back
05 / 06
birds birds birds
Media > Reasonable Faith Podcast > Questions on Scientific Advancement, Islam, and Objective Meaning

Questions on Scientific Advancement, Islam, and Objective Meaning

January 12, 2014     Time: 09:27
Questions on Scientific Advancement, Islam, and Objective Meaning

Summary

Dr. Craig is asked if scientific advancement is a threat to Christianity. A Muslim asks about Jihad. And, an evaluation of an argument from objective meaning.

Transcript Questions on Scientific Advancement, Islam, and Objective Meaning

 

Kevin Harris: Short and sweet question, Dr. Craig. He says,

I have a simply question. It is one that has been on my mind a lot. With the advances in science, do you think this will hurt the Christian faith in the future?

Dr. Craig: I don’t think so. In fact, I think you need to step back and take the long perspective. Look at where physical science was, say, at the end of the 19th century. Scientists thought that physics had been virtually completed. The universe was a deterministic machine. God seemed to be left out. The universe was thought to be eternally existing. All of that has gone. Now the universe appears to have begun to exist. We’ve discovered the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. It appears that mind and consciousness are as inexplicable as ever despite the advances in neurology and brain science. So the fact is that science has never been more open to a personal creator and designer of the universe than at any time in recent memory. So I think this is a very, very exciting time to be alive compared to the dark days in which positivism dominated physical science as recently as the late 19th century and on into the early 20th.

Kevin Harris: Bill, a question from one of our Muslim friends who says,

As a Muslim of Jewish ancestry, I can refute your statement that basically reads Muslims are ordered to use jihad as means of violence to force disbelievers in converting to Islam. You did not go into much details attempting to justify your conclusion as I would have liked. I may have learned some things from you. Your main objective was that Muslims have the wrong God. I would like to ask you, as a Muslim, who is my God?

Dr. Craig: Well, I am puzzled by his skepticism that in Islam jihad is used to convert unbelievers to Islam. This is right in the Qur’an itself. Shortly before Muhammad died, he issued orders to attack the pagan unbelievers and the order was that they are to be killed until they utterly submit, or pay homage out of their hand, or if they will convert to Islam. Then they are brothers and you are not to kill them. So the use of violence and of warfare was instrumental in the spread of Islam. In the Muslim view of the world, the world is divided into two basic segments – the Dar al-Harb and the Dar al-Islam. That means the House of War and the House of Submission. Those who are not part of the House of Islam – the House of Submission – are in the House of War and they are to be subjugated and brought into submission to Allah. So jihad is quite definitely a means of converting unbelievers to Islam and into submission. This is right out of the Qur’an itself.

Now, when he said my main objection is that Muslims have the wrong God – who then is my God as a Muslim? That is my main objection. I think that Muslims have falsely identified who God is. Who is his God? His God is the God who has revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad. He is the God of the Qur’an. This is a God who is not all-good. He does not love unbelievers. He is an enemy to unbelievers. He will only love those who first love him and submit to him. Then God will give them love. He is not the God who is the father of Jesus Christ. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was just a human being, he was not crucified (contrary to what the Bible says), and he is not God. So this is a very different God than the God that is revealed in the New Testament who is incarnate in Christ and who does love all persons, even those who do not love him, who are sinful and separated from him.[1] The Bible says that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. So according to the New Testament, God loves the very people that the Qur’an says God does not love. And he loves them so much that he gave his only Son to die for them. And if he would like to see more of my discussion of this, I would encourage him to look on the website at the Popular Articles section where I discuss comparative religions and in particular Islam[2] as well as my debates with Muslim theologians like Shabir Ally[3] or Jamal Badawi [Admin Note: debate unavailable] where I quote the Qur’anic verses that go to support the claims that I’ve made.

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, from Jeff in Texas, he says,

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about a philosophical argument for the existence of God similar to the moral argument based on existence of meaning that seems apparent in human life.

1. If God does not exist then there is no objective meaning for life.

2. Objective meaning is experienced in human life.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The second premise is the one that would need the most support as it would be most prone to attack. I think there are good arguments that support premise (2). For example, humans treat their children as if they are valuable, which they are. Humans approaching death think about the existence of an afterlife. They may not always conclude correctly, but they do consider it. Our communication with one another has meaning. And similar arguments as those. I don’t hear this sort of argument used when apologists provide reasons for the existence of God. Often you only hear the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence. Thanks for your work. It has bolstered my faith and given me a greater burden for sharing the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Dr. Craig: Thanks, Jeff, very much for those remarks. There are Christian philosophers who offer these sorts of existential arguments for God’s existence. I think of Steve Evans, for example, at Baylor, or Cliff Williams who have written on these sorts of things. And I think your argument is sound. It does seem to me that if God does not exist then there is no objective meaning in life. Many, many atheists will admit this from Nietzsche to Russell to Sartre to Alex Rosenberg. Secondly, though, I think you are right that objective meaning is experienced in human life. Your example of humans treating their children as if they are valuable reminds me of a video that Kevin and I did a podcast on just recently by a young woman named Jennifer who was raised as a scientific rationalist, an atheist, but when she gave birth to her own child she said, “I could not believe that this was just a mass of cells and that my love for this baby was just a chemical reaction in my brain. I saw so clearly that those things are not true.” So I think your second premise is correct. Therefore, it does follow that God exists. So, yes, I think this is a good argument.

Kevin Harris: By the way, this is really cool, Bill, that people are working on some arguments. Reading your material, a three point syllogism, and logic, and starting to work these things out. Then they send it to you and go, “OK, is this right?”

Dr. Craig: Yeah, you’re right, Kevin. You know, this is really important because what we are helping people to do is to think for themselves. So contrary to the atheist propaganda and the aspersions cast upon Christians, what we are seeing here is critically thinking Christians who are thinking for themselves, developing their own arguments, and then exploring these. And that is very, very positive.[5]

Previous Podcast   Next Podcast