What is Knowledge?

Description:

Do we, the disciples of Jesus, possess through Scripture and other means a reliable source of knowledge of reality or do we not?  We have seen that this is an important question. The possession of knowledge—especially religious and moral knowledge—is essential for a life of flourishing.  To answer this question we must, first, answer another question:  What exactly is knowledge and what does it mean to say Christian teaching provides it?  Let’s begin in earnest and see if we can find an answer to this second query.

Knowledge Defined

Here’s a simple definition of knowledge:  It is to represent reality in thought or experience the way it really is on the basis of adequate grounds.  To know something (the nature of cancer, forgiveness, God) is to think of or experience it as it really is on a solid basis of evidence, experience, intuition, and so forth.  Little can be said in general about what counts as “adequate grounds.”  The best one can do is to start with specific cases of knowledge and its absence in art, chemistry, memory, scripture, logic, and formulate helpful descriptions of “adequate grounds” accordingly.

Three Important Clarifications about Knowledge

Please note three important things.  First, knowledge has nothing to do with certainty or an anxious quest for it.  One can know something without being certain about it and in the presence of doubt or the admission that one might be wrong.  Recently, I know that God spoke to me about a specific matter but I admit it is possible I am wrong about this (though, so far, I have no good reason to think I am wrong).  When Paul says, “This you know with certainty” (Ephesians 5:5), he clearly implies that one can know without certainty; otherwise, the statement would be redundant.  Why?  If I say, “Give me a burger with pickles on it,” I imply that it is possible to have a burger without pickles.  If, contrary to fact, pickles were simply essential ingredients of burgers, it would be redundant to ask for burgers with pickles.  The parallel to “knowledge with certainty” should be easy to see.  When Christians claim to have knowledge of this or that, for example, that God is real, that Jesus rose from the dead, that the Bible is the word of God, they are not saying that there is no possibility that they could be wrong, that they have no doubts, or that they have answers to every question raised against them.  They are simply saying that these and other claims satisfy the definition given above.

Second, one can know something without knowing how one knows it.  If one always has to know how one knows something before one can know it, one would also have to know how one knows how one knows something, and so on to infinity.  Life is too short for such lengthy regresses and, thankfully, we often just know things without having any idea how we do.  Thus, a person could know he or she has experienced the presence of God without being able to tell a skeptic how he/she knows this.  When Christians claim to know this or that, they are not saying that they always know how they know the things they do.  For example, many Christians have had experiences in which they knew that God was guiding them in a certain way, but they may not have been able to say exactly how they knew this.  Now, it is often the case that some in the Christian community—for example, experts in New Testament studies or philosophy—do, in fact, know how we Christians know certain things.  But it is not necessary for the average believer to have this information before they are within their rights to claim to know God is real and so forth.

Finally, one can know without knowing that one knows.  Consider Joe, an insecure yet dedicated high school student, who is about to take his history final.  He has studied thoroughly and knows the material, but when a friend asks him if he is prepared for the test, he says, “no.”  In this case, Joe actually knows the material, but he doesn’t know he knows it.  Thus, he lacks confidence.  Today, cultural elites in the media and university tell us that we cannot know that God is real, etc.  As a result, while many Christians actually do know various things relevant to Christianity, they lack confidence because they do not know that they have this knowledge.

Three Kinds of Knowledge

Continue reading --->

The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus

Introduction

In recent years, an increasing number of studies have begun to employ what I have termed the “Minimal Facts” approach to a critical study of the resurrection of Jesus. This methodology differs significantly from older apologetic tactics that usually argued from historically reliable or even inspired New Testament texts to Jesus’ resurrection. The Minimal Facts outlook approaches the subject from a different angle. In this essay, I will concentrate on the nature, distinctiveness, and value of the Minimal Facts methodological approach to the resurrection of Jesus. After a brief overview, I will interact directly with the use of such an approach by Michael Licona in his recent volume, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach,1 including considering a few caveats for future study.

The Minimal Facts Method

For more than 35 years, I have argued that, surrounding the end of Jesus’ life, there is a significant body of data that scholars of almost every religious and philosophical persuasion recognize as being historical. The historicity of each “fact” on the list is attested and supported by a variety of historical and other considerations. This motif began as the central tenet of my PhD dissertation.2 This theme has continued in virtually all of my other dozens of publications on this subject since that time.3 Interestingly, my second debate on the resurrection of Jesus with philosophical atheist Antony Flew began with his general acceptance of my list of historical facts as a good starting point.4

From the outset of my studies, I argued that there were at least two major prerequisites for an occurrence to be designated as a Minimal Fact. Each event had to be established by more than adequate scholarly evidence, and usually by several critically-ascertained, independent lines of argumentation. Additionally, the vast majority of contemporary scholars in relevant fields had to acknowledge the historicity of the occurrence. Of the two criteria, I have always held that the first is by far the most crucial, especially since this initial requirement is the one that actually establishes the historicity of the event. Besides, the acclamation of scholarly opinion may be mistaken or it could change.5

Throughout this research, I have produced two lists of facts that have varied slightly in the numbering from publication to publication. The longer list was usually termed the “Known Historical Facts” and typically consisted of a dozen historical occurrences that more generally met the above criteria, but concerning which I was somewhat more lenient on their application. This would apply especially to the high percentages of scholarly near-unanimous agreement that I would require for the shorter list. From this longer listing, I would extrapolate a briefer line-up of from four to six events, termed the Minimal Facts.6 This latter list is the stricter one that Licona is addressing and which is the focus of much of this essay.

I explain my use of the longer and shorter versions this way: since I have surveyed this material for decades, I can report that most contemporary critical scholars actually concede far more facts than those included even in the long list, let alone just the few Minimal Facts alone. But the problem is that, as the numbers of events expand, fewer scholars agree on each one. So there could be more give and take on “whose facts” ought to be utilized. Obviously then, longer lists would not fulfill especially the second strict criterion of the Minimal Facts method.

So I decided to be even more selective than the majority of critical scholars by shortening the list in order to get more scholars (and especially the skeptics) on board. This methodological move has the benefit of bypassing the often protracted preliminary discussions of which data are permissible, by beginning with a “lowest common denominator” version of the facts. If I am correct in holding that this basis is still enough to settle the most pressing historical issues, then it is indeed a crucial contribution to the discussions. We will return below to some ramifications here.

Regarding my references to the “vast majority” or “virtually all” scholars who agree, is it possible to identify these phrases in more precise terms? In some contexts, I have identified these expressions more specifically. At least when referencing the most important historical occurrences, I frequently think in terms of a ninety-something percentile head-count. No doubt, this is one of the reasons why the concept has gained some attention.

But are figures like these based on something between a rough guess and an estimate? Academics quite often report things such as “most scholars hold that” or “the majority view here is that.” Although similar phrases are found frequently in the literature, we may wonder how the knowledge of such conclusions were, or even could be, established. Those who specialize in the particular area are probably the best to consult on such matters. But even when the authors are well-respected, Licona still provides illustrations where different researchers produce estimated head counts that seem to be at odds with each other (pp. 278-9).

Still, the regularity of citing majority views may serve to illustrate how important we seem to think that such overviews of pertinent researchers might be, especially where such conclusions could be reasonably established.7 Once again, the situation seems to be that there is an incessant search for a methodological starting point. Where are most scholars and why, precisely, are they there?

To answer this question in my case, what began as a rather modest attempt to update my resurrection bibliography grew by large increments until it developed into a full-blown attempt to catalog an overview of recent scholarship. The study dominated five straight years of my research time, as well as long intermittent stretches after that. Apparently, I was not very successful at drawing boundaries! I pursued an ongoing study that classified at least the major publications on these topics, continuing on through other representative sources. I counted a very wide spectrum of scholarly views, tracing the responses to about 140 sub-issues or questions related to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Continue reading --->

How Cellular Motors Prevent Traffic Jams

Living cells have superhighways of microtubules, crowded with molecular machines that "walk" along them delivering cargo. Sometimes things get a bit crowded, but deliveries arrive on time -- thanks to a unique strategy.

In short, the machines hand off their cargo, one to the next, till it reaches the end of the traffic jam, something like the kid's relay race game of passing a beach ball overhead down the line.

Two recent papers explain how scientists are opening the black box of intracellular transport. In PNAS, "Motor transport of self-assembled cargos in crowded environments," four researchers in Massachusetts sought to explain "how multimotor cargos would navigate a densely crowded filament with many other motors."

Prior theoretical and experimental biophysical model systems of intracellular cargo have assumed fixed teams of motors transporting along bare microtubules or microtubules with fixed obstacles. Here, we investigate a regime of cargos transporting along microtubules crowded with free motors.

Knowing that intracellular transport is vital for survival and that the cell is a crowded place, they were curious about how cells don't appear to jam or dissociate. They reasoned, "motor-driven cargos must be able to circumvent traffic and crowding to efficiently deliver material throughout the cell."
Previous research showed that teams of motors didn't jam, but single motors would sometimes dissociate from the track. But no one had studied "the effects of high-density traffic on cargos with multiple motors." So they attached quantum dots to kinesin motors and set them loose in an artificially high-traffic situation. To their surprise, they found a cooperative system:

Although high densities of kinesin motors hinder forward motion, resulting in a lower velocity, the ability to associate motors appears to enhance the run length and attachment time of the quantum dot, improving overall cargo transport. These results suggest that cargos that can associate new motors as they transport could overcome traffic jams.

They observed pauses and short reversals, but the teams of motors didn't lose their cargo as easily as single motors. One strategy is the lane change:

Continue reading --->

"No Evidence For God" - Debunked!

Christianity needs Philosophy?!?

"Philosophy is simply this: 

thinking deeply about the things that matter most."

- Dr. Plantinga

Dr. Alvin Plantinga, one of the brightest Christian Philosophers today, comments here on the benefit and the potency of Philosophy when discussing religious ideas and concepts.

His perspective, as seen in this video, should give good motivation to any serious thinking Christian and non-Christian to engage in a decent amount of training in philosophy.  It surely is one of the best tools available to mankind to be able to distinguish between truth and error, between what is logically impossible, necessary, or simply logically possible in reality.  As you will discover, philosophy always has and always will be vitally important to the study of metaphysics, logic, and ethics, and of course, religion as well.

Enjoy Dr. Plantinga's lucid insights and light hearted comments!

- Pastor J.

Does Creation Imply Moral Improvement?

Hello, Dr. Craig. I am an agnostic, former Christian and militant atheist who's been in an unceasing existential crisis for a long time. I read as much as I am able and evaluate the arguments for and against Christianity and the existence of God as much as I can. I have been familiar with your ministry and academic work for several years, and in no small measure I owe my abandonment of Richard Dawkins-type atheism to your work and the intellectual firepower you bring to a defense of Christian theism. I thank you for that, though I won't hide that I remain on the fence and incline against your views. I am no philosopher. I never even graduated from highschool, but I do have a sincere question about God and evil from an angle I have not heard addressed before.

God as classically conceived is the greatest conceivable being, and that includes his moral goodness, i.e., he is the greatest good, by definition. In my understanding this would mean there isn't any state of affairs that in conjunction with God's goodness could yield a morally better state of affairs. No reality could be better than God's very existence as a standalone, brute fact. But you and other theists contend that God allows evil because he has morally sufficient reasons to do. These reasons are such that allowing evil brings about a morally better state of affairs, e.g., it is better for humans to have free will to choose between good and evil than it would be if we were causally determined to choose the good. But then why would God create humans with the capacity for choosing evil in the first place? What moral purpose does this serve if God's own existence is as morally good as it gets? Would not evil be gratuitous by definition? Afterall, human beings with free will to choose evil doesn't add anything to reality in a way that is better than God's own existence, so it seems to me there is no morally sufficient reason to allow evil at all. If God's existence was all reality comprised, this would be 'good enough', because God's nature is maximal, unsurpassable moral goodness and perfection. No moral purpose is served by creating beings with free will to choose evil that is not already fulfilled by God's goodness alone. So why did God create us?

Eric

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Animal Magnetoreceptor Cells—Evidence of Design? Part 1

Scientists are uncovering more and more data on the phenomenon of animal magnetoreception—which provides the ability of certain species to navigate using the Earth’s magnetic field. Is this remarkable ability evidence for evolution—or for a divine Designer? This two-part series discusses some of the research findings and demonstrates how magnetoreception supports creation.

In recent years, humans have gained the ability to navigate with satellite-based GPS systems. But some animals possess internal GPS systems, probably for millennia. The amazing explanation for this feature—which scientists are uncovering—is that certain species are able to read small variations in the intensity of Earth’s magnetic field and use that to guide them to their destination.

A recent article¹ in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)reports that researchers were able to “reproducibly detect magnetic cells” firmly coupled to the cell membrane in the trout olfactory epithelium (the tissue in the nasal cavity linked to smell).² This article states that trout’s magnetic cells “clearly meet the physical requirements for a magnetoreceptor capable of rapidly detecting small changes in the external magnetic field.”

Over 50 years of scientific study of this phenomenon have revealed that it is made possible because magnetite³ (a highly magnetic mineral) occurs naturally in the cells of many organisms—including the human brain.⁴

Pigeons are similarly endowed with magnetoreceptors. An article featured in the May 25, 2012 issue of Science describes research which suggests this is due to the design of the pigeon brainstem:⁵

Neuronal responses in the pigeon’s brainstem...show how single cells encode magnetic field direction, intensity, and polarity—qualities that are necessary to derive an internal model representing directional heading and geosurface location.

And yet another recent paper in Current Biology reports data which “imply that loggerhead [sea turtles] have a navigational system that exploits the Earth’s magnetic field as a kind of bicoordinate magnetic map from which both longitudinal and latitudinal information can be extracted.”⁶

Cutting through the technical jargon: scientists are piecing together how salmon know to travel hundreds of miles to the spawning ground of their birth, how homing pigeons know how to find home, how sea turtles know the roundtrip route from Florida to Africa, and how a variety of animals have an intuitive directional sense that has defied explanation for centuries.

This research is revealing that many animals have natural magnetoreceptors that read and interpret the Earth’s magnetic field.

The Planet’s Magnetism

Continue reading --->

(Pt.2 ) Evil, Suffering, and GOD? - Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Is the "Problem of Evil" a problem for God? 

(pt.2 of 2) Dr. Alvin Plantinga, one of the brightest and most effective Christian philosophers today, offers some interesting reasons why there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of "Evil and Suffering" in the world and simultaneously a God that is All-Good, All-Knowing, and All Powerful.

Contrary to common opinion, since there is no logical incompatibility, there only remains an atheistic argument against God based on "improbability".  Unfortunately, atheists are in no position to make such bold metaphysical claims, not having access to the information necessary to issue such judgments.

The only Worldview that gives an emotionally satisfying and philosophically adequate answer to the problem and solution to the origin, explanation, and answer to the "Problem of Evil and Suffering" is that of Christian Theism - Biblical Christianity.  

All other Worldviews (Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, etc....) must also grapple with and answer with this profound problem..... but they fail to do so successfully.

Have an Intelligent Faith..... and don't have the blind faith of Atheism!

- Pastor J.

Theistic Critiques Of Atheism

William Lane Craig

An account of the resurgence of philosophical theism in our time, including a brief survey of prominent anti-theistic arguments such as the presumption of atheism, the incoherence of theism, and the problem of evil, along with a defense of theistic arguments like the contingency argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument.

Abridged version in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007 (more info here)

Introduction

The last half-century has witnessed a veritable revolution in Anglo-American philosophy. In a recent retrospective, the eminent Princeton philosopher Paul Benacerraf recalls what it was like doing philosophy at Princeton during the 1950s and '60s. The overwhelmingly dominant mode of thinking was scientific naturalism. Metaphysics had been vanquished, expelled from philosophy like an unclean leper. Any problem that could not be addressed by science was simply dismissed as a pseudo-problem. Verificationism reigned triumphantly over the emerging science of philosophy. "This new enlightenment would put the old metaphysical views and attitudes to rest and replace them with the new mode of doing philosophy."1

The collapse of the Verificationism was undoubtedly the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its demise meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence has come something new and altogether unanticipated: a renaissance in Christian philosophy.

The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Theism is on the rise; atheism is on the decline.2 Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat. In a recent article in the secularist journal Philo Quentin Smith laments what he calls "the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s." He complains,

Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism. . . began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians . . . . in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, 'academically respectable' to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.3

Smith concludes, "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."4

As vanguards of a new philosophical paradigm, theistic philosophers have freely issued various critiques of atheism. In so short a space as this entry it is impossible to do little more than sketch some of them and to provide direction for further reading. These critiques could be grouped under two basic heads: (1) There are no cogent arguments on behalf of atheism, and (2) There are cogent arguments on behalf of theism.

No Cogent Arguments on behalf of Atheism

Continue reading --->

Does Evil Disprove God? - Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Is God's existence incompatible with great amount of suffering and evil in the world? 

Dr. Alvin Plantinga, one of the brightest and most effective Christian philosophers today, offers some interesting reasons why there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of "Evil and Suffering" in the world and simultaneously a God that is All-Good, All-Knowing, and All Powerful.

Contrary to common opinion, since there is no logical incompatibility, there only remains an atheistic argument against God based on "improbability".  Unfortunately, atheists are in no position to make such bold metaphysical claims, not having access to the information necessary to issue such judgments.

The only Worldview that gives an emotionally satisfying and philosophically adequate answer to the problem and solution to the origin, explanation, and answer to the "Problem of Evil and Suffering" is that of Christian Theism - Biblical Christianity.  

All other Worldviews (Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, etc....) must also grapple with and answer with this profound problem..... but they fail to do so successfully.

Have an Intelligent Faith..... and don't have the blind faith of Atheism!

- Pastor J.

God and the Applicability of Mathematics

Dr. Craig,

In your recent debate with Dr. Rosenberg, you bring to the table two new arguments (at least that I've never seen you propose before). I am enamored with the argument against naturalism based on intentionality. My question regards the argument against naturalism based on the applicability of mathematics.

Isn't it the case that mathematics could, and in my opinion does seem to be, just a useful fiction as you mentioned in your debate? You say something along the lines of "this wouldn't explain how nature seems to be written in the language of mathematics". Isn't it also the case that if mathematical concepts are useful fictions, then they would describe (accurately if well thought out) the universe as apprehended by our perceptions? Shouldn't we expect that our useful fictions would be useful precisely because they accurately describe our observations?

I have thought that perhaps I am missing the point of the argument though. Perhaps it is the case that you aren't saying God must exist because our useful fictions, particularly those of mathematics describing reality, would just be happy coincidence. Indeed, what kind of coincidence would it be that our tools were designed for the purpose they serve? Perhaps you are making the point that without God the universe wouldn't necessarily exhibit these extremely logical properties.

Maybe I'm just completely wrong headed on this. Could you please set me straight?

Keep up the great work for God,

Brad

Read Dr. Craig's answer HERE

The Dating of the New Testament

When the New Testament was written is a significant issue, as one assembles the overall argument for Christianity. Confidence in the historical accuracy of these documents depends partly on whether they were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to the events described, as the Bible claims. Negative critical scholars strengthen their own views as they separate the actual events from the writings by as much time as possible. For this reason radical scholars argue for late first century, and if possible second century, dates for the autographs [original manuscripts]. By these dates they argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, contain mythology. The writers created the events contained, rather than reported them.

Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)
The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former account' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah,' and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.

If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

First Corinthians
Continue Reading --->

Moral Scepticism

Dr. Craig,

My wife and I have begun to teach an apologetics class at our church, and we invited our class to our house to watch your debate with Alex Rosenberg. We also invited my wife's father, who claims to believe in the Christian God, but is very defensive about morality. He basically believes there are no objective morals, which makes me wonder how he can truly be saved, since the crux of Christianity is about needing God's grace because we have broken objective morality.

Watching your debate got us talking about objective morality and intuition - or as you called it, a "properly basic belief." But when we pressed my father-in-law, he denied that the notion of objective morality was an intuition like other minds. It's difficult to find anyone we'd classify as sane who believes other persons don't exist, yet we can find examples galore of those like Bundy or Hitler who think rape or murder are perfectly fine. In fact, my father-in-law even went so far as to say if a society of Ted Bundys would arise, while he doesn't like the thought of it, he couldn't say it was objectively wrong.

In our discussion, it also seemed like he was hung up on the idea that there was no "list" of morals. The "Ten Commandments" aren't exhaustive, and Jesus's notion of loving God and loving others is too subjective for him. If you can't prove objective morality by providing a knowable, exhaustive list, he's not satisfied. We can see demonstrations of abstract concepts like the addition of numbers, we can empirically test scientific truths, and we can intuitively know that we exist, but objective morality seems to fail all these tests.

He seems to conflate the epistemological struggle of morality with the ontological struggle. However, we're having enough trouble in even showing him that objective morality exists at all. How do you talk to someone who is willing to say that a future society of Ted Bundys wouldn't be objectively wrong? Thank you again for all you do.

Derek

USA

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Evolution Disproves Naturalism?!? - Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Is Naturalism a self-defeating idea 

for a Darwinian Evolutionist to hold?

One of the most prominent and effective Christian philosophers alive today, Dr. Alvin Plantinga, has developed and interesting and potent argument against the idea of Naturalism using the supposition of biological evolution.

This line of reasoning, termed "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" presents a  significant challenge to the intellectual consistency and credibility of  a person claiming to believe in both of these ideas simultaneously.

If you haven't yet read any of Dr. Plantinga's work on the "Free Will Defense" for the Problem of Evil, the explanation of Properly Basic Beliefs, and his formulation of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence using Modal Logic - purchase some of his works immediately.  He has made tremendous contributions in each of these areas, has been called "the Greatest Christian Philosopher of our Time", and also happens to be the favorite Christian intellectual of William Lane Craig!

- Pastor J. 

Does the Balance Between Saved and Lost Depend on Our Obedience to Christ’s Great Commission?

William Lane Craig

As a follow-up to my middle knowledge solution to the problem of Christian exclusivism, I ask whether the problem does not recur in another form under that solution: is it not the case that the balance between saved and lost depends upon the degree to which we Christians obey our Lord’s Great Commission to bring the gospel to every nation? If so, then is not that conclusion as morally objectionable as the claim that people’s eternal destiny hinges upon the historical accidents of the time and place of their birth? I argue that such a conclusion does not follow because, given divine middle knowledge and providence, it may not lie within our power to bring about a better balance between saved and lost.

“Does the Balance between Saved and Lost Depend on Our Obedience to Christ’s Great Commission?” Philosophia Christi 6 (2004): 79-86.

In the interface of evangelical Christianity and other religions, the principal stumbling block for many is Christianity’s claim that salvation is available exclusively through Jesus Christ. But what exactly is the problem here supposed to be? The central difficulty posed by the doctrine of Christian exclusivism, it seems to me, is counterfactual in nature: even granted that God has, through general or special revelation, accorded sufficient grace to all persons for their salvation, should they desire to accept it, still some persons who in fact freely reject God’s general revelation might complain that they would have responded affirmatively to His initiatives if only they had been accorded the benefit of His special revelation in the Gospel. If God is omnibenevolent, He must surely, it seems, supply all persons with grace, not merely sufficient, but efficacious for their salvation. But then Christian exclusivism is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

In previously published work1, I have argued that to this challenge the Molinist may respond that it is possible that there is no world feasible for God in which all persons freely respond to His gracious initiatives and so are saved. Given the truth of certain counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, it is possible that God did not have it within His power to realize a world in which all persons freely respond affirmatively to His offer of salvation. But in His omnibenevolence, He has actualized a world containing an optimal balance between saved and unsaved. God in His providence has so arranged the world that as the Christian gospel went out from first century Palestine, all who would respond freely to it if they heard it did hear it, and all who do not hear it are persons who would not have accepted it if they had heard it. In this way, Christian exclusivism may be seen to be compatible with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

In a very engaging response to this proposed middle knowledge solution2, William Hasker imagines a veteran missionary, Paul, and a prospective missionary, Peter, who are engaged in some reflective thinking. Paul asks himself the two questions:

(A) Are there persons to whom I failed to preach who are going to be lost and who would have been saved had I gone to them with the gospel?
(B) Are there persons who have been saved as a result of my preaching, who would not have been saved had they never heard the gospel?

Being apprised of my proposed middle knowledge solution, Paul will conclude, says Hasker, that the answer to (A) is in all probability, “No.” For given:

Continue reading --->

Oxford Phd Demonstrates Belief in GOD is Natural?!?

Is belief in God Hardwired into human beings?

An Oxford University Research Psychologist and Larry Taunton seem to think so..... 

Brazilian Nightclub Fire and Salvation by Works, Question of the week by Dr. Craig

Doctor Craig, first of all I would like to thank you for your mental and spiritual leadership to my life. You have been of great help in my christian faith. I mean it. But I bring important issues to you in my question now. My name is Leander, I'm 20 years old and I do Law school at Universidade Federal de Santa Maria in Brazil.

I don't know if you are aware of the situation in Santa Maria, but here a fire in a nightclub called Kiss killed around 235 young people (all between 18 and 24 years old) and let around 143 hurt in the hospitals in serious condition. The city is passing through a dark moment. There is just sadness and tears everywhere. The parents of the victims are in despair and all the students, like myself, who knew some of the victims are all gloom.

I've been wondering. According to my evangelical christian faith, most of these people are now in hell. It seems to me extremely cruel. They were good people, young, with dreams and hearts full of love for their friends and life. Now let me set some things straight: I read the last chapter of your book "On Guard" and I've been following some of your work and I think I know what you will say. I know according to classical christian beliefs none is good enough to God, and those who live without Christ, without Christ will perish. But again, it seems extremely painful. I just can't look to the parents of the victims and think of that. So this context makes me really wonder about salvation in christianity. In theory is not that hard to accept it, but in reality is seems cruel and meaningless.

Before start going into an evangelical church I was raised in a catholic family. For that I bring some of the catholical doctrines like salvation through good works (but I'm not sure if they preach that). Like, the good go to heaven and the bad to hell. Isn't this compatible with christianity in some way? The priest around here said these people are now with God! But the pastor says they aren't! Who is right?

I think some passages in the Bible also teach salvation through good works: Matthew 5: 1- 12. Matthew 25: 31- 46. John 5: 28- 29.

Could it be that the priest is right? Could it be that the sacrifice of Christ is extended to everyone, leaving the choice of some going to heaven and some going to hell in God's hands, not in ours?

In this practical situation is really hard to accept evangelical doctrines of salvation.

Sorry about my english, and I did not search further into your works because is hard to understand perfectly english.

Thank you for everything,

Leander

Brazil

Click HERE to read DR. Craig's answer