Craig is "most confident" about the A-theory of time and anti-realism about abstract objects.
At the same time, it's telling Craig is "least confident" about "one of the arguments for God's existence". He gives two examples: the Leibnizian argument from contingency and the first premise of the ontological argument (i.e. it's possible a maximally great being exists).
To judge by his answer, he's more confident in the nonexistence of abstract objects than the Resurrection. Quite revealing from the foremost Christian apologist of his generation. Priorities seriously askew.
He is a good debater and I like the way he does bring the resurrection into his debates. I use it in my discussions with atheist as proof for the existence of God. The question is really kind of silly anyway.
I don’t think it’s silly so much as an opportunity for the interviewee to tell the interviewer and the audience what beliefs he most cares about or are most important to him. It’s like asking someone what’s your favorite book or song. Maybe it’s silly if you give a silly answer, but it’s also an opportunity to reveal yourself to others in a way they might not know as well.
By the way, elsewhere, though I can’t remember where, I’ve heard Craig say the book or work he’s most proud about is his book or work on the A theory of time.
Well, meaningless is different from silly. That's a more serious charge.
"Its not like he had a lot of time to reflect on it."
So you're telling me that William Lane Craig - who holds two doctorates (which would involve plenty of public debate and discussion to achieve), who is a professional philosopher trained in the art of logic and argument and the like, who has published tons of popular and scholarly works, who is a world renowned Christian apologist, who has debated some of the most astute living scholars in the world, who has answered Q&As including hostile questions from all sorts of people, from college students to professors, under tremendous time constraints and other pressures, all over the world - would have needed more time to answer a friendly question about what views (his own defended views) that he's most/least confident in?
I think it's a good question, but it would work better if Cameron showed Craig the questions in advance so that Craig could give prepared answers rather than off-the-cuff answers. At least in the case of questions he's not using to fielding.
It seems to me that Craig wasn't talking about which issues he's most and least confident of, but about which ARGUMENTS he uses he's most and least confident about in terms of argumentative strength. He believes that the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater defeater. So, the weaknesses of the arguments for Christianity that can be mustered don't affect his confidence of the truth of Christianity. To use his famous distinction, the questions were not about his knowing things, but about his showing things [to others] through argumentation. If I limited myself to his non-presuppositionalist approach, I too would not think my historical arguments for the resurrection were very powerful either. As he has said, the strength of the evidence and arguments for Christianity can shift from generation to generation and place to place. Apologetics, according to him, while very useful aren't absolutely necessary since everyone encounters both the evidence for God in creation and (Arminian) prevenient grace. Leaving everyone without excuse [irrespective of the presence or strength of apologetical arguments].
I think we have to also understand that Craig was likely answering in terms of his debates with atheists which he is famously known for, and that he didn't include his theological arguments against Christians positions he disagrees with (e.g. Calvinism and its near universal rejection of libertarian free will and all that implies).
Watching it again, I realized you seem to be right. It's not how the question was framed. Craig seemed to answer the first question with two issues in the way the question was framed. But the second question as if in terms of argumentative strength. Since he's on record as saying [in a debate with Lawrence Krauss] that he's not absolutely certain God exists (neither am I), I guess he's more confident that the A-theory of time is true than that God exists. Presumably because his experience of time is more evident and powerful than his experience of God. To be fair, he has also admitted that he's no epistemologist and that epistemology is a field he has deficiencies in.
Craig is "most confident" about the A-theory of time and anti-realism about abstract objects.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it's telling Craig is "least confident" about "one of the arguments for God's existence". He gives two examples: the Leibnizian argument from contingency and the first premise of the ontological argument (i.e. it's possible a maximally great being exists).
So he is not that confident that Christ rose from the dead?
ReplyDeleteTo judge by his answer, he's more confident in the nonexistence of abstract objects than the Resurrection. Quite revealing from the foremost Christian apologist of his generation. Priorities seriously askew.
DeleteHe is a good debater and I like the way he does bring the resurrection into his debates. I use it in my discussions with atheist as proof for the existence of God.
DeleteThe question is really kind of silly anyway.
I don’t think it’s silly so much as an opportunity for the interviewee to tell the interviewer and the audience what beliefs he most cares about or are most important to him. It’s like asking someone what’s your favorite book or song. Maybe it’s silly if you give a silly answer, but it’s also an opportunity to reveal yourself to others in a way they might not know as well.
DeleteBy the way, elsewhere, though I can’t remember where, I’ve heard Craig say the book or work he’s most proud about is his book or work on the A theory of time.
Its really a meaningless question. Its not like he had a lot of time to reflect on it.
Deletemeyu
Delete"Its really a meaningless question."
Well, meaningless is different from silly. That's a more serious charge.
"Its not like he had a lot of time to reflect on it."
So you're telling me that William Lane Craig - who holds two doctorates (which would involve plenty of public debate and discussion to achieve), who is a professional philosopher trained in the art of logic and argument and the like, who has published tons of popular and scholarly works, who is a world renowned Christian apologist, who has debated some of the most astute living scholars in the world, who has answered Q&As including hostile questions from all sorts of people, from college students to professors, under tremendous time constraints and other pressures, all over the world - would have needed more time to answer a friendly question about what views (his own defended views) that he's most/least confident in?
I think it's a good question, but it would work better if Cameron showed Craig the questions in advance so that Craig could give prepared answers rather than off-the-cuff answers. At least in the case of questions he's not using to fielding.
DeleteIt seems to me that Craig wasn't talking about which issues he's most and least confident of, but about which ARGUMENTS he uses he's most and least confident about in terms of argumentative strength. He believes that the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater defeater. So, the weaknesses of the arguments for Christianity that can be mustered don't affect his confidence of the truth of Christianity. To use his famous distinction, the questions were not about his knowing things, but about his showing things [to others] through argumentation. If I limited myself to his non-presuppositionalist approach, I too would not think my historical arguments for the resurrection were very powerful either. As he has said, the strength of the evidence and arguments for Christianity can shift from generation to generation and place to place. Apologetics, according to him, while very useful aren't absolutely necessary since everyone encounters both the evidence for God in creation and (Arminian) prevenient grace. Leaving everyone without excuse [irrespective of the presence or strength of apologetical arguments].
ReplyDeleteI think we have to also understand that Craig was likely answering in terms of his debates with atheists which he is famously known for, and that he didn't include his theological arguments against Christians positions he disagrees with (e.g. Calvinism and its near universal rejection of libertarian free will and all that implies).
Perhaps, but that's not how the question was framed.
DeleteWatching it again, I realized you seem to be right. It's not how the question was framed. Craig seemed to answer the first question with two issues in the way the question was framed. But the second question as if in terms of argumentative strength. Since he's on record as saying [in a debate with Lawrence Krauss] that he's not absolutely certain God exists (neither am I), I guess he's more confident that the A-theory of time is true than that God exists. Presumably because his experience of time is more evident and powerful than his experience of God. To be fair, he has also admitted that he's no epistemologist and that epistemology is a field he has deficiencies in.
Delete