Dr. William Lane Craig is my favorite Christian apologist. I’ve read countless articles he has authored and several of his books, listened to virtually every debate he has participated in as well as his podcasts and Defenders lectures, and even read his weekly Q&A on reasonablefaith.org. I could rightly be called a Craigite, and yet I had never read his signature book, Reasonable Faith, which is now in its third edition.
I finally purchased the book and read through it with slobbering delight. I must confess that having followed Craig for so long, there wasn’t much in the book that I had not encountered before. But that is more of a personal commentary, and does nothing to detract from the wealth of information contained in this book.
Craig begins the book by answering the question, How can one know Christianity is true? After surveying what important past and present thinkers have to say on the matter, Craig adopts a Plantingian-based model in which we can know Christianity is true in virtue of the witness of the Spirit in our hearts. Craig makes an important distinction, however, between how we personally know Christianity to be true, and how we demonstrate to others the truth of Christianity. While the witness of the Holy Spirit is sufficient for the believer to be persuaded of the truth of Christianity, we demonstrate the truth of Christianity to unbelievers through evidence and rational argumentation.
Next Craig turns to existential matters, pointing out what is at stake in the debate over God’s existence. Craig argues that if God does not exist and there is no life beyond the grave, then life is objectively meaningless. While this is not evidence for God’s existence, it does show the unbeliever that if he is to make any sense of his longing for meaning and purpose, he must adopt theism.
After having established what’s at stake in this debate, Craig turns to the topic of God’s existence. This is where Craig shines as a philosopher. He surveys all of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, including the ontological, cosmological, moral, and teleological argument. Most of his attention is directed at the kalam cosmological argument. He wrote one of his doctoral dissertations on this argument, and is credited for reviving this argument in modern times such that it has become the most widely discussed philosophical argument for God’s existence in academia.
Having established the evidence for the existence of a theistic being, Craig turns his attention to establishing the identity of this being as the Christian God. He accomplishes his task by first establishing the legitimacy of miracles, and then by arguing specifically for the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection.
In his discussion of miracles, Craig first tackles the problem of historical knowledge. He argues that historical knowledge is possible, contrary to the hyper-skepticism of some historians. This is crucial to his case because our knowledge of Jesus is entirely historical in nature. If we cannot have historical knowledge, then we are bereft of any reliable information about Jesus, including information about his resurrection.
While many think that science has shown belief in miracles to be absurd, and others think that Hume has undermined the intelligibility of belief in miracles, Craig argues that there are no good reasons to exclude the possibility of miracles a priori. Because Hume’s critique of miracles is so important, Craig spends a great deal of time assessing and dismantling his arguments.
An entire chapter is dedicated to Christ’s self-understanding. Craig does a good job at showing that Jesus did conceive of Himself as the Messiah, and as God’s special son who predicted his death and resurrection.
When Craig finally turns his attention to the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection, his scholarship really shines. After all, Craig’s second PhD was centered on the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, having studied under the great German scholar, Wolfhart Pannenberg. One of the great aspects of this section is that Craig surveys the arguments of apologists from previous centuries. I was quite astonished to learn that so many of the arguments modern apologists make for the historical veracity of Jesus’ resurrection were made by others before us. Craig develops his case for Jesus’ resurrection on three established historical facts – the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith – arguing that the resurrection is the best explanation of these facts. Finally, he interacts with rival hypotheses and demonstrates that none of them have the explanatory power and scope as the resurrection hypothesis.
If you are looking for an intermediate introduction to Christian apologetics – particularly an apologetic for the existence of the Christian God – then Reasonable Faith is the book for you. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
December 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
All religions are a form of mental illness. All religions are based on the supernatural, miracles, magic and myth.
Christians boast about a personal god to whom they pray for intervention but when they cannot explain why a good, true Christian god allows tragedy like the killing of 20 6 year old Connecticut school children despite the prayers, they use the invented phrase “free will” to explain their good God away from an intervention which they otherwise brag about and credit their God with divine suspension of the Laws of Physics to accommodate clergy deceitfulness of ludicrous claims of miracles from an age long past, to keep its adherents in thrall.
There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles. True freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes.
Nietzsche’s razor sharp perceptions make clear the unhealthy aspects of a fabricated belief system that has enslaved the world with its diseases of pity, guilt and revenge. “That contempt has been taught for the primary instincts of life; that a ‘soul’, a ‘spirit’ has been lyingly invented in order to destroy the body; that one teaches that there is something unclean in the precondition of life, sexuality [. . .] denies the very foundations of life.”
. . we find that which has been reverenced as God not ‘godlike’ but pitiable, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life.
— The Anti-Christ 47
These are the blessings of Religion! Parasitism as the sole practice of the church . . . of ‘holiness’ draining away all blood, all love, all hope for life; the Beyond as the will to deny reality of every kind; the Cross as a badge of recognition for the most subterranean conspiracy there has ever been — a conspiracy against health, beauty, well- constitutedness, bravery, intellect, benevolence of soul, against life itself. The mandate and legacy of religion is DEATH. What part of “Know” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
December 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Leonardo,
A form of mental illness? Seriously? How can I take you seriously when you make such foolish, unsubstantiated claims? Even if all religions are based on the supernatural, miracles, magic and myth as you claim (which is false), how does it follow that people believe in religion due to mental illness? Do you really think that the vast majority of all people who have ever lived and are currently living are mentally ill? I doubt it, which tells me that you’re just full of rhetoric and ad hominems. Why don’t you try engaging the rational arguments for a change, including the many rational arguments presented by Craig in his book (which you have conveniently ignored so you can vent your diatribe against religion)?
As for evil, Christians have several explanations for why a good God allows evil. Your argument seems to be that if God intervenes in some situations due to prayer, that He must intervene in all situations. Why should anyone think that is true? God is a free-will agent himself, not a bubble-gum machine that always spits out a piece of gum if you insert a quarter.
How does religion keep the human mind in shackles? Granted, I would agree that false religions can do so, but not a true religion. Since I am persuaded that Christianity and Christianity alone is the true religion, how does Christianity keep the human mind in shackles?
I have to wonder what your religious background is, such that you have such a twisted view of religion. Care to share?
Jason
LikeLike
December 19, 2012 at 9:27 pm
My one critique of Craig’s position regarding the internal witness of the Spirit in the life of a believer is that there are untold myriads of believers who confess faith in God and Christ, but who are not actually indwelt by the Spirit and so, don’t have the internal witness Craig claims exists for them.
So, my question is, what does a non-Spirit filled believer in God and Christ do?
LikeLike
December 19, 2012 at 11:19 pm
The witness of the Spirit is a subjective matter, so it’s not one of those things that a third party can determine whether a person has or not. But as Craig points out, there are clearly people who claim to have a witness of God’s Spirit to the truth of their religion, and yet we know their religion is false and have every reason to believe that they are not experiencing the witness of the Spirit. But false claims to the witness of the Spirit do not undermine genuine claims to the witness of the Spirit.
Jason
LikeLike
December 20, 2012 at 3:28 am
Nevertheless, that very subjectivity cannot lead to inter-subjectivity due to the differences in subjectivity in all sects of all religions.Thit is just self-brainwashing at work, and all religious experience is just ones own mind at work.
LikeLike
December 20, 2012 at 4:40 am
“…there are clearly people who claim to have a witness of God’s Spirit to the truth of their religion, and yet we know their religion is false and have every reason to believe that they are not experiencing the witness of the Spirit. But false claims to the witness of the Spirit do not undermine genuine claims to the witness of the Spirit.”
The irony being, that if our claim and doctrine regarding Spirit indwelling is the correct one (and we, of course, believe it is) then, to my understanding, Craig himself doesn’t have the internal witness of the Spirit he claims. And while generally speaking, we may say his religion, i.e. Christianity is true, we might also say that his Christianity is aberrant in many ways, and if so, then, as you said, we may have every reason to believe that he is not experiencing the witness of the Spirit, no matter how subjective a subject it is.
And that lends itself more toward hypocrisy than anything.
I mean, if he is claiming for himself the internal witness of the Spirit in order to point toward the existence of God, and yet, hasn’t even been indwelt by the Spirit, that’s making a false claim and is a lie; vis a vis, he isn’t, nor ever has experienced the internal witness he says is a necessary part of determining for oneself (i.e. himself) the existence of God (especially more so because he states in Reasonable Faith that people who do not believe in God and are not Christians are found to be so only because–paraphrasing–they ultimately reject the actions of the Spirit upon their heart to draw them to Christ, actions he himself needs must have rejected, proven by the fact that he remains un-dwelt by the Spirit).
While, as you said, it doesn’t invalidate the internal witness claim for the existence of God by the Spirit for Christianity and actual Spirit-filled believers generally, nor make what he says incorrect, it does, however invalidate his personal claim, specifically, to the internal witness of the Spirit and decreases, in this way only, his ability to determine if God actually exists and Christianity is true, thus weakening his apologetic. And that makes him, in my opinion, unreliable, no matter how much he may otherwise have right.
(Now, I’ll personally retract all of this if he provides Biblical evidence of the Spirit indwelling him. Personally, I haven’t found anything to show he has such evidence. But if someone knows and can show to the contrary, please share and correct me.)
LikeLike
December 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Interesting thoughts from Aaron.
LikeLike
January 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Psychology finds no such indwelling- no sensus divinatus that Calvinist dogma to explain away why others don’t fall for ones dogmas. No sin involves itself.
Again, that is attributing to Him ones own inner psychology. That certainty offends irrefragably reason. Leonardo, I find that not mental illness but instead ” [f]aith doth that to them.”
Whether [ blind] faith, John Haught’s faith as the overwhelming of our beings or as Alister Earl McGrath’s definition that first one has evidence, then one has faith for certainty: all inspire people from exploring to where the evidence leads.
Theists go from one blind alley to another with their conceptions about God.
LikeLike