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 enriching academic discourses. If an academic scholar cannot show the strength of his or her case in a formal debate, then the audience or readers have at least some reason to worry about the plausibility of his or her claims. Of course, Craig’s debating skills are probably the major reasons why many declare him as the winner in many of his debates, even by those who are on the opponents’ side. But his opponents are usually topnotch academics with excellent public speaking skills. They should have known better. They should not have been overwhelmed by his debating skills. Although I am not a fan of Craig, I am glad that CHE somehow recognizes his achievements as an apologist. Christians should at least celebrate the kind of visibility that Craig’s ministry provides for Christianity in the academic world. In addition, Craig also wrote a response to a recent documentary (entitled “The Unbelievers”) [see http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/new-atheist-documentary-by-dawkins-and-krauss-wont-make-an-unbeliever-out-of-anyone/]. The film will be shown in movie theaters in the U.S. It features two of the leading figures in the so-called “New Atheism”: Richard Dawkins (biologist) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist). I suppose that it is like Bill Maher’s “Religulous.” It promotes the idea that there is something irrational about religious belief.
After the death of Jerry Falwell and the declining popularity of Pat Robertson, surprisingly the legacy of the evangelical right persists in politically conservative media (like Fox News) and conservative evangelical churches (like some Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God churches). Equipped with sensationalistic jesters and political preachers, bearers of such legacy can pester the current administration. No wonder Obama and his advisers are launching an attack on Fox News, the main source of information for the evangelical right. Since the presidential campaign season for the 2008 election, I heard numerous anti-Obama sermons in a large congregation with a devoutly Republican pastor. A devoutly Republican pastor is one who cleverly subsumes the Christian message under the Republican agendas. Many conservative evangelical churches have devoutly Republican pastors, who regularly politicize the pulpit by unnecessarily turning congregants against Obama. In a subtle way, this is danger
Comments
Let me give my own definitions for some relevant terms:
1. Belief: a mental-like representation, in the form of a proposition, which one allows to determine his or her outward behaviors or ways of thinking
2. Believe: an attitude of one who allows a particular belief to determine his or her outward behaviors or ways of thinking
Let me explain the two definitions. I am taking a neutral stance on whether a belief really exists as an immaterial mental content or as something reducible to something physical in the brain. It is also possible that a belief is a term that we merely use for instrumental purposes. But I’m not going to bother to even take a position on such issues right now. Let’s look at the following belief: “x is red.” We know that a particular person believes that x is red when he or she treats x as a red object. So, when someone asks him or her for a red object, he or she brings x. His or her belief that x is red partly determines his or her behavior of bringing x when someone asks for a red object. I am assuming that other beliefs must be combined with the belief that x is red to determine such behavior. For instance, he or she must also believe that the color “red” refers to the color commonly attributed to x. Let’s look at another belief: “A personal deity exists.” If a particular person claims to believe in the existence of such a deity and ignores such belief completely in his or her personal attempts to make general sense of reality, then we can reasonably wonder whether he or she really believes it. If he or she truly believes it, then it should play some roles in the determinations of his or her ways of thinking.
Craig seems to consistently behave and think in accordance to what he explicitly claims to believe. There is no reason to believe otherwise. So, I can reasonably claim that he truly believes what he claims to believe. Is it possible that he is simply attempting to satisfy his fans by outwardly claiming to believe what he in actuality does not believe? Of course, that’s possible. But I have no reason to believe that.