Skip to main content

William Lane Craig

Image result for William Lane Craig


William Lane Craig seems to have become the go-to guy for a certain sort of public function.

He's the credentialed theistic philosopher who is up for a debate with the most prominent atheists of our day.

Credentialed? Yes -- he has two PhDs, one in philosophy, one in theology, respectively from the University of Birmingham (1977) and the University of Munich (1984).

Up for debating? Yes: as a high school student he was actually in the all-state (Iowa) debate team and he seems to have honed that craft since. [Is a debate team as an extracurricular activity a midwestern thing? I don't think it's big in the northeast.]

The go-to guy? Yes, he has debated the late Christopher Hitchens as well as the very much with us Sam Harris and Lawrence M. Krauss.

On an internet bulletin board to which I make occasional contributions, someone recently asked what Craig thinks of Immanuel Kant. I was happy to provide the answer. Not very highly.

After all: it was Kant's position that human reason ("pure reason" if you will) cannot get us to a knowledge of the really real. Kant sought to justify that view with a set of "antinomies," that is, of apparently binary statements in which both of the contrary propositions can, it seems, be proven. One of Kant's examples is the binary pair: the world began to exist; the world did not begin to exist. There are decisive seeming arguments to the conclusion that the first statement is necessary AND to the conclusion that the second, a "no" to a beginning, is also necessary. Thus, to Kant's way of thinking, reason is stymied and the question is left open for faith.

Craig reacts to that particular Kantian argument as forcefully as do the atheists he debates. They are certain Kant gave up on reason too readily and so is he. He maintains that Kant's arguments for a necessary beginning are sound, his arguments for the impossibility of a beginning are weak: thus, there is no antinomy. 

Of course Craig is committed to that view as a Thomist.

For my part: I used to have a low opinion of Kant but it has mellowed a bit over the years.

As to the antinomies, I think most of them can be solved by the recognition of an ambiguity: that is, by making a distinction. In this case, I suspect that the answer turns on what a certain former President might consider a distinction over what one's meaning of "is" is.

If the word "universe" (or the word "existence") requires continuity of time and space with the here and now, the totality of that which is in the past of the now, in the now, or in the future from the now, then I suggest the argument for the necessity of a beginning is sound.

But if by "universe" we allow for a multiverse of discontinuous time lines, not overlapping except that some give rise to others at discrete diverging moments (which look like a collapsing star and the emergence of a black hole within one universe, the big bang of another)  then I suggest the argument for the other side of the antinomy is sound. There need have been no beginning of the multiverse: we can with logical consistency posit a "steady state" at that level, which has lasted forever. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak