Is William Lane Craig an Atheist?

Kevin Harris: Hey, it’s Kevin Harris. We’ve put together a brand new resource called The Daily Defender. It’s a 31-day reader based on Dr. Craig’s Defenders class. Each day provides a scripture, walks you through a short reading about who God is—his attributes, his greatness, his love—and it ends with a short prayer for reflection. I don’t know about you, but personally I have found that resources like this really keep me on track in the spiritual disciplines and my personal walk with God. There are so many distractions in our lives. That’s why prayer apps and things like that have become very popular. We’re really excited about the Daily Defender because you not only get that extra boost in your daily prayer and study, but you get the benefits of Dr. Craig’s lifelong work and ministry. It will strengthen your faith and your understanding of God one day at a time. Download the Daily Defender for free at reasonablefaith.org/dailydefender and follow along with thousands of others throughout this month and even beyond. It’s our way of saying thank you and giving back to the community during our fall matching grant campaign, which is going on now and is fast coming to an end. Dr. Craig has more on that at the end of the podcast. We hope you’ll join us in reading the Daily Defender this month. Download it from the website. Now, let’s go to the studio with Dr. Craig.

===

Kevin Harris:

William Lane Craig is a Christian philosopher and apologist who denies the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity—and this, as I will argue, makes him an atheist.^[1]

That’s how this article begins. It was written by Catholic apologist Patrick Flynn and published on the Catholic Answers website. We’ll define the doctrine of divine simplicity in a moment, but first, listen to this clip from philosopher R.T. Mullins as he comments on the article we’re about to evaluate.^[2] Here’s the excerpt.

R.T. Mullins: Imagine that someone accuses a fellow brother in Christ of being an atheist. That’s a pretty remarkable accusation, and it’s difficult to figure out how you back that up. You better have a very good argument to back it up. When I typically see Catholic apologists claim that their brothers and sisters in Christ are atheists, I often find that the accusation is grounded in basic intellectual vices, incredibly lazy argumentation, and a fundamental lack of anything that resembles real scholarship. Instead, it is just ideologically driven propaganda that Catholic scholars should publicly denounce. Now, if that sounds harsh, you should know what prompted this episode. A pop Catholic apologist is accusing a fellow brother in Christ of being an atheist. So if my comments upset you more than someone falsely accusing a brother in Christ of being an atheist, you need to go to confession. This is published on Catholic Answers, a website that strives to be trustworthy and charitable, in calling a deeply faithful Christian an atheist.

Kevin Harris: We haven’t even gotten to the article yet, but as you can hear, R.T. Mullins is quite upset about it, Bill. He’s not just picking on Catholics; he’s calling for scholarship to be accurate and charitable.

Dr. Craig: Ryan has made a living criticizing the Thomistic doctrine of divine simplicity. When this fellow calls me an atheist for denying the doctrine of simplicity, it’s no wonder that Ryan would take umbrage at that.

Kevin Harris: Let’s get to the article. Flynn writes,

First, a little background. The doctrine of divine simplicity denies that God is a composite—that is, that God is built up from any parts (components, constituents, etc.) more basic than himself. For Catholics, the doctrine of divine simplicity is a matter of dogma; there is no wiggle room in affirming that God is simple, though there is space for how best to understand this commitment—a topic for another time.

Flynn continues, and he offers a syllogism.

there really is no way around the idea that God—if God is to be God—must be absolutely simple.

Here’s a little argument that will help us see why:

1.     Whatever is composite depends on prior components.

2.     Whatever depends on something prior is not ultimate.

3.     God is ultimate.

So God is not composite

I think this is a good time to stop and get your definition of divine simplicity as you comment on what we just read. You write in volume one of your new Systematic Philosophical Theology, quoting you: “Contemporary efforts to defend divine simplicity have become increasingly desperate and far-fetched. The resultant concept of God is light years away from the living God of the Bible.” Break it down for us.

Dr. Craig: The undeniable fact is that there is no single definition of divine simplicity. There are very weak versions of the doctrine, for example, that God is not composed of separable parts. And there are very strong versions, such as that God’s essence is existence. The irony is that I, and I think Ryan Mullins, would both agree with the version that Flynn states. Of course God is not composed of parts that are more fundamental than himself. And I think for our Catholic listeners, this is very, very instructive because in Catholic confessions that enjoin the doctrine of divine simplicity—for example, the Fourth Lateran Council—the doctrine of divine simplicity is not defined. So, if by “simplicity” all you mean is what Flynn affirms – that God is not composed of parts more basic than himself – then the doctrine is uncontroversial and no one need disagree. Therefore, if you are Catholic and Flynn is right, you don’t need to affirm a strong Thomistic doctrine of divine simplicity, that God’s essence is existence. Just affirm one of these weaker versions, like that God is not composed of parts more basic than himself.

Kevin Harris: Norm Geisler used to say God has no parts with which he can part. Flynn continues:

The first step in the argument is just one of these conceptual truths. After all, a composite just means something that depends on (or derives from) more basic components. Everyday, obvious examples would be LEGO towers and cars, where the entire entity is metaphysically downstream, as it were, from the bits and pieces that constitute it. No LEGO blocks, no LEGO tower—fairly obvious.

Now listen to what R.T. Mullins said on his blog after he read that paragraph.

R.T. Mullins: Some people reject the doctrine of divine simplicity. If a person describes the rejection of divine simplicity as God being composed of Lego parts, that person has given you a reason to never listen to them again. If someone starts talking about Lego parts as if that’s an accurate description of rival models of God, that person is a complete and utter hack. I know that sounds harsh, but it is a very well-established reality. People who keep bringing up Legos have demonstrated that they are not interested in accurately describing the rival models of God that have been found throughout history. In fact, people who keep bringing up Legos — they are demonstrating that they are not capable of having adult conversations on highly sophisticated philosophical and theological topics.

Kevin Harris: Unfortunately, Flynn did use the Lego example. Is there anything at all accurate about that analogy?

Dr. Craig: The analogy illustrates the type of composition that Flynn is talking about, where something is composed of parts more fundamental than itself. That’s a very trivial, weak doctrine of divine simplicity: that God is not composed of parts more fundamental than himself. What we really want to know is if God is simple in a much stronger sense than that.

Kevin Harris: Next, Flynn gets to the crux of why he says you’re technically an atheist. He writes,

The second step is also, obviously, a basic conceptual truth—if something is ultimate, that means that’s where the buck stops. There can be nothing deeper down, nothing further back, and so forth. To say something is, at once, ultimate and yet dependent upon something else is just a straightforward contradiction in terms.

Next, we say that God is ultimate. . . . once we omit the notion of ultimacy or fundamentality and begin to talk about something dependent, derivative, or caused, we have lost successful reference to God. At that point, we are talking about something else entirely—something definitely not God.

. . .

The final step to atheism here is simple. If we cannot affirm God without affirming that God is simple (or minimally, at least not denying that God is simple), then the moment we deny divine simplicity—deny that whatever is fundamental is absolutely and ontologically simple—we are, in fact, denying God altogether. And the denial of God altogether is atheism!

He then writes:

Because William Lane Craig denies divine simplicity, Craig is—sad to say—an atheist, even if he is unable to see it or simply unwilling to admit it. (To pull the polemics back a bit, we might say he is functionally—metaphysically—an atheist, even if not sociologically one.)

Okay, Bill, so you’re functionally or metaphysically an atheist.

Dr. Craig: Flynn is obviously unfamiliar with my work on divine aseity. I’ve published two books on that property of God which defend the view that God is the sole ultimate reality, not dependent upon anything else. I fully agree with the weak doctrine of simplicity that he defends.

Kevin Harris: Next, Flynn offers some possible escape hatches to evade divine simplicity. He writes,

This approach is to attenuate the traditional notion of ultimacy—or, as the case may be, aseity. Someone might say that by calling God ultimate or a se, he simply means that God does not depend upon anything outside himself, even if he still depends on or derives from internal components.

Flynn says this won’t work because,

First, it’s contrived: a way to weasel out of the obvious. Second, it leaves God entirely brute—that is, with no further explanation of why or how God exists. (Note that simply saying God is necessary doesn’t actually explain why God exists or why God exists necessarily—especially if God is conceived as a composite entity whose existence is downstream of prior parts existing and being organized just so.)

I’m curious about that part. I assumed that God’s being a necessary being does offer an explanation of how God exists. Why is Flynn saying more needs to be added as far as existence to the concept of necessity? We also need to clear up what we mean by “brute fact.”

Dr. Craig: You have to understand that Flynn is saying that God’s existence is not explained by saying he’s necessary if he is dependent upon more fundamental parts for his existence, like a tower made out of Lego blocks. By contrast, on the view that you and I would hold, Kevin, God’s existing by a necessity of his own nature is an explanation of why he exists. His existence is not a brute fact, that is to say, an unexplained fact. The explanation of God’s existence is that he exists by a necessity of his own nature.

Kevin Harris: Got it. Flynn writes:

Second, making this move hands the atheist an identical card to play: the atheist can now claim that his fundamental entity—nature, or evolution, or the Big Bang—is equally ultimate and a se. Yes, it may be composite and brute as well, but if the theist can posit brute, composite entities as the ultimate (pseudo-)explanatory stopper, then so can the atheist. From there, the atheist can even claim that his theory is overall simpler, since it avoids positing one further, highly complex entity.

I was listening to a debate this week, and the atheist debater said exactly that: that the theist adds an additional highly complex entity, but the atheist can parsimoniously avoid that by leaving out God. We did clear up brute facts. Now, if one arrives at a proper stopping point in an explanation, isn’t he arriving at some kind of brute fact? Isn’t he hitting the wall?

Dr. Craig: You could say that everyone must ultimately arrive at some explanatory ultimate beyond which one cannot go. The question then will be which explanatory ultimate is more satisfactory. I think that stopping with the unexplained existence of a contingent, highly complex universe is less satisfactory than stopping with a metaphysically necessary being that depends on nothing. I think Flynn would agree with me on that.

Kevin Harris: Here’s the conclusion of the article. Flynn writes,

At the end of the day, I believe that the doctrine of divine simplicity is one of the most obvious truths about God. If one is committed to the notion of God at all, the very least he should be committed to is the idea that God is absolutely simple—just as so many great philosophers have held for so many centuries, from Plato to Plotinus, Aristotle to Aquinas.

Just a quick disclaimer as we conclude, Patrick Flynn is reportedly revising this article, but I haven’t seen it yet.^[3] Maybe we can do a future podcast on the revision, but for now we’ll look for some teaching moments on the original article. I also want to add that in the world of social media, headlines or titles like “William Lane Craig is an atheist” are potentially damaging, especially if one does not read the article. Even R.T. Mullins’ article, in which he defends you, has this description:

Yesterday I learned that William Lane Craig is an atheist. I was very saddened to learn that Craig has lost his faith. According to Time magazine, Craig is one of the most influential living philosophers. As many of you know, Craig is also one of the most influential living evangelists. So today, unfortunately, we need to talk about Craig’s atheism.

Dr. Mullins is being tongue-in-cheek, but if one doesn’t listen to the audio, one could just assume from that description (if they don’t know that he’s being tongue-in-cheek) that you’ve become an atheist. I suppose that if we’re put in an untrue position, we must depend on God to protect our reputation.

Dr. Craig: I frankly don’t see much value in these National Enquirer sensationalistic headlines. The podcast or article is really not about my atheism. That’s just sensationalism. It’s really about the doctrine of divine simplicity. I think that Ryan Mullins effectively exposed Patrick Flynn’s many mistakes in understanding that doctrine and in the views that he attributes to me.

=====

Dr. Craig: Hello! This is William Lane Craig. Credible sociological surveys have revealed an unexpected resurgence of openness and interest among students in the existence of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. More than any other Christian ministry, I believe that Reasonable Faith is strategically positioned to supply the evangelistic and discipleship tools to help further this young generation.

During the last year, we’ve continued to produce our animated videos. We have a wonderful series of videos on the existence of God and the evidence for Jesus. And now we’re producing an ongoing series on the attributes of God—just releasing the video on divine omniscience, and the next one to come out will be on divine omnipotence.

We’ve also got a new Equip course on the atonement and have developed an app so that you can download these courses and access them easily using your mobile device. We have now over 255 local Reasonable Faith chapters all around the world—from Europe to Nepal to Australia to Muslim countries. And these chapter directors who lead these studies are vetted, qualified people—extraordinarily talented, committed to the task of worldwide evangelism and discipleship.

All of this is undergirded by my years of scholarly research which is bearing fruit now in my five-volume Systematic Philosophical Theology. I am currently working on the final volume. It is this sort of depth that undergirds our popular-level material for student and lay audiences that helps to make Reasonable Faith so effective and so strategic in reaching this younger generation.

This fall, we’re having our annual matching grant campaign. A group of donors is donating $250,000 to match your donation to Reasonable Faith given between now and the end of the year. Dollar for dollar, every gift will be matched up to $250,000, and this will put us in a good position for beginning the new year.

So, I hope you’ll give prayerful consideration to including Reasonable Faith among the Christian ministries and charities that you support. Thank you so much for your interest and for your support in this strategic ministry.^[4]