William Lane Craig vs A.C. Grayling: The Problem of Evil & the Existence of God
Feb 8, 2019
auto_awesome
A.C. Grayling, a renowned philosopher and writer, engages in a riveting discussion with William Lane Craig about the nature of the Problem of Evil and the existence of God. They tackle the philosophical complexities of suffering and its implications for belief in a benevolent deity. Grayling argues how free will interacts with divine omnipotence, while Craig proposes that human suffering may serve a greater purpose. Their debate navigates the thorny intersection of faith, morality, and rationality, challenging listeners to reconsider their views on good and evil.
William Lane Craig argues that the coexistence of God and evil is logically compatible, with free will playing a crucial role.
Craig emphasizes that suffering could serve higher purposes beyond human understanding, thus supporting the divine plan's validity.
A.C. Grayling challenges Craig's arguments by advocating for a secular morality grounded in evidence and human empathy, questioning faith's rationality.
Deep dives
The Problem of Evil
The debate centers on the philosophical problem of evil, particularly in the context of natural disasters like tsunamis. This issue poses a significant challenge to belief in a benevolent and omnipotent deity. Dr. William Lane Craig argues that the existence of evil does not logically disprove God’s existence, insisting instead that the coexistence of God and evil is not only possible but also compatible. He contends that free will is a crucial factor, suggesting that a world with free agents inherently includes the potential for moral evil.
Burden of Proof
Craig asserts that atheists face a substantial burden of proof in claiming that God and evil cannot coexist. He points out that if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, these attributes do not necessarily translate to a world without suffering. He critiques the atheistic assumption that if an all-powerful God exists, then a world without evil should also exist, outlining the philosophical complexities surrounding free will and moral choice. This establishes a critical counter-argument against the atheistic stance, emphasizing the need to prove that God’s existence and the presence of evil are logically incompatible.
Moral Suffering and Greater Good
Craig argues that moral suffering may occur for reasons beyond human comprehension, highlighting the idea that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing such pain. He likens this to the suffering one might endure for a greater purpose, much like a parent allows a child to undergo hardship for their ultimate benefit. By referencing C.S. Lewis, he suggests that struggles and suffering might lead to an important moral or spiritual outcome. Thus, the possibility of higher purposes assigned to suffering reinforces the compatibility of God and evil.
The Probabilistic Problem of Evil
The probabilistic argument against God’s existence states that given the apparent evils in the world, God's existence seems improbable. Craig challenges this notion by stating that we lack the cognitive capacity to accurately assess God's reasons for allowing pain and suffering. He argues that God's perspective encompasses a greater plan that we are often unable to see and understand. Therefore, asserting that God lacks reasons for permitting evil is presumptuous and ignores the depths of divine knowledge and planning.
Christian Theism and Human Fulfillment
Craig posits that Christian theology provides a coherent framework for understanding the purpose of life beyond mere happiness. He argues that life’s true aim is knowledge and relationship with God rather than fleeting earthly pleasures. He underscores that the reality of suffering can lead individuals towards a deeper connection with the divine and ultimately meaningful fulfillment. This perspective allows for the acceptance of evil within the divine plan, reinforcing the idea that tribulations can serve as a means for spiritual growth.
Critical Response to Atheism
Professor A.C. Grayling counters Craig's views by questioning the rationality of belief in a benevolent deity in light of overwhelming suffering. He argues that the various religious claims about God often lead to more questions than answers, and the moral justifications for suffering appear inadequate. Grayling highlights the tendency of believers to invoke mystery when faced with existential questions, suggesting that faith is not a rational answer to the problem of evil. He emphasizes the importance of grounding beliefs in evidence rather than religious dogma, advocating for a secular approach to morality that is predicated on human empathy and shared experience.