Questions on Existence and Certainty
January 05, 2014 Time: 07:56
Summary
What role does existence play in the Ontological Argument for God? What's wrong with saying, 'We don't know'?
Transcript Questions on Existence and Certainty
Kevin Harris: All right, I always look forward to these, Bill. It is a question on the ontological argument:
Hello, Dr. Craig. I would like to preface first of all by commending you for the fearless evangelism that you consistently and successfully carry out in both the public and scholarly circles. It is truly an encouragement to me as a born again Christian, as well I’m sure to my fellow believers, that you so steadfastly fight the good fight for the faith regardless of the slings and arrows for the alternative worldviews and sentimental persuasions. My question for you, Dr. Craig, is in regard to the Plantinga ontological argument. I am not sure how often this question is thrown your way but I doubt that you seldom encounter it. As you recall, when conducting a critique of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, you quickly addressed his homage to Immanuel Kant’s claim that existence is not a perfection but merely as a sort of red herring. Upon doing more research of the argument in question, it seems to me that existence is rather necessary according to the argument for a being to be maximally great. The reason for this is self-explanatory within the framework of the argument. I also endorse this argument as a useful apologetical tool. However, my insecurity lies in the advent of atheistic challenges against, according to the atheist, the arbitrary slapping on of the qualification “must exist” to this so-called maximally great being. Although I am aware of the argument’s inherent refutation to this accusation, I am specifically interested in your process for explaining why existence is a necessary qualification for maximal greatness.
Dr. Craig: What I would say in response is that the argument doesn’t assume that existence is a property or perfection as Kant claimed, but rather that necessary existence is a perfection or great-making property. To be necessarily existent is greater than to exist contingently. To me, that seems quite evident. Something that is contingent just happens to exist and doesn’t have to exist. Its existence, I think, is plausibly dependent upon other causal factors outside itself; whereas something that exists necessarily can be a self-existent being – a being that doesn’t depend upon anything else for its existence. So I would say that necessity is clearly a great-making property that a maximally great being would have to have. But even apart from that. Suppose that you just drop the notion of maximal greatness and just talk about a being which is metaphysically necessary, omniscience, omnipotent, and morally perfect. Is that concept a coherent concept? You don’t need to call it God or call it maximal greatness. Just ask yourself, “Is this concept possibly instantiated?” If you think it is possible then it follows that such a being exists. So really nothing in the argument depends upon your analyzing this as a great making property. The question would simply be: is this a coherent concept?
Kevin Harris: Bill, a question from India. It says,
Dear Dr. Craig, I have learned a huge deal from your work and I do use the same for reaching out to atheists. God bless you for your work. Coming to my question, I have seen almost all of your debates, especially your recent debates with Lawrence Krauss. For almost all your statements that you make to corner him, he gives this statement, “We don’t know. What’s the problem in saying we don’t know?” But by saying “I don’t know” Krauss is admitting that he is an agnostic and not an atheist who says we know for sure. Is there any particular reason that you do not throw this point at Krauss which totally invalidates his stand that he is an atheist?
For one thing, Bill, we did hear that a lot. It is OK to say “We don’t know and I don’t know and neither do you know and we don’t know.” He is bringing this point up here.
Dr. Craig: The reason I don’t bring this up is because Krauss doesn’t claim to be an atheist. I think that is a misimpression. As I explained in my opening speech in Brisbane, Dr. Krauss’ position is not that science has buried God in the sense that science has proved that God does not exist. I think he recognizes that that is impossible. You couldn’t give a scientific disproof of the existence of God. Rather, his claim is that God is unnecessary. You don’t need God to do science. So his view is agnostic. We just don’t need God to explain anything, and therefore we don’t need to postulate God’s existence. So I was very careful not to ascribe to Krauss positions that he doesn’t actually hold to. I respect his position as an agnostic and wanted to show why I thought that Christian theism does enjoy the preponderance of the evidence, and that therefore one needn’t simply say “I don’t know” and rest in agnosticism.
What needs to be understood when Dr. Krauss says, “I don’t know,” he is using a very peculiar understanding of knowledge that equates knowledge with certainty. This became very evident when we were talking about the origin of the universe. He was quite prepared to say, and agree with Vilenkin, that all the evidence we have says that the universe began to exist. But he insists, “But we don’t know for certain.” I responded, “But, Dr. Krauss, I never claimed that we know this for certain. Just that this statement or premise is more plausible than not in light of the evidence.” And he doesn’t deny that fact. Similarly, for many of the other points on which he would say “I don’t know” or “we don’t know,” what he really means is just that we are not certain. But no one is claiming certainty. What one is claiming is that when you weigh the evidence, the evidence makes it probable or plausible that, for example, the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent interactive life and that that fine-tuning is not plausibly explained as a result of chance or physical necessity.
So the “I don’t know” response, Kevin, can become a mask for intellectual laziness. It is very, very easy to take the agnostic position and just say “I don’t know” or “we don’t know.” My former pastor once remarked that it doesn’t take any brains not to believe something. But to defend a position – that takes some effort. So I am not persuaded when people just take the easy way out and say “we don’t know” or “I don’t know.” The question is: when you weigh the evidence, which way does the evidence point? In the case of the arguments that I defended, I think that the evidence did point in support of the premises that I was defending, and in at least some of those cases Dr. Krauss was willing to agree with me.[1]
-
[1]
Total Running Time: 7:55 (Copyright © 2014 William Lane Craig)