Recent Events and Debates

Transcript Recent Events and Debates

Kevin Harris: Well, this is the podcast you've been waiting for. I'm Kevin Harris in the studio with Dr. Craig, and there's so much going on to talk about, Bill, that we're going to have a hard time getting it all in. But today is just going to be kind of an overview of events that have been happening with you and Reasonable Faith. Some amazing things that have been going on in the news that we want your comments on. Obviously we are going to talk about the Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris debates. Today, kind of an overview from you, and then we'll get into the nitty gritty in the next few coming podcasts. Well, Bill, as the Chinese proverb says, we're living in some very interesting times.

Dr. Craig: Oh my goodness, the events that have been going on in the news just come one upon the heels of the other, and it just keeps one's head whirling at the sort of things that have been happening throughout the world.

Kevin Harris: One of your areas of specialization is Islam. And when we're discussing bin Laden I'd like to ask you, Bill, what should be our attitude when it comes to the death of bin Laden?

Dr. Craig: Well, I think there's tremendous gratitude that justice has been served, as President Obama said. It's been a long, long wait, and when we were up that evening watching television and saw the announcement come in it was just like a blockbuster. It was so unexpected, so shocking to think that bin Laden had actually been killed. And then as the details came out and found that this wasn't through some unnamed drone, but it was an actual special operation of these Navy Seals going in and having actual combat and then taking him out, one's admiration for these professionals who carried this out just soars. So I think that rejoicing and gratitude is entirely appropriate in this case. We can be very glad that this heinous mass murderer has been finally brought to justice.

Kevin Harris: What do you think about the President's speech when he said this is not a war against Islam?

Dr. Craig: Well, obviously there's the desire to not alienate the Muslim world, which is very attached to militant Islam and a very conservative form of Islam. I recently saw a very disturbing survey just come out of Egypt since the revolution there that displaced Mubarak which indicated that sixty percent of the Egyptian population would like to have a society that is governed by Qur'anic law, and that only thirty-six percent of the people thought that it needed to be a priority of the new Egyptian government to protect the rights of minority religious groups. Just think of that—only thirty-six percent. And of course probably in that thirty-six percent are all the Coptic Christians that are hopeful that their rights will be protected. So a relatively small percentage of the Egyptian population thinks that it's an important priority at all to protect the minority rights of religious non-Muslim peoples in that country. So this is very disturbing. As these events transpire across the Middle East I think there can be little doubt that the fallout in the end will be more conservative, more Islamisized regimes in these countries. And that's very disturbing. So obviously there is an effort on the part of the President and our officials to disassociate the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden from Islam. But I think, frankly, in all candor that the President is simply mistaken when he says that Osama bin Laden was not a Muslim leader—he clearly was a Muslim leader.

Kevin Harris: He said that he was not a Muslim leader, he's a killer of Muslims.

Dr. Craig: Yes, and that is not a good reason for disqualifying a person as a Muslim leader. Muslims kill each other all the time. The Shiites and Sunnis have been at each others throats for centuries. So just because somebody kills other Muslims doesn't mean that that person is not a Muslim leader. In fact, Kevin, when you read the Qur'an and it gives these injunctions to carry out violence against pagans and unbelievers and even the people of the book (that is to say, Jews and Christians), there are very sharp warnings to fellow Muslims in the pages of the Qur'an who refuse to participate in Jihad and in this violence against the people of the book and the pagans. [1] It says we are watching you and we will notice whether or not you have been a part and with us in carrying out this holy war. And if you don't God is watching you and we are watching. And the warning is not very subtle there. So the idea that just because someone kills other Muslims that that person is not a Muslim leader, I think, is just clearly mistaken. And bin Laden is, or was, a leader of a very conservative Islamic sect, and one that is very, very popular throughout the Islamic world today.

Kevin Harris: The main thing that people are talking about now is retaliation. Is it mostly Al Qaeda that we need to worry about here, or has this gutted Al Qaeda?

Dr. Craig: Well, not just Al Qaeda. I mean, there are all kinds of other groups. The Taliban, for example, in Afghanistan, though aligned with Al Qaeda, is a distinct group. And then you've got Hezbollah and Hamas, which have recently joined forces now in Israel—they've reached some sort of accord. All of this is very disquieting, and I think our officials are quite right in saying that in the aftermath of the killing of bin Laden we need to be doubly on alert.

Kevin Harris: You're talking from our responsibility as citizens—and well you should. As Christian people how can we effectively pray and how can we use this as a tool to reach our Muslims friends for Christ?

Dr. Craig: Well, obviously we need to continue to pray for our leaders, who are bearing the responsibility for protecting American citizens both at home and abroad. But then also I think we do need to pray for the Muslim world, and especially to support missionaries who are working behind enemy lines, so to speak, in these countries. Jan and I are involved personally in supporting Christian workers in some of these Muslim countries, here unnamed for obvious reasons. And I would encourage all of us to be involved in financially supporting and praying for those brave Christians who are working in these countries to try to bring about change. And I can say, here, too, Kevin, one thing that I am so excited about is the subversive power of the internet to bring down the Islamic curtain that still stands around these countries. I think during this century we're going to see that curtain fall away because of the subversive power of the internet and Facebook and other social media. And I am so excited that Reasonable Faith is involved in this way. Our podcasts and downloads are being viewed in Muslim countries around the world. We have records come in through our Google Analytics that indicate that people even in the Gaza strip are connecting to Reasonable Faith. And so it's exciting to be a part of this transformation of strengthening the Christian church in these countries, and then also evangelizing Muslims and challenging them with the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

Kevin Harris: Bill, one more thing about bin Laden and that is I notice that the Scripture says that God will bring down evil people. And God also says that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Dr. Craig: Yes. Ultimately it is a tragedy – isn't it? – that a human being could become so evil and so perverse.

Kevin Harris: And able to do this much damage and kill this many people.

Dr. Craig: Oh, so many throughout the world.

Kevin Harris: Not just Americans but, yeah, throughout the world.

Dr. Craig: And to foment a movement that is committed to violence against not soldiers but civilians and ordinary people. When you hear of the bombings, for example, of these mosques in Muslim countries you just think, “How perverted is this that they're blowing up people going to mosques?” It's just amazing. And so – you're right – it's tragic at one level. We can rejoice that justice has been meted out, but in a deeper sense, you're quite right, this is tragic that a human being could become so debased.

Kevin Harris: How can we be consistent as Christians? What could Christ's view on this issue be?

Dr. Craig: Well, my understanding of Jesus' teachings is that one doesn’t try to seek personal revenge. But he, I think, recognized that state authorities are instituted by God, and that the state has the ability to use force legitimately. Certainly that was the case throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus as a good Jewish person believed in the God of the Old Testament revealed in Scripture. So I think not having a personal, vengeful, vindictive attitude is consistent with saying that the state needs to mete out justice where appropriate to criminal and terrorist activities.

Kevin Harris: Sure. Bill, that's such an important distinction that you're making. [2] And most people get confused on this. They don't distinguish between interpersonal relationships and turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, and then the broader state issues that involve a just war and things like that. And so I hear you making that distinction. I mean, Jesus said don't go after a King and his army unless you know you have enough people to beat him. [3]

Dr. Craig: Yeah, and remember when the Roman soldiers – of all people, Roman soldiers of an oppressive military dictatorship – came to John the Baptist and said “What should we do?” John the Baptist said to them, “Be content with your wages, and don't defraud any man. Don't do harm to someone.” So he told them basically to be good, honest soldiers, interestingly enough. [4]

Kevin Harris: Another thing in the news, Bill, is that tornadoes have ravaged the country. Some of them just barely missed when you were . . .

Dr. Craig: Yes.

Kevin Harris: . . . where you live, where you and Jan live. And I was watching the radar when this was approaching you. It brings up, again (there was a massive death toll) a question that we've talked about a lot on the podcast—the problem of evil. But does this specifically bring up natural evil?

Dr. Craig: Right, this would be an instance of what philosophers call natural, as opposed to moral, evil. That is to say, it's not the result of the sinful decisions of people in the way that, say, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an instance of moral evil. This is more like the Japanese earthquake and tsunami where you have forces of nature that result in tremendous suffering on the part of human beings.

Kevin Harris: Do we have to go to Christian doctrine and the fallen world in order to shed light on this, or is there a philosophical arm of the problem of evil that would also . . .?

Dr. Craig: I don't think you necessarily have to go to Christian doctrine in order to deal with this. But I do think it can be very, very helpful. Namely, if we have a strong, robust doctrine of divine providence and sovereignty then I think we want to say that God permits the natural evils in the world only with a view toward bringing about his greater goods and greater purposes in human history. And ultimately that is the establishment of the Kingdom of God. All things that happen in history ultimately have to be seen in light of the Kingdom of God. God's desire in human history is to bring as many people as possible freely into his eternal Kingdom and into relationship with himself so that they find eternal life and everlasting happiness in relationship with him. And I think it's not at all improbable, Kevin, not at all improbable that only in a world suffused with natural evil would the maximal or optimal number of people freely come to find God and his salvation.

Kevin Harris: Some people are so quick to pronounce that disastrous events like these are a direct and specific judgment of God.

Dr. Craig: Right, and that's presumptuous, I think. You remember Jesus, when confronted about an instance like this, said, “When the tower of Siloam fell on those people, were they any worse than anybody else?” He says, no, it was something that happened, but it wasn't a punishment meted out by God for their sins. [5] He recognized that there are natural circumstances that happen in life that bring about suffering. And ultimately these will all fit into God's purposes for human history. But we shouldn't think of them as immediate punishments for sin.

Kevin Harris: A real quick, lighter note: the royal wedding.

Dr. Craig: Right, that was exciting. Jan and I got up early that morning. As enthusiastic anglophiles we wanted to watch the royal wedding. And of course all of us who remember Charles and Diana getting married have such hopes for this young couple that William and Kate will do better. And I was so encouraged by what a Christ honoring wedding that was, as the Scriptures were read and the homily that was given, the charge to the young couple. It was all so honoring of Jesus Christ, who's name was mentioned over and over again, and the importance of faithfulness in this marriage. I just hope the very, very best for this couple, that they will break the pattern that has been displayed by this royal family all too frequently, and will illustrate to the world a God-honoring, Christ-honoring marriage.

Kevin Harris: Bill, recently there have been two huge blips on everyone's radar, and I know that's something that has been facing you, and that is you had virtually back-to-back debates that I don't think we can overestimate the importance of these debates due to who the participants were. We'll get into some of the nuts and bolts of this in the next few podcasts. [6] However, give me an overview and thoughts.

Dr. Craig: Well, normally I wouldn’t have scheduled two debates of this magnitude so close together, but they were such extraordinary opportunities I simply couldn’t turn them down. The first was with a professional physicist – Lawrence Krauss – who is an eminent particle physicist and bitter critic of religion in the public square; one who contributes frequently to popular magazines and newspapers like The Wall Street Journal, and who's lectures on YouTube are widely viewed; who's been touted by Richard Dawkins as one of his favorite spokespersons on how science disproves religion. So this was a man who is highly qualified academically in his field, and a very vociferous critic of religion that I was anxious to confront. The other was a person who's quite different, Sam Harris, who is more well-known as a popular author. His Letter to A Christian Nation put him on the map across the country as a best seller. One of the so-called four horsemen of the New Atheism, and the last one of the four that I had the chance to confront in a public forum. And he had recently released a book called The Moral Landscape and so I was eager to debate him on his attempt to ground morality, objective morality, without God in natural science. So the debates were very different, and yet very significant in view of the prominence of the two opponents that I faced.

Kevin Harris: A network of atheist sites has said that Sam Harris is number two most influential atheist/spokesperson today, second only to Dawkins. And Lawrence Krauss is right around ten or eleven.

Dr. Craig: Yes, these were very important figures to meet in a public way and to challenge with respect to their arguments, and then to give arguments for the truth of the theistic worldview.

Kevin Harris: What you always hear is, “Well, you know, these debates are mostly on style and rhetoric,” and the tie that you wear, and things like that. But we both see that when you get this in public and not bury it in written forums and in journals that no one is going to read, the issues can be brought forth, at least in a brief way.

Dr. Craig: Absolutely, Kevin. Those who think that these are just rhetorical events could not be more mistaken. They really do not understand what's going on. I took these debates very seriously, and prepared very hard for them. And the critique that I offered of Sam Harris' moral theory is a substantive philosophical critique of his moral theory. And this is to pay a compliment to Sam Harris, frankly, to take him seriously as an ethical theorist, and not just offer rhetorical jabs at him, but to say, “Here are problems with your ethical theory that I see, Dr. Harris, that you need to deal with.” That is to take his view seriously. And that was a substantive challenge on my part to Harris. Similarly with regard to Krauss, this was a very serious attempt to show that there is evidence for the existence of God, and the topic was carefully delimited in a way that we can discuss when we go into this in more detail. But not at all a fluffy rhetoric or anything of that sort—these debates would be ones that I think would repay careful study. I would like to see people dissect these in a classroom, and say, “Okay, here's what Craig said, here's the Krauss response, here's the Craig counter-response; who has the upper edge in this argument?” And I think this kind of analysis is very valuable, as opposed to just listening to the debate and forming emotional impressions about who had the clever one-liner or the zinger.

Kevin Harris: [laughter] This is something I know because when I read from very prominent and intelligent critics and people who've done analysis of the debates and in three instances they use the same line – they said that Dr. Craig trotted out his five points, his five arguments. And there's something about the use of the word, the phrase, “He trotted them out.”

Dr. Craig: Exactly—that's very pejorative.

Kevin Harris: Doesn't it say a lot, that everybody knows what the five points are? And you're not springing a surprise, really.

Dr. Craig: No, that's true. There's no advantage of surprise in a debate like this, though I didn't use the same five arguments in this case with Krauss. [7]  I used the argument from contingency, as well – the cosmological argument from contingency. And frankly, Kevin, it was alarming at how Dr. Krauss never understood this argument. It was very clear that he was just completely in the dark as to what the argument from contingency is. I wonder if he has ever heard it before, even though it's probably the most famous argument for the existence of God in the history of Western thought, along with the teleological argument. So there was really no excuse for not being able to interact substantively with these arguments.

Kevin Harris: Two blogs that I read that are prominent said the same thing about what you wear.

Dr. Craig: Oh, really?

Kevin Harris: They said, “Dr. Craig wore his signature suit and tie. Sam Harris just wore a jacket.” Now, I'm thinking, what does it got to do with anything? And it does seem kind of pejorative. We should present ourselves well. You look great, Bill [laughter]. But what does that have . . . that just lends to the competitive, emotional air when you say things like that.

Dr. Craig: That reminds me of the reviews of Hilary Clinton when she was on the campaign trail, and they would talk about what dress Hilary was wearing.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, exactly. Just don't wear a dress, Bill.

Dr. Craig: . . . instead of the substance of the argument.

Kevin Harris: Very true. So, Bill, it seems we're just going to have to, in a sense, put up with it but perhaps at the same time perhaps try to educate some people who have an emotional, hero-vanquishing-the-foe attitude.

Dr. Craig: That's a good point, Kevin, because I don't want people to have that attitude toward me, either. I don't want Christians to look at me in that way, or atheists to look at their heroes in that way. I want people to objectively dissect the arguments. And so one of the things that I did on our Facebook page in the aftermath of the debate – because I was troubled by the sort of superficial responses we were getting – was to explain to people how you judge a debate. How is an academic debate to be judged? And I talked about how the first question you need to ask is, “Do the contentions of the debater, if carried, prove the proposition under debate?” Is it a prima facie case? Does his case, if he carries it, go to establish the proposition under the debate? That's the very first question. And then you need to ask, do the arguments that he presents support his contentions? And in my debates I would give two or five contentions, and then give supporting arguments. And you need to examine the premises of those arguments to see if they're true, and whether those arguments then support the contentions. And that's the way you judge a debate—not by which debater said “You're no John Kennedy, senator;” that sort of one-line zinger.

Kevin Harris: Another pejorative thing that comes up quite often: “Dr. William Lane Craig with his eight years of high school and college debating skills.” Now, that's pejorative, by saying this was all style and no substance. That's absolutely wrong, that the substance here should send people to the books; send people to thinking; send people to God. There are certain formalities for making a good debate so that the issues come forth.

Dr. Craig: What debate training can do, I think, is to help you organize your thoughts and to present them clearly. But it obviously won't make an invalid argument valid, or false premises true. The argument still has to stand on its own merits. And the proof of the pudding that this is not just a matter of rhetoric is that many of these debates have been published in book form where the opponents are given as long as they want to write a written response to the arguments, and then I get a final response and so does my fellow debater. And so Stan Wallace, for example, edited my debate with Antony Flew into a book, and then we had about seven respondents. My debates with Paul Kurtz have been edited in book form with many respondents. My debate with John Dominic Crosson and Gerd Ludemann on the resurrection of Jesus have been put into book form with respondents from both sides. And so this cannot be simply a matter of oratorical or rhetorical skill because here is a quite different medium, a cooled medium, a print medium, in which the arguments are aired and discussed, and I maintain the Christian side comes out looking very good.

Kevin Harris: Bill, in wrapping up today, there's something available at Reasonable Faith right now—a DVD set.

Dr. Craig: Well, the folks who run our webstore suggested to me that we do a top ten list of the debates that I thought would be the best, and the most interesting to people. And so I hand-picked these ten debates myself on the basis of the substance of the debate, [8] how good the opponent was – we wanted not a one-sided debate, we wanted a real contest – and then also the variety of topics, not just on the existence of God but on the resurrection of Jesus, on moral values, on religion and science. And so I picked the ten best debates, and then we put them into these two boxed sets. And the boxes, as it turned out, held six video tapes rather than five, and so there are actually two bonus DVDs thrown in as well. So the person who gets these two boxed sets is getting the top twelve debates that I've been involved in over the years.

Kevin Harris: Next week we're going to talk about the Lawrence Krauss debate in more detail right here on Reasonable Faith. Thank you for joining us. [9]