Are Aliens and A I a Sign of the End?

KEVIN HARRIS: Hey, glad you're here! Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. By the way, if you like free stuff and you like to sharpen your mind then you’re going to like Equip from Reasonable Faith. The Equip platform is our on-demand training center for Christian apologetics and philosophy. Now, whether you're new to the conversation or ready to tackle the deep stuff, Equip gives you the tools to defend your faith with confidence. We have courses on everything from apologetics 101 to Molinism to the attributes of God. You name it, we got it. Just go to KnowWhyYouBelieve.org or you can go to ReasonableFaith.org to create your free account and start learning today. Now, let's get to the studio with Dr. Craig.

Dear Dr. Craig, with all the AI hype and several experts stating that we're only a few years from the development of AGI (that's artificial general intelligence, which is a hypothetical computer program that can perform intellectual tasks as well as or better than a human), how should Christians react to all of this? And what would it mean for the biblical worldview? Hector in Chile.

DR. CRAIG: I have recently begun to read in the area of cognitive science which is a broad array of disciplines that attempt to model the human mind or human brain on a computer, and according to the reading I've done it has now generally been realized by cognitive scientists that a computational model of the brain is, in fact, incorrect. Computers can mimic certain unconscious or automatic features of human cognition but it cannot reproduce human inferences that rely upon the meaning of certain sentences – what is called the semantic contents of the propositions being considered. And so I think it's generally recognized now that this computational model of human thinking is inadequate and incomplete and that therefore we never will be able to have mechanically-based minds.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question from Germany:

Dear Professor William Lane Craig, I'm a great admirer of you and your work. My question is whether one has to reject everything an atheist says or can one still find parts sympathetic and right even though this person rejects Jesus Christ? Thank you very much. Respectfully, David in Germany.

DR. CRAIG: I certainly think that we can learn a great deal from atheists. So I read atheist philosophers all the time and find them sometimes insightful. This will be especially true if you're working on an area that is relatively neutral religiously. For example, in my study of the philosophy of time, this is an area where Christians are very under-representative and done little work. So most of my reading in philosophy of time was of secular philosophers and physicists. And it was very, very educational and a source of great insight. Similarly, in my work on abstract objects, this is another area where Christian philosophers are under-represented. And in learning about the various anti-realisms like fictionalism and neutralism and pretense theory and so forth, most of the authors I read were secular, and I learned an enormous amount from them. It was wonderful. And I've even been able to become friends with some of these philosophers and corresponded with them. So I think David should avail himself of the truth wherever he finds it. My philosophy professor at Wheaton College, Arthur Holmes, had a saying that was a favorite of his and that is that all truth is God's truth. Therefore, we can avail ourselves of truth wherever it is to be found. All truth is God's truth.

KEVIN HARRIS: We have a few questions from Facebook, and these are from various Christian and apologetics sites.

Dear Dr. Craig, what do you make of all the hoopla in the news over UFOs? Would the existence of ETs undermine the Christian faith? Do you think it is in any way indicative of end times? Charmaine

DR. CRAIG: I certainly don't think it's indicative of end times. There's nothing in the Bible that would suggest that making contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life is a sign of the end, nor do I think the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life would undermine the Christian faith. The Bible is God's revelation to humanity, the inhabitants of the planet Earth, and if God has created somewhere in the far-flung universe a race of intelligent extraterrestrial life, then undoubtedly he loves them as well and will have provided for those persons a way of salvation and finding eternal life appropriate for them as well. However, having said that, I've got to admit that when I heard on the news lately about the supposed existence of a spacecraft in the possession of the Pentagon and that they even had corpses of these extraterrestrials, it really did send a chill up my spine. It occurred to me that if, say, next Tuesday the Pentagon were to make public such a craft and display the remains of such an extraterrestrial person, this would be emotionally devastating. It would be unbelievable. I think that it would be the greatest natural event in the course of human history if this were to transpire. Now, I say “natural event” because I'm not comparing it to the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. But in terms of natural events, I think for us to have contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life would be the greatest event in human history.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, in one of your questions of the week, you said that you hoped you would be with God in heaven. While it may have just been a semi-amusing or humble comment, don't you feel assured that your salvation is secure? Winthrop.

DR. CRAIG: I wasn't meant to be semi-amusing. I take it that I was expressing the same sort of modesty that the apostle Paul expressed when he says, "Brethren, I do not consider that I have attained it, but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind, I press on toward the mark of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Paul says he did all these things so that, “if possible, I might attain the resurrection of the dead.” So this represents not a lack of confidence in God but, as it were, a lack of confidence in my own abilities and perseverance. You know, the error of the apostle Peter was overconfidence. When Jesus said, “You will all deny me; all of you will fall away.” And Peter responded, “Lord, I will never deny you. Even if I must go to my death for you, I will do so.” And we all know how that led to Peter's multiple denials of Christ. So my comment was simply to say that while I have assurance of my salvation and the witness of the Holy Spirit is borne in my heart, nevertheless, I do not want to be presumptuous. And my prayer is that I might persevere to the end and finish well.

KEVIN HARRIS:

Dear Dr. Craig, do you ever read fiction, poetry, or biography? Or is your position such that you only have time to read philosophy, theology, and perhaps history? If you do read outside of your profession, do you have any favorite novels or other writings? Linda

DR. CRAIG: Much as I enjoy reading poetry or fiction or biography, I just don't have time for those things anymore. I am consumed by my studies that I'm doing and so I can't take that sort of pleasurable reading in hand. Now, one might think, “What about when you go on a vacation and you're at the beach or in the mountains or something? Can't you bring along a book to read?” Well, you see, the problem with that is that if I've got my nose in a book, then I'm not connecting with Jan, and that defeats the purpose of the vacation. So, when we go to the beach, we don't sit around on the shore. We're out in the ocean swimming. She's like a cork, and she can stay out there for an hour and a half in 20-foot deep water swimming around. So I found that it's not a good idea to bring along things to read unless maybe it's reading it on the airline while we're en route; then that might provide some opportunity to read. But basically, unfortunately, I'm in a position such that my studies really consume all of my workday.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

How do you reconcile a figurative interpretation of Genesis with a literal faith in God? This is where I'm coming from. It seems that if one part of the Bible can be chocked up to myth, the rest can be as well. I recognize that the Bible has allegories and parables which seem to be easily recognizable and distinguishable from what is intended as truth, but if the Bible is the inspired word of God, wouldn't something as important as the creation of all the work that he had done that was very good be translated to us accurately? What benefit could there be from God allowing myth to take the place of the truth concerning creation? If we can't take him at his word from in the beginning, then why worship him? He's either great enough to create the world in six days or he isn't. And if he chose to allow creation over billions of years, there is no benefit in suggesting it happened otherwise. God isn't a liar. And to suggest that he started his message to us with a fanciful tale detracts from his abilities and trustworthiness. Misty in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: Now, she seems to be a Young Earth Creationist who thinks that God has created the world in six literal, consecutive 24-hour days. And I think that that is simply presumptuous. The argument from God's power and ability cuts no mustard there because if God is powerful enough to create the world in six days, he's powerful enough to create it in six minutes or in six seconds. It's not a matter of what God is powerful enough to do. The question is what did he actually do? Now, she recognizes that the Bible has allegories and parables which are not literally true. It also has apocalyptic literature like the book of Revelation which is filled with symbolism and other figures of speech that are not meant to be taken literally. So I would want to ask Misty, how can she be so sure, indeed presumptuous, to say that God cannot reveal to us a primeval history in the first 11 chapters of Genesis in which he employs a non-literal genre of literature to do so – one that is in touch with the ancient world in which ancient Israel lived and which they would have understood? The benefit of doing it this way is that it makes it easy to express and understand, but it is not something that you should press for literal truth. I think that when Genesis 2 and 3 describe God as walking in the garden in the cool of the day and calling out to Adam and Eve or when it describes him as blowing into Adam's nose the breath of life and forming him from the dust of the earth or especially when he forms the woman by extracting a rib from Adam's side and forming it into a woman, this is obviously figurative language because in chapter one the author has already told us that God is a transcendent being beyond the universe. He is not a humanoid deity that has a body and can be walking around in the Garden of Eden. So I think Misty needs to be less dogmatic about what God is free to do and what sort of literature God is free to use. I think that there's a very good case that can be made that the genre (or the type) of literature of Genesis 1-11 is not literal history that should be interpreted literalistically but is a kind of mytho-history that is filled with figurative language and metaphor that shouldn't be pressed for literality.

KEVIN HARRIS: I would encourage Misty to go through the Defenders classes on this. She may have interacted a little bit, but go through all of those classes at ReasonableFaith.org.

DR. CRAIG: Those lectures are to be found in the excursus on creation and evolution in the Defenders series.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question from Hungary.

Dear Dr. Craig, I'd like to ask about how you relate Scripture on the one hand and philosophy and science on the other as epistemic authorities. On a Reasonable Faith podcast, and in other places as well, you've affirmed that if the clear teaching of Scripture contradicts a philosophical view, that philosophical view should be rejected. On the other hand, in question of the week number 605, you wrote that if Scripture turned out to teach Young Earth Creationism, our doctrine of inspiration would have to be revised. Does this mean that the ranking of authorities on your approach is science then Scripture then philosophy? If so, why not? If not, where did I misunderstand you? Balint in Hungary.

DR. CRAIG: I do not think that there can be a simple ranking of these disciplines. In that respect, I think he's misunderstood me. I would say that this is an interplay of these three disciplines, a kind of synoptic inter-relationship between them to help us get at the truth. So, for example, I think in certain cases Scripture does take priority over science. If there should be scientific evidence, for example, that says that human beings have no freedom of the will but are just material objects determined in everything they do, I choose to believe Scripture over that. But if someone were convinced, say, as some are, that the Bible actually teaches flat Earth – that the Earth is flat, not a sphere – and that over the Earth is a hard dome with an ocean above it, and that waters come through the windows of heaven in this dome to water the Earth, then in that case I would say that science trumps the teaching of Scripture in that case. We would need to interpret Scripture metaphorically or to say that it's simply wrong in asserting this ancient worldview. I don't know of anybody who thinks that if Scripture teaches a flat Earth that we should believe that the Earth is flat instead of believing what science tells us about the globe. Now, philosophy tends to be the most uncertain simply because there is no way of settling many of these philosophical questions empirically. Typically, one gives metaphysical arguments for and against. So they are much less certain, much more controversial. I think in arriving at the truth we want to draw upon all of these disciplines (Scripture, science, and philosophy) in order to craft a view of the world that makes the most sense of all three.^[1]