Craig's use of science

[Raydon]

I enjoyed it.  Carroll was strong, as was Craig.  I need to watch it again because much of the science related points went over my head from both sides. 

My question is about two things that about Craig's approach to science:

1) Craig said that he doesn't believe Theism is a theory of cosmology, predictive or otherwise.  Instead, scientific research could be used to support premises in arguments for theism.  Question: Does Craig see it as possible to use scientific research to support premises against theism?  If not, then it would seem that he only uses science selectively.

2) Carroll made the point (paraphrased) that Craig only uses cosmological consensus when it supports his case.  Again, selective.  This was because Carroll wonders why Craig doesn't use the cosmological consensus when it comes to the existence of God.  Question: Has Craig ever responded to this?  I can't remember him doing it in the debate.

Overall I think it was Craig's most challenging debate, but I don't think that Carroll won.  Your thoughts on any of this is appreciated.

[Vimbiso]

I enjoyed it.  Carroll was strong, as was Craig.  I need to watch it again because much of the science related points went over my head from both sides. 

My question is about two things that about Craig's approach to science:

1) Craig said that he doesn't believe Theism is a theory of cosmology, predictive or otherwise.  Instead, scientific research could be used to support premises in arguments for theism.  Question: Does Craig see it as possible to use scientific research to support premises against theism?  If not, then it would seem that he only uses science selectively.

2) Carroll made the point (paraphrased) that Craig only uses cosmological consensus when it supports his case.  Again, selective.  This was because Carroll wonders why Craig doesn't use the cosmological consensus when it comes to the existence of God.  Question: Has Craig ever responded to this?  I can't remember him doing it in the debate.

Overall I think it was Craig's most challenging debate, but I don't think that Carroll won.  Your thoughts on any of this is appreciated.

Maybe this article will answer some of your questions if you haven't already read it.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion

[Raydon]

I enjoyed it.  Carroll was strong, as was Craig.  I need to watch it again because much of the science related points went over my head from both sides. 

My question is about two things that about Craig's approach to science:

1) Craig said that he doesn't believe Theism is a theory of cosmology, predictive or otherwise.  Instead, scientific research could be used to support premises in arguments for theism.  Question: Does Craig see it as possible to use scientific research to support premises against theism?  If not, then it would seem that he only uses science selectively.

2) Carroll made the point (paraphrased) that Craig only uses cosmological consensus when it supports his case.  Again, selective.  This was because Carroll wonders why Craig doesn't use the cosmological consensus when it comes to the existence of God.  Question: Has Craig ever responded to this?  I can't remember him doing it in the debate.

Overall I think it was Craig's most challenging debate, but I don't think that Carroll won.  Your thoughts on any of this is appreciated.

Maybe this article will answer some of your questions if you haven't already read it.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion

Thanks for the article.  It did sufficiently answer question 1.

As for question 2, Craig himself answered it in his third post-debate coverage.  In response to Carroll's assertion that Craig picks and chooses which majority opinion of cosmologists he finds important:

This is a silly response. Of course, the opinions of cosmologists are important for some issues but not for others! For they are experts on some questions and not on others. Specifically, they are experts on cosmology and so may speak with some authority to the issue of the reality of fine-tuning; but they are anything but expert when it comes to theology and philosophy (as cosmologists like Krauss and Hawking have made painfully clear). So the fact that fine-tuning is widely recognized as a fact by scientists, even those who deny that God had anything to do with creating the universe, is important expert testimonial evidence for the reality of fine-tuning.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/still-more-reflections-on-the-sean-carroll-debate#ixzz3GrwVXFCD

Incidentally, I came to the same conclusion on my own shortly before finding Craig's take.  Much of the problem has to do with where science needs philosophy/theology. 

[Donnewany]

A good lesson and very rare at this time. It's very valuable to me.

[lucious]

Craig is making a metaphysical argument, with science used in support of a premise.

It's not unscientific to say the universe has a cause.

I also don't think cosmologists are anything like a final authority on God--it is, and always has been, a philosophical and metaphysical question--competing worldviews, not a scientific theory.

[elbesssr]

It isn't scientific to claim the universe popped into existence out of nothing. It isn't scientific to claim the universe is eternal. To explain the existence of the universe, what is more scientific than "cause"?