back
05 / 06
bird bird

Why You Should Change Your Mind About Jesus | University of Tennessee - 2020

In February of 2020, Dr. Craig spoke at the University of Tennessee in conjunction with Ratio Christi. Here he gives a lecture, followed by Q&A, on reasons to believe God exists.


MODERATOR: Please join me in welcoming to the stage Dr. William Lane Craig.

DR. CRAIG: Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking Ratio Christi for the invitation to speak tonight at the University of Tennessee, and I'm grateful for your attendance as well.

As a professional Christian philosopher, I believe that the hypothesis that “God exists as revealed by Jesus of Nazareth” makes sense of a wide range of the data of human experience, and tonight I want to share with you some of these data. In the time that we have together tonight I want to present four arguments in support of Christian theism. Now, in order to make these arguments easy to understand, I'm going to be showing some animated videos that we've developed at Reasonable Faith that you can download free of charge on our website ReasonableFaith.org.

Number one, God makes sense of the origin of the universe. Our first video explains how the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe points beyond the universe to its ground in a transcendent creator.

VIDEO: Does God exist, or is the material universe all that is or ever was or ever will be? One approach to answering this question is the cosmological argument. It goes like this. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist.Therefore, the universe has a cause. Is the first premise true? Let's consider. Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician. And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time? No; everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise. If something begins to exist, it must have a cause. But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin, or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever. The universe is just there, and that's all. First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy, and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning. This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries. In 1915 Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity. This allowed us for the first time to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe. Next Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift and light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery almost beyond comprehension. However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe, so it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently three leading cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, proved that any universe which has on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning. This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing. This means that scientists can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. There is no escape. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. Any adequate model must have a beginning just like the standard model. It's quite plausible then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true; The universe has a cause. And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful, much like... God. The cosmological argument shows that in fact it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.

DR. CRAIG: Here once more are the three simple steps of this argument:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

As explained in the video, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that classical space-time under a single very general condition cannot be extended to the infinite past but rather must reach a boundary at some time in the finite past. Now, either there was something on the other side of that boundary or not. If not then that boundary just is the beginning of the universe. If there was something on the other side then it will be a region described by the yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity. In that case, Vilenkin says, that region will be the beginning of the universe. Either way the universe began to exist.

Since something cannot come into being out of nothing, the absolute beginning of the universe implies the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, enormously powerful, creator of the universe.

Number two, God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. In recent decades scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the existence of intelligent life anywhere in the cosmos depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. The following video explains how this remarkable fine-tuning points to an intelligent designer of the cosmos.

VIDEO: From galaxies and stars down to atoms and subatomic particles, the very structure of our universe is determined by these numbers. These are the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe. Scientists have come to the shocking realization that each of these numbers has been carefully dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range. If any one of these numbers were altered by even a hairsbreadth, no physical, interactive life of any kind could exist anywhere. There'd be no stars, no life, no planets, no chemistry. Consider gravity, for example. The force of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. If this constant varied by just one in ten to the sixtieth parts, none of us would exist.To understand how exceedingly narrow this life-permitting range is, imagine a dial divided into 10 to the 60th increments. To get a handle on how many tiny points on the dial this is, compare it to the number of cells in your body, or the number of seconds that have ticked by since time began. If the gravitational constant had been out of tune by just one of these infinitesimally small increments, the universe would either have expanded and thinned out so rapidly that no stars could form and life couldn't exist, or it would have collapsed back on itself with the same result: no stars, no planets, and no life. Or consider the expansion rate of the universe. This is driven by the cosmological constant. A change in its value by a mere one part in 10 to the 120th parts would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly. In either case the universe would again be life-prohibiting. Or, another example of fine-tuning: if the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of one part in 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. The fact is, our universe permits physical, interactive life only because these and many other numbers have been independently and exquisitely balanced on a razor's edge. Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine-tuning. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he's hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely. What is the best explanation for this astounding phenomenon? There are three live options. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Which of these options is the most plausible? According to this alternative [physical necessity], the universe must be life-permitting. The precise values of these constants and quantities could not be otherwise. But is this plausible? Is a life-prohibiting universe impossible? Far from it. It's not only possible; it's far more likely than a life-permitting universe. The constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature. There's no reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary. How about chance? Did we just get really, really, really, really lucky? No; the probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine-tuning well beyond the reach of chance, so in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science and opted for a more speculative approach known as the multiverse. They imagine a universe generator that cranks out such a vast number of universes that, odds are, life permitting universes will eventually pop out. However, there's no scientific evidence for the existence of this multiverse. It cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved, and the universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine-tuning. Furthermore, small patches of order are far more probable than big ones, so the most probable observable universe would be a small one, inhabited by a single, simple observer. But what we actually observe is the very thing that we should least expect: a vast, spectacularly complex, highly-ordered universe inhabited by billions of other observers. So even if the multiverse existed, which is a moot point, it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine-tuning. Given the implausibility of physical necessity or chance, the best explanation for why the universe is fine-tuned for life may very well be it was designed that way. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect monkeyed with physics and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

DR. CRAIG: Examples of fine-tuning in the video are all up-to-date, accurate, and well-established. So the question is: What is the best explanation of the cosmic fine-tuning? There are three live options in the literature on fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. So our argument can be formulated in three simple steps.

  1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
  2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
  3. Therefore, it is due to design.

As the video explains, the only serious alternative to design is the multiverse chance hypothesis. But as Roger Penrose of Oxford University has argued forcefully, if our universe were just a random member of a multiverse then we ought to be observing an orderly patch no larger than our solar system since a universe like that would be unfathomably more probable than a fine-tuned universe like ours. In fact, the most probable observable universe will be one which consists of a single brain which pops into existence out of the quantum vacuum via a random fluctuation with illusory perceptions of the external world. So if you believe in the multiverse hypothesis, you're obligated to believe that you are all that exists, that this auditorium, your friends, your body, the Earth, everything around you is just an illusion of your brain. No sane person believes such a thing. On atheism, therefore, it's highly improbable that there exists a randomly ordered multiverse. Thus, neither physical necessity nor chance provides a good explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe. It follows logically that the best explanation is design.

Number three, God makes sense of objective moral values and duties in the world. The following video makes this argument abundantly clear.

VIDEO: Can you be good without God? Let's find out. [An atheist saves a cat stuck in a tree.] Absolutely astounding! There you have it; undeniable proof that you can be good without believing in God. But wait; the question isn't can you be good without believing in God. The question is, can you be good without God? See, here's the problem. If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist, and here's why. Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values. It's the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there's no God, there's no objective reference point. All we are left with is one person's viewpoint, which is no more valid than anyone else's viewpoint. This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It's like a preference for strawberry ice cream; the preference is in the subject, not the object, so it doesn't apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject. It's not valid or binding for anyone else. So in a world without God, there can be no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. God has expressed his moral nature to us as commands. These provide the basis for moral duties. For example, God's essential attribute of love is expressed in his command to love your neighbor as yourself. This command provides a foundation upon which we can affirm the objective goodness of generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and we can condemn as objectively evil greed, abuse, and discrimination. This raises a problem. Is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The answer is: neither one. Rather, God wills something because he is good. God is the standard of moral values, just as a live musical performance is the standard for a high-fidelity recording. The more a recording sounds like the original, the better it is. Likewise, the more closely a moral action conforms to God's nature, the better it is. But if atheism is true there is no ultimate standard, so there can be no moral obligations or duties. Who or what lays such duties upon us? No one. Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature, highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn't done anything morally wrong; the cat's just being a cat. If God doesn't exist, we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong. But the problem is good and bad, right and wrong, do exist. Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey! That's not fair! That's wrong! That's an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals. We're well aware that child-abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong, for everybody, always. Is this just a personal preference or opinion? No. The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five. What all this amounts to then is a moral argument for the existence of God. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists. Atheism fails to provide a foundation for the moral reality every one of us experiences every day. In fact, the existence of objective morality points us directly to the existence of God.

DR. CRAIG: Again, this argument can be very simply formulated:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
  2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind about the moral argument is not to confuse moral ontology with moral epistemology. What do I mean by that? Moral ontology has to do with the objective reality of moral values and duties. Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know moral values and duties. The moral argument makes no claim whatsoever about how we come to know moral values and duties. The argument is wholly about moral ontology – the grounding of objective moral values and duties in reality. So epistemological objections based on how we come to know about moral beliefs are irrelevant. From the two premises it follows logically that God exists.

Now, the arguments surveyed thus far this evening give us a perfectly good personal creator and designer of the universe. This already narrows down the field of the world's great religions to the monotheistic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism. Can we determine more specifically which, if any, of these monotheistic faiths is plausibly true? Well, that leads to my fourth point.

Four – God makes sense of the historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a remarkable individual. New Testament critics have reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God's place. That's why the Jewish leadership instigated his crucifixion on the charge of blasphemy. He claimed to be the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, the unique Son of God, and the divine human Son of Man prophesied by the Old Testament prophet Daniel. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come, and as visible demonstrations of this fact he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms. But the supreme confirmation of his claims was his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus did rise from the dead then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our hands, and thus evidence for God's decisive self-revelation in Jesus.

Most people probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just believe in by faith or not, but there are actually three established facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus, namely (1) his empty tomb, (2) his post-mortem appearances, and (3) the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. The following video animation explains some of the evidence in support of these three facts.

VIDEO: Why was Jesus of Nazareth crucified? Because he made outrageous claims about himself. He claimed to be the one and only Son of God. Why would anyone take his claim seriously? Well, that all depends. If Jesus actually rose from the dead, then his claim to be God's unique Son carries considerable weight. On the other hand, if the resurrection never actually happened, then Jesus may be safely dismissed as just another interesting, but tragic historical figure. Did Jesus rise from the dead? As we explore this question, we need to address two further questions. What are the facts that require explanation, and which explanation best accounts for these facts? There are three main facts that need to be explained: the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and the disciples' belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Let's examine each of these. Fact number one: the discovery that Jesus' tomb was empty is reported in no less than six independent sources, and some of these are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament. This is important because when an event is recorded by two or more unconnected sources, historians' confidence that the event actually happened increases, and the earlier these sources are dated, the higher their confidence. Moreover, the Gospels indicate that it was women who first discovered that Jesus' body was missing. This is likely historical because in that culture a woman's testimony was considered next to worthless. A later legend or fabrication would have had men make this discovery. Our confidence in the empty tomb is further increased by the response of the Jewish authorities. When they heard the report that the tomb was found empty, they said that Jesus' followers had stolen his body, thereby admitting that Jesus' tomb was in fact empty. Most scholars by far hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb. Fact number two: the appearances of Jesus alive after his death. In one of the earliest letters in the New Testament, Paul provides a list of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances. “He appeared to Peter, then to The Twelve, then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Finally, he appeared also to me.” Furthermore, various resurrection appearances of Jesus are independently confirmed by the Gospel accounts. On the basis of Paul's testimony alone, virtually all historical scholars agree that various individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ. Fact number three: the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. After Jesus' crucifixion, his followers were devastated, demoralized, and hiding in fear for their lives. As Jews, they had no concept of a Messiah who would be executed by his enemies, much less come back to life. The only resurrection Jews believed in was a universal event on judgement day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history. Moreover, in Jewish law, Jesus' crucifixion as a criminal meant that he was literally under God's curse. Yet somehow, despite all of this, the disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead. They were so completely convinced that when threatened with death not one of them recanted. Even the Pharisee, Paul, who persecuted Christians, suddenly became a Christian himself, as did Jesus' skeptical younger brother James. Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was. “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." These three firmly established facts cry out for an adequate explanation. How do you make sense of them? Down through history, various naturalistic explanations have been offered to explain away these facts: the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so on. All of these have been nearly universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there is just no plausible naturalistic explanation of these three facts. The explanation given by the original eyewitnesses is that God raised Jesus from the dead. If it's even possible that God exists, then that explanation cannot be ruled out. For a God who is able to create the entire universe, the odd resurrection would be child's play. An empty tomb, Jesus' appearances alive after his death, and a group of dejected followers suddenly transformed by a radical new belief in a risen Messiah: these are independently established historical facts. How do you explain them?

DR. CRAIG: For review, the three facts which require explanation are these.

Fact number one: Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on the Sunday morning after his crucifixion. To be clear, the multiple independent sources attesting to the empty tomb are not the books of the New Testament but rather the sources used by the writers of the New Testament in composing their books – sources like the pre-Pauline formula quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, the pre-Marcan passion story, Matthew's non-Marcan source material, and Luke's non-Marcan source material.

Fact number two: On separate occasions, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. These appearances were witnessed not only by believers but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

Fact number three: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation that the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion. Number one, their leader was dead and Jewish messianic expectations included no idea of a Messiah who instead of establishing God's Kingdom and ruling over Israel's enemies would instead be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. Second, Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. Nevertheless the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.

The question we face then is what is the best explanation of these three facts? The following video explains the current state of scholarship with regard to this question.

VIDEO: It's a matter of historical record that Jesus of Nazareth died and his body was placed in a tomb. It's also been firmly established that after his death and burial, his tomb was found empty. Various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive, and his disciples somehow became absolutely convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead. These are the historical facts. How do you explain them? Down through history, various naturalistic explanations have been offered to explain away these facts. Let's examine the four most popular ones. First, the conspiracy theory. According to this view, the disciples faked the resurrection. They stole Jesus's body from the tomb and then lied about seeing Jesus alive, thereby perpetrating the greatest hoax of all time. However, this theory faces overwhelming objections. It's hopelessly anachronistic; it looks at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of Christian history instead of from the standpoint of a first century Jew. Jews had no concept of a Messiah who would be defeated and executed by Israel's enemies, much less rise from the dead. In Jewish thinking, the resurrection of the dead was a general event that takes place only after the end of the world and has no connection at all with a Messiah. The conspiracy theory also fails to address the disciples' obvious sincerity. People don't willingly die for something they know is not true. An honest reading of the New Testament makes it clear these people sincerely believed the message they proclaimed and were willing to die for. For these and other reasons no scholar defends the conspiracy theory today. A second attempt to explain the facts is the apparent death theory. Jesus didn't really die; he revived in the tomb somehow, escaped, and managed to convince his disciples he was risen from the dead. This theory also faces insurmountable obstacles. First, it's medically impossible. The Roman executioners were professionals. They knew what they were doing and made sure their victims were dead before taken down. Moreover, Jesus was tortured so extensively that even if he was taken down alive, he would have died in the sealed tomb. Second, this theory is wildly implausible. Seeing a half-dead man who crawled out of the tomb desperately in need of bandaging and medical attention would hardly have convinced the disciples that he was gloriously risen from the dead. As a result, no New Testament historians defend this theory today. A third explanation is the displaced body theory. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus' body in his tomb temporarily because it was convenient, but later he moved the corpse to a criminals’ common graveyard, so when the disciples visited the first tomb and found it empty, they concluded that Jesus must have risen from the dead. Once again, this theory cannot make sense of the facts. Jewish laws prohibited moving a corpse after it was interred except to the family tomb. What's more, the criminals’ graveyard was located close to the place of execution so that burial there would not have been a problem. Also, once the disciples began to proclaim Jesus' resurrection, Joseph would have corrected their mistake. So once again, no current scholars endorse this theory. Finally, the hallucination theory. The disciples didn't really see Jesus, but just imagined that he appeared before them. They were all hallucinating. This theory also faces considerable problems. First, Jesus appeared not just one time, but many times; not just in one place, but in different places; not just to one person, but to different persons; not just to individuals, but to groups of people; and not just to believers, but to unbelievers as well. There is nothing in the psychological case books on hallucinations comparable to these resurrection appearances. Second, hallucinations of Jesus would have led the disciples to believe at most that Jesus had been transported to heaven, not risen from the dead in contradiction to their Jewish beliefs. Moreover, in the ancient world, visions of the deceased were not evidence that the person was alive, but evidence that he was dead and had moved on to the afterworld. Finally, this theory doesn't even attempt to explain the empty tomb. Thus, the four most popular naturalistic theories fail to explain the historical facts. Where does that leave us? Another possibility is the explanation given by the original eyewitnesses: God raised Jesus from the dead. Unlike the other theories, this makes perfect sense of the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus alive, and the disciples' willingness to die for their belief. But is this explanation plausible? After all, it requires a miracle, a supernatural act of God. Think about it – if it's even possible that God exists, then miracles are possible, and this explanation cannot be ruled out. And surely it's possible that God exists. So how do you explain the resurrection?

DR. CRAIG: Naturalistic attempts to explain the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no good naturalistic explanation of these three facts. Therefore, it seems to me that the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and so was who he claimed to be. But that entails that the God revealed by Jesus is real. We can summarize this argument as follows.

  1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.
  2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
  3. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
  4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

The significance of the resurrection of Jesus lies in the fact that it is not just someone or anyone who has been raised from the dead but Jesus of Nazareth whose crucifixion was instigated by the Jewish leadership because of the blasphemous claims to divine authority whereby he put himself in the place of God. If this man has been raised from the dead then the God whom he had allegedly blasphemed has publicly vindicated those claims. The resurrection of Jesus is God's imprimatur confirming that Jesus was who he claimed to be.

But that entails that Jesus holds the key to the door of eternal life. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” And what is eternal life? Jesus said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” If you want to discover the eternal life and the relationship with God that you were created to have then you need to trust your life to Jesus Christ as your Savior and your Lord. Trusting in Jesus as Savior means trusting him to forgive and cleanse you of all the moral failures that stain your life and separate you from God. Trusting him as your Lord means trusting him to make you into a new person, filling your life with his presence and changing you from the inside out. Trusting in Jesus as Savior and Lord is not a blind leap in the dark, but rather as we have seen a rational commitment fully in line with the evidence – a commitment that I personally made over 50 years ago and have never regretted, and a commitment that I hope each of you will make tonight.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Dr. Craig. I always enjoy hearing you speak, and I love those videos every time I see them. You can find those online. And for those of you thinking, man I wish I'd brought (fill in person's name here), you should know we are recording tonight. There will be a video for later distribution. So please certainly subscribe to Reasonable Faith's YouTube channel to find out when that appears. Now, for those of you interested, here in a few minutes Dr. Craig will be fielding questions from the audience. But, first, the nature of this type of discussion tends to draw a lot of examination, as it should. And we often hear certain challenges from those who disagree. These kinds of challenges make for fantastic little sound bites, but there's usually a lot of layers there that are being ignored and it can take a little longer to actually pick them apart and find out where the problems are than it does to simply state the challenge to begin with. We have a few video clips of some well-known anti-Christian critics, and we're going to let Dr. Craig take a shot at unpacking these ideas and responding to the objections. Joining Dr. Craig on stage today is our friendly neighborhood apologist on campus (and if you don't know what an apologist is, a Christian apologist is someone defending the faith), our’s happens to be our Ratio Christi Director, Anna Kitko.

ANNA KITKO: Good evening. Nice to see everybody. We have a running joke because every time we do one of these events I'm super-pregnant, so bear with me. Thank you, Dr. Craig. It's nice to see you again. We appreciate you. Now, as confessing Christians here at Ratio Christi and Reasonable Faith, it matters that we attempt to practice what we preach. And since this Bible here with us tonight is so very precious to us, we would be remiss to ignore the significant passages commanding us to engage the questions that are posed to us and defending the hope that we have in our Savior with kindness and respect. So that's what we're going to do now beginning with the four biggest anti-Christian voices in our culture and then moving on to inviting questions from you, the public. So let's go ahead and get started with a doozy - astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

INTERVIEWER: Do you believe in God?

DR. TYSON: Me? The more I look at the universe, just the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on. If your concept of a creator is someone who's all powerful and all good – that's not an uncommon pairing of powers that you might ascribe to a creator, all powerful and all good – and I look at disasters that afflict Earth and life on Earth – volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, congenital birth defects, you look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on Earth by natural causes, and I just ask: how do you deal with that? So philosophers rose up and said if there is a God, God is either not all-powerful or not all-good. I have no problems if, as we probe the origins of things, we bump up into the bearded man. If that shows up, we're good to go. OK? Not a problem. There's just no evidence of it. And this is why religions are called faiths collectively because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That's what it is. That's why it's called faith. Otherwise, we would call all religions evidence. But we don't for exactly that reason. Given what everyone describes to be the properties that would be expressed by an all-powerful being in the gods that they worship, I look for that in the universe and I don't find it. So I remain unconvinced. But if you've got some good evidence, bring it. Bring it up. Bring it. OK? So I don't lead with that information because what I believe should be irrelevant to anyone. It's not about me. It's about the real world.

ANNA KITKO: The trilemma got Neil deGrasse Tyson. What do you think?

DR. CRAIG: He actually raises two objections to belief in God. The first is what philosophers call the problem of evil – whether moral evil in the world or physical suffering. And he focuses on that second – natural evil, as it's called. Then the second assertion is that there's no evidence for God's existence. Now, I think we can dismiss the second objection immediately based upon what I've shared tonight. Tonight I've shared three good arguments for thinking that a personal creator and designer of the universe exists, and Dr. deGrasse Tyson hasn't responded to those arguments. I would want to add, though, however, that I think his definition of faith is mistaken. This is how an unbeliever defines faith – believing in something without any evidence. But that's not how believers define faith. I would say that faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true. Faith is trusting in what you have good reason to think is true. Faith in that sense is not at all incompatible with evidence. On the contrary, once you have good reason to think that something is true then you will face the question, “Now am I going to trust in this?” “Am I going to trust in God,” for example. So I do not find the second argument that he gives at all persuasive. What about the first one? The argument that he states based on evil is an example of the logical version of the problem of evil. This version says that the propositions “God is all-good and all-powerful” and the proposition “Evil and suffering exist” are logically incompatible with each other. They cannot both be true. They are logically inconsistent. The problem with the logical version of the problem of evil is that those two propositions are not logically contradictory. One is not the negation of the other. So if the atheist is claiming that they are implicitly contradictory then he must be making some hidden assumptions that would serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. But the difficulty is that no philosopher has ever been able to successfully identify what those hidden assumptions are. On the contrary, I think we can actually provide good reasons to think that those two propositions are logically compatible. In order to show this all we have to do is find a third proposition that is compatible with the first one (that God is all-good and all-powerful) and entails the second one (that evil and suffering exist). And here's an example of such a proposition: God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world. If that's even possibly true it shows that these two propositions are not logically incompatible with each other. Now, someone might say, “Well, what could those reasons be?” Well, doubtless they're multifarious. For example, perhaps only in a world that is suffused with natural evil, such as Dr. deGrasse Tyson described, would the optimal number of people freely come to know God and to find eternal life which is an incommensurable good. Now, is that true? I don’t know. Who knows? But it's possible. As long as it's even possible it proves that there's no logical incompatibility between God's being all-powerful and all-good and the evil and suffering in the world. I'm very pleased to be able to report tonight that it is almost universally recognized among contemporary philosophers (both theist and atheist) that the logical version of the problem of evil is bankrupt. It's a failure.

ANNA KITKO: Moving on, Richard Dawkins. Let's hear from him.

DR. DAWKINS: Faith means belief in something without evidence because if you believe something without evidence then that justifies anything. You're no longer vulnerable to somebody coming back at you and saying, “Hang on a minute. Let me argue the case.” If you believe it without evidence, which is what faith is, then you don't argue the case. You say, “No. I'm not arguing that case. This is my faith. It's mine. It's private. I don't dissent from it. I don't retreat from it. You're just going to have to accept it.” Now that is evil.

INTERVIEWER: And yet you spend so much of your time debating people of faith, so clearly people of faith are interested in having discussions. They're not just all blind believers insisting on their way.

DR. DAWKINS: Nobody said anything about all of them. I mean, the vast majority of religious people are perfectly good, nice people as you are. There's no suggestion I've ever made that all religious people are evil. Of course not. There is a logical progression that goes from believing in faith – having faith that your God tells you to do something – and doing terrible deeds like suicide bombing, like flying planes into skyscrapers. The vast majority of people of faith don't do such terrible things. But those people who do terrible things do it believing that they are righteous and good and they think that they're doing the will of their God. They're not evil people – they're actually good people by their own lights. They believe they're doing good things, and that's why religion is evil because it can make you do evil things believing that they are good.

DR. CRAIG: Richard Dawkins actually contradicts himself in this very clip. On the one hand he says believing in something by faith inevitably leads to violence and moral atrocities. When the other fellow challenges him he says, “Oh, well, this doesn't happen in the majority of cases of religious believers. They live good lives.” Well, which is it? Does believing something by faith lead inevitably to moral atrocities, or is it in fact the case that the vast majority of religious believers lead good and decent lives? It's corrupt religion that leads to violence and atrocities, not religion as such. So Dawkins’ comments are logically incoherent. He's contradicting himself in the very clip. Now, I've already commented on this definition of faith as believing in something without evidence. But I want to add an additional wrinkle here. Dawkins is quite mistaken when he says that if you believe in something without evidence then that makes you impervious to reason and to refutation. And that is demonstrably mistaken. A person who believes simply by faith in something has no good grounds for believing it, and so that person is actually more vulnerable to rational attack and criticism than the person who has good reasons for what he believes. You see this happen in Christian churches and youth groups all the time.

ANNA KITKO: Sure. Here on campus, too.

DR. CRAIG: Yeah. You hear of kids in high school or college who've been raised on emotional worship experiences in church, they've never been taught the grounds for faith, and they are sitting ducks for that hostile high school teacher or university professor who presents good arguments against Christian theism. So it is demonstrably wrong to think that if you believe in something by faith that makes you impervious to criticism and refutation. I would say exactly the opposite is true.

ANNA KITKO: I would, too, and we're seeing this right now here. We're seeing this right now here, and all these kind folks who are here are here because they're here for the reasons for the hope that is in them, or to see the reasons for the hope that is in them. That's excellent. I agree completely. I was actually surprised by this video when Dawkins released it.

DR. CRAIG: It is surprising because as I say no one needs to refute what he says; he refutes himself.

ANNA KITKO: Exactly. Let's take a harder one. We're going to go to neuroscientist Sam Harris next.

DR. HARRIS: I think there's a few obvious things to point out. One is that we clearly don't get our morality out of our holy books because when you go into the holy books they are bursting with cruelty. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qur’an. These are profoundly cruel and morally ambiguous books at best. I mean, the Ten Commandments – the first four commandments have nothing to do with morality. They have to do with theological offenses. You know: don't take any other gods before me, don't take God's name in vain, no graven images, etc. Don't work on the Sabbath. What are you supposed to do when people break those commandments? You're supposed to kill them. I mean this is unbelievably immoral, and we're not doing that now. Not because the book itself is so wise. I mean, to take a more relevant example: slavery. Slavery is clearly endorsed in the Bible. It's endorsed in the Old Testament. It's endorsed in the New Testament. We all agree that slavery is wrong. We conquered that ground morally through some very hard fought conversations and also wars. Religion was a very little help in that. I mean, there were – it's true that abolitionists were cherry-picking Scripture trying to find ways to justify their project. But their project wasn't coming from Scripture because Scripture is clear – it supports slavery. There was . . . the evil of slavery is not recognized in the Bible, and it is certainly not repudiated in the Bible. And so the slave holders of the South were on the winning side of that theological argument, and religion was an impediment to making that moral progress. Again, even if it were not an impediment, even if it were extremely useful, that would not be a reason to believe that any of our books were dictated by an omniscient being.

DR. CRAIG: There are a number of confusions in this clip. One is that Harris confuses what is immoral with what is illegal. I think it is immoral not to love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength and soul. It is immoral to make graven images instead of God. But it's not illegal. We don't live in a theocracy like ancient Israel where God was the head of the government. We live in a society that has a separation of church and state and so not everything that is immoral is illegal. But that doesn't mean that one has therefore denounced the morality of the Old Testament. Secondly, he's simply mistaken when he says that all of these crimes that he listed are capital crimes, that is to say that they would merit capital punishment. That's factually false. Every Jew knew that he didn't love the Lord his God with all his heart, his mind, and strength all the time, and that therefore his life was stained by sin and impurity. But God had provided a means of forgiveness and moral cleansing through the system of levitical sacrifices that were offered in the tabernacle and then later in the temple so that even though one failed to keep the law perfectly one could find forgiveness from God and pardon and cleansing from a loving and forgiving God. So it's just not true that these were all capital crimes as Harris asserts. Finally, Harris imposes upon ancient Hebrew society the model of slavery that we know from our experience in the American South. This is a complete mistake. Slavery in ancient Israel was more appropriately called indentured servanthood. What happened was in that day there were no government safety nets, there was no welfare, there was no aid to the families with dependent children, no public assistance, no food stamps. And so if a man got into financial debt he could sell himself to the creditor and work off his debt until he would be freed. And by doing that he could retain his dignity. He would work and earn a wage, and he would keep his family together. So this so-called slavery in the Old Testament is actually an anti-poverty program. It's a way of helping someone who got into financial straits to keep his family together, to work off his debts, and to retain his dignity. And every seven years in ancient Israel all of the slaves had to be set free.

ANNA KITKO: There were tons of limitations on even bond servanthood that made it you could not stay that way for your entire life.

DR. CRAIG: Right, so that even if he hadn't completely worked off his debts he still had to be freed after those seven years. What's remarkable is when you look at our experience with the welfare state today in this country, I have to say in some ways ancient Israel's way of dealing with poverty was more effective than ours. Our welfare state has created a dependent class that perpetuates poverty and dependency into the second and the third generation. It has been horribly destructive to inner city families, particularly black families, and resulted in so many children living with single moms because the aid to families with dependent children incentivizes splitting up the families. It robs men of their dignity and their self-respect and just giving them a dole rather than allowing them to earn a wage. In contrast to that, in ancient Israel a man would retain his dignity. He would work. He would keep his family together, and he could get out of debts. So in some ways this way of dealing with poverty was actually more effective than what we do today.

ANNA KITKO: The things that bothered me about this particular clip is, number one, I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris. I review his material all the time. I noticed he wouldn't quote any Scripture to back up the claim that God endorsed slavery, in particular a type of antebellum South-type of slavery. And I found that very compelling because he usually does. And the reason why he was having problems with it is because we don't have a Bible verse endorsing slavery.

DR. CRAIG: In fact, quite the opposite. In the pastoral epistles where Paul condemns certain sins, he gives a list of sins. One of them is slave trading. He condemns the slave trade.[1] And Harris just completely overlooks that.

ANNA KITKO: Which means that abolitionists aren't cherry-picking anything. They're the only ones being consistent.

DR. CRAIG: The claim that the abolitionists were not motivated by Scripture, I mean, doesn't he know about Wilberforce and the lifelong struggle against slavery that he led in England and how it was out of his Christian convictions that every person is created in the image of God and therefore endowed with intrinsic moral worth and basic human rights? Of course this was rooted in a Judeo-Christian concept of human beings.

ANNA KITKO: We'll send him this recording and see what he says. Let's do one more before we open it up to audience Q&A. One of my favorite professors – Professor Bart Ehrman.

DR. CRAIG: Did you say pastors?

ANNA KITKO: My favorite professors.

DR. CRAIG: Oh, professors. OK.

ANNA KITKO: He speaks like a pastor though, you watch!

DR. CRAIG: Yeah, he speaks like a pastor, that's why I thought you said that.

DR. EHRMAN: My first interest in this particular question about the accurate preservation of the gospels started out when I was a student at Moody Bible Institute. At Moody Bible Institute I believed, as did my professors, that the Bible is without error in the autographs, in other words, the originals of the New Testament did not have mistakes in them even if subsequent copies of the New Testament may have mistakes in them. The problem is we don't have the originals of the New Testament. What we have are thousands of copies of the New Testament that were made in most cases centuries later. We don't have the originals. We have copies made centuries later. These copies that were made centuries later contain numerous mistakes, thousands of mistakes, tens of thousands of mistakes, hundreds of thousands of mistakes. This was a problem for me at Moody Bible Institute, and I decided that I wanted to learn more about the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. I went to Princeton Theological Seminary to study with the foremost scholar in the field, Bruce Metzger. I devoted years of my life to this study. This has been the core of my research for the past 30 years. At some point I came to the realization that my belief in the inerrancy of the autographs didn't make sense. If God inspired the Bible without error, why hadn't he preserved the Bible without error? I couldn't think of a good answer then, and I still can't think of a good answer now, even though I think I've heard every answer ever proposed. I couldn't any longer believe that God had inspired the originals because I was sure he had not preserved the original. Let me tell you now what I think about this entire situation which is that we cannot know whether the gospels have been preserved accurately through the ages, and I'm going to try and illustrate with you by explaining how it worked. Take the Gospel of Mark. Whenever Mark was written (say it was written in the year 65 or in the year 70 in the city of Rome, say, I don't know where it was made). Whoever wrote Mark put it in circulation and somebody copied the Gospel of Mark then somebody copied that copy and somebody copied the copy of the copy then somebody copied the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy, and we don't have any of those copies. Everybody who copied the text made mistakes. Our first surviving copy of Mark probably dates to around the year 220 A.D. That is 150 years after Mark was first produced. Our first complete copy of Mark comes from the year 350, about 280 years after Mark. We have lots of copies from later times, a thousand years after Mark we get lots of copies. When you compare all of these copies with one another, they all differ from one another.

DR. CRAIG: You can see that he was once an evangelical preacher because he really gets into preaching mode when he gets wound up. Now, unfortunately what he says here is extremely misleading. Indeed, I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation on Ehrman's part. The New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history both in terms of the number of manuscripts and in terms of the nearness of those manuscripts to the date of the original autograph. And as a result, textual scholars have been able to re-establish the original text of the New Testament to almost 99% accuracy. There are about 138,000 words in the New Testament, and of those only about 1,400 are still slightly uncertain. And nothing hangs on any of those 1,400 words. They would be, for example, like in 1 John when the author writes, “We write this that our joy may be full.” But some manuscripts read, “We write this that your joy may be full.” The difference is between the pronoun “our” and the pronoun “your” and we're not sure which one of those was in the original text. That's an illustration of the sort of trivialities that still remain uncertain in the text in the New Testament. And no Christian doctrine hangs upon any of these textual uncertainties. When I went to Wheaton I took New Testament Greek so that I could read the Greek text in the original languages, and when I pick up my Greek New Testament and read the Gospel of Luke or Paul's letter to the Romans I can be confident that I am reading with 99% accuracy the original words that Luke and Paul actually wrote. And for those words that are still uncertain, at the bottom of the page in the Greek New Testament it will give you a list of the variants and it will rank them as to which variants are most probably the reading in the original. Now, here's the key thing: Bart Ehrman knows this. He knows this, but he deliberately misrepresents the situation to unsuspecting laymen in order to be controversial and, frankly, I think to sell popular level books. Ehrman's New Testament colleagues have made an interesting distinction between what they call “scholarly Bart” and “popular Bart.” Scholarly Bart knows what I've said about the text of the New Testament being 99% accurate, but popular level Bart is writing these sensationalist books and misrepresenting the situation to laymen in order to gain money and reputation. I heard Ehrman on a radio program called the Lutheran Hour in 2008 that was so amusing because he was describing to the interviewer these hundreds of thousands of variants and all the copies of the copies of the copies that have been made, just as he did tonight. And at that point the interviewer says to him, “Well, Dr. Ehrman, what do you think the text of the New Testament originally said?” And Ehrman said, “I don't know what you mean.” And the interviewer said, “Well, you said it's been changed and all these copiers. What did it originally say, do you think?” And Ehrman said, “Well, it says pretty much what it says today.” And the interviewer said, “But you said it's been changed.” And he said, “Oh, well, we've been able to reconstruct the original text.[2] So he knows this, but he deliberately misrepresents the situation to unsuspecting lay people.

ANNA KITKO: Alright. Now is your chance. That was our last skeptic's question which means we're going to be moving on to audience Q&A.

QUESTION: I thought about asking Dr. Craig to define sylopsism and maybe have a little discussion about truth, but then you talked about there being no evidence for slavery in the Bible and so I have to divert my plans.

ANNA KITKO: I don't believe anybody said no evidence for slavery in the Bible. We said there's no evidence for antebellum South slavery.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. What I said was that we shouldn't interpret slavery in the Old Testament . . .

FOLLOWUP: And you said seven years and it was over, didn't you?

DR. CRAIG: Yes.

FOLLOWUP: From Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 44, “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.” So, yeah, they would let Hebrews go, but they had slavery for life just like antebellum South.

DR. CRAIG: What it's talking about there would be non-Israelite slaves.

FOLLOWUP: Just like antebellum South. Black people weren't good enough to be set free.

DR. CRAIG: It was not like the antebellum South.

FOLLOWUP: I've won my case here.

DR. CRAIG: A really good discussion of this issue is in Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? where he has two chapters on so-called slavery in the Old Testament. And it's a real eye-opener to see the difference between this bond servanthood in ancient Israel and what went on in the American South.

QUESTION: Pleasure to be here. My name is Chris and I'm a historian. I teach here at Pellissippi. To make a long question short, I myself identify as an evangelical who doesn't dissent from anything Dr. Craig has presented tonight, and I also believe in the Josh McDowellian titular slogan “evidence demands a verdict.” The big problem I run into here teaching ancient human history to my students is that they are convinced that they have a binary choice to make and whether to believe in species evolution or the Bible. I try in a secular setting to leave the doors open that will allow them to not see this as a binary choice within my secular duties and not tell them what to believe theologically. But why is it that in the Bible-belt people embrace the idea that evidence demands a verdict but 60% of American evangelicals polled a few years ago do not believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence?

DR. CRAIG: I don't see any incompatibility with contemporary evolutionary theory and Christian theology. I was just on a panel discussion in San Diego at the Evangelical Theological Society conference in November with Michael Murray and John Churchill and others. I argued that there's no incompatibility between evolutionary biology and the notion that God is provident, that he's in control. In fact, I just wrote a question of the week for our website on this this morning again reinforcing the point that when evolutionary biologists say that the mutations occur randomly they don't mean “by chance.” They mean irrespective of the benefit to the host organism. And so the theory is entirely compatible with the mutations being caused directly by God even with a design in mind and a purpose in mind. So I just don't see any problem, and I think the work of people like Francis Collins in this area have served to provide models of synthesis between Christian theology and evolutionary biology. Now, please, lest anybody misunderstand me. That's not to endorse the truth of evolutionary biology. I think that's a scientific question. But it's not a theological question, and so I don't think that you can evaluate it theologically.

QUESTION: Thank you, Dr. Craig, for coming and speaking to us tonight. I enjoyed it. My question revolves around the problem of evil and theodicy. I see a potential inconsistency with regard to the character of God and his goodness and his creating creatures. God is love according to 1 John, and God is also free to create as you've argued for in the past. But according to the book of James and Hebrews, God is not capable of sinning or he cannot sin, cannot be tempted to sin. So God can both be free, loving, and does not have the ability to sin. So why does he create creatures who can be both loving and free but yet can sin?

DR. CRAIG: I think that it's very plausible that only God, a divine being, could be free and yet impossible to sin. You would have to have the very character of God himself – the holiness, the perfection of God – in order to be incapable of sinning. So I don't think any creature could have that sort of character because he cannot be God.

FOLLOWUP: Follow-up question is seeing maybe a potential defeater with regard to the resurrection. At the resurrection we no longer commit sin, no longer have choice on sinning. We freely choose always to do good.

DR. CRAIG: Do you mean in heaven?

FOLLOWUP: In heaven or at the resurrection.

DR. CRAIG: I'm inclined to say that in heaven the freedom to sin will be removed. That when we have the vision of Christ unalloyed in all his glory and beauty and majesty this will be a vision so powerful and so attractive that the freedom to sin will be removed. I see this life as a sort of veil of decision-making during which we've been created at arm's length from God that permits the freedom to reject him, but when we go to heaven and that distance is removed then I think the freedom to sin will also be removed. It would be like a gigantic electromagnet with iron filings in its presence. They would be just attracted, just irresistibly stuck, to the huge electromagnet with no ability to fall away. I strongly suspect that the vision of God, the vision of Christ in heaven, will be so powerfully attractive that the freedom to sin will be effectively removed.

FOLLOWUP: The final part of the question: so if in heaven we have like an electromagnetic pull to being good or always choosing the good, why didn't he start that way at the start instead?

DR. CRAIG: Yeah. That’s what I understood him to be saying. You're saying why not just begin with the heavenly state, right? Well, I think the answer to that is obviously because that state is a reward, a final state for those who have freely chosen to respond to God's love and to place their faith in him. It requires this period of decision-making, as I say, before that final state is achieved. But to just begin that way would be to begin with just robots or with marionettes that have never had any freedom to respond to God or not.

ANNA KITKO: Does that answer your question? I didn't botch it too bad by misrepresenting it.

FOLLOWUP: I was just . . . I hate to keep asking . . . but we don't think God's a robot, right? So God's not a robot.

DR. CRAIG: No, because, as I said, being the standard of goodness himself, being the paradigm of goodness (as the moral argument video explained) it's impossible for God to sin. But he does good freely in the sense that there are no external constraints upon him. But we don't have that kind of character. I think we would have to be God in order to have that paradigmatic goodness and holiness.

FOLLOWUP: Thank you for taking so many questions.

QUESTION: I'm a 30-year pastor involved in the training of pastors, and my interest in apologetics flows from that. So I resonated very deeply, Anna, with something you said at the beginning. I won't say it correctly but it seemed like you alluded to a change in the last few years in the thought world of students. You characterized it as apathyism. I've noticed the same thing from a pastoral standpoint. I deal with youth a lot, and I find that . . . I feel like what I'm seeing now is the questions that were addressed tonight – they're well-addressed. My battle is very often getting my prospects to the point of even caring about those questions intellectually. So I guess I don't really know how to hone the question any better than to ask this. Would you be willing, Dr. Craig, to take a few moments and just address maybe a broader or underlying worldview question: How do you address the person who comes to these questions with apathy?

DR. CRAIG: Or who doesn't come to these questions because he's apathetic!

FOLLOWUP: Let me clarify just a little bit further. I feel like from my own amateur’s philosophical training, I feel like the apathy that the folks I'm dealing with, that they come with, is sponsored by certain philosophical pre-commitments. I find that trying to get a handle on those and challenging those helps, but I'm doing it as a pastor and as an amateur and using Scripture. I'm interested to hear what the philosopher of your credentials would say about those.

DR. CRAIG: My best shot at combating apathyism is the work that I've done on the absurdity of life without God. I think that the atheistic existentialist philosophers like Sartre and Camus have done a brilliant job of analyzing the human predicament in a world in which God does not exist. They argue that life, in fact, becomes absurd. I analyze that to mean that life has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose, and no ultimate value. Using the work of the atheist philosophers themselves you can show what a crisis results for human beings if there is no God. Moreover, I would argue that it's impossible to live happily and consistently within that framework. No one can live happily and consistently as though his life were purposeless, valueless, and meaningless. So we find ourselves in a completely untenable situation. I think that should motivate us to go back to square one and say, “Well, wait a minute. How can I be sure that God does not exist? Maybe there is a God after all, and maybe life does have meaning, value, and purpose.” So this analysis of the human predicament doesn't show that God exists, but it shows how much it matters if God exists. If you look at the videos that are on our website, the one that leads off the top of the list is the one on the meaning of life, and it presents this argument to try to jar people out of their apathy into thinking about these things before even presenting any evidence for God.

QUESTION: My understanding of Paul in the New Testament is that God doesn't really care about where you are in your station in life, whether you're a slave or a slave master, that he's concerned with the orientation of the heart. So I think that what you presented was more questions to the atheists about how they come to their view of the world. Anthony Flew, who was a famous atheist from the 50s until I guess the 90s, was probably the Richard Dawkins of his time. I'm a little bit late to the game, but he wrote a book in 2008 called There is a God and you debated him at the University of Wisconsin a while back. I just wondered if you had any personal anecdotes or stories about Professor Flew who went from being a world recognized atheist from Oxford to finally admitting that there is a God.

DR. CRAIG: I don't have any anecdotes about how he made that change because at the time I debated him at University of Wisconsin in Madison he was firmly committed to his atheistic view and did attempt to defend it in the debate. So there was no movement at that time. It was later as he began to explore arguments for intelligent design of the cosmos that he became convinced that this universe could not simply be the product of blind processes but that there was an intelligent designer behind the cosmos. So he made that change.

QUESTION: Hi. My question is regarding the kalam premise number two: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

DR. CRAIG: That's premise one.

FOLLOWUP: I'm sorry. The universe began. Now, as brilliant as Alexander Vilenkin is, doesn't that premise really hinge on his Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper? I mean, certainly the whole field of physicists don't agree on the Big Bang cosmology model of the universe. So certainly wouldn't you say that you can't continue logically until you resolve that premise? Or is it to say that he is the authoritative figure on the whole field of physics?

DR. CRAIG: It doesn't depend upon the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. That is just perhaps the most recent confirmation in a long series of discoveries that go all the way back to Lemaître and Alexander Friedman that predict an absolute beginning of the universe. The power of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is that its conditions are so general (it has such a general condition) that it's very hard to craft a model of the universe that doesn't fall under this theorem and so avoids the beginning. So theorists who want to avoid the beginning, because the theorem is generally accepted today in the physics community, have to construct very exotic models of the universe to try to avoid the absolute beginning. For example, Sean Carroll postulates a universe in which the arrow of time at some point in the past flips over and runs in the other direction so that from one point the arrow of time goes forward and from the same point the arrow of time goes backward. That type of universe would avoid the single condition laid down by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. But as a number of thinkers have pointed out, in fact, that model doesn't avoid the beginning of the universe because that mirror universe – that time-reversed universe – is in no sense in our past. It is not “earlier than” our universe; on the contrary, because time runs in a different direction, what you actually have there are two universes originating from a common point. So it actually supports the beginning of the universe rather than denies it. This has been the pattern, honestly, over and over again. Model after model after model has been proposed to try to have a universe without a beginning, and there aren't any that are successful, that are empirically plausible, and mathematically consistent. Vilenkin in his most recent article that I've read in 2015 says that not only do no beginningless models exist that are tenable but he says it's likely that they cannot be crafted because of the requirements of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So all I'm saying is that when I look at the evidence, the evidence makes that second premise more probable than not.

FOLLOWUP: Would you say the majority of physicists agree with your assessment of the data?

DR. CRAIG: I don't know if they would or not. The ones I've talked to have. For example, even Lawrence Krauss, who is as determined a critic as you might find, will agree that it's probable that the universe did begin to exist. Krauss admits that. You've got people like Carroll, as I say, who tries to escape the beginning, but his model doesn't work. And that's, I think, generally agreed. Stephen Hawking in 1996 wrote a book with Roger Penrose called The Nature of Space and Time. And in that book he says today almost everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang. That's Hawking's view of the discipline.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Christina. Thank you, Dr. Craig, for coming here to Knoxville. It's an honor to get to hear you talk. I am a Christian, but I have a question from my friend who is an atheist who could not be here tonight. He says in your debates you use the definition for atheism that means “God does not exist” and it seems no matter how many atheists give you their definition (which I would assume to be unconvinced that God exists) you do not change your meaning. He is wondering why that is since it's easier to argue against your definition as it comes with a burden of proof. And to that I would add as my own question: At what point should skeptics move from withholding judgment or remaining unconvinced to being convinced or choosing belief, and do we have any control over being convinced.

DR. CRAIG: . . . the view that God does not exist. That is the standard definition of the word among philosophers. That isn't idiosyncratic. It's these folks who want to reinterpret the word “atheist” to mean non-theist. I think the incorrectness of that way of understanding atheism is so obvious in that non-theists include not just people who say God does not exist but it also includes agnostics who say I don't know if God exists, and it includes verificationists or positivists who say the question of God's existence is meaningless. So the non-theist is not a single view. It includes traditional atheists, agnostics, and positivists. So the person who tries to shift or avoid bearing his share of the burden of proof by redefining the term “atheist” is just offering an idiosyncratic, and I think ultimately untenable, definition of the word. Even Anthony Flew, who was mentioned earlier tonight, who proposed that we redefine atheism to mean a-theism (non-theism) – Flew admitted that this is an unusual definition that goes against the way the word is normally understood. So your friend is just wrong about what this word traditionally means.

QUESTION: Hey, Dr. Craig. I just had a question. What would be the best way to explain to a naturalist-determinist that their knowledge claims or their truth claims aren't really rational due to their deterministic view.

DR. CRAIG: That's assuming that the naturalist is a determinist and denies free will. But I guess if he does, I think it is very difficult to see how belief in determinism could be rational because you're just determined to believe it. It's like having a toothache or a tree growing a branch. He's determined to believe by causes outside his control in determinism. You're determined not to believe in it by the same token. So it's hard for me to see how, if determinism is true, it could ever be rational to believe in it.

QUESTION: Dr. Craig, I want to thank you for your ministry. It's made a profound impact on my life for the last couple years, and I really want to say thanks for putting all these questionnaires on YouTube and all your debates on YouTube. It's a really great resource. My question for you. I've heard some videos that you've done in the past, and I'll just read my question, if biological evolution does not disprove creation, how does it explain the doctrine of original sin, and how could death and decay in the universe precede mankind if original sin had not yet been committed? That's just something that's always . . .

DR. CRAIG: I don't see any reason to think that God could not have used the evolutionary process to prepare a hominid body until it had the nervous system and brain that would be receptive to a human rational soul, and then at some point God would so to speak breathe into or create a rational soul in that hominid and it would become a human being. And then as a human being it would be tasked with certain moral duties and if it disobeyed then it would fall into sin. So I guess I don't see any problem in saying that God allowed the human body to evolve and then endowed it with a soul, making it into a moral agent who then has moral duties to fulfill.

FOLLOWUP: Would you say the same thing applies to the animal kingdom, too? Just because of death and decay that occurs in nature, would you say that nature also suffers the same kind of thing that mankind goes through? Or is that separate? I mean, man obviously is dealt differently because we're created in God's image, but how has death occurred in nature prior to . . .?

DR. CRAIG: I don't see any reason to think that animal death is a result of human sin. That's certainly not in the Bible. When you look at the curses in Genesis 3 pronounced upon Adam for his sin, nowhere does it say that animal death is the result of human sin. This is a case where oddly enough fundamentalist Christians are reading things into the text – reading between the lines – things that aren't there.

FOLLOWUP: I think that's something that I've always been taught from five years old on that the consequences of sin is death and nature was affected by that. I appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you.

QUESTION: I'm a Coptic Christian, and I really appreciate that you're here and that you spoke with us. I definitely appreciate your ministry, so thank you for all of that. I have I guess a three-part question. The first part would be what do you believe is necessary for salvation?

DR. CRAIG: I think there's very little that needs to be believed in order to be saved. I think that most of these things are below the cut-off line as I would put it and that's why a lot of these questions – you know, like about what did Satan think and things of that sort – they're just not germane to the fundamental truth of Christianity. Those would be in-house questions that can be debated. Same with the slavery in the Old Testament. That's not an essential tenet of Christianity. That's all a matter of Old Testament inerrancy. So what would need to be believed? Well, you'd have to believe in the existence of God. I think you'd have to believe that human beings are morally responsible to God and have committed moral failures for which they need God's forgiveness. If you've heard of Christ, I think you'd have to place your faith in him as your Savior and your Lord, believing that he died for your sins and that God raised him from the dead. Beyond that I don't see that there's a whole lot that you have to believe to be above the cutoff line. You don't have to believe in Old Testament inerrancy, you don't have to believe in the virgin birth, you don't have to believe in original sin. Those would all be secondary doctrines on which a diversity of opinions would be possible. But in terms of what you've got to believe in order to be saved, I think it's very few things.

FOLLOWUP: Each of those things could raise a ton of questions, and I'm not going to get into those because we don't have time.

DR. CRAIG: You’ll notice that the videos that I showed tonight focus on those questions – what C. S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”, those essential truths that are affirmed by all Christians whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Coptic. These other issues are all interesting in-house questions, but what I'm focusing on are these essential truths that need to be believed to be saved. Go ahead.

FOLLOWUP: For the second question, as a Coptic, obviously I take pride in the fact that my heritage as my church can be followed all the way back to Saint Mark as our first patriarch. Mark, the one who wrote the Gospel of Mark. So I'm really proud of that. I'm curious how you reconciled the tenet of Sola scriptura and Protestantism with the fact that the Bible was compiled and interpreted by early church fathers. How can you kind of reconcile the fact that the Bible is put together by men as far as its assembly?

DR. CRAIG: OK, now, if I understand you correctly, your question is how can you reconcile belief in Sola scriptura (which is that Scripture alone is the authority for faith and practice) and the fact that human church fathers and others interpret the Scripture.

FOLLOWUP: Not only interpret, but also compiled the Scriptures, like Clement of Rome and the other men.

DR. CRAIG: But think about it. There's no incompatibility there because what the early church was doing was trying to say which are the truly inspired books that need to be included in the New Testament. They weren't deciding that these books or giving these books that authority. Rather, they were trying to discern it. So there's not even an apparent incompatibility between saying that these books are solely authoritative for faith and practice and that the early church discerned which books had that property of being so inspired. There's just not even an apparent incompatibility.

FOLLOWUP: My third and final question would be: How do you reconcile this lack of necessity on our part to behave a certain way? For instance, with the early church that practices sacraments such as taking the eucharist or baptism or other types of sacraments like those, how do you reconcile the fact that those practices in the early church have changed to this point as far as the way the Protestant church practices now?

DR. CRAIG: As I understand the situation, different Christians at different times and places could discern different moral duties that they had to fulfill, and it's up to you to ask yourself who was right. It's perfectly possible that the earlier ones were right and we're wrong but it's also possible that they were ensnared in legalism and that modern views are right. So the fact that there's a diversity of opinions and a diversity of interpretations just doesn't do anything to show that there isn't any fact of the matter.

QUESTION: Dr. Craig, I have a question about your cosmological argument. If you say that the cause of the universe is conscious, at most the cosmological argument can lead you to a cause but it doesn't lead you to consciousness. However, the argument itself does not make sense because at the beginning of the universe time began. So before time – causes are temporal – so asking what caused this doesn't really make any sense. It's like asking what was your favorite color before you were born.

DR. CRAIG: If time began at the Big Bang then there isn't any state of affairs before it. That would be a self-contradiction, right? Because that would imply time before time. So what I've said is that God is timeless san creation, and in time from the moment of creation. And that's a perfectly consistent way of putting it. So I would say God is not chronologically prior to the universe. He's causally prior to the universe, but not chronologically. Now, if your argument is that consciousness is inherently temporal and therefore cannot exist timelessly I would refer you to my book Time and Eternity, the chapter on arguments for divine temporality where I examine this claim that you cannot have an atemporal personal consciousness. I think I show fairly convincingly there that there are no good arguments against timeless consciousness.

FOLLOWUP: So the main problem is that if you say that he's timeless, I agree, that's a sufficient explanation as to my concern; however, that must be demonstrated in order to be sound.

DR. CRAIG:  Of course. Yes, right. And so I give arguments for this – that time and space began to exist, that you cannot have an infinite regress of temporal events, and that therefore there must be an absolutely first event. Maybe I need to add here that the video only looks at the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. But in my published work that is just confirmatory of philosophical arguments against the infinitude of the past which for me are actually more important than the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is just icing on the cake. I think it's these philosophical arguments against the infinity of the past that show that time had a beginning and that make it plausible that the creator of the universe or the cause of the universe exists timelessly sans the universe.

FOLLOWUP: OK. I agree that there are problems with infinite regress. However, the problem is that you have not demonstrated that that God exists. That's my only concern. Thank you.

DR. CRAIG: That depends on if you think that the premises of the argument are true. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it follows logically that there is a cause of the universe that transcends the universe and is therefore timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless, and enormously powerful. Then I give three arguments as to why it's also personal, and I think that is a rich enough concept theologically to say that it is God.

QUESTION: Hi, Dr. Craig. Thank you for coming out, and thank you Ratio Christ for hosting events like this. Being an alumnus of U.T. I really appreciate seeing events like this. My question: I know that there have been a lot of questions on evolution tonight already, and I hope that the answer to this isn't already been answered from the previous questions. I know that you stated that the question of evolution is not a theological one, but if God is in control of the placement of these so-called random mutations, how can we separate humans from any other animal that may have risen from a common ancestor in terms of the imago dei? Or to put it another way, how can only humans be imprinted with the imago dei if all animal life evolved from a common ancestor?

DR. CRAIG: By the imago dei he's using a Latin phrase for the image of God. Only human beings are created in God's image, according to Genesis 1. I think that this would be in virtue of man's having a rational soul. I'm a dualist-interactionist. I don't think we are just physical bags of chemicals on bones. I think that we are body-soul composites, and even though the body may be the result of biological evolution as I said earlier, a hominid body has been prepared for God, what makes us in the image of God is that that body is joined with a rational soul that makes us persons, as God is personal, so that we're able to relate to God. So that I think is what would distinguish human beings from the rest of animal creation.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Thomas. I'm a Christian. One of the main arguments that atheists have is that before God, who was there? And what they don't seem to understand is that God is eternal. He will be, he is, and he always has been. Why do you think that atheists don't understand that? Do they disbelieve or just they can't rationalize?

DR. CRAIG: Really, that's a sociological question, not a philosophical question. It is bizarre the things that people say and think that they have knocked down arguments or objections like who caused God. If everything has a cause then what is God's cause? And they don't seem to understand they've simply misrepresented the causal premise or misstated it or, as you say, there had to be something before God rather than thinking of God as timeless sans creation. I think it's just ignorance. Our popular culture is very, very ignorant of these things, and so easily led astray by slogans and easy arguments that are easily refuted for someone who knows traditional theology.

QUESTION: I'm a naturalist and an atheist. I used to be a Baptist and was born a Baptist and I feel like brainwashed into the religion. Now I've escaped and understanding secular humanism and the golden rule I feel like the more that children understand science the fewer will be terrified of eternal afterlife. So my question is: Do you feel like you're scaring children with the afterlife – with the idea of an eternal afterlife?

DR. CRAIG: Gosh, no! I think that the afterlife is a wonderful doctrine that provides a solution to the problem of human death and extinction. I mean, when you read, as I said, these existentialist philosophers like Sartre and Camus, it is the finality of death that puts a question mark behind human existence and makes us wonder what is it all for? What purpose is it if everything ends up the same? It's not just our individual deaths. The whole human race is doomed to extinction in the heat death of the universe. Someday the universe itself, unless Christ returns, is going to degenerate into a cold, dark, and lifeless state. So the idea that there is immortal eternal life beyond the grave is, I think, just a tremendous hope that can fill our lives with eternal meaning and significance.

FOLLOWUP: Can I add real quick that I think that it actually makes life meaningless. If you have a finite life and you have an infinite afterlife, no matter how many years – even if you lived a thousand years and transhumanism is successful, it's still zero percent of your existence. So that makes our finite life totally insignificant and meaningless.

DR. CRAIG. No, because the things that we do in this finite lifetime are infused with eternal value and significance. For example, music or art. These are not doomed to perish eventually in the heat death of the universe. These human achievements and accomplishments will endure, and so those kinds of things I think are infused with eternal value in virtue of the doctrine of the afterlife. So the promise of eternal life is such a great hope. I think the suspicion is that it's pie-in-the-sky, that it would be invented because we need it so badly, and that's where the resurrection of Jesus is so remarkable – that we have in the resurrection of Jesus an actual historical event that provides a foundation for this wonderful hope of life beyond the grave.

ANNA KITKO: Have a wonderful evening. Drive safely, and we will see you the next time at a Ratio Christi public event.

 

 

[1] 1 Timothy 1:9-11