William Lane Craig | Ep. 189

G'day and welcome to pints with Aquinas my name is Matt Fred this is the show where we discuss faith and philosophy and theology and I'm super excited for our guests today we're gonna be interviewing philosopher and theologian dr. William Lane Craig I'm actually at a Baptist Church today this is why the setup is differently this is the church that dr. William Lane Craig attends so I'm super excited this is the first Evangelical that we've had on pints of Aquinas at least as a video show so super pumped about this we're gonna be discussing faith atheism

all these sorts of things I'm not going to get into the particular differences that exist between Catholics and Protestants because out of respect for dr. William Lane Craig he likes to stick to what he calls mere Christianity what we agree on so that's what I'll be doing today so for those of You who are hoping for fireworks hopefully you'll be disappointed besides me arguing with dr. William Lane Craig is the intellectual equivalent of me wrestling with Joe Rogan it wouldn't end well for me anyway so there you go I want to say thanks to a

couple of our sponsors before we begin first Catholic woodworker Catholic woodworker it's a small startup group that's creating beautiful rosaries home altars even altars that you can pack in your Suitcase and travel with fantastic I mean there are rosaries that are kind of dainty and they break in your pocket then there are rosaries that are super bulky and just unpractical impractical but then there are these ones this is honestly the best kind of rosary I've ever seen it's masculine it's durable and it's sacred feeling honestly so please go and give them your support Catholic woodworker

com buy a rosary for you for a friend and use the promo code Matt Fred one-word at checkout and that way you'll get 10% off I'll put a link in the description click that go through go and support and this is a great group creating really great stuff second group I want to thank is hallow h-e-l-l-o w hallow is an app that will help you pray and lead you through different prayer experiences it'll help you say meditate on the scriptures while in the background you can listen to synth music or Gregorian chant you can choose

a five Minute 10 minute 15 minute meditate they're really well done there are other apps out there that help you meditate but unfortunately they lead into New Age ways of thinking new age practices we want to steer clear of that how I was a hundred percent Catholic and really well produced hello offers a permanently free version of their app which includes content that's updated every day as well as a paid subscription option with premium content but by using the promo Code Matt Fred one-word at I guess just putting it putting it in check out there

you can try out all the sessions in the app for a full month totally for free so to take advantage of this special offer you need to go to hello app slash Matt Fred again link in the description here hello dot app slash Matt Fred and create your account online before downloading the app it really is excellent I'm totally willing to like advertise for people that I don't care about if there Any mattress companies out there I will totally advertise your stuff but in all sincerity my wife and I do have this app on our

phone it helps us to pray it does great examinations of conscience that you can use at night and things like this so check them out hello tap the / Matt Fred alright thanks very much here is my interview with dr. William Lane Craig [Music] all right How's that sound yeah that sounds pretty good it's good yeah we're kind of very amplified innate it's lovely to have you thank you so much for agreeing to do this interview certainly for those of my listeners and viewers who aren't terribly familiar with you who is William Lane Craig and

what is reasonable faith well I am a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Southern California and at Houston Baptist University in Texas I Became a Christian having been raised in a non believing home about 16 years of age and it turned my life upside down and I sensed at that time a call to the ministry to share this good news of the gospel with as many people as I could and so I wanted to present the gospel in the context of giving an intellectual defense for the credibility of the Christian world and

life view and so to prepare myself for that sort of ministry I went on to doctoral studies and did Doctoral degrees in both philosophy and theology both in Europe and then about 1213 years ago founded this nonprofit organization called reasonable faith which is a web-based ministry we have no physical plant whatsoever and hence no light bills no grant no mortgage nothing and we are attempting to use the electronic media and social media to reach as many people as we can with a defense and proclamation of the gospel you do a Great job of it I

was telling you before the interview that I first became familiar with your work and around 2007 was over in Ireland the New Atheism was it was a big thing back then and I listened to many debates and I have to say it was embarrassing to see so many Christians be demolished at least rhetorically and often substantively I thought by these atheists and I heard about this debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig and I Was reluctant to view it because I thought I can't see another debate where the Christian gets trounced well I was

pleasantly surprised as charming and rhetorically effective as crystal Hitchens was you just took him to the walk to the woodshed and so I wanted to ask you about that debate what are your thoughts on it what was it like meeting Christopher Hitchens well the interesting thing about that debate was that I didn't want to do it either Because I knew that Hitchens was so famed for his rhetoric and purple prose and I didn't think it would be a substantive debate and and I could get corralled into a situation where was all basically rhetoric but the

people at Biola told me that the student society a student organization had already contracted with Hitchens to do this debate and they were on the hook for $12,000 and so they had to find somebody who would be willing to debate him and So even though I initially refused they begged me to do it and I said all right I I will do it I think that this would be something that would draw a lot of attention if I can just not be bamboozled by his his rhetoric well just shortly before the debate Hitchens and I

were on a panel discussion and I believe Dallas Texas together at the Christian booksellers conference and in this panel discussion it just became very clear to me that he had absolutely no Understanding of the arguments for the existence of God and no substantial objections and so at the end of that panel I said to him I turned to him and said in two weeks time we're going to be debating the existence of God at Biola University and I would really encourage you in those two weeks to bone up on these arguments so that we can

have a more substantive discussion than we've had he was needling him I was I was and he didn't do so no and so as a result The the debated viola in terms of academic issues was very superficial looking back on it are you glad you did the debate oh I am it drew huge attention and has garnered over a million and a half views on YouTube I think it really was something that the Lord used to counteract the influence of Hitchens and the new atheism in general and to his credit in an interview prior to

the debate he spoke kindly of you he said I Don't usually get phone calls from fellow atheists saying don't blow this but he got many before he ended my that debated you I hadn't heard that he was very gentlemanly a lot of people were shocked at that in that they said he was like a lamb and wolves clothing hmm didn't really use his normal vulgarity and profanity he was really really well behaved in that debate probably because it was at a Christian University and he didn't want to alienate everybody and so He was he was

very gentle and well behaved and I think that worked to his detriment yeah maybe quite honestly okay and then later on you ended up doing a three-on-three debate in Mexico I believe and this is when you first met Richard Dawkins yes famously has refused to debate you what was that encounter with him like and well this was like the field another one of these things that has an interesting backstory the debate was originally Supposed to feature three atheists one of whom would be the physicist Michio Kaku mm-hmm well the night before the debate or so

while we were in Mexico City Kaku came to the organizer and says I just don't do debates I don't feel comfortable in this situation I want to back out get someone else and so since Dawkins was going to be at the conference giving a paper they said would you stand in for Michio Kaku and Without asking I think who was on the other team he said yes and so as it turned out he stepped into a debate with me and my colleagues even though he had sworn he would never be on the same stage with

me never debate for every Singh Lee creative reasons yes yes I mean he said he wouldn't even shake my hand mm-hmm because I was an immoral man in his estimation so that was very funny that I I did get this chance to go Mano-a-mano with Richard Dawkins and I felt that it went very well I was quite pleased and what was it like when you met him in the lobby of the hotel I know there's a story about that was extraordinary it was at a cocktail party at the organizers home before the conference began and

I was standing there and saw him walk in and I saw that he was walking across the room straight in my direction and that we would soon mate face to face and I thought wow well I might as well here it is grab the bull by the horn so he got closer I stuck out my hand and I said hello I'm Bill Craig and he he looked at me says oh hello and I said well I'm surprised to find that you're going to be involved in this debate and he said and why not and I

said well because you've always said you would never debate me and he said I don't consider this a debate with you the Mexicans asked me to participate and I agreed and and and at that point he Turned away and I said well I hope we have a good discussion and he said I think that highly unlikely and walked off Wow I was just I see you hold so that was my initial encounter with Richard Dawkins and I remember it vividly because it was so extraordinary I immediately went to my room and wrote down this conversation

word-for-word because I didn't want to forget it now out of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism which it seems has subsided a Great deal you know daniel dennett sam harris and the two have spoken of this might be a difficult question to answer but who do you think was the most formidable well I have interacted with all four of them in pub like forms either debates or dialogues and none of them was a formidable opponent they were all extremely superficial and had little understanding and especially little engagement with the arguments they wouldn't have a

good Debate you can tell a good debate by what's called clash that is to say the opposition of argument and counter-argument that's what makes for a good debate and in none of these debates was there significant clash but I suppose I would say that Harris did the least poorly of the four he is articulate and charming and so at least presented himself well at podium is that classic line of his it's good to be with William Lane Craig the one Christian Apologist who seems to put the fear of God in my fellow atheist handed compliment

afterwards again there was a reception after the debate and he and I had a chance to speak personally got on quite well it seems lovely very friendly and had a good good discussion who do you think is the most formidable atheist today the most formidable champ you know I think without a doubt it's Graham oppy your fellow yeah your compatriot nah he is scary smart scary smart and has Written important books in defense of atheism and critical of natural theology J Howard Sobel the Canadian philosopher was also a formidable opponent but he's passed away and

so that leaves I think grandma P is the torch bearer for the Atheist cause so here's my next question if you could choose one Christian apologist other than yourself to debate him publicly who would you choose Wow I know who would be capable of doing it intellectually but I've never heard him Really in a debate context and but that would be Alexander preusse at Baylor University who is again scary smart preusse has earned doctorates in both philosophy and mathematics and would easily be on a par with poppy there are others however is well Rob Coons

natin ut-austin it is a very formidable thinker and perhaps a better public speaker then proofs and then there's a younger fellow at Azusa Pacific Josh Rasmussen I've heard of him He's co-authored books with Bruce and is also very intelligent and presents himself very well I don't have any idea about any of these fellows debating skills but intellectually both thanks you I guess you really do because for example just to get name one factor one of the most crucial elements in a debate is time management you have to know how to manage the clock and what

happens to many of these fellows is they will spend five to eight minutes on two points and Then they never get to the rest and as a result they fail to address the issues in the debate and it's just poor management of the clock you've got to be able to know when it's time to move along and how to speak succinctly and to use that that precious time have you heard of the term Craig clones no I just heard of this last night you know I guess they say imitation is the highest form of flattery

but there are a lot of people out there who will now get into Debates and they sound very much like William Lane Craig I wanted to ask you what some things you would love to see Christian apologists stopped doing especially is it when it comes to debating like what are some things that you watch and you just cringe and wish they'd know better well coming unprepared I have seen debates such as the ones you described where the Christian debater gets just skinned alive and it is embarrassing and awkward And I think it's due to overconfidence

and lack of preparation I am bawendi these debates because they're not equipped for it and they're overconfident and they very often will will lose the other thing more in general that I think Christians need to be reminded of is not to be so angry and mean there's no need to be sarcastic or personal we can conduct our debates and ourselves in a civil manner that exemplifies the character of Christ I know from personal experience when I get nasty or sarcastic even if in one-on-one conversations it's because I don't know what I'm talking about and if

I'm not confident in what I know and how to respond then I rely on cheap shots I think that's what people do and shouldn't be doing yes that's probably I think a good observation when you are intellectually prepared and you know the answers it just gives you a sort of quiet mmm confidence that there's no Need to get hot under the collar you just explain to the other person where he is mistaken hmm what do you think the state of the New Atheism where is that today is it has it receded has it been eclipsed

by the jordan peterson phenomenon has it altered somewhat what do you see while it's public representatives seem to have receded its cultural impact seems to be ongoing and lingering the rise of the so-called nuns the decline In mainline church membership the sort of alliance between secularism and political progressivism I think all of these are cultural symptoms that the New Atheism and its influence is still a powerful cultural force mm-hmm it's it's it's interesting that I find myself agreeing with people like Sam Harris and others as they commentate on social situations such as the transgender phenomenon

and things like this I find myself how is it possible that I'm now Making allies with this guy as the culture becomes increasingly secular and bizarre yeah I think it's great when we can across political lines in that way it is awkward that Christianity seems to be so aligned with conservative right-wing politics and yet on certain moral issues like right to life and same-sex marriage it's hard to see room for compromise from a Christian point of view hmm on those issues it seems to me that there One is ethically committed to certain positions regardless of

how politically incorrect they might be okay just want to take a pause for one moment to say thanks to our third sponsor covenant eyes covenant eyes is simply the best filtering and accountability software on the web filtering that is to say it blocks the bad stuff accountability that is to say if you go anywhere you shouldn't your accountability partner will get an email telling them where you Went what you typed into Google how long you were on a particular perhaps pornographic website and so on the good thing about accountability software I think is that it

treats us like responsible moral agents we can make choices but then there are consequences to those choices this is fantastic especially if you have kids you need to do the right thing and have this we are so set on covenant eyes we don't let our children play at people's houses if they Have technology and don't have covenant eyes it's really important stuff this is the responsible thing to do if you're a parent and you don't want your kid getting hooked on internet porn you need to get covenant eyes today here's how you can get a

month for free so you can try it out for yourself go to covenant eyes calm and when you purchase it use my name mat Fred one-word at checkout as a promo code you will get a month for free so you can try it for that whole Month if you don't like it quit you won't be charged a cent but I really don't think you'll quit it really is the right thing to do go to cabinet eyes calm when you purchase it use the promo code Matt Fred for a month free this show is called pints

with Aquinas and I know you differ with Aquinas as many of us do on different things but I'm sure you have some respect for the man o co-host especially when it comes to Argumentation and things of it yes whenever I deal with a substantive theological issue one of the first things I'll do Issy what Thomas Aquinas has to say about it so that even if I disagree with him in the end certainly his viewpoints need to be sought so in my most recent work on the atonement that I did I I looked not only at

Anselm's whose book core Deus homo why the god man is ethical in medieval Theology nevertheless I wanted to see what Aquinas had to say on the atonement as well one of the things I think people appreciate about him and I do too is that he would seem to steal man as opposed to straw man his opponent no I have it but you're right I think you do a great job at that you articulate your opponents position fairly which I think then gives that allows that person to kind of respect you more before you critique it

well thank you that is Important you don't want to attack straw men because then your critique has little value but if you can state the opposing view persuasively for example the problem of evil and suffering and when I could have sent that forcefully very then your answer will have all that all the more weight if you're able to turn back the force of that argument I think it's a la straight 'iv that you know Aquinas in some of his works he has a big work or de Marlowe on evil and Sometimes there he'll present himself

over two dozen objections cash to the position he wants to make and even in the Summa theologia he comes up with as many as 12 but when it comes to God's existence he can only think of two that are worth responding to and it seems to me that those are the two they usually the most formidable or serious today and those are namely the problem of evil and the idea that we can explain everything without God anyway hmm did you agree With that assessment or do you think that there are other good arguments against God's

existence well I do think that there are coherence of Thea's 'im arguments for example that simplicity and the Trinity are incompatible with each other or that divine timelessness is incompatible with God's action in the world particularly the in carne of Christ or that platonism provides a very substantial challenge to the doctrine of divine a sanity or self Existence because these platonic entities like numbers sets and other mathematical objects propositions properties possible worlds seem to exist ah say they seem to be self existent uncreated eternal beings and this is a tremendous challenge I think to theism

it was one that troubled me for years but was simply on the back burner until some years ago I took it down from the shelf and began to work on it and I spent 13 years on that problem until I Came to real intellectual peace and satisfaction with it so I do think that issues related to the coherence of theism can also be formidable objections and those objections are a lot more serious than can God create a rock so heavy that he can't live what we hear on YouTube but there are people doing real work

like that well what was your solution to the problem when it came to Platonism being a threat to God well now this is Interesting it's essentially till mistake I became an anti realist about these abstract objects I don't think there really are such things hmm so things like when you say abstract objects you mean things like the number two yeah for example we have two pints here on this table of water to be clear yes but in addition to the two pints is there a third thing the number two hmm well I don't think so

I don't think that the number two exists In the same way that homes do objects is that what you mean it doesn't exist independent of the devel I don't even think it exists at all and I think that a great deal of our ordinary language refers to and quantifies over things that don't really exist and so I become an Adi realist with respect to these mathematical entities and abstract objects and that's what Aquinas says about them till he says they're antia Rati oh nice they're just things of Reason but they're not things that actually exist

in the world am i right in thinking that Augustine said that these things exist in the mind of God yes so that was a Gustin solution that's a different solution that's conceptualism and that is the historic Christian position is that these platonic entities don't exist as abstract objects rather Agustin took the realm of the forms the Platonic forms and he moved them into the mind of God As the divine ideas and so these things exist but not as abstract objects they exist as ideas in the mind of God well Aquinas took it a step further

and I think in the right direction in saying God's thoughts are not complex there are not really a plurality of divine ideas that's just our way of looking at it but in fact God's cognition is simple and and therefore it's true that God grasps all of these truths like two plus two equals four it's not as though there are Really a plurality of divine ideas and so I find that view to be a step forward an advance on the Augustinian view which simply moves the platonic realm into the mind of God interesting well speaking of

Thomas Aquinas I wanted to get to some arguments against God's existence and I think the most formidable one at least emotionally and maybe even logically is the problem of evil and I know there are different ways to articulate that argument but I wanted to share with you Sort of Aquinas --is and just have you respond to that again I think Aquinas does a great job at arguing against himself you sometimes think how's he gonna get out of this one yes he says it seems that God does not exist because if one of two contraries be

infinite the other would be altogether destroyed but the word God means that he is infinite goodness if therefore God existed there would be no evil discoverable But there is evil in the world therefore God does not exist that's a very metaphysical argument that that has nothing to do with why would God per min evil and suffering which is the normal way we have but how could an all good right yeah we're offended or we're yes how these things why doesn't you intervene to prevent or stop it but this is a very metaphysical argument saying God's

infinite goodness in a sense just expels evil so that it cannot Exist if there were infinite lights they would be no doctors right exactly and here I think that Agustin he took the right tack namely that evil does not have any sort of positive ontological status evil is a privation parasitical yes exactly it is an absence of something namely it's a privation or a lack of proper order in the creaturely will rather than being ordered to God as the supreme good it's ordered toward lesser Goods and therefore there is evil there is a an absence

of right order in the creaturely will and that's what evil is and that yep privation is real but it's not something that is positive on de la vie a status well I want to share with you his response you know these responses are very quick this is one one or two sentences but I wanted to see what you think about his response to his objection and he actually does quote Augustine he says as Augustine says Since God is the highest good he would not allow any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and

goodness was such as to bring good even out of evil huh this is part of the infinite goodness of God that he should allow evil to exist and out of it produce good what do you think of that as a response and what might be a better response at least in in the sense of concede us seem to be addressing the question why does God allow these things whereas I took His question to be more metaphysical and require that Augustinian answer that I gave but beyond that point to ask why does God allow it well

I do think that is an expression of the goodness of God that he gives freedom of the will to creatures so that they are significant moral agents and that entails the risk that they may make bad choices so I think that it is an expression of the goodness of God that he Accords to creatures the freedom to disobey and Thereby to bring about this privation in the world which is evil you know certainly when you think of evils in the world that we can't seem to see how any good could come from them it's quite

troubling even the suffering of animals you know oh yeah Australia right now here a lot of Horus fires and these poor things are burning to death it doesn't seem like there's any good that could come from that or we can think of horrific things Like sex slavery these sorts of things it doesn't seem like a good God would allow it does it that's right it doesn't and I think that emotionally this is very difficult but logically at least there's no logical contradiction in saying that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing these things to occur

the Atheist would have to show that there's some kind of a logical impossibility in God's having a morally sufficient reason for allowing this to Occur and this is now generally acknowledged to be a burden of proof that no atheist can sustain it simply lays a burden on his shoulders too heavy to be supported rather the atheist better line is to say well it's possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting these things but it's highly unlikely because these things look pointless they look as though they have no justifying ends and here I think

that the proper response among many is To point out that we are simply not in a position to make those kind of probability judgments with any confidence we're limited in time and space and intelligence and insight and it might be the gods morally sufficient reason for allowing these forest fires in Australia might not emerge until 500 years from now into the future in fact when you think of such a major devastating event this is probably going To change Australian culture and the course of the future in Australia it could have ramifications far-reaching into the future

sort us through the sort of ripple effect at any event sense through history such that God would have in the end morally sufficient reasons for allowing this to occur it's really actually the trivial events like hitting my thumb with a hammer that are harder to see why God would permit that but for big events like the Holocaust or the Tsunami several years ago or these Australian fires there it it's not at all difficult to imagine that these could send a ripple effect through history that might be just earth shattering and changing so that God could

well have morally sufficient reasons for allowing these now what you'll be accused of saying and what you're not saying is that therefore the Holocaust was good Wow right that would be a consequentialist view some people And ethicists think that if something has good consequences then the action itself is good in other words they think the end justifies the means and I think we quite properly reject that kind of ethical Theory consequentialism it is not true that the end justifies the means it can be the case that there are certain events that are genuinely evil but

that are justly permitted and do in fact ultimately have good consequences but those good consequences don't make The acts themselves good right no Christian would say because of the crucifixion therefore the rebellion of Adam and Eve was good because it ended well yes that that's correct or even that because Christ's crucifixion resulted in the salvation of so many people it was a good thing that the Romans did in torturing and crucifying him no that was evil that was wrong what they did that was inhuman um but in the Sovereignty of God God has brought goods

his powder awareness isn't it this is just what Aquinas just said yes belongs to the sovereignty of God that he can bring good out of evil yes exactly well speaking of you know ends not justifying the means I want to get your take on lying Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear on this Aquinas is very clear that there's nits never permissible to lie using sort of natural Law theory the idea that you know speech is for truth and to pervert the end of speech would be to pervert the act

and therefore under no circumstance can one lie of course as soon as you say that someone brings up the Nazi at the door yes of course and so I wanted to get your take on lying in general I suppose no I'm not an ethicist attack to say so that this is outside my area but we're all faced with these moral dilemmas and so they're Rather inescapable and my inclination is to say that lying can be morally justified in certain circumstances because of our duty to a higher moral law there's a sort of hierarchical structure of

moral laws and it would be more important to fulfill the command to love your neighbor as yourself than to not bear false witness and so it would be better to lie to the Gestapo police at the door than to surrender the Jewish family in your cellar over to them by Telling them yes we've got some hiding in the basement you know and domestic philosophy we talk about things being intrinsically evil never permissible and then other actions can be permissible you know depending on the circumstances so but do you think that there are things that are

you know this language intrinsically evil well so it's a liar I wouldn't know I mean I I think something can be intrinsically evil But there it could be justified that you do it in light of an overriding good there are some things I think that could never be done however which is probably what you're referring to for example I would say blasphemy or not loving the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mine is strength but bowing down before some Idol and denying him it's hard for me to see how such an

act could ever be morally justified in my mind as I think through this and I don't Have a hard and fast conclusion on this either but I suppose I would say I'd go with Aquinas and the church and thinking that lying is never permissible but I suppose I would say in extraordinary circumstances such as the the Nazi at the door you wouldn't be necessarily culpable but that's just where I'm at right now does that make sense for the guilt of that oh well it makes sense in in this way either lying's intrinsically wrong or it

isn't if it isn't then there Can be circumstances where you can lie and not be culpable in any sense I think that's your view but if Aquinas is right then it's never permissible to lie yeah you would always be cold you would always be in some way culpable but if you've got a gun at your head and you say something you're not necessarily responsible for that in the way you may be if it was a premeditated yes yeah well that that I think a plausible joint of you yeah okay well here's what I've Done I

did a survey online and I shared with people about 15 arguments against God from the Friendly Atheist as he as he's known by Hemant Mehta he did a YouTube show where he gave 20 so-called arguments Wow against God's existence and this has over 260,000 views and honestly they're not very good but I thought what I would do is read several of them and have you just respond I promise I haven't heard these yet so this is yes don't worry You've encountered these again and again again but what was interesting is I threw these up and

I said to my followers I want you to tell me what argument you find most difficult to respond to yes and we had literally thousands of bajo right in so again this is don't worry you're not on the hot seat here so in fact I shared this with somebody and said these arguments aren't worthy to show dr. Craig oh well maybe they're Not but people are often moved by bad arguments they are it's important that we address them yes okay God is just Santa Claus for adults well I think that we have good arguments to

show that God exists and we have very powerful evidence that Santa Claus does not exist there have been mappings and of the North Pole and so forth it's physically impossible for him to do what he's supposed to do on Christmas Eve but we don't have comparably good arguments Against God so I think that the situation is not analogous next objection who created God and how does your answer to that make any sense my view is that God is a self existent uncreated eternal being and therefore cannot have a cause and this is not something that's

special pleading for God the Atheist is typically said this about the universe that the universe is uncreated eternal and self existent but I think that's highly unlikely in light Of modern cosmology but it shows it's not special pleading for God mm-hmm what about when people say they just say it there's no evidence again these really arguments yes what I say to that is is that what you think well I can think of at least five good arguments for God's existence and at that point he's got to say yeah like what and then I'm off and

running and I share with him a number of arguments for God's existence so it just completely pulls The rug from under the person who says there's no evidence for God's existence something I've learned from apologist Trent Horne is to say to somebody okay what what do you think is the least bad argument for God's existence obviously you think they're all bad what's the least bad and very often this this kind of exposes not always because there are very thoughtful atheists of course but sometimes this will expose the atheist cuz they can't Really give you the

Atheist the argument they think is the least bad ah yes that is embarrassing okay next one science explains so much of what we use to attribute to God well I would agree that we shouldn't postulate some sort of God of the gaps where we use God to plug up the holes in our scientific knowledge but I think that we have very powerful scientific evidence for premises in philosophical arguments for the existence of God for example the second Premise of the Kalam cosmological argument you lay the whole thing out for those where that argument has three

steps one whatever begins to exist has a cause - the universe began to exist three therefore the universe has a cause now the second premise the universe began to exist is one to which scientific evidence is relevant and contemporary cosmology provides honestly very very powerful evidence in support of the truth of that second premise so In this case you've got a philosophical argument for God's existence that contains a premise which is powerfully supported by contemporary science another example would be the design argument based on the fine-tuning of the universe and it also has three steps

one the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity chance or design - it is not due to physical necessity or chance 3 therefore it is due to design and again the second Premise that the fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance is powerfully supported by contemporary science Richard Dawkins argues against physical necessity on scientific grounds so he has two options left yes and then roger penrose a more formidable intellect the doggins of Oxford University argues against chance purely on the basis of scientific evidence so there's very good scientific evidence for

that second premise and given that Premise then you have a philosophical argument for a cosmic designer of the universe so that would be illustrative of the way in which contemporary science can be useful to the natural theologian who wants to argue for the existence of a creator and designer of the cosmos right and so these arguments aren't plugging up holes in our knowledge not at all as you can see on the contrary I I will often ask the atheist or agnostic Why do you fuse to follow the evidence where it leads why are you so

resistant to the beginning of the universe when that's where the evidence points that's a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on astronomy or astrophysics and yet some people will just dig in their heels at that because I think they see where it's leading and so it's not a matter of appealing to gaps and our knowledge is saying please why won't you follow the evidence where It points which are you more convinced of the argument from philosophy or astrophysics when it comes to the finitude of the world Wow I suppose I like

the philosophical arguments I am a philosopher those really persuade me where science is of course always provisional and capable of revision and so what one has to say is that the scientific evidence that we have now provides very powerful support of the second premise but these Metaphysical arguments against the infinitude of the past just strike me as cogent persuasive and they've been around for a thousand years or more and this is something I really hope Thomas Aquinas is wrong about yes blistering words to say about the Kalam argument his contemporary st. Bonaventure exactly proposed it

and but I hope he's wrong and whenever I hear people articulate it I mean sue seems question to me in defense of Aquinas way to go This is a way to appeal to our fan base in defense of Aquinas he does think that the Kalam cosmological argument offered by these Islamic theologians is a good probability argument it does establish that there probably is a first cause of the origin of the universe but because Aquinas a standard for success in natural theology is so high that it has to be a demonstration he says we shouldn't use

these probability arguments they make us look bad they are An embarrassment he says before unbelievers week we would should restrict ourselves to strict demonstrations well almost no natural theologian today holds to so high and unrealistic a standard in natural theology and that would mean these probability arguments have a proper role to play in our natural theology I want to get you to give us the sort of philosophical argument for the finish due to the past but I think it does say Again a great deal about Thomas Aquinas who people will often accuse him you say

you say of being under the thumb of the church but he rejected the most prominent argument in Christian history up to that point and sounds ontological argument he rejects it yeah ejects the cosmos so it's just to say that if he were simply under the thumb of the church at the very least he wouldn't put them forward but he prayed he refused given the influence that he's Had and his recognized place in the have you been shot at that as you've interacted with Catholics you think why you all so hung up on Thomas Aquinas a

yes yeah I do think that because I mean I've read a coin as I studied him from the Masters level on and read him and it does seem to me odd that there is a sort of slavish devotion to this particular medieval thinker but his being recognized by the church in the way as the theory has yes it it gives him this Very hallowed hmm position hmm is there someone like that would you say in the evangelical world or history I know there are lots of different kinds of Protestants but is there well probably Agustin

Agustin more in the kind of Calvinist leaning community yes yes more so there but really almost for all Protestants they look back to Agustin with tremendous reverence and authority I think they most certainly neither Augustine or Aquinas is infallible and So we should oh absolutely and they they would have insisted on ourselves absolutely well this is a this is even what Aquinas says towards the end of his life if I've taught anything that's in contradiction to the church rejected and he famously denied the Immaculate Conception or infamously here's what let me explain so he couldn't

reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Christ being the savior of all and so he said well she was Sinless from the time of being in the womb of her mother but not at conception it's quite clear on that and it wasn't until Duns Scotus formulated a sort of argument that showed how the two could be reconciled at the church and so Aquinas is concerned I gather from what you've just said was that if Mary was immaculately conceived she was without sin and therefore didn't need a Savior right and that's not the position of the church Wow

The position of the church is that she did need a Savior that she was saved preemptively so I think it was done SCOTUS is analogy he said you know you suppose a man's walking through the forest and he falls into a pit and you reach down and pull him out that's one way of saving him well the other way you could save him is just before his foot is hovering over the hole you hold him back and so that's the position but you know Interesting I don't wanna get into the Immaculate Conception alright well it's

um obviously to in his another argument when we look at some of the apparent atrocities in the Old Testament here's another argument from him and Mira or a statement really drowning just about everything alive not really a sign of love is it no it was a sign of judgment he's talking about Noah's ala jami'a and that was a sign of judgment Upon a corrupt and enormous Lee wicked world so right it's not a sign of love no but is it is it in contradiction to God being oh no because God is holy and just and

so in a sense he administered capital punishment on these persons okay there are thousands of God's you don't believe in what makes yours any different there's good evidence and arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God and I think there are good evidences in the New Testament for The person of Jesus of Nazareth is God's decisive self revelation and that sets these Christian monotheism apart from every other religion or credo in the world okay Priya has never fixed anything physically impossible why won't God heal amputees well God is sovereign and it's up to him whom

he chooses to heal or not amputees will be healed in the resurrection when we are raised from the dead with whole supernatural bodies and Until then God has chosen not to do that kind of restorative work apparently but would you go so far as to say that this hasn't happened or won't happen well let me say that I I would go I wouldn't go so far say that it couldn't happen I a God could heal an amputee if he wanted to but I don't know of any case that he has about healings in general well

Craig Keener's two-volume work on contemporary miracles provides ample case studies at least for Miracles in our day and age it actually turns out that miracle reports are much much more common than these atheists and agnostics would have you believe if you talk to most people many if not most of them will claim to have seen or witnessed a miracle hmm I wonder just a side note do you ever get tired of responding to the same objections saying the same things giving the same arguments you've been incredibly devoted to defending meat what you call me at

Christianity and holds existence do you ever get tired of it and when I get into beekeeping or something else no I don't think so I don't I mean when someone says things like there's no evidence for God's existence or God is just Santa Claus for adults or something that said I find these amusing honestly they kind of tickle me because they're just so majority' Vande silly yeah okay where you're born essentially determines what you believe why is the truth based on Geography ok I've written on this one quite a bit and boy where to begin

let me say that if you think that the fact that where you born affects what you believe invalidates the truth of what you believe then you are guilty of a textbook example of the genetic fallacy the genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate a point of view by showing how the person came to believe it so for example the fact that I believe that the earth goes around the Sun is due to the Fact that I was born in 20th century Western society rather than in ancient Greece for example does that make my belief that the

earth goes around the Sun faults or unjustified well obviously not that would be a genetic fallacy and in the same way it's true that people's religious beliefs are largely determined by where their ORN but that doesn't do anything to invalidate the truth of any one of those beliefs that is a question of the Evidence and that therefore requires us to look at the evidence for it against these beliefs right so it would be fallacious to say you're only an atheist because you were raised in Portland Oregon well it would be fallacious but it would be

a legitimate turning the tables because this our this argument or objection is a double-edged sword and if it's true that your beliefs are simply determined by where you raised well then if this atheist had been raised in Medieval Europe he would likely be a Christian if he had been born in Pakistan he'd likely be a Muslim does that mean that his atheism is therefore unjustified or false well only if you endorse the genetic fallacy two more why doesn't God make his existent evident and really I do find this problematic this seems to me to be

something of a subset to the problem of evil yeah you know he says no hide-and-seek game lasts this long which I thought was funny hmm I think this is one of the more serious objections it's called the hiddenness of God by philosophers who reflect on this and here what I want to say is that God in His sovereignty knows how people would react to whatever circumstances he places them in so God knows whether or not more people would come to a saving knowledge of himself were he to make his existence more evident than he has

and given that God's will is to save as many people as possible I think that it's Quite possible that God has given evidence to us which is sufficient for those with an open mind and an open heart to find him and find eternal life and that if he were to provide more evidence of his existence no people would come to find a personal relationship with him in eternal life true they might come to believe that God exists they might add another item to their inventory of things that exist but that doesn't mean that they would

come To love him and know him and find eternal life which is what is God's real interest it's not just getting people to add another item to their ontological inventory it's bringing them into this love relationship with himself and I think for that purpose God knows exactly what amount of evidence and hiddenness is appropriate to achieve that we see an example of this don't we in the book of Exodus where God's existence is more Apparent perhaps then is today and yet that doesn't mean they didn't worship the golden calf right that he had the pillar

of fire by day and our by night and the pillar of cloud by day and yet it didn't produce heart change in the people they believed that God existed but nevertheless as you say they turned to idolatry again and again with tiresome repetitiveness Israel apostatized so that's a perfect illustration of the fact that just Making God's existence evident isn't a guarantee that more people will come to know him and find salvation which is what God's real interest is so the Atheist to put this argument through successfully would have to show that if God's existence were

more evident that more people would come to a saving knowledge of him than do and that's pure conjecture we have absolutely no idea how the future is going to go or how to estimate that sort of thing it's it's Pure speculation by his Pascal has written about this and I get from what I've read of you that maybe you you're a fan oh I think Pascal was incredible yes and he lived in a very skeptical age yes a contemporary of Descartes right and a culture of libertinism that sought pleasure and hedonism and so Pascal wanted

to get people to think about the human predicament if there is no God what are the consequences for human being and if There is a god what difference does it make and I think he's he's just masterful in laying out the human predicament and if any of your listeners haven't read Pascal's Paul say yeah Paul say the thoughts I would really encourage them to do so it's an easy read very entertaining and very thought-provoking if you have a DD to because this is short little clips that you hide any way through yeah for readers or

listeners who aren't familiar With the work what this is is an assemblage of notes that Pascal left at his death unassembled unordered just like a shoebox full of notes and scholars have numbered these and put them into a sort of logical order that they think might have been the order that Pascal was thinking for but as a result you just have these pithy little thoughts that are good oh so stimulating now I think that Pascal's wager often doesn't get a very fair shake I think That if there's people out there watching perhaps now and that

the to live options on the table are atheism and Christian theism and they might be they might want to say well maybe agnosticism is just the most respectable decision because at the end of the day I'm not a hundred percent sure so I'm just gonna remain on the fence what would you say to someone well I think when you're down to atheism versus Christian theism is your alternatives And Pascal's wager really goes through and and that wager is that if you believe and you're right you you gain infinity worse if you believe in you're wrong

you've just lost you'll never know well you'll never know and all you've lost is the pleasures of sin and in this lifetime whereas on the atheistic view if you're wrong you suffer infinite loss separation from God whereas if you're right as an atheist all you've gained is the pleasures of sin for this brief Lifetime and so Pascal is quite right in saying if you do a cost-benefit analysis if the evidence is equal now that that's the the keyer that the evidence can't inclined either way if the evidence is 50/50 then he says a cost-benefit of

and now analysis says you should believe and I think that's right well suppose somebody hears that and they agree with you but I just don't know how to make themselves believe it feels like they're Being hypocrites or something yes or fake phonies Pascal addressing that issue and he says what you should begin to do is immerse yourself in the Christian community start going to church participating in the services prayer I would add things like Bible reading Christian Fellowship and God will work a change in your heart through these spiritual practices that can help to bring

you to belief mm-hmm I wanted to ask you you being do you Consider yourself a Protestant or evangelical what do you like I don't mean to be offensive I don't know the terms that people like to use either of those labels is one I accept yeah so your Protestant I'm a Catholic I thought maybe I we could say what what is something that you think we could learn from each other no that's a fair question and one thing is a Catholic and I think that many Catholics find very admirable in their Protestant brothers And sisters

is their love and reverence of holy scripture from I know many Catholics thank God there's been really a revolution among the laity who are picking up the Scriptures walking into Scripture studies largely result of vatican ii as well in parma yeah but even prior to that you do have popes suggesting that we need to study the bible good yeah either way we are seeing that and thank god for that yes and I see that in my evangelical friends I see The emphasis they place on their personal relationship with their Savior which i think is beautiful

and in even the way I find that evangelicals get together in small groups and they see the importance of living a life in fellowship with others or true think that's something we Catholics can look at one of the things that strikes me about Catholicism is that as I if I'm not mistaken we have four Supreme Court decision who are Catholics there has Never been an evangelical on the Supreme Court Catholics through their universities and the culture I guess values intellectual engagement with their faith in a way that evangelicals haven't for evangelicals we raise our children

with the vision of becoming a missionary or a pastor or Christian worker but we don't give them the vision of becoming a scientist or a lawyer or a judge and as a result we have not had the sort of Influence in American society that Catholics have with respect to justices and I would very much hope that in the future we will see an evangelical appointed to the Supreme Court but up until this point it's been the Roman Catholic justices who have been holding the line in support of biblical values I hope they'll continue to if

push comes to shove because there are many people who are Catholic by name like Joe Biden who are actually not very good Catholics At all and he presented himself a communion recently and was denied and I'm glad he was denied I saw yeah I was embarrassing I think it was an act of charity I mean if you believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist and you take Paul's words that you shouldn't you know present then it would be an active check your eating and drinking condemnation on yourself yeah yeah so I think you

know we're seeing a lot of scandals in the church And the Catholic Church now it's it's heartbreaking for us Catholics you know and many people are fleeing and this part of me and I'm like I get it but I think we're gonna see a sort of revival or a renewal as people draw closer to Christ and the Scriptures and the teachings of the church and they're know it's no longer fashionable to be culturally Catholic I guess the last thing anyone wants to be oh yeah like if there's no good reason yeah I hope You're right

and I I'm optimistic as well I now this is doubtless controversial but I think that the best thing that the Roman Catholic Church could do to get past these sorts of current problems would be to eliminate priestly celibacy in the Uni at church Catholic priests are allowed to have wives and I think this is placed celibacy I mean I think is placed a burden upon these men that is so unsustainable that it helps to Foster this this terrible undercurrent of sexual abuse and scandal and cover-up I think one of the strengths of the Evangelical Protestant

Church is our married pastors a pastor and his wife are the models for people in the church and for the Christian family and Wow if that were to happen in the Catholic Church it would revitalize it I think well certainly you know priestly celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine and so it's open to changing and I Myself attend an Eastern Catholic Church here in Roswell Epiphany of our Lord it's lovely and as you say priest prior to ordination can be married but I would I would disagree that that priestly celibacy is the primary factor

that would lead a priest to abuse another person certainly the what we do with our Lord's words who says if you can accept be a eunuch for the kingdom then you should and it wasn't too much of a burden for Paul presumably right so they Have to excuse himself do you not see there being any role for what I would see it as voluntary rather than required but isn't it voluntary if one chooses to be a priest oh but I mean you can't be a priest that's true you can't be a priest in the Western

Church and be married unless you're kind of convert and yes and as an incident for that as you say in eastern Catholicism yeah that's been the tradition yeah and we have we have married Western priests who say convert From Anglicanism and the like yeah but that I think us in the church too we can we look at we hear the argument this might not be the argument you're making but some people might say if only you would allow married priests than my goodness you know you guys would explode in your numbers and you'd have a

lot more priests but we look at the Anglican Church that didn't happen there that might be for other reasons well that's that's a fair counter-argument I Think that that's a good point and the in the United States the poor Episcopal Church has just been in collapse and so there yes well this shows the importance of having not only these practical matters but also right doctrine and as the churches like the Episcopal Church have become increasingly yeah unbiblical and the doctrine there's just no reason if you're a parishioner to get up and the dark and the

cold on a Sunday morning where somebody that isn't there Yeah now I think we are seeing this resurgence and this renewal among all Christian denominations perhaps that we want to be serious about our faith and so that leads me to please did you see my dialogue with Bishop Baron I did okay we got on famously good and the Catholics who were involved in and attended that event were so enthusiastic and I thought this shows how we can work together collaborate no indeed I think you've done a tremendous deal of good in The Catholic Church just

by your witness and your writings and your research you've inspired people I know to write on this in this area of atheism things and they're doing tremendous work actually mhm and and that's because of your work and your outside of the Catholic Church doing such great work so if you yeah I mean and the Catholics I know you know that's all you know disagree with him here or there but they also find it admirable in a way if you Don't accept what the Catholic Church teaches and says you ought to believe then of course you

shouldn't become Catholic you don't want to pretend to believe what you don't believe as we kind of begin to wrap up here I wanted to ask you what we Christians ought to be doing in this increasingly secular society because I think sometimes the temptation can be to treat God as a sort of equation that we keep up on the chalkboard and we forget that if Christianity is true we are engaged not in a math equation or a syllogism or a series of them but a spiritual battle yes what advice do you have for us Christians

as we live in today's well first and foremost we need to be training our children so that we don't lose the next generation they are our first responsibility and so I think Christian parents need to be training their children in Christian doctrine and Apologetics teaching them why and what we believe simply at first from an early age but then with increasing sophistication as they grow older so that we don't lose them when they go to high school and university so first and foremost strengthen the Christian family and this is primarily the responsibility of the father

not the mother the father needs to provide this kind of leadership in the Christian home in training the children and doctrine and apologetics And then beyond that I think all of us need to be involved in some sort of evangelism or discipleship ministry we mean to be doing something counseling people at a pregnancy center serving at an inner-city mission going on a mission trip to a distant land leading a Bible study there just so many different ways in which each of us can be salt and light in our darkened decaying world and so each of

us needs to be involved in that way thank you very much for your Time this has been an absolute delight and really appreciate it we're gonna close here on YouTube I have one more question for you which I want to share with our patrons those who support us and that's this