dialog
-
Upload
victoria-scrima -
Category
Documents
-
view
20 -
download
0
Transcript of dialog
I’m a Christian, and I have the Bible to
tell me what’s right and wrong, and I
was just wondering—well, I have two
questions, but one was: how you think
that we need to determine what’s right
and wrong in a society and if you think
we should base our moral choices on
our own intuition, and secondly, I live
QV�I�_WZTL�_Q\P�I�TW\�WN�[]ЄMZQVO�IVL�death, but I have hope in Jesus and in
Heaven, and you live in that world,
and I was just wondering what hope
you had? [applause]
My question is real simple. What I
don’t understand, and something that’s
always puzzled me about Christianity,
is how the Bible can say a person could
commit a hundred million crimes, they
could be Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin,
murder a hundred million people, they
confess their crimes, they accept Jesus,
you know, they do the whole Christian
thing, and they get to go to Heaven. And
you could have the most perfect, godly,
wonderful man, who does wonderful
things for society and saves millions of
lives, but
just because
he’s of a
LQЄMZMV\�religion, or
he was nev-
er exposed
to Christian
doctrine,
therefore he
goes to Hell...
I don’t think Christianity says that.
It absolutely does! That’s the whole
basis of Christianity.
Well, I disagree. I think I know fairly well what it says, and
[laughter, applause] in Romans chapters 1 and 2 in the
New Testament Paul says that salvation is available to any
person who responds to the light of nature and conscience,
if he hasn’t heard the Good News about Jesus Christ, say,
a person living in North America during the Middle Ages,
before missionaries came. If this person will respond to
the witness of God in nature—he can see there’s a Creator
God, say—and he senses the moral law of God written on
his heart, and he responds, Paul says in Romans chapter 2
in verse 7, God will give that person eternal life. Now that
doesn’t mean he’s saved apart from Christ, but it would
mean that he may
not have a con-
scious knowledge
of Christ, which
is the basis of his
salvation. He would
be like a person in
the Old Testament
who was saved
through Christ,
even though he hadn’t yet heard of Christ; he responded to
\PM�TQOP\�\PI\�PM�PIL��;W�1�\PQVS�/WL�OQ^M[�[]ЅKQMV\�OZIKM�or salvation to every person. God is fair and He’s loving
and He wants everyone to come to know Him and be saved.
God doesn’t send people to Hell. People send themselves
by rejecting God’s grace, whether it’s through witness of
Scripture and the gospel, or it’s through the witness of na-
ture. So don’t blame God for the fact that people reject Him.
It’s not because salvation is unavailable.
I think that’s a great question. I think that’s a
really great question. I have lot of hope for this
world. There’s a lot of good in the world. There’s
I�TW\�WN�JIL��J]\�\PMZM¼[�LMÅVQ\MTa�I�TW\�WN�OWWL��too. A lot of good people doing many, many good
things. Many of these people doing many good
things are atheists. And you ask, where do they
get their moral values? I think it may vary, you
know. Ultimately in some sense it comes back
to them. But it may come from their communi-
ty. It may come from their friends when they
discuss things. It’s not easy, you know. The fact
that there’s no easy answer where your ethical
system comes from, doesn’t mean, you know,
that, that it’s wrong, not to be able to open up
a book. I think all of us struggle with ethical
issues everyday, and I think that’s part of what
it is to be human.
Okay, thank you. [applause]
D o e s
GODe x i s t ?
Q & A excerpt from debate between William Lane Craig and Corey G. Washington:
Dr. Washington:
Moderator:
Dr. Craig:
Questioner:
13
Questioner:
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
14
i s u n a v a i l a b l e .”
Select responses to audience questions following the debate between Dr. Washington and Dr. Craig at
the University of Washington in February 1995. Dr. Washington, an atheist, responds to questioners
with a secular perspective, whereas Dr. Craig, a Christian, defends Christian faith in his answers.
“ D o n ’ t b l a m e G o d f o r t h e f a c t t h a t p e o p l e r e j e c t H i m .
It’s not because salvation
and He wants everyone to come to know Him and be
“ G o d i s fairloving
SAVED.”
a n d H e ’s
So because they disagree, they’re
condemned to Hell?
Wait, wait, wait,—
“So because they disagree,” what?
So because they disagree, they’re condemned
to Hell and eternal damnation? Basically,
Adolph Hitler.. I mean think about it! If
you disagree, then you’re punished and
sent to Hell.
No, no, no. It’s not a matter of disagreeing. The
idea is this: all human persons have broken
God’s moral law, this objective moral law that
we’ve talked about in tonight’s debate. And there-
NWZM�\PMa�ÅVL�\PMU[MT^M[�UWZITTa�O]QT\a�JMNWZM�God, in need of His forgiveness, under His condem-
VI\QWV�NWZ�_PI\�\PMa�PI^M�LWVM��IVL�/WL�WЄMZ[�this forgiveness to people if they will accept it.
It’s like someone on death row, and the governor
WЄMZ[�PQU�I�XIZLWV#�QN�\PI\�XMZ[WV�ZMN][M[�\PI\�person, if that person rejects that grace, then God
doesn’t force Himself on that person.
Yeah.
You say that if
no harm exists, no
responsibility exists,
therefore no rationality...
Now wait, wait, wait. I said that
it’s possible that in a world in which
God intervenes so that there would be
no harm this would result in moral
irresponsibility and immaturity.
Okay, but if you say that, if there, no harm existed,
responsibility wouldn’t necessarily have a nega-
tive or positive value, because if it was God’s will,
harmful consequences wouldn’t come from a lack of
responsibility. Happiness would exist regardless of
success or failure, concepts which are measured by
society’s values.
I’m going to have to hold it there. That’s
thirty seconds over time. A question for Dr.
Washington... I’ll give it to Dr. Washington.
[hubbub] My questions will come in the
form of comments. This microphone
stand will dissipate with the concept
that made this microphone stand will
outlive longer than this microphone
stand therefore the abstract concept
is more real than the physical object
involved and therefore by that, a, there
is an, the existence of God is there-
fore on the basis of a concept because
mere physicality cannot conceive of an
IK\]IT�QVÅVQ\M��KIVVW\�M^MV�KWVKMQ^M�of a, of that, so therefore there would
be one example as to a God. And to as
anyone being innocent, if there is no
God, there is no innocent, people on
this planet. And talking about innocent
Jesus Christ, innocent Son of God, was
slaughtered for all of us.
Your question?
Okay, my question is a two-part
question, in response to the argument
from harm, your response to the argu-
ment from harm.
Questioner:
Questioner:Questioner:
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
Dr. Craig:
Moderator:
Let me make it clear that I don’t think God’s
purpose in life for us is to make us happy. So,
sure, He could just make us all happy like the
pigs wallowing in the mire, but I think that
God’s purpose for us as human beings is much
higher than mere happiness. It has to do with
things like maturity, responsibility, ...
But where does the value on maturity and
responsibility come from? Who’s to say
what’s responsible and mature?
Well, it comes from God ultimately. That’s the
source of all objective moral values. But the
point is that those kinds of things wouldn’t be
achieved in a world in which there were no
consequences for actions, in which it made no
LQЄMZMVKM�_PI\�aW]�KPWW[M��,WM[V¼\�\PI\�[MMU�plausible to you?
Dr. Craig:
Dr. Craig:
Moderator: Questioner:
Questioner:
Questioner:
15
Dr. Craig:
16
Dr. Craig:
THEN GOD DOESN’T FORCE HIMSELF ON THAT PERSON.”
if that person refuses that person, if that person rejects that grace,
and the governor offers him a pardon;
“It’s like someone on death row,
“ R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y M A T U R I T Y
come from GOD ultimately.That’s the source of
all objective moral values. But the point is that those kinds of things
wouldn’t be achieved in a world in which there were
no consequences for actions,in which it made
no dif ference what you choose.”
and
believe in God in order to live what we would normally characterize as
Well, it seems plausible that someone who
doesn’t believe in God can still be mature
and responsible even though they don’t go
by the values that you claim.
Oh, sure they can! Remember I said that you
don’t need to believe in God in order to live what
we would normally characterize as a good and
decent life. But what I said is that in that case
you don’t have any foundation in your world
^QM_�NWZ�\PW[M�^IT]M[�\PI\�aW]�IЅZU��<PW[M�values are just subjective and arbitrary. Why
choose those values rather than any others?
They’re just arbitrary if there’s no foundation
for them. [applause]
Okay, the second part is in response to the
earthquake statement you made. If God’s
Well, think about it. Think about what you’re say-
ing. Water would fall on the mountains, and they
wouldn’t erode. That would mean there wouldn’t
be any nutrients in the water that would be from
the soil. They wouldn’t irrigate the land. The plants
wouldn’t grow. It’s so easy, you see, to just say
these things. But then what adjustments...
But what about hydroponics?
Plants don’t always need water.
There’s nutrients in other ways.
Now wait a minute. Hydroponics
is growing plants in water.
... suspending it. You can grow it in sand.
And also you stated that God has the power to
control everything. If He can, then why can’t
He control that? He’s the almighty power.
will is the predominant and basically the only factor in world
events, including natural disasters, if God could will that no earth-
quakes occur, if He has that much power, couldn’t He also have the
XW_MZ�\W�KWV\ZWT�\PM�MЄMK\[�WN�MZW[QWV�\W�XZM[MZ^M�\PM�_WZTL�_M�TQ^M�in, to keep us from harm? [applause]
Imagine what you’re saying. It’s so easy to say these things. But try to
imagine what you’re saying. You’re saying now that we’re going to have
a world in which water falls on the mountains, but that they don’t erode.
Now what would that mean? I just...
You’re believing in all-mighty power, a God. If you can believe in
God, why can’t you believe that He can control these things?
Because it may be possible that it is
not within God’s power to create a
world operating according to natural
laws which results in this much good
_Q\PW]\�IT[W�PI^QVO�\PM[M�PIZUN]T�MЄMK\[��Now it seems to me that’s very plausible,
JMKI][M�_PMV�aW]�[\IZ\�UMV\ITTa�ÅLLTQVO�with this, it causes re-adjustments all
the way down the line, until really these
get beyond our scope of comprehension.
We simply don’t understand how these
adjustments could be made without cre-
ating a world in which moral and rational
behavior would be impossible. And I don’t
have to prove that. As long as that’s even
possible, it shows that there is no logical
incompatibility between God and the
harm that’s in the world.
These are very good questions. We are
pushing the possibilities of the question
and answer period. We’re engaging in
real dialogue.
1718
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
Questioner:
GOD
Dr. Craig:
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
Questioner:
Dr. Craig:
Moderator:
[ e n d o f e x c e r p t . ]
“There isno logical incompatibility
betweenand the harm that
is in the world.”
real dialogue.”We’re engaging in
p u s h i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s
of the question and answer period.
“We are
subjective and arbitrary.”
a good and decent life...in that case you don’t have any
foundation in your world view for those values that you affirm.
Those values are just
“You don’t need to