William Lane Craig (1949 – ) is an American Evangelical Christian apologist known primarily for his work in the philosophy of religion. He is a critic of evolution, atheism, metaphysical naturalism, logical positivism, postmodernism, moral relativism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, homosexuality, and non-fundamentalist Christian theology. (What does he like?) He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose goal is to force public high schools in the United States to teach creationist ideas in their science classes alongside accepted scientific theories. (Ok. He’s for make-believe stories! But why not teach other stories besides your preferred one? And who would give this guy a job in an intellectual institution?) He is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, an evangelical Christian university. (Oh, they would.)
Craig’s piece “The Absurdity of Life Without God”[i] argues that life is absurd without a god. The fundamental reason for this is that without a god both the individual and the entire universe will end without a proper resolution. In that case there would be no hope of escaping our fate and life would lack significance, value, or purpose.
Craig argues that there is no ultimate meaning without immortality because if everything dies it does not matter that previously the universe, the human race, or any individual had existed. Still, immortality is not enough for meaning, since an unending life could be meaningless. For full meaning, we need a god, without which humans must accept the view of Beckett, Sartre, Camus, and others—that life is meaningless. In addition, without gods there is no objective morality, and moral relativism reigns.
Craig claims that if we really think about the universe as rushing toward oblivion we should realize that there is no hope or purpose without a god. Without a god, we are accidents of nature, and there is no reason or purpose for our existence. With a god there is hope; without a god there is only death and despair. The implications of atheism are strong indeed he argues. The basic problem with an atheistic response is that one cannot live happily with such a view. Either the atheist is consistent and recognizes life is meaningless, or is inconsistent and assumes there can be meaning without gods.
All of this leads Craig to the conclusion that it is a practical impossibility to live as an atheist. Without a god, life is objectively meaningless, so atheists pretend that life has meaning by saying it has subjective meaning. Without a god, there is no morality and everything is permissible, so atheists assume there is some other ground for an objective ethics. Without a god, there is no immortality where justice will reign, where the wicked will be punished and the virtuous rewarded. Without a god there is no purpose in life, so atheists make up some purpose for it.
The despair of the atheistic view contrasts sharply with the Christian worldview. In that view a god exists, we are eternal, and we can be with this god. Christianity thus provides the conditions for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life. We can thus live happily.
Rejoinder – I’ll omit commenting on Craig’s most absurd claims such as it is impossible to live as an atheist or that there is no grounding for morality without religion. Many lives contradict the former claim and most philosophers reject the latter claim.
But there’s more. Craig seems unaware that science and technology will probably give us the immortality he seeks—assuming his followers don’t take us back into the dark ages. They are trying their best though by making sure that children don’t learn modern biology. And if he’s troubled by evolutionary biology, just wait until he realizes what the computer scientists are up to. Eventually, when science defeats death, religion will end. For religion is based primarily on a fear of death. Craig would have been right at home in the Dark Ages. He is a true enemy of the Enlightenment, and of the future.
__________________________________________________________________________
[i] William Lane Craig, “The Absurdity of Life without God,” in The Meaning of Life, ed. E.D Klemke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Look, to quote the outgoing President. The question, and, an answer, depend upon several criteria being met. Possibly, the first of these, would claim: absurdity is belief, based in human consciousness and a foundation, from Davidson, saying belief is a propositional attitude. If there is nothing living that could believe in God/gods, there would be nothing to recognize an absurdity to life, with, or without God/gods. This returns us to the consciousness matter, seems to me. Insofar as we have no means of getting an answer from primary conscious beings, we have no one, save ourselves, to ask. And well, that means we just can’t know. On another hand, we might come to know, should an avenue open. Not counting on that possibility.
I would say life is absurd with and without God—but metaphysics actually adds to the absurdity of it all. I am literally rereading The Myth of Sisyphus-Albert Camus, right now, so this strikes a chord. I, along with Camus would agree, yes, life is absurd, has no meaning other than what you make of it, and hope and despair should be divorced of each other—an utter waste of time. Smile, existence is “better” than non-existence. Adding god(s) elevates the argument from absurd to ridiculous.
No problem – if there is no God we are certainly in the process of creating a whole pantheon of AI gods that will outclass us to the degree we outclass rats and mice.
Maybe future people will look back on an age of no Gods in a nostalgic manner
Wow! Sometimes I am astounded by just how stupid some academics can be. Mr. Craig’s entire argument is founded on the belief that religion provides objective goals and morals, whereas the goals and morals of atheists are necessarily subjective. He has missed the fact that belief in a god is an intrinsically subjective belief. To put it more starkly, there is no objective proof of the existence of any god.
The more serious question this raises is “Why are people so dumb?”
Jason, nice to hear from you.
JGM
thanks for the comments. I have written about similar ideas in the link below:
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/01/24/the-end-of-religion-technology-and-the-future/
And he is considered one of, if not the, preminent Christian apolgists today.
The beauty of life lies within the minds of each individual ~ the struggle and our emotions we have while finding meaning on this journey of ours. It is this journey, as absurd as it is, that takes my breath away at times with wonder as well as drowning in tears at times with sorrow.
Painting with a broad brush, and a broad definition of God ~ it is a marriage of science and the quantum realm we may never understand but keeps us asking questions. Wonderful post.
I wanted to reach out and thank you for your blog, which I’ve followed with interest for over a year. Your posts have provided several valuable insights and interesting perspectives during this time.
Recently, I’ve noticed a shift in the content that has made me decide to unsubscribe. While earlier posts offered unique analysis and diverse viewpoints, recent articles have felt more one-dimensional and heavily reliant on Wikipedia-style content with numerous external links.
I’m sharing this feedback because I believe in the value of your work and thought it might be helpful to hear a reader’s perspective. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve invested in maintaining this blog and wish you continued success.
Mr. Abshire and Mr. Crawford suss this nicely. Absurdity is a human reasoning, because we must have concepts that assess most everything—including things we cannot know.
This is how we roll, even when we roll in our own ignorance.
So,…lets flip the switch. Would God/gods have been absurd, had ANY life emerged? My assretion there is the question of relevance. The answer seems to be no. Another blogger, whom I admire, asked a question about whether trees can *think*. I replied I did not “think” so, saying briefly, they are reactive, and do the best they can…when one can’t get away from cataclysm, one adapts; digs in; hangs on. Palm trees are an epitome of resilience. I don’t think trees think-they need not— only dig in. Think of the *boom-crutch* or, *sky hook* notion. My friend’s blog is always instructive. Re-read Julian Jaynes. Or, take a nap. Go play Pickle Ball. We must know our limitations.
thanks much for you insightful comments Randall.
Thanks for the comments EJ. I will take your observations under consideration. Some family illnesses have given me somewhat less time for new blog posts, perhaps that is what you’ve noticed. But I have written over 1500 posts so perhaps you might find something that you like in the older ones. And since philosophy posts are mostly “evergreen” no worries about them being out of date. Thanks again.
I also have a nice summary of Camus’ Sisyphus at the link below
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/11/22/summary-of-albert-camus-the-myth-of-sisyphus/
Beliefs and faiths are mostly a ruse, seems to me. Greater minds have proclaimed this. If,and only if, the Enlightenment HAD, or HAS enemies, Craig was neither first, or last.
I am not at all sure we were ever intended to live happily, either. Suppose we were? That pre-supposes a. the intention had to come from somewhere beyond humanity, or, b.we invented the notion of happiness on our own? or, c. intention is some cosmic, metaphysical fundamental, unfathomable to any who think/believe someone/something superior dreamed that up. I Don’t think so. I have elsewhere asserted this, indirectly I guess. So many contingencies, hmm? Everything blows up; breaks down; falls apart; wears out. The contention is not difficult. In our universe, we have gravity, friction and inertia. Such forces support life, and ensure death. Pretty much.
William Lane Craig, is he a religious fanatic? he knows what he believes, and professing to believe without doubt, seemingly knows it is true! Does he really believe it ‘without doubt’ and does ‘Believing without doubt’ really make it real? That is what non-believers wonder.
We have an innate desire to have the power to control reality with the power of our thoughts, unfortunately, we don’t have the power to control our thoughts! During times of great stress fanatical movements arise and the cries to join God’s Army and destroy the evil heretics who reject the true ‘God’ seem to offer a way to escape the stress! Is this happening now?
I don’t enter any arguments about religious subjects, I think people believe the things that satisfy their emotional needs best, many people want to live forever, some think God will save them, some think Science will, perhaps they are both right or both wrong does it really matter either way.
Thirteen point eight Billion years ago we had the big bang, which, as best we know it today, was the beginning of the known universe, what isn’t known is, was this the first big bang, or is the big bang something that has been happening for ever, we live in a reality bounded by infinity and eternity, and mathematicians tell us that time is an illusion, one thing we do know, it is always now where we live, and that is the place where we have some agency, so make the best of it!
Good point, on the ubiquity of that Big Bang! If infinity goes all ways, and always, there is less reason to assume there was only ONE big bang. Whoa, deep shit!
Now, it has been proclaimed the Gulf of Mexico shall be the Gulf of America. Hmmmmph.
Certainly, there is a gulf. Or, is that golf? The presidency of the United States is a gulf NOW, seems to me. Give a moron an inch, the moron will demand a mile. I can’t get my mailbox fixed…can’t even get an answer to a phone call about that…hmmmmph. Oops—off topic.
Uh, is it? Best wishes, always, Professor.
thanks Paul
JGM