nothing contrary to Catholic teaching or philosophy, and are very good resources for all Catholics. It’s just the theological conclusions he draws later in his more advanced and scholarly articles, which come out in the professional philosophical journals.
 
awatkins69 said:
Don’t get me wrong. William Lane Craig is a pleasure to read, his debates are brilliant and polished, and he is a very advanced philosopher. All of the debates I’ve actually listened to and read have nothing contrary to Catholic teaching or philosophy, and are very good resources for all Catholics. It’s just the theological conclusions he draws later in his more advanced and scholarly articles, which come out in the professional philosophical journals.
Click to expand...
He has a 15 min podcast dealing with Catholicism, and he is generally very friendly. He only has one objection: he thinks our works are meritorious and that we are saved through works.
 
@Awatkins - have you read Craig’s On Guard? I’m debating if I should buy it for a Protestant friend for Christmas, but have only seen Craig in some debates and read a handful of his articles and Q&A’s on his site, so are far from authoritative on its worth.
 
Windfish said:
He has a 15 min podcast dealing with Catholicism, and he is generally very friendly. He only has one objection: he thinks our works are meritorious and that we are saved through works.
Click to expand...
We are saved through our works, but our works are the result of God’s grace in our lives, and grace is all gift.

Again, if one does not understand or accept Thomistic theology, one will have many misconceptions about traditional Church teaching.
 
The_Exodus said:
We are saved through our works, but our works are the result of God’s grace in our lives, and grace is all gift.

Again, if one does not understand or accept Thomistic theology, one will have many misconceptions about traditional Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he makes that clarification in the podcast, but he still thinks that is salvation through works. I think he may have a point, but I have never really studied salvation theology very much. 😦
 
Windfish said:
Yeah, he makes that clarification in the podcast, but he still thinks that is salvation through works. I think he may have a point, but I have never really studied salvation theology very much. 😦
Click to expand...
Article 1. Whether a man may merit anything from God?
On the contrary, It is written (Jeremiah 31:16): “There is a reward for thy work.” Now a reward means something bestowed by reason of merit. Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God.
 
Pieman333272 said:
@Awatkins - have you read Craig’s On Guard? I’m debating if I should buy it for a Protestant friend for Christmas, but have only seen Craig in some debates and read a handful of his articles and Q&A’s on his site, so are far from authoritative on its worth.
Click to expand...
I have not read the book myself. I’m familiar with the book he co-authored with J.P. Moreland called Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and that’s generally good, maybe with some exception on the Trinitarian theology.

I was looking through *On Guard *a little bit and it seems to be completely fine. Although I haven’t read it, I know Craig is good, and I think you should get it for your friend.
 
The_Exodus said:
The greatest philosopher and theologian (who is also a Catholic) of the 20th century is, in my opinion, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a Dominican Thomist. I am well aware of Dr. Craig and, while he is quite brilliant, his philosophical underpinnings are not classical and do not stand up to the truly great philosophers of history (e.g. Kant and Hegel and modernity); and his views on God’s nature and salvation are not strictly, in my mind, Biblical. He “fudges” or tries to skirt more difficult passages in Scripture when they do not suit his theology. Lastly, he rejects the traditional Thomistic metaphysics/philosophy of being (if not admittedly, at least as a consequence of some of his arguments.) In my mind, any philosophy which does this, and does not recognize the distinction between
potency and act and posit that God is pure act is, in the final analysis, absurd and not true philosophy (let alone theology).

If you are looking for a great Catholic apology of philosophy and the existence of God, I would suggest Fr. Lagrange’s “God, His Existence and Nature” which appears in two volumes. A word of caution – it is quite advanced, but it is tremendously rich and rewarding. It leads to a deep understanding of Aristotlean/Thomistic metaphysics: the key to understanding the traditional and, in my view, most true notion of God.
Click to expand...
I’d like to second that The Exodus. We were given a present of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s 15 volume ‘Liturgical Year’. Every day a treasure of Catholic teaching. Every day a step nearer heaven.
 
awatkins69 said:
He also affirms Molinism which, though certainly acceptable for Catholics, is not the traditional way of viewing God’s absolute sovereignty.
.
Click to expand...
If tradition doesn’t work, and molinism is acceptable, then I would choose molinism.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
If tradition doesn’t work, and molinism is acceptable, then I would choose molinism.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go after him, or anyone for that matter, on his Molinism; I think Thomism does work though.

Overall, I’m more concerned about his denials of divine immutability, divine timelessness, and divine simplicity. Denial of these ideas is contrary to Catholic teaching, as well as being un-Biblical. Theistic personalism goes hand-in-hand with the sort of interpretation of Scripture given by most Evangelicals (though not all).

This shouldn’t be a problem for most people though, unless they read his scholarly papers on those things. The Kalaam argument itself can be used to get the classical theistic teaching. Like I said, in all of his debates that I’ve read or listened to there is nothing heretical. His defense of the Resurrection is quite welcome, and his “minimal-facts” approach works marvelously in my opinion. His views on the Trinity and Christology are heretical however, and he tends to explicitly deny Church Councils when it suits him.

With all that said, I hope nobody is getting a real negative view of Craig from my part! I truly think he is a good philosopher and one of the most effective and worthy Christian apologists around.

To get back on point, I think the OP would like Edward Feser and his blog. He engages the new atheists, though he’s not as famous as Craig. His theology is perfectly orthodox Catholic. He is a Thomist, making his philosophy acceptable within the Church. Very importantly, he engages with modern analytic philosophy. So he’s got all the pluses of Craig, with some bonuses, except he’s just not as famous. His blog is very fun to read; though the comments range from insightful to entertaining. I would very much recommend keeping up with it.
 
I’ve read some of William Lane Craig’s work and he makes the same mistake that C.S. Lewis used to make, trying to make the Faith a conclusion of a logical argument. You can not logically “prove” God, and when people put to much “faith” in that kind of “religion” there end up losing Faith when some holes seem to appear in some of those “proofs”. Like Lane’s Kalam cosmological argument, and his argument form the Big Bang to a creator, the initial “proofs” start to look not so infallible on further scrutiny, then that “faith”, which was losely based on logical arguments starts to get wobbly. It’s the same problem that people end up with in the biological “intellegent design” arguments, once they see the problems in the arguments their tenuous faith can be shattered.

I’m pretty sure if someone had giving some of Craig’s arguments to a Teresa of Avila or a John of the Cross they would have responded that “I guess that’s kind of interesting, though it sure isn’t religion. And of course I already knew there is a God, because I’ve experienced Him directly”.

Now that’s real religion
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I’ve read some of William Lane Craig’s work and he makes the same mistake that C.S. Lewis used to make, trying to make the Faith a conclusion of a logical argument. You can not logically “prove” God,
Click to expand...
Yes you can, since God has to exist in order for rational truth to be possible. The only way you can doubt Gods existence is by denying that the act of reality or being is intrinsically logical. However, it is evident that the act of being is intrinsically logical, and thus gods existence follows necessarily as being the foundation of logical truth.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Yes you can, since God has to exist in order for rational truth to be possible. The only way you can doubt Gods existence is by denying that the act of reality or being is intrinsically logical. However, it is evident that the act of being is intrinsically logical, and thus gods existence follows necessarily as being the foundation of logical truth.
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way, when a guy starts an argument with the fact of the Big Bang and concludes with the words “therefore, there must be a creator”, he’s shown too much hubris in his argument. A little humility along the lines of “the Big Bang kind of looks like a creation event” would be more in order. That’s why for my money Stephen Barr is a much better apologist than Craig (as well as a Catholic). He just shows how much of what we know from modern science points in the direction of a creator and a human soul rather than stating that his arguments are “proofs”. His book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (see link to Amazon) is a much much better book than Craig’s Reasonable Faith.

Highly recommended!
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Let me put it this way, when a guy starts an argument with the fact of the Big Bang and concludes with the words “therefore, there must be a creator”, he’s shown too much hubris in his argument. A little humility along the lines of “the Big Bang kind of looks like a creation event” would be more in order. That’s why for my money Stephen Barr is a much better apologist than Craig (as well as a Catholic). He just shows how much of what we know from modern science points in the direction of a creator and a human soul rather than stating that his arguments are “proofs”. His book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (see link to Amazon) is a much much better book than Craig’s Reasonable Faith.

Highly recommended!
Click to expand...
I agree that arguments based on scientific discovery are more a matter of appearances rather than proof and should be presented as probabilistic rather than as certain. A scientific argument can never give us metaphysical certainty regardless of the subject. But I disagree that God cannot be logically proven to exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top