Human sinfulness inhibits our abilities to enjoy the things that are designed to make deeply relational creatures, like us, genuinely happy. The genuine happiness that I have in mind involves a feeling of deep satisfaction that evokes awe in response to the beauty of a relationship that is inspired by love. For example, our tendency to be greedy inhibits our ability to enjoy the act of giving that is motivated by love. Extramarital affairs inhibit a person’s ability to enjoy the depth of a loving relationship with his or her spouse. Pride inhibits our ability to enjoy a loving relationship with other people. The act of lying inhibits our ability to enjoy the beauty of a relationship that is based on honesty. Worldly pleasures inhibit our ability to enjoy the beauty of a life that is lived in peace and tranquility. The loving God designed humans for genuine happiness. However, human sinfulness inhibits our progress to genuine happiness. So, a loving God ought to be deeply bothered by human sinfulness.
Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading evangelical apologist, is featured in a major article in The Chronicle of Higher Education [see http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en ]. That should be a surprise, since CHE is not known for having a taste for people like Craig. I think that Craig is overrated by evangelicals, but underrated by academics. His triumphalism, I think, weakens the merits of his arguments, since it underrates what I consider to be persuasive cases for atheism. It tends to caricature his opponents’ arguments as unworthy of serious considerations. However, his skills as a debater are unparalleled. He is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Of course, winning a debate is not a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of one’s claim. But I think that his opponents, like Alexander Rosenberg (Duke philosopher) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist), are mistaken for downplaying the role of formal debates in
Comments