Friday 27 April 2012

In defence of William Lane Craig


William Lane Craig, or 'Bill' to his mates.

William Lane Craig is a Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. He is best known for his 'Christian apologetics', which has led him into combat with some of the world's most famous atheists and agnostics. However, he has become a much maligned figure in the public eye recently, and I have a few words to say in his defence.

Craig is often mischaracterized, usually by his ideological opponents, so it is necessary to take a few lines to detail what he has actually acheived in philosophy, and what sort of reputation he enjoys. Craig is an important figure in the philosophy of time (check back for more posts on this fascinating subject), where he has made notable contributions to defending ‘presentism’, a theory of time which holds that there is an objective present moment, and that past and future events do not exist. In fact, he has been important in the resurrection of this intuitive but philosophically problematic position, which appeared to have died a death around about about the 1960s. The problems associated with presentism do nothing to discredit Craig’s contribution to the theory, nor his detailed and wide-ranging critical studies of the two major theories of time, the A- and B-theories. (Presentism is a variant on the former).

As far as I am concerned, the above considerations do more than enough to anchor Craig’s position as a prominent figure in academic philosophy. However, when we move to religion, things get a little more hazy. Craig’s early approach to the philosophy of religion was a strictly academic one, and his book ‘The Kalam Cosmological Argument’ is still regarded as a leading work on that particular argument for God’s existence; so far, so good. On paper, Craig is also theologically credible, having studied under two of the most important theologians of the last 100 years - John Hick and Wolfhart Pannenberg. However, more recently, Craig has turned his attention to Christian apologetics, the defense of faith, and as such has come under fire. His ‘pastoral’ mission includes touring the Middle East with followers, writing self-help style books aimed at everyday Christians looking to defend their personal belief, and pursuing an obsessive debating schedule with just about every famous atheist and agnostic academic in existence. In aid of these aims, his promotional machine is a powerful force, pushing such debates in a manner that might be described as a little aggressive. Dawkins et al have taken pains to discredit Craig on these grounds, dismissing him as ‘a theologian’ (a term of abuse in Dawkins’ language), and ‘a professional debater.’
It’s sad that such criticisms conveniently seek to ignore Craig’s well-earned academic credentials, and the startling length of his list of publications (though quantity of work does not, alas, entail quality). Also frequently maligned is Craig’s debating style, which is sharp, sometimes rhetorical and verbally forceful; amusingly, he appears to have learned his lines well, since the content of his opening speech on anything God-related has remained identical for over 30 years (see the vast list of Craig’s videos on youtube). His opponents unfairly level the charge that Craig’s arguments take the form of logical trickery, designed to confuse and obscure to his popular but not intellectual advantage. But this is an easy criticism, and not a very clever one. The arguments Craig presents are just the standard theistic arguments for God’s existence; and the philosophical debates they raise are too lengthy and complex to properly assess here, or indeed in any public-debate environment. This is half the problem with any debate about God’s existence. We should therefore be careful not to confuse style with substance; Craig’s opponents confuse the idea that Craig is deliberately muddying the intellectual waters with obscurantism with the depth of the subject matter Craig introduces in support of his case. Granted, Craig is perhaps ill-advised to rehash one-sided arguments for God as ‘proofs’ for his case in public debates, but the problem is in this style of presentation, not the substance of the arguments themselves, about which there are often lively philosophical arguments to be had. The problem is that the chance of giving proper treatment to such debates in a public forum is slim; but the debates do exist nonetheless, and Craig has a right to raise them in his defence. In light of this, the claim of Andrew Copson, of the British Humanist Association, that Craig's arguments are 'easily refuted' outside public debate is particularly laughable. Copson needs to read some Plantinga.
I think, then, that I would generally defend WLC from his critics. He certainly has some crazy ideas, most often religious, which I could never accept, nor defend - his admission of faith over reason is worrying, as is his bold but unacceptable defense of certain biblical events. But these are propounded in the domain of Christian apologetics, which calls for crazy ideas to defend its often crazy claims! By contrast, in the domain of philosophy proper, Craig deserves respect, and this should also be shown in response to the philosophical arguments he calls upon in debate. Respect for an argument entails fairly engaging in the debate surrounding it, and not writing it off as nonsense before even properly considering it. Far from being a ‘professional debater’ or ‘crackpot theologian’, Craig is a distinguished academic philosopher, and this should not be forgotten in spite of his many unpalatable religious views, or his forthright debating style. Certainly, his philosophy is much more highly regarded by the philosophical community in general than the 'philosophy' of his most famous counterpart, Richard Dawkins; I'd probably echo the letter to Dawkins by philosopher of religion Daniel Came concerning the proposed debate between the two.

17 comments:

  1. He values faith above reason yet tries to prove gods existence? That is not philosophy; to say even if you can't prove god exists, he still exists. Philosophy is the art of questioning and critically analysing beliefs and views, to seek truth through argumentation. Dogmatically standing by a belief in spite of all arguments against is not philosophy. Religion is not philosophy.
    Craig is another theologian who regurgitates old arguments for god that merely establish him as a possibility and not a certainty. Attempting to con a person into belief in god through arguments for possibility is sophism, not philosophy. An exceptional debater no doubt, a philosopher of time perhaps, but certainly no philosopher of religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His arguments in the philosophy of religion should be treated independently of his faith basis. The two, at least in most of his academic philosophy of religion, do not coincide; that is, the arguments he gives stand up to philosophical treatment, and do not rely on faith.

      His theology / apologetics is a different matter, but can be kept separate.

      Delete
    2. What you're basically saying is don't commit ad hominem when criticizing the arguments he poses. I didn't. My only criticism of the arguments he poses was 'old arguments for god that merely establish him as a possibility and not a certainty'. The rest of my criticism was about Craig.

      Delete
    3. No - I didn't mention ad hominem! You said 'He values faith above reason yet tries to prove gods existence? That is not philosophy.' I disagreed. He does good philosophy of religion that isn't tarnished by his faith.

      Delete
    4. He has brought nothing new to the table in regards to philosophy of religion. Merely repackaged ancient arguments for god's existence. You could argue the arguments he uses do not establish god as a certainty and therefore to be used as arguments for certainty in god's existence requires faith.
      But my point was in opposition to your claim he is a philosopher of religion. He uses philosophical arguments, but he himself is not philosophizing - he is trying to prove what he will dogmatically stand by regardless. Ergo, he is not a philosophy of religion.

      Delete
    5. He doesn't claim that the arguments prove God with certainty - he thinks that added together they constitute a strong probabilistic case for God's existence. So he expresses them just like any other arguments about anything else philosophical. He just thinks the case they make is a very good one. And there's nothing wrong with that - it just invites philosophical discussion.

      Whether somebody is a good philosopher of religion has nothing to do with their motivations, just in the quality of their arguments. Craig's own responses to his arguments don't matter - we treat the arguments themselves on their own terms. Whether he himself stands by them if disproven is irrelevant to the question of whether they are good arguments or not.

      Delete
    6. I repeat, he has made no original arguments regarding philosophy. Indeed the arguments he has repackaged should be, are and have been, for hundreds of years, treated without ad hominem.

      I repeat, he is not a philosopher of religion full stop.

      Please tell me, specifically what has he said that has brought you to thinking he is a philosopher of religion?

      Delete
    7. Why don't you read what I wrote?

      1) He is a Professor of Philosophy at a university
      2) He writes in the academic field of philosophy of religion
      3) He has produced hefty and critically acclaimed academic tomes in the philosophy of religion such as the ones I mentioned in the article
      4) He has published many academic articles in philosophy of religion journals.

      There is no debate here - to be a philosopher of religion JUST IS to be active in the field of academic philosophy of religion. And he is. I can't spell it out any clearer. His philosophical reputation, both in Time and in Religion is strong in these fields.

      Delete
    8. If Craig is a philosopher then the majority of priests, rabbis and imams are philosophers as well. They both argue for faith whilst pushing age-old arguments for god's existence (which undermine the point of faith). Such religious men are not regarded as philosophers because they dogmatically stand by their view regardless of the strongest argument. A philosopher stands with the strongest argument. I don't know how much simpler I can make that, there is no debate here, he is not a philosopher of religion.

      The only contribution to philosophy of religion you mentioned in the article is the Kalam cosmological argument, which is of course the cosmological argument repackaged. He has brought nothing new to the table.

      Delete
    9. You've read it, have you?

      Delete
    10. OED:

      a. A lover of wisdom; an expert in or student of philosophy (in various senses); a person skilled or engaged in philosophical inquiry. Formerly also: †a learned person, a scholar (obs.).

      By this definition, Craig is a philosopher. Amusingly, so is Cathal. Perhaps this highlights how ridiculously futile it is to argue about whether someone is or is not a "philosopher", whilst disagreeing as to the definition of that term.

      Delete
    11. There are several definitions here. I don't think Cathal fits any other them, apart from perhaps the first one, which is less a definition and more a literal etymology (they are not the same thing).

      Let's end it here. I personally think it's wrong to rule out a host of arguments for God without properly considering them, but if you think Craig is bad because his arguments are bad, then this applies to the whole of philosophy of religion. Craig is no worse than any other philosopher of religion. I have no wish to argue with the ruling out the entire of philosophy of religion here, as this wasn't what I was defending in the article specifically.

      Delete
  2. Let's be honest, "theologian" is a term of abuse in most of the English speaking word. Theologians are the runts of the academic litter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oi Martin - stop spamming my blog and get back to writing your next stuffy novel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am an agnostic ( an almost theist one ) but I like Craig´s efforts, I got into philosophy mainly after listening to him. thanks for the article. Regards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant to write almost an Atheist one.

      Delete
  5. Are you serious;y saying that this this Kalam one-trick pony merchant who has publicly justified the slaughter of innocent children on the whims of his volcano god, can be regarded as a philosopher of merit?

    Do one, why don't you!

    ReplyDelete

Blog Directory
BLOG DIRECTORY, Submit blog free, Promote Blog, Best directory