The Case Against Theism

327 Pages·2018·4.1 MB·English

by  Raphael Lataster

Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy
of Traditions and Cultures 26
Raphael Lataster
The Case
Against
Theism
Why the Evidence Disproves God’s
Existence
Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy
of Traditions and Cultures
Volume 26
Series Editors
Editor-in-Chief
Purushottama Bilimoria, The University of Melbourne, Australia
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Co-Editors
Andrew B. Irvine, Maryville College, Maryville, TN, USA
Christian Coseru, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA
Associate Editors
Jay Garfield, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Editorial Assistants
Sherah Bloor, Amy Rayner, Peter Yih Jing Wong
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Editorial Board
Balbinder Bhogal, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA
Christopher Chapple, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, USA
Vrinda Dalmiya, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, USA
Gavin Flood, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
Jessica Frazier, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Kathleen Higgins, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA
Patrick Hutchings, Deakin University, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Morny Joy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Carool Kersten, King’s College, London, UK
Richard King, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Arvind-Pal Mandair, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Rekha Nath, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
Parimal Patil, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA
Laurie Patton, Duke University, Durham, USA
Stephen Phillips, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA
Joseph Prabhu, California State University, Los Angeles, USA
Annupama Rao, Columbia University, New York, USA
TheSophiaStudiesinCross-culturalPhilosophyofTraditionsandCulturesfocuses
onthebroaderaspectsofphilosophyandtraditionalintellectualpatternsofreligion
and cultures. The series encompasses global traditions, and critical treatments that
draw from cognate disciplines, inclusiveoffeminist,postmodern,andpostcolonial
approaches.ByglobaltraditionswemeanreligionsandculturesthatgofromAsiato
theMiddleEasttoAfricaandtheAmericas,includingindigenoustraditionsinplaces
such as Oceania. Of course this does not leave out good and suitable work in
WesterntraditionswheretheanalyticalorconceptualtreatmentengagesContinental
(European) or Cross-cultural traditions in addition to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The book series invites innovative scholarship that takes up newer challenges and
makesoriginalcontributionstothefieldofknowledgeinareasthathavehithertonot
receivedsuchdedicatedtreatment.Forexample,ratherthanrehearsingthesameold
Ontological Argument in the conventional way, the series would be interested in
innovativewaysofconceivingtheerstwhileconcernswhilealsobringingnewsets
of questions and responses, methodologically also from more imaginative and
criticalsourcesofthinking.Workgoingonintheforefrontofthefrontiersofscience
andreligionbeaconingawell-nuancedphilosophicalresponsethatmayevenextend
its boundaries beyond the confines of this debate in the West – e.g. from the
perspective of the ‘Third World’ and the impact of this interface (or clash) on
other cultures, their economy, sociality, and ecological challenges facing them –
will be highly valued by readers of this series. All books to be published in this
Serieswillbefullypeer-reviewedbeforefinalacceptance.
Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/8880
Raphael Lataster
The Case Against Theism
’
Why the Evidence Disproves God s Existence
RaphaelLataster
DepartmentofStudiesinReligion
UniversityofSydney
Sydney,NSW,Australia
ISSN2211-1107 ISSN2211-1115 (electronic)
SophiaStudiesinCross-culturalPhilosophyofTraditionsandCultures
ISBN978-3-319-90792-5 ISBN978-3-319-90793-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90793-2
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018940771
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbook
arebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsorthe
editorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforanyerrors
oromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictionalclaims
inpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerInternationalPublishingAGpartof
SpringerNature.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Acknowledgments
IthankCaroleM.Cusackforguidingmetowardadoctorateofthebroadfieldthatis
ReligiousStudies,andforeverythingelse.
IalsothankGrahamOppy,HermanPhilipse,StephenLaw,PeterSlezak,Kevin
Schilbrack,HectorAvalos,andcountlessothersforfeedbackandencouragement.
I also extend gratitude to the primary subject of this project (besides the Lord):
WilliamLaneCraig.ImustgivehimsomecreditforthepaththatIamnowon;Craig
inadvertently played an important role in my deconversion. Made aware of his
apologetic efforts and relative sophistication, I sought out his body of work in an
attempt to salvage my increasingly failing faith. What I perceived at the time as
beingthe‘best’caseforChristiantheismwasnotsufficient.Thiswouldlaterinspire
me in part to undertake this current work. Furthermore, our discussions on my
project and clarification of his views have been pleasant. As a former Christian
evidentialist and fundamentalist, and as someone who now embraces postmodern-
ismwhilesimultaneouslydisdainingit,IalsorespectCraig’sattemptstojustifyhis
exclusivist, or particularist, views. Part of me even wishes that he will eventually
succeed.
Last,butcertainlynotleast,IwishtothanktheteamatSpringer,thereviewers,
andtheserieseditors,particularlyPurushottamaBilimoria.Hehasencouragedmeto
publishthiswork,invitedmetosubmitthemanuscript,andguidedmethroughthe
revision process. Furthermore, Bilimoria has provided invaluable feedback during
the transition from dissertation to manuscript and on related pieces of work.
Namaste!
v
Contents
1 IntroductionandMethods.. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. 1
1.1 Aims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 ReasonableFaithandOtherSources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 ThePhilosophicalApproach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 TheHistoricalApproach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5 BayesianReasoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.6 BiblicalScholarshipandtheCriteriaforAuthenticity. . . . . . . . . . 19
1.7 TheSociologicalApproach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2 TheCaseforTheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Craig’sCumulativeCaseStrategyandGod/TheismDefined. . . . . 25
2.2 TheContingencyArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1 Premise1–TheNecessityofExplainingCraig’s
‘Explanation’. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. 28
2.2.2 Premise2–TheExplanation/CauseoftheUniverse. . . . . . 33
2.2.3 Premise2–TheContingencyoftheUniverse. . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.4 Premise2–TheNecessityofGod,andWhat
ThatEntails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.5 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3 TheKalāmCosmologicalArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3.1 Premise1–BeginningsandCauses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.2 Premise2–ThePhilosophicalCasefortheUniverse’s
Beginning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.3 Premise2–TheScientificCasefortheUniverse’s
Beginning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.3.4 TheCauseoftheUniverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.5 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.3.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
vii
viii Contents
2.4 TheTeleologicalArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.4.1 Premise1–ThreeExplanantia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.4.2 Premise2–Necessity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.4.3 Premise2–Chance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.4.4 Premise2–IntelligentDesign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.4.5 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.4.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.5 TheAxiologicalArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.5.1 Premise1–Semantics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
2.5.2 Premise2–ItIsKnown.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 113
2.5.3 TheEuthyphroDilemma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.5.4 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2.5.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.6 TheOntologicalArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.6.1 Premise1–ThePossibilityofGod’sPossible
Existence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
2.6.2 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
2.6.3 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2.7 TheExperientialArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2.7.1 ProperlyBasicBelief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2.7.2 Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
2.7.3 WishfulThinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2.7.4 BayesianAnalysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2.7.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
2.8 ConcludingRemarks.. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 142
3 TheCaseforA-Theism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.1 TheManyFailingsofCraig’sCaseforTheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.2 TheProblemofNaturalisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.2.1 TheArgumentfromHiddenness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.2.2 TheArgumentfromInconsistentRevelations. . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.2.3 TheArgumentfromEvil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
3.2.4 ManyMoreProblemsforTheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3.3 TheProblemofPolytheisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3.4 TheProblemofAlternativeMonotheisms. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. 169
3.5 TheProblemofPantheisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.5.1 Craig’sCaseagainstPantheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
3.5.2 AMereological-OntologicalArgumentforExistence
Monism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.5.3 CaseStudy:Pandeismvs.Theism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
3.6 TheProblemof(Special)Revelation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
3.6.1 TheProblemofAlternativeJudeo-ChristianGods. . . . . . . 206
3.7 ConcludingRemarks.. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 213
Contents ix
4 TheCaseforChristianTheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
4.1 TheFacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4.1.1 TheSourcesandJesusAgnosticism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
4.1.2 JesusMythicism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
4.2 TheMiraculousHypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
4.3 The“SoWhat?”Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
4.3.1 AlternativeChristologicalArguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
4.4 ConcludingRemarks.. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 260
5 CraigintheSociologicalContext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.1 ChristianEvidentialism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.2 WhyEvidence?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
5.3 TheCelebrityofCraig. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
5.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Bibliography. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 299
Chapter 1
Introduction and Methods
This book largely focuses on the evidentialist case for the god of classical theism
presentedbyWilliamLaneCraig,andarguesthatmanyalternativestotheism,both
naturalisticandsupernaturalistic,aremoreprobable.
WilliamLaneCraig(b.1949)isaChristianapologistandwell-publishedphilos-
opherofreligion.Lovedbypopularaudiences,andreviledbysomeofhisacademic
peers,1CraigpresentsacumulativecasefortheexistenceoftheChristiangod.2Not
only does Craig attempt to do this from within the academy, as a professional
scholar, but he also writes on the topic for general audiences, and engages in
many debates with educated and sometimes high profile atheists.3 The idea that
God’sexistencecan–orneedsto–beproven,whilegenerallyunproblematicinthe
public sphere, often faces serious opposition from scholars. God, after all, may be
too grand and mysterious to be reducible to a ‘mere hypothesis’ and the vulgarity
that is empirical observation. Craig, much like Richard Swinburne – the putative
doyen of the field4 – before him, shuns these concerns, explaining why an
evidentialistcaseforChristianityissoimportant:
Indeed,Ithinkthatgettingpeopletobelievethatweliveinapostmoderncultureisoneofthe
craftiestdeceptionsthatSatanhasyetdevised...AndsoSatandeceivesusintovoluntarilylaying
asideourbestweaponsoflogicandevidence,therebyensuringunawaresmodernism’striumph
1A respected Australian philosopher once said to me that Craig’s case “is bullshit, but it’s
sophisticatedbullshit”.
2WilliamLaneCraig,ReasonableFaith:ChristianTruthandApologetics,3rded.(Wheaton,IL:
CrosswayBooks,2008).
3Itake‘atheism’tomean,asitdoesetymologically,‘nottheism’,sothatan‘atheist’issimply‘nota
theist’.Atheistsneednotbecertainofanything,possiblybeingagnosticonallmatters,andneednot
evenexaltscience.
4AtleastwhereChristianevidentialismisconcerned.AlvinPlantingaisalsoveryprominentand
academicallydistinguished.
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018 1
R.Lataster,TheCaseAgainstTheism,SophiaStudiesinCross-culturalPhilosophy
ofTraditionsandCultures26,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90793-2_1