Welcome to Judaism Demystified, a podcast for the perplexed.
We are joined by Doctor William Lane Craig.
Doctor Craig is Visiting Scholar of Philosophy at Talbot School
of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Christian
University. Doctor Craig pursued his
undergraduate studies at Wheaton College and graduate studies at
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the University of
Birmingham, and the University of Munich.
From 1980 to 1986 he taught philosophy of religion at
Trinity, during which time he and his wife Jen started their
family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels,
Belgium, where Doctor Craig pursued research at the
University of Lubain until assuming his position at Talbot
in 1994. He has authored or edited over
30 books, and in 2016, Doctor Craig was named by the best
schools as one of the 50 Most Influential Living Philosophers.
Without further ado, Doctor Craig, thank you for joining the
Judaism Demystified podcast. It is an honor and privilege to
have with us Doctor William Lane Craig.
First of all, for our audience, would you tell us a little bit
about yourself? I am a Christian philosopher.
I have a position at Talbot School of Theology in California
and at Houston Christian University in Texas.
I'm also the president of an online ministry called
reasonablefaith.org, and I'm involved in the philosophical
and theological exploration of Christian theism.
Thank you very much and for those listening, my favorite
interview that I've seen with Doctor Craig is with Roger
Penrose. I recommend all of you tune into
that one. That was a great one.
So first, my first question is, would you elucidate your stance
on creation ex nilo? That is, creation from nothing,
integrating perspectives from both theological doctrine and
contemporary scientific understanding, particularly in
relation to The Big Bang theory. I think that Genesis 11 implies
logically Kriyatio ex nihilo. That is to say, the doctrine
that God created the universe but not out of any kind of
material substratum of the initial verse of Genesis says in
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the
word there Baraf or created, is a word that has only God as its
subject and does not require any sort of material substratum.
And the expression the heavens and the earth is an idiom in the
Hebrew language denoting the entire universe, the entirety of
physical reality. So at face value verse one
teaches that God at the very beginning created the entire
physical universe. And I think that verse one is
neither a subordinate clause, it is an independent clause and nor
the title of chapter one, but it is providing background
information for verses 2 and following.
So I think right from the very first verse of the Bible you
have a teaching of Kriyati OX nihilo, and this is confirmed.
That and in the prophets such as Isaiah and other passages in the
Hebrew Bible, And in connection with modern scientific
understanding, the ancient Jewish commitment to creatio ex
nihilo creation out of nothing, put Judaism in conflict with
Greek philosophical thought, which taught the past eternity
of universe, the universe and materialism.
That matter has always existed, and for thousands of years this
Jewish point of view stood in opposition to this mainstream
view of materialism, from ancient Greek materialism up
through modern Marxism and materialistic theories of the
universe. This, however, was dramatically
upended in the second decade of the 20th century, when Albert
Einstein applied his newly discovered gravitational theory,
the general theory of relativity, to the universe as a
whole. And to his shock and the shock
of everyone else, it was discovered that the general
theory of relativity would not permit a past eternal universe.
Rather, the equations indicated that the universe is expanding,
and that as you trace the expansion back in time, the
universe becomes denser and denser until at a point in the
finite past, it literally disappears.
That there is an absolute beginning not only of all matter
and energy, but a physical space and time themselves.
And so, completely contrary to expectation, contemporary
astrophysics confirmed the ancient Jewish view of the
beginning of the universe and its origination ex nihilo.
Amazing. Amazing.
So regarding the concept of Ex Dio, the idea that the universe
emerged from God and is inherently united with his own
being, while we both align against Panantheism, could you
explore any any interpretations within the biblical narrative,
specifically the Old Testament or Tanakh, that refute this
perspective? Furthermore, could you delineate
the reasons why both Panantheism and pantheism stand in
contradiction to our faiths, prefacing your explanation with
a clarification of these terms for our audience?
OK, so let's begin with a clarification of terms for the
sake of the audience. Pantheism means that the entire
universe, the all physical reality, is itself God.
It identifies the physical universe with God.
Pantheism is characteristic of many Eastern religions, which
deny that there is a transcendent creator of the
universe who exists beyond space and time, who is himself
immaterial, and who brings all physical reality into being.
Pan and Theism, by contrast, is the view that physical reality
exists in God. It doesn't exhaust God's being.
It's not identical to God as in pantheism, but it says that
everything is in God. The physical universe somehow,
in some mysterious ways emanates out of the very beginning of
God, out of the very being of God.
So even if God is more than the universe, he is no nothing less
than the universe. The universe emanates or or
proceeds out of the very being of God.
Now these world views or perspectives I think are both
antithetical to theism which is taught in the judeo-christian
tradition. We saw that the Bible begins
with the words. In the beginning, God created
the heavens and the earth. For God to create the material
universe out of himself, he would himself have to be
material. But that contradicts the
fundamental teaching of the Hebrew Bible that God is Spirit
rather than material reality. The word that is used for God
over and over again in the Hebrew Bible is ruach, a spirit,
and this characterizes the being of God.
In contrast to say, a flesh or Bashar.
That word Bashar, is never used of God in the Hebrew Bible,
whereas ruach is used some 136 times of God in the Hebrew Bible
and indicates the antithesis between spirit and materialism.
And the most theologically significant use of ruach or
spirit is for spiritual beings or spiritual agents, that is to
say, agents without bodies. And I'm thinking here of the use
of ruach to describe first human spirits.
When human spirits are described apart from the body, when the
body has died and is laid in the earth, human spirits continue to
exist and are referred to as being ruach spirits.
In addition to that, ruach is used of non human finite
spiritual beings such as angels or demons which are also
personal agents without bodies. And then finally, as I
indicated, the preeminent use of ruach in the Hebrew Bible is of
God Himself. God is a spiritual being.
He is an immaterial reality who transcends the physical world
and has created the physical world.
So I think that pantheism, not to say pantheism, is completely
incompatible with the conception of God in the Hebrew Bible.
Fascinating. And I actually wanted to point
out there's a famous verse that says holy, holy, holy God is
his, His honor fills the world. I'm paraphrasing it, but
basically the the real translation of Kadosh, which is
holy, is actually sanctified or separate, That God is separate.
It's a separate, separate, separate Hashem, tuvaquot
melokala, aritzke, vodo. His honor fills the world,
meaning meaning to say that it's not him who fills the world,
it's his. We can see evidence for his, you
know, his his glory or his honor or his intelligence.
We see evidence for that in the world.
But it's not him. That's a very important verse I
feel like people should really analyze.
But thank you so much. That was really, really
fascinating. So another topic I want to get
into is the accusation from atheistic circles that often
centers around theists resorting to a God of the gaps argument
for phenomena unexplained by science.
Interestingly, some atheists appear to embrace the concept of
an eternal universe, potentially through the unverifiable notion
of a multiverse, to circumvent the implications of The Big
Bang, yet dismiss the plausibility of God's
eternality. Notably, figures like Richard
Dawkins have posited that the complexity observed in DNA
suggests an intelligent designer, albeit ascribing it to
extraterrestrial origin rather than a divine entity.
Could you address this apparent science of the gaps
contradiction and share your compelling arguments for theism
when confronting atheistic critiques?
All right. There are a number of facets to
the question that you've asked. First of all, I think it's very
important to understand that the basis for belief in creation out
of nothing is not science. It is the Bible.
The Bible teaches creatio ex nihilo, and for millennia, Jews
and Christians have believed this doctrine wholly apart from
modern science. It wasn't until roughly 100
years ago that we had scientific evidence for the beginning in
the universe. So the basis for the belief in
creation out of nothing is Biblical teaching, not science.
The question for the Bible believer, then, is, is this
biblical teaching at odds with the deliverances of modern
science, or is it in accord with the deliverances of modern
science? And here it's indisputable.
I think that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is
certainly in accord with modern science.
Whether or not it's proved by modern science is irrelevant.
The Jew or Christian who comes to the table with his biblical
theism firmly in hand, is adopting a position concerning
the origin of the universe that is right at the center of
contemporary cosmogony and astrophysics.
There is no discord between the belief in criottio ex nihilo and
contemporary science, even if one doesn't regard modern
science as a positive proof of criottio ex nihilo.
Now, with respect to this idea of a God of the Gaps argument, I
think it's very important to understand that arguments that
appeal to scientific evidence are not using God to be a
stopgap to plug up the holes in our scientific understanding of
reality. Rather, the proper way to view
these arguments is that science can provide evidence in support
of a premise in a philosophical argument leading to a conclusion
of theological significance. Let me repeat that just to make
it clear, science can provide evidence in support of a premise
in a philosophical argument for a conclusion that has
theological significance. So for example, take the Kalam
cosmological argument, which has been defended historically by
Jews, Muslims, and Christians. This argument is very simple.
Premise one is that the premise one is that whatever begins to
exist has a cause of its beginning.
Premise 2 is that the universe began to exist, and then three.
The conclusion is therefore the universe has a cause of its
beginning and you can then do a conceptual analysis of what it
is to be a cause of the universe, and a number of
theologically striking properties can be recovered from
such an analysis. Now notice that the 2nd premise
of that argument, the universe began to exist, is a religiously
neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on
astronomy and astrophysics. To claim that the scientific
evidence supports this premise is not in any way to postulate a
God of the gaps. This is a theologically neutral
premise which has, I think, really compelling scientific
evidence in its support. So someone who uses the
scientific evidence in support of a premise in an argument for
theological conclusion is not postulating God of the gaps
reasoning, that is to say, using God to stop up the gaps in our
scientific knowledge. This argument is based on what
we do know about the universe. It is based on what contemporary
science does tell us about the past, namely that the universe
is in all probability not past eternal, but had an absolute
beginning of finite time ago. Now, you spoke of a kind of
science of the gaps that is often used by naturalists in
response to arguments of this sort.
And I wouldn't characterize that Ben, as science of the gaps.
I don't think this is an opposition between theism and
science in any way. Rather, I would characterize it
as a naturalism of the gaps. Naturalism is the view that
there are no supernatural entities, particularly there is
no God that all that exists. It's just space-time and its
contents, and I think it is a kind of naturalism of the gaps
that motivates a lot of these desperate attempts to avoid
where the evidence points. And here I think that's evident
in that there would be no reason to resist where the evidence is
pointing, for example, the beginning of the universe, if it
were not for the fact that these naturalists see where that's
leading leads to an unacceptable conclusion.
And therefore they have a kind of naturalism of the gaps that
whatever caused the universe or whatever the the evidence is,
somehow the universe is not past eternal, despite the fact that
all the evidence points in that direction.
And so I would ask them, apart from the presupposition of
naturalism, which is to beg the question, why resist where the
evidence points? Why not accept where the
evidence points, which is that the universe is not past
eternal, but had a beginning? Now, in terms of the arguments
for theism that one might present, I've presented multiple
arguments for theism, only some of which appeal to scientific
evidence in support of some of its premises.
Let me just list some of these arguments for you.
Number one, I think that God is the best explanation for why
anything at all exists, rather than nothing.
This version of the cosmological argument doesn't appeal to
scientific evidence. Rather, it's a purely
philosophical argument that at the basis of all reality there
must be a metaphysically necessary being which is
distinct from the universe and supplies a sufficient reason why
the universe exists. The second argument would be
that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe
at a point in the finite past. This is the Kalam cosmological
argument to which I've already alluded, and I think it has both
philosophical and scientific Gavin in support of its key
premises. The third argument would be the
argument from the uncanny applicability of mathematics to
physical phenomena. Why is it that the physical
phenomena of this world are describable by elegant
mathematical equations that are incomprehensible in their
accuracy and so valuable in their utility?
This argument from the applicability of mathematics has
been defended in our day by the Jewish philosopher Mark Steiner
in his book The Applicability of Mathematics as a philosophical
problem. 4th would be that God is the best explanation for the
fine tuning of the universe. For embodied conscious agents
like ourselves, the fine tuning of the universe refers to the
fundamental constants and quantities that were simply
given in The Big Bang itself, that show that the universe is
fine-tuned to an exquisite precision for the existence of
embodied conscious agents like us against all probability.
Given naturalism, the 5th argument would be that God is
the best explanation for the objectivity of moral values and
moral duties in the world. Again, this is not a scientific
argument. It's a philosophical argument
that appeals to our moral experience.
We sense that certain things are really right and and really
wrong, really good and really evil.
And the best explanation for the objectivity of the moral values
and duties that we grasp are that these are grounded in God,
who is the paradigm of moral goodness and whose commands
constitute for us our moral obligations.
The 6th argument would be that the very possibility of God's
existence and tales that God exists.
This is the famous ontological argument of Saint Anselm, and I
persuaded that a sound and plausible version of the
ontological argument can be formulated such that the atheist
has to deny not merely that God exists.
He has to deny that it's even possible that God exists so long
as God's existence is even possible.
The argument shows that that entails that God exists.
And then finally, I think that God can be personally known and
experienced. This isn't really an argument
for God's existence, but it's the claim that, wholly apart
from arguments, you can know that God exists by having a
personal relationship with God. And so, for all of these
reasons, I think that we have a powerful cumulative case for
believing that God exists. So I want to just ask a few
questions on this and Zeb also has questions on this
particular. So what is the the strong, what
is the argument of the of the multiverse theory?
And like for example the fine tuning, they seem to be trying
to kind of dismiss that by saying that well this universe
that we live in in particular happens to be fine-tuned, but
the other ones are not. So how how does that work?
I'm trying to understand like the the log.
Maybe Zed would understand it better.
I think I can make this very clear to our listeners.
If you have just one roulette wheel spinning, then the
probability that you're going to come up with just a particular
number like the red 20 is very remote.
But if you have hundreds, thousands, and that's the
millions of roulette wheels all spinning at the same time, then
the chances are that in at least one of them that the red 20 is
going to come up. And if getting the red 20 is a
necessary condition of your existing, then of course anybody
that is alive is going to observe the red 20.
Because the other universes that are not fine-tuned would be
unobservable. You you wouldn't exist in them,
so you you couldn't observe them.
And so the claim is that if you multiply your probabilistic
resources sufficiently that anything can be explained away
on the basis that there is this infinite multiverse of worlds,
so that fine-tuned worlds will appear somewhere in this world
ensemble. And those are the only ones that
are observable, and therefore there's nothing here to be
surprised about or to be explained Now.
Roger Penrose has raised an objection to this multiverse
explanation of fine tuning that I think is really devastating.
What he points out is that it is not true that only fine-tuned
worlds are observable. You can have worlds that are not
fine-tuned for the existence of of embodied conscious agents
like us, but that which would be still observable.
There could be freak observers that could observe their worlds.
These are often called. Boston brains.
Or yes, yes, these are often called Boltzmann brains after
the great 19th century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann.
And these Boltzmann brains would be just a brain that fluctuates
into existence, say out of the quantum vacuum, and just exist
for a little time with illusory perceptions of an external world
around it. But in fact, the Boltzmann brain
is the only thing that exists, and the rest of the universe is
all an illusion of this brain. Well, that kind of universe is
incomparably more probable than a finely tuned universe like
ours. And yet it is observable.
And so on The multiverse hypothesis, it leads to a
radical skepticism about the world around us that the the the
atheist would have to believe that he is all that exists and
that the rest of the universe, his own body, his wife, other
people are just illusions of his own consciousness.
Well, no sane person believes that he's a Boltzmann brain.
And yet, if the multiverse hypothesis is true, there's no
way to distinguish between a normal, decent observer like
ourselves and a Boltzmann brain. And therefore this is really, I
think, a devastating objection to the rationality of the
multiverse hypothesis. Yeah, I mean, that almost sounds
like solipsism. Like, you know, which is insane.
Solipsism. That's right, you would be the
only thing that exists and everything else is an illusion
of your consciousness. Exactly.
And I and I I love how you the arguments you marshalled in
favor of God basically being the final theory of everything.
I had two questions on on two of the points.
There was one about the column cosmological argument.
I know that the second point about everything that begins to
exist that has obviously the in some circles is more
controversial. So I I would be curious to hear
what you say about that. So I'll take that question
first. That'll.
Be Yes. Let's review.
The first premise is that everything that begins to exist
has a cause of its beginning. Now, as you say, I think that's
hardly controversial. Things don't just pop into
existence out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
So if something begins to exist, there must be a 'cause that
brings that thing into being. I think that's quite
perspicuous. So the more controversial
premise is the second one, that the universe began to exist.
And here I would Marshall both philosophical arguments as well
as scientific arguments in support of this premise.
Concerning philosophical arguments, a medieval Jewish
philosopher like Sadia Ben Gian, defended arguments for the
beginning of the universe on purely philosophical grounds,
showing that there cannot have been an infinite regress of past
events. And therefore Sadia claimed
there must have been an absolutely first event which was
brought into being by a transcendent creator.
And I'm persuaded that these purely philosophical arguments
are sound arguments and have defended them in my published
work. What is incredible is that since
the 2nd decade of the 20th century, there has been
accumulating increasingly scientific evidence or
confirmation of this second premise.
And I have reference here to two things.
First would be the discovery of the expansion of the universe
and The Big Bang model of the origin of the universe, which
shows that the universe cannot be past eternal, but must have
had an absolute beginning. Over the decades since this was
first proposed in the 1920s, there has been a parade of
alternative theories trying to avert the beginning of the
universe predicted by the Standard Model.
We've seen oscillating models, vacuum fluctuation models,
steady state models, and over and over again these theories
have been shown to be either mathematically untenable or
physically impossible, or they actually wind up implying the
very origin of the universe that they sought to avoid.
And so the evidence is such that a cosmologist like Alexander
Velenkin, A preeminent astrophysicist at Tufts
University, can say that all the evidence we have says that the
universe had a beginning. Now that's a remarkable
statement. Think about it.
Velenkin does not say that the evidence for a beginning
outweighs the evidence against the beginning.
No, he says. All the evidence we have says
that the universe had a beginning, and in fact I'm not
aware of any evidence that the universe is past eternal.
What evidence we have is all on one side of the scale, and so I
think that makes it highly probable that in fact the 2nd
premise is true that the universe began to exist.
In addition to that, there's also scientific confirmation
from the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamic shows that the universe cannot
be projected into past Infinity. Rather, there must have been a
beginning of finite time ago in which the energy of the universe
was Simply put in as an initial condition.
And since then the energy level has been running down, just like
a clock that has been wound up and is gradually running down.
And so we have very positive and powerful scientific evidence in
support of that second premise, that the universe began to
exist. And and even if we go past,
because I know that this is a little bit out of my depth, but
I I know you discussed this with with Rodger Penrose that there's
time there's like ordinary space-time and then there's of
course before that you could still, there's still cause and
effect in the sense of temporal order time.
Is that correct? Like like even if we were, say,
before The Big Bang, there would be time in a certain sense.
In physical cosmology, Ben, there is no time before The Big
Bang that is inept to say what was before The Big Bang.
That's like asking what is north of the North Pole?
They initial cosmological singularity in the standard
model simply represents the beginning of time and space-time
cannot be projected further backwards than that.
Now as a philosopher however and metaphysician, I think it is
coherent to talk about a sort of metaphysical time that existed
prior to the inception of physical time.
And I think a knock down argument for that would be that
God could count down to the moment of creation -3 negative
two -1 let there be light. And in that case there would be
a series of mental events that would be sufficient for time
even prior to the inception of the physical universe.
So I think it is possible to have a kind of metaphysical time
prior to creation, though I see no basis for postulating that
sort of pre creation time. And indeed I don't think it
could be infinitely extended and therefore I I adopt Occam's
razor here. You don't postulate entities or
hypothesis beyond necessity. I think it's simpler simply to
say that time began at the moment of creation.
So on the model of time that I adopt, I argue that God without
creation is timeless, but that he enters into time at the
moment of creation in virtue of his causal relationships and
knowledge of the temporal world. And I guess you can't.
So this might sound like a silly question.
I know that there's this notion of quantum foam.
Maybe this is one of the models you were talking about that
wouldn't be eternal and or or or it would be because there would
have to be like some 'cause that brought that into being, right?
Or. Yes, it can't be projected into
the infinite past. The Lincoln himself tries to
offer a quantum physical model to explain the origin of the
universe, and these models, if they're to be consistent with
the evidence, cannot be projected into past Infinity.
So the argument for the beginning of the universe
doesn't depend on there being an initial cosmological
singularity. You could have a quantum
physical model of the origin of the universe that would not
involve A singularity, but nevertheless these are still
past finite. They cannot be projected to past
eternity and be physically adequate.
Excellent. And I know Ben just asked about
the the, the fine tuning, the constants.
I had a question about the mathematical, how you said the
collaboration in mathematics and how that's in the fact that we
can even do mathematics and how, you know, amazing it is.
So one question I had was, and I know you've written a lot about
this and I know it's it's a long subject, so, but the idea of is
mathematics real, you know, because some people can make the
argument that, well, mathematics and laws, physical law,
everything came from physical laws.
Maybe those are eternal, they're abstract, they're timeless,
they're formless. So how would we respond to that?
Very good. This is again the argument from
the applicability of mathematics to the physical world that I
described. Eugene Wigner, the Nobel Prize
winning quantum physicist, presented this argument based
upon what he called the unreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics. And what Wigner noted is that
mathematics is not pursued for reasons of empirical adequacy
the way scientific theories are. In science.
You only postulate such entities as are warranted by the
scientific evidence. But that's not the way
mathematics works. Mathematics adopts maximal
principles, where you posit as many mathematical entities as
you can short of of contradiction.
And therefore mathematics is pursued for what Wigner called
aesthetic reasons, not empirical reasons, it having to do with
mathematical beauty. Moreover, these mathematical
entities, as you just described them, even if they exist, if you
adopt a Platonic or realist view of these mathematical objects,
they are by definition causally effete.
That is to say, because they're abstract, they have no causal
effect upon anything. Abstract objects like numbers
and sets and functions and so forth exist beyond space and
time, and they have no causal powers, and therefore they are
impotent to affect the physical world.
And this is one of the mysteries that Roger Penrose was so
tortured by. How do you explain the fact that
this abstract, causally effete mathematical realm is so
descriptive of the physical phenomena which he is a
physicist explores? And it seems to me that the best
explanation is the one that Plato in fact gave, namely, that
God can look to the mathematical realm and fashion a world on the
basis of the mathematical model that he prefers.
And a view similar to this was defended by the ancient Jewish
philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who was contemporaneous with the
New Testament authors. Philo argued that the conceptual
universe, the conceptual world, it exists in the mind of God
himself. It's not distinct from God, as
Plato thought. Rather, these are divine ideas
that exist in God's mind, and that God then fashions the
physical universe on the basis of the mental model that he had
in mind that he prefers. And I have argued that this
theistic perspective provides a far more plausible explanation
of the mathematical applicability to physical
phenomena the naturalism is capable of.
And I I formulated the argument very simply in the following
way. If God does not exist, then the
applicability of mathematics to physical phenomena is just a
happy coincidence. Premise 2.
The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
Three, therefore God exists. I think that this is a
surprisingly powerful argument for the existence of a
transcendent, omniscient cosmic creator.
Yeah, I think that makes a lot more rational sense than saying,
as I've heard some suggest that there were these numbers and
forms and God was just like a chained to them.
He had no choice. He had to obey these
mathematical constructs. It makes more sense.
They have no causal power that he they would be.
He would be the originator of. Yeah, that that's exactly right.
I mean, the infinite or the realm of the mathematical is
infinite, and so it is not limited exclusively to one set
of natural or mathematical laws. There would be an infant variety
for God to choose from, and so I don't think anyone can plausibly
maintain that the laws of nature that physicists articulate are
metaphysically necessary. The the universe doesn't have to
be described by these elegant mathematical laws, and in fact,
physicists regularly toy with alternative models of the
universe that would operate according to different
mathematical laws, and they then see what would happen in these
universes. Thank you.
That was amazing. And before we move to the next
question, I wanted to get back to the Richard Dawkins part of
it because he, I, I was watching a documentary once and I was a
flabbergasted. He was talking about DNA and how
you know, there is evidence for signature in DNAI, don't know if
you've seen this before. And then, and then he says,
well, it must be that an extraterrestrial race, you know,
created as a spawned our existence.
First of all, could you explain to the audience why there, what
that means? What is this signature in DNA
that he's talking about? And then his answer also like
what? What is he trying to say?
The DNA that isn't the basis of all life on this planet, from
bacterial life up through human beings, exhibits roughly the
same genetic code. And the possibility of this just
coming together by accident is so remote that contemporary
origin of life scientists have no explanation for where this
came from or or how it arose. And so some of them, in a move
similar to the multiverse theorists, have appealed to
outer space. If you multiply your
probabilistic resources, then maybe on some planet somewhere
in the infinite universe, the DNA and RNA would accidentally
come into being, and that might as well be our planet as well as
some other. Or one could say that then it
was transported to our planet by comets and meteors and
asteroids, so that ultimately life came from outer space.
Well couple of problems with that is that even if the entire
observable universe were filled with what's called primordial
soup, the odds against the chance origination of the
genetic code are so remote that they would never have happened
in the time available. But secondly, you run into the
Boltzmann brain problem again. If you multiply your your
probabilistic resources to Infinity, then how do you know
that these organisms evolved on Earth at all?
Maybe they just sprang into being fully formed, looking as
though they had evolved. But in fact evolution is an
illusion. And if the theorist like Dawkins
replies, well, no, that's absurd.
That's that's too improbable for fully formed organisms to simply
pop into existence without predecessors.
The answer, then, would be from the multiverse theorists.
In an infinite universe, anything can happen, and indeed
will happen an infinite number of times over, so that the
appeal to extraterrestrial life actually turns out to completely
undermine the theory of biological evolution and would
make its adoption irrational. Brilliant.
So from my limited view, the acceptance of evolution among
Christians seems rare. This perspective, however, seems
more prevalent among some Orthodox Jewish scholars, such
as Doctor Gerald Schroeder, who advocates for the notion of
guided evolution. This stance appears less
contentious within Jewish interpretation of the Genesis
accounts compared to the Christian tradition.
Doctor Craig, can you articulate your position on this matter,
how it harmonizes with biblical texts, and how you would counter
skeptics like Doctor David Berlinski who challenges the
scientific validity of evolution based on its perceived
mathematical and probability? One last related point I'd like
you to address. You've been involved in
defending the age of the universe as roughly 14 billion
years old, which has been controversial in conservative
Christian circles. What evidence pointed you in
this direction? To begin with, Ben, it's really
important that we defend what we mean by the word evolution if
we're not to lose our way. In this discussion, the word
evolution is a sort of accordion word that can be expanded or
contracted to cover many different things.
In contemporary evolutionary theory, the word is used in at
least three different ways. One would be simply to say that
all life on earth is genealogically connected.
That is to say that all of the living organisms are descended
from a handful of primordial ancestors, and in that sense
evolution is a widely, almost universally accepted today, even
among Christians. I think that it is only the
young Earth creationists who would deny that there is a
history of the evolution of life in that sense on this planet,
and they are in an increasingly dwindling minority even among
evangelical Christians, not to speak of the Christian community
more broadly. So don't be misled by the highly
public nature of some of these Young Earth creationists.
They really do represent a dwindling minority, even within
evangelical circles. Now the 2nd way in which
evolution can be understood is the reconstruction of the tree
of life, determining which organisms branched off of which
others, and tracing this tree of life back to its root.
This is hugely controversial today, and by no means
universally accepted. Indeed, Dawkins himself says
that the debates among evolutionists on this
reconstruction of the tree of life are so acrimonious that
even some have despaired of Darwinism itself.
So that is not universally agreed.
And then the third area would be an account of the causal
mechanisms that would go to explain the evolution of
organisms. And this, again, is hugely
controversial today. The old modern synthesis,
sometimes called Neo Darwinism, is being increasingly
challenged, and I think could even be said to be overthrown
now in favor of what's called the extended evolutionary
synthesis, which posits additional causal mechanisms
beyond just genetic mutations and natural selection.
So when you look at skepticism among Christians concerning
evolutionary theory, it is primarily directed at those
second and especially the 3rd way of understanding evolution.
So for example, a theorist like Stephen Meyer, who is a
colleague of David Berlinski, whom you mentioned, is very
ready to accept the thesis of common ancestries.
Is this really needn't be a point of contention or dispute.
What he disputes is the causal mechanisms that are at the root
of the evolution of complex life forms, and so I think this would
be the same for Berlinski. I I think what Berlinski is
challenging is the mathematical probability of these causal
mechanisms producing, in the limited time available, the sort
of biological diversity and complexity that we see.
And this is in fact eminently challengeable and is a matter of
tremendous dispute among evolutionary theorists
themselves. Now, as to your last point about
the age of the universe. Again, this is only controverted
by these Young Earth Creationists who are dwindling
minority within the evangelical community.
The very fact that we can see light from stars billions of
years away shows that the universe is older than 10 to
20,000 years of age. As Young Earth Creationists
would assert. In order to explain the fact
that we can see the stars, the Young Earth Creationist has to
adopt the theory of apparent age.
That is to say that God not only created the Earth and the
distant stars, but he created the light ray in between them,
so that in the limited time available we can see these
stars, which are billions of light years away.
And so ultimately, the Young Earth Creationist is reduced to
accepting this wild hypothesis of the mere appearance of age.
Which just is to admit that the evidence on face value does
suggest a very ancient universe. Brilliant.
And you know, for us when we read the Torah, we see, you
know, the the creation process, the the sun was created on the
4th day. So clearly there's this idea of
days as we know it is not applicable.
Clearly talking about something, you know as as you were
mentioning, there's clearly a 14 billion or whatever it is that
the number is, it's clearly an an old universe.
And I really, really thank you for making the time.
I want to also thank Doctor Brian Crawford, a friend of ours
who made the connection with you.
That was really amazing and we really wish you all the best.
God bless you and thank you for everything you do, and we hope
to do this again one day. Well, thank you, Ben and Zev.
It's been a pleasure. And I I just want to say I I
realized that not all Jews are Zionists.
But for my part, I want to express my personal support for
Israel in this tremendous struggle in which it's engaged.
I believe Israel has the right of defending its own security
and national integrity, and so I stand fully behind her in its
battle with Hamas. Thank you so much I.
Really appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Well, have a great one. Thank you.
God bless.
Appreciate it. God bless.
Hey guys, thanks so much for tuning into the Judas and
Demystified podcast. We really appreciate all your
support and your feedback. If you want to help us grow the
podcast, keep spreading the word.
Share with your friends, family, or whoever you think would be
interested. We also opened a Patreon so you
can become a patron. Contribute any small amount
you'd like, which would really help us grow the show.
Our Patreon is www.patreon.com Judaism Pretty easy to remember.
Thank you again and we hope to keep putting out great shows for
you guys. Before we go, we want to thank
our Patreon supporters by name. Those are the supporters that
are helping make this show happen because frankly, Benzie
and I are full time workers who don't really have so much time
on our hands because we have families, we have kids, and it's
just a passion project that got way bigger than we expected.
So we're dedicating more time to this.
And obviously our production value up until this point hasn't
been great considering that we filmed this in Benzie's basement
using a green screen and a crappy little microphone and not
such great equipment to be honest, I'm sure you all realize
that. So we are hoping to up our
quality and get better equipment and part of that process is
going to be due to you guys, the listeners and supporters.
If you go to our Patreon page, patreon.com/judaism, you will
see all the different tiers of ways you can help us out.
So first of all, we want to thank our Super Patron Jordan
Carmeli, our Platinum Patron Craig Gordon, our Gold patrons
David Abram, Khayev, Laser Cohen, Travis Krueger, Vasily
Volkov, Silver patrons Ellen Fleischer, Daniel Maximov, Rabbi
Penny Rosenthal, and Jeffrey Wasserman.
Thank you all for supporting the show and we hope you guys enjoy.