0:10

Bill, let's continue examining the

0:12

role of apologetics in academia.

0:16

We can

0:16

use a recent response to

0:18

one of our podcasts to do so. Apologia

0:22

had Derek Lambert of the Myth Vision

0:25

podcast talk about your response

0:27

to Dr. Richard Miller on how Christian

0:29

apologists are disdained in

0:31

the upper echelons of scholarship. Listeners

0:34

can review that podcast that we did. It's

0:36

called Responding to YouTube Critics,

0:39

reasonablefaith.org. So let's

0:42

start with a clip of them taking me to

0:44

task for one of my comments.

0:47

Well,

0:47

Bill, I couldn't resist and I accused

0:49

him in the comments of that video when I saw

0:51

it of doing apologetics against apologetics.

0:54

Oh my gosh. OK, if

0:56

we're going to be technical on the definition

0:59

of apologist,

1:00

it's simply a person who offers an argument

1:03

in defense of something controversial,

1:05

according to, you know, Dictionary Online, Oxford.

1:09

But

1:09

we all know what an apologist

1:12

is. OK, this is someone who

1:14

literally makes it their duty to

1:16

defend their particular faith

1:19

view. And we don't need to get into

1:22

is atheism some type of worldview

1:24

and is this something that we need to defend? That's

1:26

irrelevant to me. You can be agnostic, you can

1:28

be theist, you can be atheist, you can be whatever

1:31

you want. But what they're

1:33

doing is starting with their answer,

1:35

just like you'd assign your faith waiver in order

1:37

to even go to these schools. They're not starting

1:40

with the question. And this is the investigation

1:42

that is against the methodology, Richard

1:44

and those ivory tower scholars

1:46

I bring on my show and you've been bringing on yours, Paul.

1:49

They want the questions. They don't scratch

1:52

the answers. The answers come after you've

1:54

investigated. By the way,

1:56

I felt like I should apologize to Dr.

1:58

Miller, so I did so in the. lines

4:00

the importance of bona

4:03

fide Christian scholarship

4:06

which is comparable to

4:08

the top echelons of secular

4:11

academic scholarship today. And I named some

4:13

specific people, particularly

4:16

at the institutions of which

4:18

Miller himself had studied and of whom

4:20

he seemed to be unaware like Robert Adams

4:23

and Nicholas Woltersdorf at

4:25

Yale as well as Stephen

4:28

Davis at Claremont and a

4:30

number of other of these top scholars. And

4:34

these scholars are second to none

4:36

in terms of their scholarly

4:39

credentials and the scholarship

4:42

that's exemplified in their work.

4:45

Now as to the second point

4:47

concerning the methodology of

4:49

apologetics, what I argued

4:52

is that there is absolutely nothing

4:54

objectionable with stating

4:57

the view that you've arrived at

4:59

and then seeking to give a defense

5:02

of that view. And I thought it was tremendously

5:04

ironic that the definition

5:07

that these two fellows put up on the

5:10

screen of their video says

5:13

that an apologist is

5:15

someone who tries to explain

5:18

or defend something,

5:21

especially a political system

5:24

or religious ideas. And

5:26

then two of the examples that were given

5:28

were both secular. For

5:31

example, apologists for nuclear

5:33

power and apologists

5:35

for hardline government policies.

5:39

So it is not at all true that apologetics

5:42

is necessarily defending

5:44

a faith-based position. After

5:48

you've investigated and arrived

5:50

at a position you can then write a book

5:53

seeking to explain and defend those

5:56

ideas. And I gave some examples of this

5:58

for instance Jerry

6:00

Coyne's book Why Evolution

6:03

is True. This is an apologetic

6:06

for contemporary neo-Darwinian

6:09

evolutionary theory. Here's a couple

6:11

of more examples I found on my shelf.

6:14

Timothy Williamson's Modal Logic

6:16

as Metaphysics. Williamson is a professor

6:19

at Oxford University and he

6:21

holds to a philosophy called it Necessitism

6:23

which holds that everything

6:26

that exists exists necessarily.

6:28

And this book is his Explication

6:31

and Defense of the Philosophy

6:33

of Necessitism. Or here's another

6:36

one, James Franklin's book

6:38

An Aristotelian Realist, Philosophy

6:41

of Mathematics. In

6:43

this book, Franklin seeks to

6:45

explain and defend

6:48

an Aristotelian perspective

6:51

on philosophy of mathematics

6:54

which represents his preferred view.

6:57

And so there's nothing at all unusual

7:00

or flawed about laying

7:03

out your view and then seeking to give

7:05

a defense of it. And I can say

7:08

in my own work my defense

7:10

of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

7:13

was the result of extensive

7:16

research on that argument

7:18

before I arrived at my

7:21

views. Notice that being

7:23

a Christian doesn't commit you

7:26

to the co-gency of the Kalam

7:28

Cosmological Argument or to

7:30

the soundness of the ontological

7:33

argument or the fine-tuning argument. In

7:36

fact, the irony here, Kevin, is

7:38

that I can be

7:41

far more objective in my assessment

7:43

of these arguments than these two fellows can.

7:46

Because my belief

7:48

in God doesn't depend upon

7:51

the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological

7:53

Argument or the ontological argument. There

7:56

are many Christians who don't accept

7:58

those particular arguments. might have

8:00

other reasons for believing

8:03

in God. But for these two fellows,

8:06

their worldview stands or falls

8:08

with these arguments. If they

8:10

were to admit that the Kalam Cosmological

8:12

Argument or the Fine-Tuning Argument is a sound

8:15

argument, then it's over. They've

8:18

got to change their worldview. So

8:20

you see, there's a lot more hanging

8:23

on these arguments for them than

8:25

there is for me. I can afford to be completely

8:28

objective and

8:30

open-minded about the assessment of these arguments

8:33

because being a Christian doesn't

8:35

entail the soundness of

8:38

any particular natural theological

8:40

argument or Christian evidence.

8:45

Bill, I'm jumping ahead just a little bit here.

8:48

I think now would be a

8:50

good time to even emphasize this more because

8:53

in all these years of doing podcasts

8:55

with you, one thing that has come

8:58

out is that you don't read apologist,

9:00

you read scholarship and

9:03

any apologetics that happen

9:05

to come out of that does

9:08

so. And so you

9:10

don't pick up the latest pop apologist

9:12

book and read it. You're

9:15

a philosopher. Yeah, that's very

9:17

true, Kevin. I thought a little bit ironic

9:20

as I reflected for our podcast

9:23

today that the attitude

9:25

that these fellows describe of scholars

9:29

toward popular apologetics

9:32

is the same as mine. I also

9:35

do not read popular

9:38

apologetics. The only

9:40

popular level book in apologetics that

9:42

I've read recently was Justin Briarly's

9:45

book, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief

9:47

in God, because I was interested

9:49

in Justin's claim that there

9:52

are signs of a return of faith

9:54

now in the UK. That's very exciting

9:57

to me, and so I wanted to see what evidence.

10:00

He marshaled for that. But

10:02

generally speaking, my

10:04

attitude is the same as that of the

10:07

secular scholars that they mention. I

10:09

don't pay a whole lot of attention to

10:12

popular-level apologetics. By

10:14

the way, we're going to be doing a podcast

10:17

on Justin Briarly's book, an

10:19

article that he wrote that synopsizes

10:22

that book. And it's coming up and it's going

10:24

to be fascinating. In this next clip,

10:27

Derek Lambert refers to your Christian

10:30

testimony. Bill, let's check this out.

10:33

When Bill Craig was a young boy and he

10:35

found out that God

10:36

came down and sent his

10:38

son, if this has one

10:40

in a million chance of being

10:42

true, hallelujah, it's

10:44

worth believing it. And that day,

10:47

Bill Craig gave his life to the

10:49

Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, he

10:51

was a teenager. This

10:53

guy had no clue the

10:55

vast critical scholarship that was out

10:58

there and understanding the broader

11:00

world and context in which the birth

11:02

of Christianity occurred. He had no

11:05

way. But once you sell them,

11:07

once you are emotionally

11:09

vested, like you're going to defend

11:11

a parent, your parent

11:12

can do wrong. I've found myself

11:15

doing this. I've been guilty.

11:16

It's tribalistic in a way. My

11:18

parent can do wrong. My brother can do something

11:20

wrong. And I will still fight and defend

11:23

him most of the time. Naturally, just

11:25

comes natural. Once you have

11:27

the

11:27

key to a heavenly father who could solve

11:29

all your problems, that gives you this

11:32

gift of heaven, this promise

11:34

of salvation with the sealed Holy Spirit,

11:37

you then are vested in. You're

11:39

sold. And once you sell, you're

11:41

no longer questioning that foundation.

11:44

You're just figuring out what's the proper

11:46

understanding, what's the proper furniture that

11:48

goes in this house we call Christianity. How

11:50

do I organize that furniture? Are the Arminians

11:53

correct? Are the Orthodox Christians correct?

11:55

I have Christian scholars who

11:58

cannot stand.

12:00

Apologetics. They despise

12:03

Christian apologetics and they love

12:05

their faith and they do historical

12:07

critical research on New Testament,

12:10

on early Christianity, on early church

12:12

fathers, on Old Testament, you

12:15

name it. Kind of a mocking tone

12:17

to start off there, Bill, but I

12:19

might point out that Derek was a teenager

12:21

when he first prayed to receive Christ.

12:24

He's an ex-Christian. He says, looks

12:26

like Apologia was too,

12:29

but what do you think about what he said?

12:31

Yes, their own examples

12:33

belie what he just said

12:35

about being so invested in your

12:38

faith that you don't question it and don't

12:40

explore the foundations. They

12:43

chose to abandon their faith

12:45

as teenagers and too many

12:48

Christians do later lose their

12:50

faith in life. I'm

12:52

just so grateful that as I progressed

12:55

in my education I did not lose

12:57

my faith. It's true

13:00

that I was ignorant as a teenager,

13:03

but the Spirit of God spoke

13:05

to my heart and I

13:07

responded and I'm glad

13:09

I did. But notice Kevin here

13:12

that the question is not

13:14

a question of my personal psychology

13:17

or the firmness of my

13:20

Christian commitment. The question

13:22

is, are my arguments

13:25

sound? And you cannot

13:28

refute an argument by pointing

13:30

to the personal psychology

13:34

of the person who offers the

13:36

argument. That is an

13:39

ad hominem fallacy. And

13:41

as I explained in our last clip, I can

13:43

actually be more objective about these

13:45

arguments than these fellows can

13:48

because if they admit the arguments

13:50

are sound, they've got to change their whole world

13:52

view. Whereas I come

13:55

to the conclusion the arguments are not sound,

13:57

that doesn't mean that therefore

13:59

view

14:00

is false. In fact, I've changed my mind

14:03

with regard to some of the arguments. I

14:06

did not think at first that the ontological

14:08

argument was sound, but it was only

14:10

after reading Alfven Planninga's book, The

14:12

Nature of Necessity, that I became persuaded

14:15

that this is, in fact, a sound

14:17

argument. Similarly, I rejected

14:20

the Leibnizian cosmological

14:22

argument from contingency. I thought it was based

14:25

upon a premise that was

14:27

an extreme version

14:29

of the principle of sufficient reason that was

14:31

self-defeating. And it wasn't until

14:33

I read a version of the argument by Stephen

14:36

T. Davis based on a much more

14:38

modest principle than I thought to myself,

14:41

oh well, wait a minute, this

14:43

argument has got more going for

14:45

it than I suspected. And so

14:48

I can be objective about these arguments,

14:50

can they? Now I

14:52

think it's wonderful that at the end he does

14:55

recognize the credibility

14:57

and the worth of much Christian scholarship.

15:00

That's my point that I was making originally,

15:03

that there are people who are doing first-rate

15:06

Christian scholarship in various

15:08

areas. So what is the problem

15:11

supposed to be? I offer the same

15:15

arguments that they do. So

15:18

why are the arguments good arguments

15:21

in their hands, but they're

15:23

not good arguments in mine? I wonder

15:27

what these two fellows would have me do? And

15:29

I mean this question sincerely. I want

15:31

to ask them, give me some advice.

15:34

What am I supposed to

15:36

do? Seems to

15:38

me I've got three alternatives. First would be

15:40

I should abandon my Christian

15:43

faith. But that seems

15:45

unreasonable because I believe that Christianity

15:48

is true. So why

15:50

would I abandon something that I believe

15:53

to be the truth? Well

15:56

perhaps instead I should not publish

15:59

my opinion. anymore.

16:02

Just refrain from writing

16:05

on these things. But again, that

16:07

seems an extreme option because

16:09

then that would just leave the field

16:12

open for secularists and

16:15

atheists to criticize the

16:17

Christian faith, and I would never respond

16:19

to such objections. I would never offer any

16:21

defense for the existence of God or

16:24

for the historicity of the

16:26

New Testament. So why should I

16:28

be silent and

16:31

allow these objections and questions

16:33

to go unanswered? So

16:36

the third option would be, perhaps

16:38

I should just try to be as

16:40

objective as I can

16:42

in assessing the arguments

16:45

and the evidence. Well, that's

16:48

exactly what I'm already doing.

16:50

I'm trying to do good

16:53

scholarship in which I offer

16:55

arguments that when assessed objectively,

16:58

I think are logically valid

17:00

and based on true premises. I

17:03

had to laugh when I saw that picture of

17:05

you in the video as a teen. Bill,

17:07

I guess that's an AI-generated picture

17:10

of you, what you would look like as a teenager.

17:13

I've seen at least one picture of you as

17:16

a teen and you didn't look anything like that. Oh,

17:18

but it was

17:21

a good effort. Let's check out this next clip

17:23

talking about a big fish in a little pond.

17:26

You

17:26

know, William Lane Craig, you need to

17:28

keep that pond having plenty

17:31

of water

17:31

because there's an ocean,

17:33

not a pond, of solid scholarship

17:36

that's out there. That is bringing great

17:38

information. I do not think that they're

17:40

all correct on so many points. I mean, I think I probably

17:42

find something I personally disagree with with almost

17:44

any academic

17:46

that I've ever interviewed, but that big ocean,

17:49

it's not only enormous,

17:51

but it's gonna swallow up that little pond

17:53

if you don't keep your little bubble there. But I can

17:55

tell you this, those big fish in that little pond

17:58

will

17:58

never influence

18:04

Please

20:00

consider giving a financial gift to the work of Reasonable

20:02

Faith. To

20:07

help us continue to

20:07

produce great content like this that reaches the world.

20:10

Thanks

20:14

so much. We'll see you next time on Reasonable Faith with Dr.

20:16

William Lindkreich.

20:20

Thank

20:32

you.