“See to it that no one
makes a prey of you by philosophy or empty deceit…” (Colossians 2:8)
Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig recently went
head-to-head with theoretical physicist, Dr. Sean Carroll of Cal Tech in a
public debate over the question, “Is
God’s Existence More Probable Given Cosmology Data?” This data broadly pertains to the expansion
of the universe from its very first moment of time. The 2 1/2 hour contest can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-H6hdjpRRw. Craig, of course argued the affirmative
position while Carroll correspondingly challenged it. However a more surprising and, I will argue dubious,
aspect of Carroll’s presentation was his bolder contention that the “evidence” employed
by Christians is worse than false or weak; it is, as he says, entirely irrelevant
to the scientific data because religion uses the wrong vocabulary and naively seeks
to address the wrong questions.
This posting does not challenge Carroll’s level of knowledge
within his own field (though I hasten
to add that the question at hand required his crossover from science into the
other intellectual fields of philosophy and theology). He posed a vigorous and thought-provoking
challenge to Craig. My atheist friend,
Jim (we two, too, have dueled each other twice in a similar debate) recently goaded
me over coffee by suggesting this video would be painful for me to watch
because, as he cautioned, “Carroll demolishes
your favorite apologist!” The contest
is anonymously labelled, “Sean Carroll
Completely Dominates Billionaire William Lane Craig in Lopsided Debate.” Let
us first of all dispose as garbage the poster’s ludicrous assertion that Craig
is wealthy. Now, turning to serious
matters, over the course of my having watched the debate several times I have noticed
that the list of related videos featured along the right hand border on my
screen all parade the same propagandistic theme in their titles, as though
Craig routinely gets beat up every time he debates. Oh, to the contrary! I wonder what lies behind such a pathetic
level of insecurity that compels people to post such nonsense. I advise every reader (on either side) who is
interested in this topic to witness this exchange and critically analyze the
arguments yourself. In undertaking this
assessment it is important to consider two matters: First it is necessary to distinguish between the
three fields of inquiry (referenced above) in the context of this exchange. Second, it is crucial to ask whether each contestant’s
treatment of these respective fields was managed correctly according to the
rules of logic (e.g. scientific assertions
supported by scientifically-valid
evidence, with the expectation that philosophical and theological issues will be
cogently framed).
By what authority, readers may ask, do I as a non-scientist
pastor presume to challenge a Cal Tec scientist on these matters? I do so by noting discrepancies between the
scientific claims Carroll alleged against creation, and the faulty logical
status of that battery of “evidence” that he offered in support of them (a
philosophical matter). I also highlight
incidents where his theological
objections (a religious matter) against the claim that the God of the Bible
made the heavens and the earth fail to achieve their intended goal of
dethroning God as the creative agent. To
cite here one example in service of that aim, Carroll spent considerable time
(1:15) hypothesizing on how a truly reasonable god, if such were to actually
exist, would have created a more
“successful” product than what scientists find in the natural order. His consequent pitting of the actuality of
nature against the witness of the God of the Bible, in a manner similar to
Charles Darwin (On the Origin of
Species, 1st ed. (Harvard, 1859), p.435)), leaves the field of scientific
discourse behind by entering into realm of religious matters. Hence the necessity of a pastor/theologian competently applying religious insight
in a critique of Carroll’s anti-theological case.
My entire article can be accessed at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com/articles