Reality 1, William Lane Craig 0


Here's the question:

Dear Dr. Craig,
Kind Regards,

What follows is a tangent about philosophical theories of "holism" and attempts to explain why they are inadequate. In the process, Craig rambles on in the way that only philosophers can do, but never actually addresses the reader's question. He seems to suggest, toward the end, that theories which are derived from mathematical equations do not actually prove the math correct when the theory is emprically validated:
Except this is wrong on its face, and it doesn't even begin to address the question. Mathematics underlying scientific principles are not assumed, they are observed. True, once they have been observed with some consistency, we assume them to apply everywhere; a fine example is the grand assumption of physics that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere in the universe. But these aren't unfounded assumptions – they're derived from and verified by mathematical observation. Most importantly, we accept such assumptions as provisional. When mathematical statements are inaccurate conceptualizations of reality, it will be confirmed as such empirically. Furthermore, Craig apparently fails to understand that for theories derived from mathematics, particularly in physics and theoretical cosmology, they are written, described, and falsified or verified using the language of mathematics; we can't separate the mathematical description of the theory from the colloquial one.

A consistent problem in Craig's reasoning – one that is common among theologians, I might add – is that he has the hubris to assume he knows what reality actually is. He believes that his intuitive experiences are the best gauges of what is real and what is not, as exemplified by his past statement that his faith is derived not from evidence, but by "witness of the holy spirit" as well as his paradoxical argument that God's objective moral law is understood through subjective intuitive experience. This is not the case. We do not have any way of knowing whether reality as we immediately experience it is the ultimate reality, and we should not be so arrogant and hasty as to presume that scientific discoveries out to conform to our understanding of reality, rather than vice versa. This highlights what is perhaps the biggest difference between a theist and an atheist: for the atheist, our concept of reality is both provisional and contingent on our best scientific understanding. A theist, by contrast, necessarily assumes his understanding of reality to be immutable.

Even Craig seems to realize that he didn't really answer the question, and finally gets around to it in the last paragraph:

And there it is – he closes his answer with an argument from ignorance and an infinite regression. At a certain point, whether we are theists or not, we must assume there is, at bottom, something whose mere existence does not require an explanation. To purport to answer a question like "Why does the universe have a structure which can be objectively understood through mathematics?" by saying, "Well, because God made it that way" begs the question of why God exists and why God has any particular set of qualities. The theist assumes that God does not require an explanation for his existence or qualities – that he simply is. However, as I've discussed countless times before, the laws of physics allow precisely that – for the universe itself to simply be, without any beginning or end, existing uncaused. Craig, like all theologians, doesn't actually answer any questions – he just pushes them back a step.

Seriously, this guy is supposed to be a preeminent Christian scholar and apologist, and his failure to grasp basic rules of logic is mind-boggling. I suppose that's what you get with a degree from Biola.


Popular Posts