I thought that I would summarize a debate that occurred at Cambridge University between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Arif Ahmed. Everyone knows Dr. Craig, but I should say that Arif Ahmed is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy at Cambridge University.
The full MP3 is available here.
Below, I’ve summarized the two opening speeches from each debater. I put snarky clarifications in italics.
Here is Dr. Craig’s opening speech: (1:24)
Craig’s case for God.
1) The origin of the universe (3:10)
- an eternal universe is not compatible with mathematics
- the impossibility of an actual infinite in nature (cites David Hilbert)
- an eternal universe is not compatible with science
- the big bang theory requires space and time to come into being out of nothing (cites PCW Davies)
- even radical alternative theories require an absolute beginning (cites Stephen Hawking)
- atheists must believe that the origin of space and time came from nothing and by nothing (cites Anthony Kenny)
Argument:
P1.1) Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
P1.2) The universe begin to exist
C1.3) Therefore, the universe requires a cause
What can the cause be:
- it must be eternal, because it caused time to exist
- it must be non-physical, because it caused space to begin to exist
Why must the cause of the universe be a person instead of a force?
Only minds can exist non-physically
- the only non-physical entities we know of are abstract objects and minds
- but abstract objects can’t cause physical effects
- therefore, the cause universe is a personal mind
Only minds can cause effects in time without antecedent conditions
- causally prior to the universe’s beginning, there were no antecedent conditions
- the only entity capable of acting freely, not based on antecedent conditions, are free agents
- therefore, the cause of the universe is a free agent
2) The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe (9:15)
- the fine-tuning of the universe is supported by science
- the constants and quantities given in the big bang can take any of a range of values
- the actual values are within a extremely narrow range that supports the requirements of life
- he gives the example of the fine-tuning of the gravitational constant
- he gives the example of the fine-tuning of the weak force
Argument:
P2.1) The fine-tuning is either due to law, chance or design
P2.2) It is not due to law, because the numbers are independent of the law
P2.3) It cannot be due to chance, the life-permitting band is tiny compared to the possible values
C2.4) Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
3) Objective moral values are plausibly grounded in God (12:41)
- objective moral values are values that exist and are binding regardless of what individuals think
- objective moral values cannot be rationally grounded on an atheistic worldview (cites Michael Ruse)
- atheists can recognize moral values and act on them, but they cannot explain their origin and existence
- atheists can only appeal to personal or cultural preferences to say what is right and wrong
- the existence of objective moral is undeniable
Argument:
P3.1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
P3.2) Objective moral values do exist
C3.3) Therefore, God exists
4) The resurrection of Jesus implies that God exists (16:04)
- if the resurrection of Jesus happened, then it would be a miracle, implying that God exists
- three facts are recognized by the majority of scholars
- the tomb was found empty after his death (cites Jacob Kramer)
- individuals and groups saw Jesus after his death (cites Gerd Ludemann)
- the belief in the resurrection of Jesus was totally unexpected (cites N.T. Wright)
- naturalistic explanations of these facts have been rejected by the consensus of scholars
Argument:
P4.1) The 3 minimal facts are established
P4.2) The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation for these facts
P4.3) The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead entails that God exists
C4.4) Therefore, God exists
5) God can be known directly by personal experience (20:02)
- God can be experienced just like you experience a relationship with human persons
Dr. Ahmed’s first opening speech: (22:10)
Rebuttal to Craig’s case for God.
0) Craig is wrong about faith and reason (25:20)
- Craig’s book Reasonable Faith, he makes a number of statements about faith and reason
- He writes that Christianity is not accountable to reason if reason goes against Christianity
- He writes that the truth of Christianity is knowable without rational arguments
- He writes that even if there are no reasons to believe, and many reasons to disbelieve, humans are still obligated to believe
- Question for Craig: is Christianity reasonable or isn’t it? Do reasons matter or don’t they?
1) Response to Craig’s first argument: the origin of the universe (28:27)
- what mathematicians say about the contradictory nature of subtraction and division for actual infinities is wrong
- what cosmologists and physicists say about the beginning of time is wrong, every event follows another one, there is no first event
- even if the universe is 15 billion years old, the act of Creation requires time and there was no time prior to the supposed beginning of the universe for God to act in
- the cause of the universe need not be a personal agent
- all minds are made of matter so a mind cannot be the cause of the universe,
- it is impossible for a person to act outside of time
- why did God wait 15 billion years before creating humans and relating to them?
2) Response to Craig’s second argument: the fine-tuning of the creation (32:38)
- where do these probabilities that Craig is using come from?
3) Response to Craig’s third argument: the moral argument (34:07)
- I have personal preferences about what counts as right and wrong, and they are superior to God’s preferences
- moral intuitions are not a good way of discovering objective moral values, so therefore objective moral values don’t exist
4) Response to Craig’s fourth argument: the resurrection (36:00)
- the number of eyewitnesses is not enough, because groups number of eyewitnesses can be fooled by illusions, as in David Copperfield illusions
- the Gospels contradict themselves, e.g. – the story of Matthew’s earthquake and walking dead isn’t in Mark – so that’s a contradiction, so the Gospels are not reliable sources for Craig’s 3 minimal facts
5) Response to Craig’s fourth argument: personal experience (37:30)
- there are many different religious experiences because there are many different religions, which means that no one religion can be right
Ahmed’s case against God.
1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence (39:00)
- if there is are no reasons to believe in God, then this is evidence that he doesn’t exist
2) The inductive argument from evil (40:04)
- some evil is gratuitous – events cause people to suffer, and has no benefit that I can see, which argues against the existence of a good God
- God would not have allowed people to suffer, because he has no overriding purpose that would justify his permission of human suffering
3) Belief in God makes people evil (41:52)
- all genuinely religious people are very immoral, when measured against my subjective standard of morality
Further study
In case you are wondering about his inductive argument from evil, please read this summary on the problems of evil and suffering, which is taken from my list of arguments for and against Christian theism. Keep in my mind that I am a software engineer with two degrees in computer science… not philosophy!
Craig mentions a paper by the late William P. Alston of Syracuse University in his rebuttal to the inductive problem of evil. The paper lists six limitations on human cognitive capacities that make it difficult for humans to know that some instance of apparently gratuitous evil really is gratuitious – that God has no morally sufficient reason for permitting this specific instance of evil. Since Ahmed is making the claim that some evil is gratuitous, he bears the burden of proof.
Filed under: Podcasts, Agnosticism, Arguments, Atheism, Buddhism, Cambridge University, Debate, Does God Exist?, Evidence, Facts, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Logic, Muslim, Non Belief, Proof, Secular Humanism, Skepticism, Syllogism, Truth, William Lane Craig
03/07/2013 • 6:00 PM 29
Why do atheists like Dan Barker abandon their faith?
Unbelievable’s latest radio show featured a discussion with former Christian Dan Barker, the founder and co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The MP3 file is here. (60 minutes)
I thought that I would make some general comments about why I think that many people leave the Christian faith, and what you should be careful of in order to avoid following in Dan Barker’s footsteps, specifically.
Basically, there are four major reasons why people leave Christianity.
Now listen to the discussion and see if you can identify some of these factors from Barker’s own carefully-prepared words. He is trying very hard to make himself look honest and moderate, because he wants Christians to be sympathetic with his story and his motives for leaving Christianity. But I think that there is enough in his statements to construct a different hypothesis of why he left Christianity.
I’ve grouped the data by risk factor. (These are not his exact views)
Non-rational, emotional approach to Christianity
Desire to gain acceptance from non-Christians
Ignorance of Christian apologetics
So what do I think happened?
I think he abandoned his faith because he wanted people to like him and because he needed to be invited to liberal churches in order to make money to pay for the “real life” needs of his family.
He seems to have thought that Christianity is about having his needs met and being liked by others. I think he wanted to feel good and to make people feel good with his preaching and singing. He seems to have become aware that the exclusive claims of Christianity made other people feel offended, so he cut them out. He hadn’t studied philosophy, science or history so that he would have been able to demonstrate to other people whether what he was saying was true. It’s hard to offend people when you don’t really know whether your claims are true or not, and when you don’t know how to demonstrate whether they are true or not.
I also think money was a factor. It seems to me that it would have hurt his career and reduced his invitations from liberal churches if he had kept up teaching biblical Christianity. In order to appeal to a wider audience, (like many Christian singers do – e.g. – Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, etc.), he would have felt pressured to water down the unpleasant parts of his preaching and singing. Lacking apologetics skill, he instead abandoned his message. He needed to account for his family’s needs and “real life”, and exclusive truth claims and Hell-talk would probably have reduced his ability to do that. It seems to me that he should have scaled back his extreme schedule of preaching and singing, and instead gotten a steady job so that he could afford “real life” and a family without being pressured into altering his message.
Life isn’t a fairy tale. God isn’t there to reward risky behavior. We need to be more shrewd about financial matters so that we have the ability to not care about what people think of us. Look at this blog. I work all day as a senior software engineer with two degrees in computer science so that I can refuse donations. I save most of what I make in case a tragedy strikes. Since I am financially secure, I can say what I think, and disregard anyone who wants me to change my message because they are offended. Becoming a Christian isn’t a license to behave irrationally and immaturely with money. For some people, (like William Lane Craig), stepping out in faith works. But if it doesn’t work, it’s better to retreat and re-trench, rather than to compromise your message for money.
Barker didn’t seem to make any effort to deal intellectually with typical challenges like the existence of Hell and religious pluralism. He just wanted to be liked by people instead of being liked by God. He seemed to have thought that being a Christian would make him happy and that other people would all respond to him and like him without having to do any work to explain why Christianity is true. But that’s not Biblical. When the singing and preaching is over, you still have to know how to give an answer to non-Christians. But Barker couldn’t give an answer – not one that allowed him to retain his beliefs. He had not prepared a defense.
What does Dan Barker think about Christianity today?
Many atheists today are interested in eradicating public expressions of Christian beliefs in the public square, because they hate Christianity and believe that Christians should not be allowed to make them feel bad by exercising their rights of free speech. Is Dan Barker one of these militant atheists?
Well, take a look at this video, in which he objects to a nativity scene and demands that an atheistic denunciation of theism be posted alongside it. In the video, Barker explains that the nativity scene is hate speech, and that the baby Jesus is a dictator. He seems to be totally oblivious to the the idea that if Christianity is true, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s mean and exclusive. And this seems to me to have been his problem all along, from the day of his “conversion”.
So the real question is this: is it true? Barker seems to be much more interested in asking “is it nice?” and “will it make me happy?”.
Share this:
Like this:
Filed under: Commentary, Apologetics, Apostasy, Arguments, Bible, Biblical, Church, Dan Barker, Debate, Deconversion, Ethics Without God, Evidence, Faith, Fideism, Former Christian, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Fundamentalism, Goodness Without God, Hedonism, Irrational, Laws of Logic, Logic, Moral Argument, Moral Foundations, Morality, Non-Rational, Pastor, Postmodernism, Preaching, Reason, Religious Pluralism, Secular Humanism, Singing, Song