Questions on Extraterrestrial Life, Courage, and Universalism

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, we have some questions to catch up on. We’ve gotten plenty. We urge everyone to go to the Question of the Week feature at ReasonableFaith.org. Your question may be answered already, or some version of it. Let’s go to this question here from Taylor in the United States.

Dear Dr. Craig, in your Reasonable Faith podcast on “Dueling Reviews for Historical Adam Book Part Two” podcast you stated,

 think my characterization of the image of God as having faculties like rationality, self-consciousness, freedom of the will, and so forth is quite adequate to understand what it means to be made in God’s image. It would have the implication that, yes, angels and demons are also created in the image of God. I see nothing objectionable about that biblically. In fact, in Genesis 1:26-27 when God creates man in his image and likeness, it is so interesting that he uses the plural – “let us make man in our image and likeness.” Many Old Testament commentators think that this is a reference to the angelic court to whom God speaks. In that case, angels and fallen angels are also, like us, created in the image of God.

My question is this. Does this view not also imply that angels were involved in our creation? And if so, would that at all diminish God's role as creator?

DR. CRAIG: I think, Taylor, that would be an unjustified inference. That would be reading something into the text. Throughout Genesis chapter 1, it's all about God as the sole creator of the Earth and the sun and the stars and then the various living forms on the Earth. There is no suggestion of co-creators along with God. So I think that inference would be unjustified.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question. Somebody from New Zealand – Joshua in New Zealand – had a question about what you said in a YouTube clip about God's having the virtue of courage^[1]. Can God be courageous since he has nothing to fear? Let's check out that clip real quick, and then we'll look at a comment from YouTube.

DR. CRAIG: This is a really wonderful question. Courage is clearly a moral virtue; it is morally virtuous to be courageous rather than cowardly. And yet, when you think about it, courage is not a moral virtue that God can exemplify. Why? Well, because God is omnipotent; nothing can harm him or even threaten him, and therefore he doesn't need to be courageous. Indeed, he can't exemplify courage. What that suggests, I think, Michael, is that while courage is a virtue exemplified by human beings, it is not what philosophers call a “perfection.” A perfection is a property which it is absolutely better to have than not to have. And no perfection can imply or entail an imperfection. And courage would be like that. To be courageous, though a good thing, implies an imperfection; namely, weakness or vulnerability or something of that sort. So courage, I would say, is not a perfection, it's not absolutely better to have than not, and therefore not an attribute that God, as a maximally great being or perfect being, exemplifies. So perfect being theology would exclude certain properties from being exemplified by God because they are inconsistent with perfection.

I was looking over the comments on the YouTube page. Here's one that says,

I would disagree, God may not be able to be threatened, but he can feel pain, he can feel grief and sorrow and disappointment, as he has toward us many times, and so he therefore has the ability to dread that pain, as he may have, placing Adam in the Garden and knowing what he would do, or anointing Saul, or David. He has courage in knowing he will feel that and going through it by loving us continually and having created us at all in the first place.

I think I know what they're getting at there.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, I am rather open to this alternative. I like very much what he says. I was thinking of courage in terms of being afraid of something but facing it bravely. But what he's talking about is courage in the sense that God is willing to suffer for the sake of our redemption and in creating us. That does make sense. That would be a courageous act on the part of God to undertake this kind of suffering. So I'm open to this idea that maybe God does exemplify courage after all in that sense.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Dr. Craig, I agree with the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment, but I can't help but think that in possible worlds that contain those who die in an unrepentant state it is at least logically possible that universalism is true. Would you agree that it's logically possible?

Bill, we can answer that and then move to the next part.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, we can answer that immediately. Yes, of course it's logically possible. We live in a world in which people die in an unrepentant state and are lost and yet it's logically possible that universalism is true. To say that means that there are other worlds – non-actual worlds – that are possible in which everyone either never sins or everyone freely accepts God's gift of grace and forgiveness and comes to find salvation. Certainly worlds like that are logically possible.

KEVIN HARRIS: Then he continues,

In short, assuming universalism is possible in a world in which some die in an unsaved state then even for those of us who are convinced universalism is false is there something wrong in holding the attitude expressed by something like the statement “I would be delighted if I were to discover that I'm wrong on hell and that universalism is in fact true.“ Nothing about doctrinal matters hangs on my attitude, of course, but it does help me know what attitudes are permissible to take on this issue. I ask because an unbelieving friend asked me if I at least hoped universalism might be the case. I would have felt a little like Scrooge in saying “No, I don't hope it's true.” I resorted to saying, “I don't know what to think about that.” Trent in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: I would say to Trent that there's no problem at all in hoping that universalism is true and that everyone will be saved. But we know that it's not. Certainly there's a possible world like that, but that's not the actual world. As I think about Trent’s question, I wonder if maybe he has mis-expressed what he's really asking. Maybe he's really asking, “Is there a possible world in which there are unrepentant people who die and yet universalism is true?” He mis-phrased the question perhaps. Is there a possible world containing unrepentant sinners who die, and yet universalism is true? I would say, “No, there is no possible world of that sort.” If someone dies in his sins then there is no salvation for such a person. That person has freely rejected God, and I don't think God will override his free will to make him come to salvation. So while in a world in which there are unrepentant sinners who die, it is logically possible that everyone comes to faith, nevertheless it's not logically possible to have a world in which both unrepentant sinners die and universalism is true.

KEVIN HARRIS: I’ll tell you why else I think he was asking that question when I was thinking about it. A while back this popular hardcore preacher went viral with a clip saying that he's going to be happy one of these days when he sees these people in hell.

DR. CRAIG: Oh.

KEVIN HARRIS: He's going now, “This is a real popular preacher, and this went viral. I can't agree with it. Is it okay to hope that universalism is true, or does that mean I'm kind of unrighteous and not very biblical and not on God's side?”

DR. CRAIG: My goodness! I would say just the contrary. Someone who delights in the damnation of other people it seems to me is someone who is spiritually defective. I think God's heart is broken at the prospect of people who refuse his grace and refuse to be saved.

KEVIN HARRIS: Yeah. God says, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Talk about being biblical. That might be where he got that. But, at any rate, two aspects of that question. Here's the next one. Question number four.

Why does Dr. Craig omit John 14 (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father except through me. If you've seen me, you've seen the Father.”) from his writings on the self-understanding and presuppositions of Jesus both in his articles and his books? Joshua in Canada

DR. CRAIG: The answer is very simple, Joshua. In doing apologetics, you can't just quote Bible verses at the unbeliever because he doesn't accept the Bible. He doesn't believe the New Testament. So what you have to do is to appeal to sayings of the historical Jesus for which a good historical case can be made; that these are what scholars call “authentic words” – words that actually reflect what the historical Jesus said. That's why in my work I focus on those sayings of Jesus for which a very good case can be made that these are authentic. I claim that you can show that among the authentic words of the historical Jesus are claims to be the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God in a unique sense, and the divine human Son of Man prophesied by Daniel. But I don't think that you would be able to prove these verses that Joshua mentions from historical grounds.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question. Question number five.

Dr. Craig, you have stated that a theistic belief allows for the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life as God could have created life elsewhere, and this belief does not contradict Christianity. If these are intelligent and emotional beings on the same level as humans (or perhaps even more advanced), how might discovering such life affect our understanding of the eschatology and the new heaven and new Earth in Christian theology? . . . I want to express my gratitude for you taking the time to consider my question. It's an honor to have the opportunity to engage with you. Your insights have profoundly impacted my own philosophical and theological understanding. Ian in the United States

DR. CRAIG: Thank you, Ian, very much. The question is, of course, speculative. The question would be whether in the new heavens and the new Earth, if there are extraterrestrial beings who are saved, whether they would be brought together in that state. Or might they still inhabit different planets? It's interesting that John in Revelation talks about a new heaven and a new Earth. So would these extraterrestrials be brought to Earth so that we would fellowship with them in the eschaton? I don't know. It might be that there is a diversity of worlds even in the new heavens and the new Earth. But if God does bring us all together – wow! We are going to perhaps see that God's family is much larger and much more diverse than we could ever have imagined.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question.

Hello, Professor Craig. You've written that one of evangelicalism's greatest problems is anti-intellectualism. My question relates to a specific instance of anti-intellectualism that I've encountered among well-meaning fellow Christians – that is, bad apologetics. I don't wish to cause offense by name-dropping or listing specific instances, but the problem is rampant within the modern church which I'm sure you know. It includes things like scientific obscurantism, uncharitable or straw man framings of opposing viewpoints, various informal fallacies used in apologist rhetoric such as tu quoque and the genetic fallacy, and epistemic vices giving rise to denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. Bad apologetics, as I've seen, can have the effect of putting people off to the Gospel as it couples the message of Christ with dubious science, sophistry, and a culture unmoored from empirical reality. Yet, I am at a loss for how to address the problem, for I find that if I call out these problems directly I'm taken as an ally of skeptics, liberals, and atheists. Whereas, if I ignore the problem it feels as if I'm enabling the problem. I find myself struggling with resentment towards fellow Christians over their sincere but philosophically flawed attempts at defending the faith. How would you suggest that we address the problem of bad apologetics in the church in a way that doesn't lead to factionism or internal conflict but that also isn't enabling? Thank you for your time and consideration. Luke

DR. CRAIG: This is a very thoughtful question from Luke, but not one with which I have a great deal of familiarity. I don't read bad apologetics and so I would be hard-pressed to give good examples of the sort of fallacies that he's referring to. But I think I can address the question that he raised about how do we handle the problem of bad apologetics in the church in a way that doesn't lead to conflict but also doesn't enable bad apologetics. I think that the way you do it is that you yourself are proactive in teaching responsible sound apologetics in the local church. This is what I aspire to do in our Defenders class in our local church. Every Sunday I teach an adult Sunday school class called Defenders in which we survey Christian doctrine and apologetics. I do my very best to present responsibly good but accessible arguments and evidence for the positions that I hold. And I will not tolerate bad arguments. One of the things that's very different about my class is that when someone asks a question, as a teacher I am not at all reluctant to disagree with the person in the class and say, “Well, no, Bruce, I don't think you've understood it correctly. Here's the way it should be understood.” Or, “Well, I don't think that's really a good objection, Bruce, and here's why. Here's what we can say better.” So you just model it yourself in a positive way. I don't go out of my way at all to criticize other people's bad apologetics. It's just not interesting to me. What I want to do is to do it well myself. Then, in the context of teaching it to others, don't pander to the students in your class by saying, “Every question is a good question” or thinking that everyone has the right to his opinion. Of course, he has the right to his opinion, but sometimes those opinions are foolish. We can correct foolish opinions and views when they're expressed. But we do so with gentleness and with meekness. People will sense where your heart is; that they know that your desire is to build them up and to strengthen them, not to tear them down. So that's my suggestion for Luke is that he get himself involved in a Bible study or small group or Sunday school class where he can do this well himself and thereby provide a sort of counterweight or alternative model to the kinds of bad apologetics that he decries.

KEVIN HARRIS: I would just say to Luke that we all do bad apologetics until we learn good apologetics. When we start out we do “solar system apologetics” and then we advance from there the more we read and learn and so continue on. Next question. This is from Malaysia, by the way. I think that's why it's kind of stated this way.

Dr. Craig, I've watched your performances on TikTok and deduce that you think the trinitarian Christian God is different from the unitarian. I would agree. I conclude that you are a polytheist. I'm a passive atheist, and I'm in a very good place. Malcolm in Malaysia.

DR. CRAIG: Well, Malcolm is from a Muslim country. I suspect he's absorbed the cultural input of a Muslim nation that trinitarianism is equivalent to polytheism. I think that just exhibits a misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the Trinity holds. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God – it is a monotheism – but that God is three persons. So God is a tri-personal being: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but one spiritual substance. So this is very, very different from saying that there are three gods, and I think Malcolm needs to do a little more studying to be sure he grasps the concept of the doctrine of the Trinity before he characterizes it as “polytheism.”^[2]