Criticising William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is probably today's foremost defender of Christian theism, and definitely one of the most well-known Christian philosopher and theologian. As such, he has come under considerable attack from atheists. Now, I have defended Dr. Craig consistently, and will continue to do so. However, some have accused me of being uncritical of Dr. Craig, of following everything he says and spouting "Craigisms." Oh really? Well, unfortunately for these Dawkinsian automatons, I don't. I am critical of Dr. Craig, when I think he is actually wrong. Let's consider a few points now.

1. His style of presentation.
I agree with Peter Hitchen's assessment that Craig's manner of presentation is "too American." As much as I admire Dr. Craig and his work, and whilst I enjoy listening to him speak, in debates he tends to try and pack as many points into as tight a space as possible. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, however. My primary criticism is that this style opens Dr. Craig up to the attack that he is using the "Gish Gallop" style of debate. That he is trying to bog down his opponent with as many points as possible. Now, such an attack is an ad hominem, and thus invalid, but stupid, uncritically minded people would think this a salient point. I think it would be better if Craig focused on a smaller number of arguments in debates, rather than try and fire off as many as he can and then just stick to the one's his opponents address. Now, a skilled opponent would be able to keep up, but, let's face it, not every great thinker is always a great speaker.

2. Burden of Proof
Dr. Craig quite rightly points out that whilst theists have the burden of proof to show that God exists, atheists have an equal burden to show that God does not exist. However, my chief criticism is Dr. Craig's seemingly pedantic insistence that his opponent "tear down" all his arguments and then erect their own. In writing, this is a perfectly reasonable demand, but I think in an oral debate, such a request seems a bit too much, unless the opponent is skilled enough of a debater, and again opens Dr. Craig up to the ad hominem attack mentioned above.

3. The Witness of the Holy Spirit and Proper Basicality
I agree that it is the witness of the Holy Spirit that ultimately converts a person to Christ or not. However, I do not think this is an argument for the existence of God. Now, whilst Craig notes that this is not an argument from the existence of God, I do not think that he is clear enough, and sometimes it sounds like he is speaking as if it is an argument. The personal religious experience of human beings is meant to show that belief in God is "properly basic." That is to say, that there are no de jure arguments against theism, only de facto objections. This may be an important qualifier, but it is not an argument FOR God, and I think Craig needs to be a lot clearer about this.

3. Divine Command Theory and the Moral Argument
I don't think Craig's divine command theory or moral argument are sound. Now, as part of a cumulative case for the existence of God, Craig's moral argument is fine, but as a stand alone argument it does not work. Now, I agree with Craig on each premise. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties exist. So, why do I think this isn't a good argument? Because I don't see how it can be demonstrated that objective moral values and duties exist without first showing that God exists. My agreeing that they exist is not an argument. I could be wrong, however unlikely that might seem. Craig could be wrong. We could all be wrong! How do we know that moral values and duties are truly objective? After all, the argument that our moral beliefs are illusory could be true! There could be no moral values and duties at all! I do not think that this is true, but that is only because I already have good reasons for believing in God. Thus, the moral argument's purpose is only to show that objective morality is dependent on God, not that God actually exists.

Moving on to Craig's divine command theory, I agree with Craig that the good is grounded in God's nature. However, I think that this idea is underdeveloped. Whilst I agree that being good is simply to be obedient to God, that is only because I believe God is actually good. If God were evil, then He would not be worthy to be obeyed or worshipped, no matter how powerful all knowledgeable he is. Now, I have no trouble admitting that God orders something only if it is good. Atheists and theists alike think this is problematic for it implies a standard of goodness apart from God. I don't see how this is so. It is my contention that this standard of goodness exists only if a good God exists. To understand why I think this is so, it is important to understand what I think goodness is based upon. When we moralise, we assume that our lives have intrinsic worth. When we do something that devalues this worth, it is morally wrong. So, if I were to walk up to someone and punch them in the face because I enjoyed punching people in the face, that would be morally wrong, because I am not treating that person as if their life has any intrinsic value. So, now why do I think this standard of goodness is dependent on a good God? Well, for the simple reason that without a moral lawgiver, we don't have any reason whatsoever to actually follow this standard of goodness. However, even more important than this, if a good God does not exist, then our lives have no intrinsic value. Now, these points can of course be debated. I am merely just describing where I disagree with Craig and elucidating my own views.

4. Jesus' Dishonourable Burial
In a 2004 article that Craig wrote for the Expositor Times, he addressed an essay by one Byron McCane, titled "Where No One Had Yet Been Lain: The Shame of Jesus' Burial" which can be found in "Authenticating the Activities of Jesus" by B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.) I shall summarise McCane's case, with quotations and then mention the points bought up by Craig and offer a response to them. The central premises of McCane's article are:
• The processes of burial and mourning were meant to honour the dead and the denial of these honours was a further dishonour.
• Based on Jewish custom, the Jewish leadership in Jesus’ day would have wanted Jesus buried, not left on the cross.

"Ordinarily, death is an event which disrupts the functioning social order, for the death of any particular individual tears away a member of a social network and forces the network to reconstitute itself. Death rituals – i.e., burial customs and rites of mourning – are social processes which the wounds which death inflicts on the social group. By burying the dead and mourning their absence, members of a society affirm that someone significant had been lost. When the Romans did not permit the burial of crucifixion victims, then, they were doing more than merely showing off the power of Rome: they were also declaring that the deaths of these victims were not a loss to Roman society. Far from it, the deaths of condemned criminals actually served to strengthen and preserve Rome, protecting and defending the social order of the Empire." - Byron McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Lane: The Shame of Jesus' Burial, from B.D. Chilton, and C.A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill, (1998), p433

"For Jews, one of those values was the importance of belonging to an extended family group. The foundational narrative for Jewish culture was a story about a man whose descendents were to be more numerous than the starts in the sky, and respect for the family was enshrined in the moral charter of Judaism: “honor your father and mother.” Jews in Jesus’ day typically lived in extended family groups, and routinely identified themselves in legal documents, inscriptions, and literature as “X, son (or daughter) of Y.” At life’s end, they thought it best to be buried with their nearest kin. To be buried away from the family tomb – by design, not by fate – was to be cast adrift from these cultural patterns, and dislodged from a place in the family. To be unmourned by one’s nearest relatives was to be effaced from the cultural landscape. It was worse than unfortunate, it was a shame." - Byron McCane, Where No One Had Yet Been Lane: The Shame of Jesus' Burial, from B.D. Chilton, and C.A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, Brill, (1998), p444

Whilst it was customary to leave crucifixion victims on their crosses to be eaten birds, sometimes the Romans did allow them to be buried, and since it was prohibited in Judaism to leave a man hanging on a tree, then it makes sense that the Jewish authorities would have petitioned to bury Jesus. Burying Jesus away from the family tomb was their way of dishonouring Jesus themselves, and was not against the precepts of Judaism. Furthermore, the admission in the Gospels narratives that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, buried Jesus rather than His family or disciples, is another extremely embarrassing feature of the Gospel story. A dishonourable burial coupled with the fact a member of the Sanhedrin burying Jesus would have been very shameful for the early Christians to admit.

Let's look at Craig's points. Now, and this is a point some others have made, I think Craig's main fault here is that he simply doesn't take seriously or doesn't fully understand the social-cultural background here. 1st century Jews, Greeks, and Romans all live in societies that operated on an honour-shame oriented collectivist cultural setting. Furthermore, their understanding of honour and shame was radically different to our own. The closest parallel would be Japanese culture, for instance where warriors would commit Seppuku (ritual self-disembowelment) if they faced capture in battle (dying in battle was considered more honourable than allowing oneself to be caught by the enemy) or as a means of capital punishment if said Samurai had committed a major offence, thus bringing a major amount of shame to the community. So, when Craig says that simply being buried away from the family tomb isn't a dishonourable burial, I think that Craig is simply pre-supossing a modern view of honour onto ancient people. You have to remember, in the 1st century, societies were collectivist (or agonistic) cultures. The family unit was of fundamental importance, and the collective society as a whole superseded individualism.

What then of Craig's others points? These I think are better although similarly miss the mark. He notes that Jesus died in Jerusalem, and that surely people regularly died away from their family location. Yes and no. Yes, Jesus died in Jerusalem, and others surely did die away from their family location. However, the overwhelming majority of people tended to stay with their families. Secondly, it was the duty of the family to retrieve the remains of their deceased and give them a proper burial. He points out that poor people could not have afforded a family tomb. This is also true, but irrelevant. The poor were frequently subjected to dishonour at the hands of the wealthy and elite. That was their place in life, and something that they simply tolerated. Being poor was considered shameful.

One further point Craig makes is that the language used doesn't seem dishonourable. He argues that the treatment of Jesus' body by Joseph of Arimathea is honourable, not dishonourable. This is actually true, from the description given, Joseph treats Jesus' body with respect. However, this would not have been enough to mitigate the dishonour of either Jesus' crucifixion or his burial. This does not change that being buried away from the family tomb and lack of mourning rites WERE dishonourable to these people.

5. Biblical infallibility and the Old Testament Conquest
When discussing the Old Testament, one issue that is bought up is the slaughter of the Canaanites. One of his responses was to say that, at worst, the OT is fallible. Either it didn't happen, or God did not really command it. I agree that these are possibilities, but I think Craig should explore these ideas further. Presumably, he is forbidden from actually denouncing inerrancy, since Talbot requires its faculties to agree to inerrancy, and so keeps shtum, lest he loses his job. These leads to one gripe I have with most of Christianity as a whole. Why do people think inerrancy is necessary? I admire Craig for even hinting that the Bible could be fallible, (and I know of Christians who are inerrantists, such as JP Holding and Michael Licona), who freely admit that such beliefs are not necessary to Christianity. Now, I wanted to discuss Craig's other responses to the OT conquests. Whilst I agree that it was not really a genocide or even a conquest, but a driving out, and that the Canaanites were truly evil, I don't think his suggestion that it really happened was rather convincing. Now, I agree that children who die too young ostensibly go to heaven, and that even those who die without ever knowing Jesus might somehow be allowed into heaven providing certain conditions are true, however, why think God when then take a "Kill them all, I know my own, attitude?" God has the authority to take life, granted, but such a command seems to me malicious. The parents were evil, yes, but why kill innocents along with? The simple answer to this is that there was no such command. Some children would have been killed, but only if they were "of age" so to speak. The truly young would have been spared, and this can be inferred from the linguistic not to mention the socio-cultural context. In order for Craig to show that God was moral to command the Israelites to kill innocent children, he seriously needs to develop this idea more. I think that it isn't moral, although I could be wrong, no matter how unlikely I think it is.

6. Craig's stance on evolution and Intelligent Design.
Whilst I am aware of Craig's view on evolutionary theory and biology, and even agree with it (at least partially), I think he is a little too unclear on this. Whilst he freely admits to not being a creationist, and that he accepts the age of the earth and the age of the universe estimates provided by scientists, his statements on evolution are often vague and apt to be misinterpreted. For instance, he often says that macroevolution is a leap in logic. I initially thought he was making the classic micro/macro error, but it turns out that his criticism here was that he didn't think the current proposed mechanisms in evolution were enough to sufficiently demonstrate the reality of large scale or "macro" evolution. This is fare less controversial, and even something I potentially agree with. Whilst I see no difference between micro and macroevolution, it is possible, and I think it might even actually be true that scientists haven't provided a full account of how evolution has occurred. Craig thinks new mechanisms are required to explain macroevolution (although I am unsure if he actually believes macroevolution HAS actually occurred. Again, my chief criticism here is that is a little unclear, although, again, it could be simply down to Talbot's "statement of faith" that Craig has to agree to in order to work there (not to mention various societies he is a member of.) In which case, this is more a fault with the narrow-minded and dogmatic views of certain Christians.

Now, I have admitted where and why I disagree with Craig, but note how I have not once called him names, suggested he is dishonest (etc.) or implied anything derogatory or defamatory about him.