William Lane Craig

From Vero - Wikipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Use mdy dates Template:Infobox academic William Lane Craig (Template:IPAc-en;<ref>William "Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens"</ref> born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and theologian.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> He is a visiting professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology of Biola University.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Until 2024, he was also a professor of philosophy at Houston Christian University.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Craig has updated and defended the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.<ref name="Schneider 2013" /><ref>Template:Harvp. "In his widely discussed writings William Lane Craig marshals multidisciplinary evidence for the truth of the premises found in the kalām argument.... [much more discussion follows]"</ref><ref name="ct-sun">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="horn-catholic">Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Sfn He has also published work where he argues in favor of the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus.Template:Sfn His study of divine aseity and Platonism culminated with his book God Over All.Template:Sfn<ref name="McNabb-goa-review">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Early life and education

File:WLC President of High School Math Club.jpg
Craig (furthest back to the left) with fellow members of the East Peoria High School Math Club in 1967

Craig was born August 23, 1949, in Peoria, Illinois, to Mallory and Doris Craig.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> He attended East Peoria Community High School from 1963 to 1967,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> where he competed in debate and won the state championship in oratory.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013">Template:Cite news</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he became a Christian.<ref name="Faculty Profile">Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

After graduating from high school, Craig attended Wheaton College, majoring in communications.<ref name="Wheaton College">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013" /> He graduated in 1971 and married his wife, Jan, whom he met on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ, the next year.<ref name="Wheaton College" /><ref name="buddha7habits" /> They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia.<ref name="buddha7habits">Template:Cite news</ref>

In 1973, Craig entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler.<ref name="rf-double-doctorates">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="tai-alumni-of-the-year">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> In 1975, Craig began doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England,<ref name="calvin-edu">Template:Cite web</ref> writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick.<ref name="iep-cramer">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013" /> He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.<ref name="birmingham-cadbury-lectures">Template:Cite web</ref> Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in theologian Stuart Hackett's work on the same topic.<ref name="Schneider 2013" />

Craig was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation<ref name="humboldtfoundation">Template:Cite web</ref> to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in Germany.<ref name="calvin-edu" /><ref name="humboldtfoundation" /><ref name="Schneider 2013" /><ref name="rf-double-doctorates" /> His studies in Munich under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College" /><ref name="Schneider 2013" /> awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (1985).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Career

Craig joined the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois in 1980, where he taught philosophy of religion until 1986.<ref name="teds-aoy">Template:Cite web</ref>

After a one-year stint at Westmont College on the outskirts of Santa Barbara, Craig moved in 1987 with his wife and two young children back to Europe,<ref name="owg-author-bio">Template:Cite book</ref> where he was a visiting scholar at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Louvain) in Belgium until 1994.<ref name="owg-author-bio"/><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> At that time, Craig joined the Department of Philosophy and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology in suburban Los Angeles as a research professor of philosophy, a position he currently holds,<ref name="Faculty Profile"/><ref name="christianpost-murashko">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="nyt-kristof">Template:Cite news</ref> and he went on to become a professor of philosophy at Houston Christian University in 2014.<ref name="christianpost-murashko"/><ref name="nyt-kristof"/> In 2017, Biola University created a permanent faculty position and endowed chair, the William Lane Craig Endowed Chair in Philosophy, in honor of Craig's academic contributions.<ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref>

Craig served as president of the Philosophy of Time Society from 1999 to 2006.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> He helped revitalize the Evangelical Philosophical Society and served as its president from 1996 to 2005.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> In the mid-2000s,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Craig established the online Christian apologetics ministry ReasonableFaith.org.<ref name="christianpost-murashko"/>

Craig has authored or edited over forty books and over two hundred articles published in professional philosophy and theology journals,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> including: The Journal of Philosophy,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Philosophical Studies,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Australasian Journal of Philosophy,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Faith and Philosophy,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Erkenntnis,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> and American Philosophical Quarterly.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Philosophical and theological views

Kalam cosmological argument

Template:See also

File:Infinite regress en.svg
An illustration of infinite regress

Craig has written and spoken in defense of a version of the cosmological argument called the Kalam cosmological argument.Template:EfnTemplate:Sfnm<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> While the Kalam originated in medieval Islamic philosophy, Craig added appeals to scientific and philosophical ideas in the argument's defense.<ref name="Schneider 2013" /> Craig's work has resulted in contemporary interest in the argument, and in cosmological arguments in general.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Craig formulates his version of the argument as follows:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Craig's defense of the argument mainly focuses on the second premise,<ref name="Copan|Craig|2017">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> which he offers several arguments for. For example, Craig appeals to Hilbert's example of an infinite hotel to argue that actually infinite collections are impossible, and thus the past is finite and has a beginning.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn In another argument, Craig says that the series of events in time is formed by a process in which each moment is added to history in succession. According to Craig, this process can never produce an actually infinite collection of events, but at best a potentially infinite one. On this basis, he argues that the past is finite and has a beginning.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Craig also appeals to various physical theories to support the argument's second premise, such as the standard Big Bang model of cosmic origins and certain implications of the second law of thermodynamics.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/>Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

The Kalam argument concludes that the universe had a cause, but Craig further argues that the cause must be a person.Template:Sfn First, Craig argues that the best way to explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternally existing cause is if that cause is a personal agent endowed with free will. Second, the only candidates for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being are abstract objects like numbers or unembodied minds; but abstract objects are causally effete. Third, Craig uses Richard Swinburne's separation of causal explanation; causal explanation can be given in terms either of initial conditions and laws of nature or of a personal agent and its volitions; but a first physical state of the universe cannot be explained in terms of initial conditions and natural laws.Template:Sfn

Craig's arguments to support the Kalam argument have been discussed and debated by a variety of commentators,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="McGrath-sar">Template:Cite book</ref> including Adolf Grünbaum,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Quentin Smith,Template:Sfn Wes Morriston,Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Graham Oppy,Template:Sfn Andrew Loke,Template:Sfn Robert C. Koons,Template:Sfn and Alexander Pruss.Template:Sfn Many of these papers are contained in the two-volume anthology The Kalām Cosmological Argument (2017), volume 1 covering philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past and volume 2 the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Divine omniscience

Craig is a proponent of Molinism, an idea first formulated by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina according to which God possesses foreknowledge of which free actions each person would perform under every possible circumstance, a kind of knowledge that is sometimes termed "middle knowledge".Template:Sfn Protestant-Molinism, such as Craig's, first entered Protestant theology through two anti-Calvinist thinkers: Jacobus Arminius and Conrad Vorstius.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Molinists such as Craig appeal to this idea to reconcile the perceived conflict between God's providence and foreknowledge with human free will. The idea is that, by relying on middle knowledge, God does not interfere with anyone's free will, instead choosing which circumstances to actualize given a complete understanding of how people would freely choose to act in response.Template:Sfn Craig also appeals to Molinism in his discussions of the inspiration of scripture, Christian exclusivism, the perseverance of the Saints, and missionary evangelism.Template:Sfn

Resurrection of Jesus

Craig has written two volumes arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (1985)Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn and Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (3rd ed., 2002).<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Sfn In the former volume, Craig describes the history of the discussion, including David Hume's arguments against the identification of miracles. The latter volume is an exegetical study of the New Testament material pertinent to the resurrection.

Craig structures his arguments for the historicity of the resurrection under 3 headings:Template:Sfn

  1. The tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers on the Sunday after his crucifixion.Template:Sfn
  2. Various individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.
  3. The earliest disciples came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite strong predispositions to the contrary.

Craig argues that the best explanation of these three events is a literal resurrection.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> He applies an evaluative framework developed by philosopher of history C. Behan McCullagh<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> to examine various theoretical explanations proposed for these events. From that framework, he rejects alternative theories such as Gerd Lüdemann's hallucination hypothesis, the conspiracy hypothesis, and Heinrich Paulus or Friedrich Schleiermacher's apparent death hypothesis as lacking explanatory scope, explanatory power, and sufficient historical plausibility.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Sfn In 1996 Craig participated in the Resurrection Summit, a meeting held at St. Joseph's Seminary, New York, in order to discuss the resurrection of Jesus. Papers from the summit were later compiled and published in the book The Resurrection. An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by S.T Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins.<ref name="Davis, Kendall, O' Collins 1998">Davis, Stephen T., Kendall, Daniel and O'Collins, Gerald (1998) The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press</ref>

Philosophy of time

Craig defends a presentist version of the A-theory of time. According to this theory, the present exists, but the past and future do not. Additionally, he holds that there are tensed facts, such as it is now lunchtime, which cannot be reduced to or identified with tenseless facts of the form it is lunchtime at noon on February 10, 2020. According to this theory, presentness is a real aspect of time, and not merely a projection of our thought and talk about time. He raises several defenses of this theory, two of which are especially notable. First, he criticizes J. M. E. McTaggart's argument that the A-theory is incoherent, suggesting that McTaggart's argument begs the question by covertly presupposing the B-theory. Second, he defends the A-theory from empirical challenges arising from the standard interpretation of Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR). He responds to this challenge by advocating a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of SR which is empirically equivalent to the standard interpretation, and which is consistent with the A-theory and with absolute simultaneity. Craig criticizes the standard interpretation of SR on the grounds that it is based on a discredited positivist epistemology. Moreover, he claims that the assumption of positivism invalidates the appeal to SR made by opponents of the A-theory.<ref name="Helm 2002">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Hasker 2003">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="quarum-tat-review">Template:Cite journal</ref>

File:Craig Seminar 3.jpg
Craig in 2015

Divine eternity

Craig argues that God existed in a timeless state causally prior to creation,<ref name="quarum-tat-review"/> but has existed in a temporal state beginning with creation, by virtue of his knowledge of tensed facts and his interactions with events.<ref name="helm-stanford-eternity">Template:Cite journal</ref> He gives two arguments in support of that view. First, he says that, given his tensed view of time, God cannot be timeless once he has created a temporal universe, since, after that point, he is related to time through his interactions and through causing events in time.<ref name="helm-stanford-eternity"/> Second, Craig says that as a feature of his omniscience, God must know the truth related to tensed facts about the world, such as whether the statement "Today is January 15th" is true or not or what is happening right now.<ref name="Hasker 2003"/><ref name="Swinburne 2002">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Helm 2014">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Deng 2018">Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Efn

Divine aseity

Craig has published on the challenge posed by platonism to divine aseity or self-existence.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn Craig rejects both the view that God creates abstract objects and that they exist independently of God.Template:Sfn Rather, he defends a nominalistic perspective that abstract objects are not ontologically real objects.Template:Sfn Stating that the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument is the chief support of platonism,Template:Sfn Craig criticizes the neo-Quinean criterion of ontological commitment, according to which the existential quantifier of first order logic and singular terms are devices of ontological commitment.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Craig favors a neutral interpretation of the quantifiers of first-order logic, so that a statement can be true, even if there is not an object being quantified over. Moreover, he defends a deflationary theory of reference based on the intentionality of agents, so that a person can successfully refer to something even in the absence of some extra-mental thing. Craig gives the example of the statement "the price of the ticket is ten dollars" which he argues can still be a true statement even if there is not an actual object called a "price".Template:Sfn He defines these references as a speech act rather than a word-world relation, so that singular terms may be used in true sentences without commitment to corresponding objects in the world.Template:Sfn Craig has additionally argued that even if one were to grant that these references were being used as in a word-world relation, that fictionalism is a viable explanation of their use; in particular pretense theory, according to which statements about abstract objects are expressions of make-believe, imagined to be true, even if literally false.Template:Sfn

Atonement

In preparation for writing a systematic philosophical theology, Craig undertook a study of the doctrine of the atonement which resulted in two books, The Atonement (2019) and Atonement and the Death of Christ (2020).<ref>The Atonement. Elements in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018; Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2020.</ref>

Historical Adam

Also as a preliminary study for his systematic philosophical theology Craig explored the biblical commitment to and scientific credibility of an original human pair who were the universal progenitors of mankind.<ref>In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Investigation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2021.</ref> Following the Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen, Craig argues on the basis of various family resemblances that Genesis 1-11 plausibly belongs to the genre of mytho-history, which aims to recount historical persons and events in the figurative and often fantastic language of myth. Most recently Craig has begun writing a projected multi-volume systematic philosophical theology.<ref>For a preview see his “On Systematic Philosophical Theology.” Philosophia Christi 23/1 (2021): 11-25.</ref>

Other views

Craig is a critic of metaphysical naturalism,Template:Sfn New Atheism,Template:Sfn and prosperity theology,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Primary source inline as well as a defender of Reformed epistemology.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> He also states that a confessing Christian should not engage in homosexual acts.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Craig maintains that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Primary source inline He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> and was a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> In his debate with Paul Helm, Craig explains that he would call himself an "Arminian" "in the proper sense."<ref name="Helm 2014"/> Elsewhere, he has described himself as a Wesleyan or Wesleyan-Arminian.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Primary source inline

As a non-voluntaristic divine command theorist, Craig believes God had the moral right to command the killing of the Canaanites if they refused to leave their land, as depicted in the Book of Deuteronomy.Template:Sfnm<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> This has led to some controversy, as seen in a critique by Wes Morriston.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Craig has also proposed a neo-Apollinarian Christology in which the divine logos stands in for the human soul of Christ and completes his human nature.Template:Sfn

Reception

According to Nathan Schneider, "[many] professional philosophers know about him only vaguely, but in the field of philosophy of religion, [Craig's] books and articles are among the most cited".<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Fellow philosopher Quentin Smith writes that "William Lane Craig is one [of] the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time."<ref name="iep-god-and-time">Template:Cite journal</ref>

In 2021, Academic Influence ranked Craig the nineteenth most influential philosopher in the world over the previous three decades (1990–2020) and the world's fourth most influential theologian over the same period.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

In 2009, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens had an interview before his debate with Craig in that same year. During that interview, Hitchens said: "I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take [Craig] very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy. Very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. [...] I say that without reserve. I don't say it because I'm here. Normally, I don't get people saying: 'Good luck tonight' and 'don't let us down', you know. But with him, I do."<ref>Template:Cite AV media</ref>

In 2011, with respect and compliment to his debating skills, New Atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists".<ref name="Schneider 2013" /><ref>Template:Cite AV media</ref>

Following a 2011 debate with Craig, Lawrence Krauss stated that Craig had a "simplistic view of the world" and that in the debate, Craig had said "disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton College.<ref name="Wheaton College"/>

After his debate with Craig in 2014, Sean Carroll expressed frustration: "the following pattern repeated multiple times: Craig would make an argument, I would reply, and Craig would just repeat the original argument".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Primary source inline

In 2016, Craig was named Alumnus of the Year by Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Selected publications

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

See also

Notes

Template:Notelist

References

Footnotes

Template:Reflist

Bibliography

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Template:Talbot School of Theology Template:Philosophy of religion Template:Subject bar Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sarg.dev/index.php?title=William_Lane_Craig&oldid=202344"