2:00

to you is based on the

2:02

requirement of the body being healthy

2:04

to support the mind how

2:06

does this affect the soul? Personally

2:09

I've thought of the mind

2:11

somewhat synonymously with the soul.

2:14

I stipulate that I may be an

2:16

error on my perception of mind-body dualism.

2:19

I would appreciate any insight you may

2:21

be able to provide. Thank

2:23

you sir, Chris in the United States. Well

2:26

my heart goes out to you

2:28

Chris. I know what you're going

2:30

through and seeing apparent decline

2:33

through dimension

2:35

that is heartbreaking and difficult

2:37

to bear. But in

2:39

terms of your philosophical question I

2:42

think you're quite right to say

2:44

that the mind and the soul

2:46

are synonymous. The soul is the

2:49

theological word for what philosophers call

2:51

the mind. What is not

2:53

identical is the mind and the

2:55

brain and

2:58

I think you appreciate and accept

3:00

that fact. But the

3:02

mind and the brain function

3:06

intimately together for thought.

3:09

When I was at the World

3:11

Congress on philosophy in Düsseldorf in

3:13

1978 I had the

3:16

privilege of hearing the great

3:18

Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John

3:20

Eccles lecture on

3:22

the relationship between the mind

3:24

and the brain. And

3:27

he gave an analogy that has

3:29

stuck with me ever since that

3:31

so wonderfully illustrates this intimate

3:34

connection. He said

3:36

that the mind is

3:38

like a pianist

3:41

who plays a piano to produce

3:44

music in the same

3:46

way that the piano is an instrument

3:49

that the pianist uses to

3:51

produce music so

3:53

the brain is an instrument

3:55

which the mind uses to

3:58

think. the

4:00

instrument is damaged, if the

4:02

piano is out of tune

4:04

or broken, then the

4:06

musician, despite his ability

4:10

and virtuosity, will not be able to

4:13

produce any beautiful music. Similarly,

4:15

if the brain is

4:17

damaged or impaired, then

4:19

the mind will not be able to

4:21

use the brain properly to think.

4:24

And so I think what your mother is

4:27

going through is this decline

4:30

in the functioning of the

4:32

brain that impairs the

4:35

thought life of the soul or

4:38

of the mind. But

4:40

fortunately the mind or soul is

4:42

not identical with the brain,

4:45

and when the brain finally dies, the

4:48

soul will go to be with

4:51

Christ. Paul said to be absent from

4:53

the body is to be present with

4:55

the Lord, and it's better

4:57

to die and go to be with Christ

5:00

than even to continue living in

5:02

this frail and faltering

5:05

body. So that's

5:08

how I would see it, is

5:10

that it's a kind of dualism

5:12

interactionism in which we are psychosomatic

5:17

functioning holes comprised

5:19

of soul and body.

5:22

Next question. Hi, Dr. Craig. In question

5:24

of the week number 856, you wrote

5:27

the following about the existence

5:29

of the afterlife and its relationship

5:31

to meaning. It is the person

5:33

who has no hope of an

5:35

afterlife whose earthly life becomes objectively

5:37

meaningless because the choices and actions

5:40

he undertakes have no ultimate consequences.

5:42

No matter what he does, he

5:44

will wind up the same. End

5:47

of quote quoting you there, Bill. Does

5:49

this mean that even if atheism could

5:51

provide a sound foundation for objective moral

5:53

values and duties, it would

5:56

still be true that our lives are

5:58

ultimately meaningless? In other words, words, if

6:00

we suppose there exists some

6:02

foundation for objective moral values

6:04

and duties on atheism, I

6:07

struggle to see why there is any ultimate

6:09

meaning in my being

6:11

moral or acting in accordance

6:13

with moral duty. Whether

6:16

I live as a saint or a sinner, the grave is

6:18

still the end, and if moral duty

6:20

conflicts with my own self-interest, it seems like

6:23

whether I chose to follow or

6:25

ignore what is morally right makes

6:27

no ultimate difference to me. I

6:30

have often heard you argue that there is

6:32

no meaningful life without God, but would

6:34

this still be true even

6:36

if atheism could provide a sound

6:39

foundation for objective moral values and

6:41

duties? If so, can you

6:43

explain how the existence of good

6:47

and moral duty is related

6:49

to ultimate meaning? Thank

6:51

you for all you do. That is John in

6:53

the United States. In

6:55

my analysis of this, John,

6:58

I think that this is a package

7:00

deal that if atheism

7:03

is true, if God does not

7:05

exist, then there is

7:07

no ultimate meaning, value, or

7:10

purpose to life. However,

7:13

if you could provide

7:15

some sort of objective

7:18

basis for the affirmation of ultimate

7:21

value, then I think meaning would

7:23

come along with it. Because

7:25

in that case, even if your life ended at

7:28

the grave, it would still be

7:30

meaningful that you aligned

7:32

your life with the good as opposed

7:35

to aligning your life with what

7:38

is evil. So I think

7:40

that meaning and value are intimately related

7:42

in that way. Unfortunately, for

7:45

the atheist, in a

7:47

godless universe, I don't think he

7:49

has any foundation for the affirmation

7:51

of objective moral values. Next

7:54

question, Dr. Craig, I've

7:57

heard Jews comment that the idea of

7:59

Jesus atoning for our sins

8:01

on the cross would entail God

8:03

requiring a human sacrifice. How

8:06

would you respond to the human

8:09

sacrifice argument which seems barbaric to

8:11

them? Thomas? Yes.

8:14

Well I think that Christ's atoning

8:17

death is an example of a human

8:19

sacrifice. Christ was a human being and

8:22

he gave his life as a sacrifice

8:24

for our sins to God. And

8:26

this was done on the pattern

8:29

of the Jewish sacrificial system

8:32

in the Old Testament, particularly

8:34

those Levitical offerings that were

8:37

made in the tabernacle

8:39

and in the temple. Now

8:42

these were animal offerings,

8:45

sheep or goats or bulls.

8:48

God forbade that there would

8:50

be any human sacrifices even

8:53

though it would seem odd to think that

8:56

the sacrifice of an animal's life

8:59

would do anything to atone for

9:01

sin. Human sacrifice would

9:03

seem much more logical that it

9:05

would require the giving of a

9:07

human life to save a life

9:10

rather than giving of the life of a

9:12

goat or a bull. But nevertheless

9:15

God forbade that there would be

9:18

human sacrifices. There could only be

9:20

these animal sacrifices. But these

9:23

sacrifices were only

9:26

provisional. They did

9:28

not really affect

9:31

moral cleansing from sin

9:33

and impurity. Christ's

9:37

self-giving sacrifice was the

9:39

fulfillment of this Levitical

9:41

system of Old Testament

9:44

sacrifices. And so if you

9:46

read the book of Hebrews in the New

9:48

Testament, the author of

9:50

Hebrews describes how

9:52

Christ is God's final

9:55

sacrifice for sin where he

9:57

gives his life as

9:59

a few

14:00

million years than the mass

14:02

of the galaxy as a whole.

14:04

That's from Fauchet-Jaguar. By

14:08

these results, the cosmological

14:10

argument remains strong. Thank

14:13

you for your time. That's Lance in the United

14:15

States. Well, you know,

14:17

Kevin, when it's time to say I told

14:19

you so, we talked

14:21

about this on a previous podcast

14:23

where people were sounding the alarms

14:25

over the Big Bang theory because

14:28

of these anomalies. And

14:30

at least according to Fauchet-Jaguar, this

14:33

is simply the result

14:35

of more massive stars burning

14:37

at a higher speed relatively

14:40

recently. And so, in fact, these

14:43

results are not anomalous and

14:46

do nothing to call into

14:48

question the standard Big

14:51

Bang model of the origin of the universe. This

14:54

next question from Canada. Dear Dr.

14:56

Craig, thank you for your

14:58

unflagging commitment to the apologetics ministry. Your

15:01

popular works and reasonable faith podcasts were

15:03

an important part of my faith formation

15:05

and my teens. And now,

15:07

as I prepare to be ordained for

15:09

Anglican parish ministry, I have rediscovered your

15:11

work at the academic level. It

15:14

has been a great encouragement and a source

15:16

of intellectual renewal. My question

15:18

emerges from Atonement and the Death of

15:20

Christ. I am grateful

15:22

for your defense of penal substitutionary Atonement,

15:25

but it seems to be only the

15:27

first step, although in the most important

15:29

step, in a doctrine of salvation. Protestant

15:32

theology has typically said that repentance and

15:34

faith, or faith only,

15:37

if faith necessarily involves repentance,

15:39

are the means by which the atoning

15:42

sacrifice of Christ is applied to an

15:44

individual. In your study of

15:46

the Atonement, have you discovered a necessary

15:48

reason why faith and repentance

15:51

have this role of applying the

15:53

benefits of the Atonement? To

15:55

put it another way, is there

15:57

some logic internal to penal substitutionary?

16:00

atonement, which requires that faith

16:02

be the principle by which

16:04

this atonement is applied. Or

16:07

is the necessity of faith for salvation

16:09

added to the necessity of

16:11

atonement for sin by the

16:13

free choice of God, so that

16:15

the doctrine of salvation involves two

16:17

or more ideas which might not

16:19

have been conjoined? Is

16:22

there a possible world in which

16:24

Christ atones for sin and yet

16:26

God chooses to apply the merit

16:29

of the atonement on the

16:31

basis of some other criteria, such

16:33

as good works performed after regeneration

16:35

or even something as inane as

16:37

eye color? Benjamin

16:41

in Canada. Wow, well thank

16:43

you Benjamin for your question

16:45

and congratulations on your entering

16:47

the parish ministry.

16:52

In the book Atonement and the Death of

16:54

Christ I do discuss at

16:57

some length what I perceive to

16:59

be a very organic connection

17:03

between the atoning death of

17:05

Christ and the

17:07

importance of placing our faith

17:09

in Christ in order

17:12

to appropriate the benefits of that atonement.

17:15

And this is in the chapters

17:17

dealing with the idea of

17:19

divine pardon. As

17:22

I explain in the book, in order for

17:24

a pardon to be

17:26

efficacious it must

17:29

be appropriated by

17:31

the person pardoned. In

17:35

our justice system if a

17:37

criminal refuses a pardon

17:41

offered him by the governor or the president,

17:44

then in fact he is

17:46

not released from

17:49

the demands of justice for

17:51

his crime. He must continue

17:54

to serve out his sentence or

17:56

even to be executed because

17:59

he has reduced. the

18:01

pardon and therefore falls

18:03

back under the justice

18:06

and the penalty that justice

18:09

demands for his crime. And

18:12

so in the case of the atoning

18:14

death of Christ it seems to me that

18:17

it is on the basis of Christ's

18:19

atonement that God then

18:22

offers us a pardon for

18:24

our sins and that

18:27

we must appropriate it by receiving

18:30

that pardon and that

18:32

is what placing one's faith

18:34

in Christ as Savior is

18:37

all about. It is appropriating

18:40

that divine pardon. you